Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:17, 28 January 2015

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

Mike Searson

Mike Searson blocked for one month, topic-banned from gun control, and prohibited from interacting with Lightbreather. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 26 January 2015 (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 Mike Searson

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 162.119.231.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mike Searson (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

Offensive comment

08:42, 16 January 2015 Says of user:Lightbreather (LB) "Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center."

Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather:

23:07, 6 November 2014 Deletes LB from firearms project. (Maybe this was because of her temporary topic ban, but he didn't delete another user who received an identical ban[1]).
01:00, 24 June 2014 Refers to a comment by LB as "total but not unexpected bullshit".
21:44, 28 May 2014 Says that he's only OK with LB improving the neutrality of the NRA article if she's OK with him adding the text "Enjoys dancing in the blood of dead children" to articles on "anti gun organizations".
20:56, 27 April 2014 Passive agressive personal attacks.
19:52, 22 April 2014 Says gun control advocates (LB is one) have "an evil agenda where they want to disarm anyone who disagrees with them on their road to despotism and tyranny."
16:32, 19 April 2014 Call LB a "troll".
22:47, 17 April 2014 Says of LB "These groups have paid shills who operate on wiki spreading their lies, hate and racism."
15:37, 17 April 2014 LB asked him to lay off with the personal attacks.
07:06, 16 April 2014 Says of LB "some people like writing misleading tripe"
20:13, 13 March 2014 Insults Lightbreather ("Are you that slow that you cannot see that?") when she asks for a citation.
07:37, 24 January 2014 Says LB is a "disruptive editor" and a "basket case"
18:12, 21 November 2013 The welcome he gives LB: "Welcome to the firearms project. I look forward to your positive contributions and trust that you will not attempt to push your POV"
23:53, 11 June 2014 Typical welcome to the firearms project
01:31, 13 November 2013 01:31, 13 November 2013 Says LB is "the proverbial "bad penny" that constantly undermines the hard work of others and previously arrived at consensus. That user is screaming for a topic ban."
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Topic ban for User:Lightbreather 03:29, 3 October 2013 Says LB is "too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related"

Other users

19:10, 10 January 2015 Deletes a comment with the edit summary "GFY". Urban Dictionary says it means "go fuck yourself".
18:59, 29 December 2014 "I read it before the best part of you ran down your mother's leg."
19:17, 29 December 2014 "Well, i took it out; why are you still running your cryhole?"
18:45, 29 December 2014 "thats how its spelled jackoff"
17:02, 29 December 2014 "gave direct link and a quote, to say it is not there means you are a liar pushing an agenda"
14:42, 29 December 2014? "first sentence in a linked source in a published book, editor who cammot see it is either psychotic or liar"
19:53, 28 December 2014 "cited in the article, where do these jackasses come from?"
17:00, 29 December 2014 Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "WLB". Urban Dictionary says it means "whiny little bitch".
04:14, 20 September 2014 Following a disagreement, posts this comment on his user page: "Oh yeah, if you kick the hornet's nest on here, beware the deranged aspie dogpile!"
04:29, 26 September 2014 Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "don't like it? stay off my user page"
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive856#Personal attacks and incivility by User:Mike Searson Filed 26 September 2014
18:55, 7 April 2014 Insults editors (and lots of other people) who use terms he doesn't accept: "whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion."

Old stuff

08:34, 23 January 2012 Says of editors on Wikipedia: "you often deal with critics who could be compared to eunuchs in a harem" "For now I still believe in the projectm except for some of the losers it attracts. I really don't care about losers, but sometimes it's fun to watch them dance."
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Here's as good a place as any I suppose 08:26, 2 February 2010 He admits he was wrong for calling another editor things like "Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank", blames it on the other editor for making him lose his temper. In other exchanges he calls the editor a "cuntrag"[2] (even while he's accusing the other guy of making a personal attack), a "little twerp"[3] and "some loser"[4]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive178#Sam Wereb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:00, 17 January 2007 Ancient history? It shows he ain't ignorant of the rules. He whines about another user being "frequently sarcastic", making "bold personal attacks", harassing him and blanking his talk page of complaints. Seven years ago he knew all about WP:CIVIL and thought that this other guy was in the wrong. Since then he's decided it's the best way to act.
[5] 18 November 2006 More complaints about an editor who is "fond of deleting the libellous attacks he makes too and denies them after the fact". That guy has a familiar list of uncivil remarks from Mike Searson.[6]
Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive108#Espmiideluxe More complaints about other users for "personal attacks".

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 02:06, 18 April 2014

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was shocked to see someone comparing another editor to a child rapist and expressing the desire to hit her in the head with a shovel. This is a guy who collects guns and knives. He's used crude and aggressive language with her for years. Sure, he's abusive with other editors too but the way he's treated Lightbreather is unacceptable. Or it should be. This is sick. It's obviously intended to drive her away and discourage anyone else with a similar viewpoint. That violates the ArbCom case and a bunch of WP policies. He's been asked to stop but keeps doing it repeatedly. He knows it's wrong because he started on Wikipedia complaining about personal attacks by other users. Enough is enough. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero "relationship" with Lightbreather, unless you count editing some articles in common and having a similar point of view. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHN: the other editor in a recent disagreement over a US military sniper, mentioned above. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also have zero "relationship" with Darknipples, now the subject of two SPIs this month.

The January 16 message from MS says things about "certain people, "some folks", and "an anti-gunner". Who is he talking about if not LB? Which people are doing the things he's complaining about? Is the corollary of his last statement that "pro-gunners" writing about gun control is like child rapists writing about the age of consent? I dunno. The message, or a message, is that there ain't nothing good an "anti-gunner" can bring to a gun article. Maybe he thinks they should only be edited by gun fans.

The brief reply from MS is crazy. Maybe he thinks I hacked his cellphone to learn his schedule. I dunno how he got the idea there's a "group" behind this filing. I did it all by myself. Making unproven allegations, even against an unregistered editor though including registered ones, is another potential violation of the ArbCom decision. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

15:50, 20 January 2015‎

Discussion concerning Mike Searson

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 Mike Searson

I am out of town with no pc access until monday. Which is why this group chose this time to ambush me. I will respond then. But will say this. I never compared any editor to a child rapist. The accusers took that among other things i said out of context and misreported them. Same with the shovel comment its a figure of speech from the military, another reason for their enmity. The discussion was about source material. As in published authors on the subject and the subject was the technical aspect of firearms. Read that entire conversation before passing judgement as well as the other diffs they cherry picked. Sorry to put you folks through this, glad they didnt bring up the time i broke that lamp in 1973, respectfully -- mike searson (no tildes on my phone) (Copied from User talk:Sandstein, 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)) I was out of town for the past week. I was attending a major trade show for the Firearms Industry (SHOT Show 2015), coincidentally, after I posted on social media I was at the show, this wrongheaded allegation by a user I do not know popped up. It may be a coincidence like some of the others below have stated, but coincidence is like God, I believe in it, but have never actually seen it. That aside, I will address the complaint. On the charge of comparing Lightbreather or any wiki editor to a child rapist; that is a bald-faced lie. The discussion was about source material to be used in technical articles about firearms and ammunition; it is there on the talk page for all to see. Likewise the shovel reference, it is an idiomatic expression based on an Archie Bunker joke from All In The Family and was not referring to wiki articles, but political articles used as source material. I'm a child of the 70s, I grew up with Archie Bunker and Bugs Bunny/Woody Woodpecker cartoons, sometimes the younger generation does not get those references, for that I apologize and if I stay here, will keep my colorful language to myself. When it comes to Lightbreather, her and I have had minimal contact since I offered her this apology some time ago: [7], there were a few instances where I gave her words of encouragement as she was getting dogpiled [8] and even offered help on a GGTF(sp?) article. As she claims to still not be over whatever I said last summer, I'm not even going to look for them or put any more effort into it. I have no ill will toward that woman and hope she gets what she wants out of life. I removed LB from the project as her page showed she had left wiki. I should have realized that when some people say things, they do not really mean them. As far as Gabriel F's comments, that line has nothing to do with sexuality. It's basically calling someone a wimp. If you find tofu burgers, foot lotion, and scented candles associated with gay people; that is something projecting from your own heart, not my words. Maybe you need to look up the definitions of similes and metaphors and note that the key words in both are "Exaggerated comparison". And you might want to look up the racist term "Saturday Night Special" and its etymology before you throw that one around and note that it is the very journalists who use that term that I am referring to (here's a hint it involves the "N" word). As for what I said about the gun control articles in Project Firearms, I have no idea who put them there or how they got there, I am sure most were long before LB was active and some like this are particularly baffling: [9]. I do not feel they belong there and neither do the majority of the members of that project, it should be noted I rarely edit those pieces and even then was only at the behest of non project members demanding I "DO SOMETHING". Personally, I could care less if I never edited another gun control piece on wiki. I only came here to work on the technical pieces and it would probably keep my blood pressure down. I was originally going to go through the whole list point by point, but clearly these people felt if they threw enough shit up against the wall some of it would stick; and based on many of the comments that followed, very few took the time to read more than the basic dif and not the full context of what was being discussed. I am sure those folks have already made their minds up and will do what they wish. I'll end on this, you can call me a loudmouthed son-of-a-bitch, a politically incorrect asshole, or just a dick...but I never bullshit anyone.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather

He has also referred to me as a cunt in the past.[10]

As for more recent crap, he just seems to enjoy baiting me (and other editors). For instance, what was the purpose of this discussion?[11] Or his comments in this discussion?[12] I didn't bite, nor did the other editor, but he does this kind of stuff regularly, and I don't appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I don't know the anonymous user making this request. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Beyond My Ken: FWIW, the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows five gun-related articles that Scalhotrod and the OP IP have in common. Lightbreather (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Going to call it a night soon, but I wanted to add, I've always thought it bizarre that Mike Searson is the coordinator of the Firearms WikiProject. Is it a coincidence that gun-control articles on Wikipedia are under discretionary sanctions when the leader of the project that oversees these articles (more than any other group) is so biased and hostile? Lightbreather (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: No one pinged you, and the comment was struck. How did you know that you were mentioned here? (Here's an interesting Editor Interaction Analyzer since our mutual topic ban was lifted one week ago; note especially the BLUE edits.) Anyway, I agree that there are "POV Editors" at WP:GUNS, where gun-rights sources are rarely questioned, but gun-control sources often are. And conservative/libertarian sources are rarely questioned, but liberal/progressive sources often are. (If the things Mike Searson has said about me sound hostile, you should see what he says about Dianne Feinstein.) The project's POV has resulted in a body of articles that are decidedly pro-gun/anti-control POV, as well as missing articles that ought to be added, though "wholesale" is exaggeration.

The point of your second paragraph is to belittle the OP and anyone who might agree with him/her. The fact is, Mike has a very sarcastic tone, that no-one should have to appreciate. His words don't seem harsh - they are harsh. It is not clear that his January 16 comment wasn't directed at me. (It is cousin to another brash editor's crass "cunt" comment that "wasn't" directed at me.) And your last remark in that paragraph reveals how impressed you are with yourself.

As for me trying to humor Mike Searson in my replies to him, considering that gun-control articles are under discretionary sanctions, and considering how I've been treated in the past when I tried to complain about civility on Wikipedia, and considering that I am a woman in a man's world (Wikipedia), and that for millenia women have learned to grin and bear it in response to aggressive male behavior - Are you really claiming that you think my offense is feigned? I'm not going to say what I'd like to say to you, but instead, I'll just say... ;-).

Finally, it does appear that the IP has some knowledge of WP, but it is not clear that he/she has an agenda beyond wanting to edit anonymously, which I sometimes wish I'd done from day one on Wikipedia when I see how people like Mike Searson and you treat those whose POVs are different from your own. Who wants to edit, anonymously or otherwise, in an environment where a project coordinator is likely to show up and allude to physically harming those whom he disagrees with? Lightbreather (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda, Heimstern, and Sandstein: Regardless of your decision re Mike Searson, may I ask you to consider an interaction ban between Scalhotrod and myself? I would prefer a one-way, since past evidence has shown, as has the interaction analysis since the end of our topic ban, that he follows me around, but I would agree to a two-way if necessary. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Since Robert McClenon has asked for clarification on whether or not Ibans ever result from ARE, does ARE ever result in any action against editors other than the requestor and requestee? Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

The Editor Interaction Analyzer shows ~~six~~ five gun-related articles that Lightbreather and the OP IP have in common. BMK (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRuban

That's a pretty frightening comment; managing to involve not only guns, but a threatened assault with a shovel, and a casual mention of child rape, in relation to ... editing a Wikipedia project. Not an article about war, not an article about a person's life, just a project. I can't guarantee it's specifically in reference to Lightbreather, but given the long history, it does seem possible; and frankly, it really shouldn't matter whom it was about, it's a pretty frightening comment regardless. This is not your standard Wikipedia namecalling, this is beyond the pale. BTW ... y'all don't have to get out the tools for me. I admit it, I, too, am Lightbreather. I am also Beyond My Ken and Scalhotrod. That way I ... we ... get to play not just solitaire Chess, but solitaire Contract bridge. Come, join us, be Lightbreather with me! --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scalhotrod

Since I'm being mentioned, I'll comment as well. Mike has the unenviable position of being the coordinator for a project whose subjects happen to involve a lot of misinformation and outright ignorance of in the general public and media. I don't blame him in the slightest for not wanting political articles added in wholesale fashion to the project. I know first hand how easy it is to get sucked into the rhetoric and posturing of "debating a subject" within an article rather than just factually describing it. But the subject of gun politics is far from being alone in this aspect. Abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, and ISIS are all hot button topics that received attention from a great many POV Editors who feel that articles should state and say certain things.

That said, Mike has a pretty sarcastic tone that takes a while to appreciate or understand. If taken out of context, of course his words will seem harsh. The January 16th comment highlighted above is a perfect example of how Mike expresses himself. It was clearly not directed at one particular User and as the Project Coordinator, he's seen more than his fair share of POV Editors over his tenure. Anyone not realizing this is just entirely too impressed with themselves to think that Mike would find it necessary to comment about them specifically.

As for some of the additional examples, such as this one that Lightbreather pointed out[13]. LB, come on?! You responded to Mike's comment with a "wink and smile" ;) and now you're claiming that you're offended. You've dealt with Mike enough that I think you understood his point and responded accordingly. To use it against him in this context is just plain wrong.

As for everyone else watching/commenting, this just seems suspicious when an IP User that started editing on December 21, 2014[14] is initiating an ArbCom Enforcement proceeding. Clearly there is some prior knowledge of WP and an agenda in play. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question by User:Robert McClenon

Lightbreather has asked for an I-ban (interaction ban) with another editor. Does Arbitration Enforcement have the remit to impose interaction bans, or do they have to come from the ArbCom and/or the community noticeboards? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Faceless Enemy

I don't think he meant anything personal with his shovel comment. I don't feel it was directed at any specific editor (note the reference to "someone", not "certain people" or "them" or "her"). There are plenty of ways to phrase that so that it is targeted at another person, and I don't feel that it was phrased that way. As to "An anti gunner...run a day-care center." A bit overboard, but an anti-abortion activist may not be the best choice for technical information about abortions either. Likewise, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is a bad source for information on LGBT issues. Of course, if any of the above can write NPOV stuff then whatever. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether it's relevant, but the requester has been blocked as a proxy. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GabrielF

Mike Searson has a longstanding pattern of addressing other editors with hostility. His insults reference the gender, perceived sexual orientation, or perceived disability of his ideological opponents. Examples are numerous: referring to editors he disagrees with as an "aspie dogpile"[15], referring to an editor he disagrees with as a cunt[16], referring to a female senator the same way[17], making comments about the intelligence of other editors (see below), making comments that imply that editors who disagree with him are homosexual (see below).

Here's a representative quote:

whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion[18]

I have seen the term "Saturday Night Special" used in reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books by historians and journalists, encyclopedias, and transcripts of Congressional hearings and debates. It's an important concept to articles such as Gun Control Act of 1968. I do not believe that an editor can have a fair-minded, civil conversation about an article if he can't hold himself back from making sneering, thinly-veiled references to the sexuality of those who use terms discussed in that article. The pattern of comments creates a chilling effect that discourages other editors from participating.

Mike has repeatedly been made aware that these comments are inappropriate, including in the ANI thread linked above. The fact that this pattern of behavior has continued leads me to believe than an indefinite topic ban is an appropriate remedy.GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike has responded as follows:

that line has nothing to do with sexuality. It's basically calling someone a wimp. If you find tofu burgers, foot lotion, and scented candles associated with gay people; that is something projecting from your own heart, not my words. Maybe you need to look up the definitions of similes and metaphors and note that the key words in both are "Exaggerated comparison".

Whether one reads the quote as calling someone homosexual or as calling someone a "wimp" (and, of course, one is a common stereotype of the other), the fact remains that, as Mike himself says, he chose to respond to a term commonly found in the historical literature by making a personal attack on the masculinity and intelligence of the user of that term.GabrielF (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Mike has been asked by administrators to remove comments before. See, for example, [19]. GabrielF (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Pudeo

The first 16 Jan diff is mispresented. Read the actual section: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Source_discussion_2. They are talking about sources the project uses for technical details; Lightbreather suggets one source should be cautioned because of pro-gun bias. Mike Searson responds wih the shovel to the head comment about anti-gunners writing articles about techical details. The comment was not about Lightbreather, not even implicit. The rest of the presentation is one-sided and may contain more errors. Keeping in mind that Lightbreather has had problematic user conduct before such as during the Gender Gap ArbCom case (block log), one-sided presentation should not be taken at face-value without having a look at Lightbreather's conduct as well. --Pudeo ' 06:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a SPI on the filing IP: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darknipples. --Pudeo ' 07:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blocked for 1 year as an open proxy; no sockmaster confirmed. I don't know if a group was behind this, but it certainly was someone's sockpuppet or alternatively there was extensive off-wiki communication. Lastly, I would point out that using rough humor and/or rude words is a civility issue where the first step is attempting resolution on the user's talk page. Per Mike Searson's new statement, Lightbreather seems to have taken this up on his talk page, which was replied to and after which they've had minimal contact. There was no evidence of other disruptive behavior such as edit warring. --Pudeo ' 05:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Re Pudeo's comments above: Regardless of Lightbreather's "user conduct", and regardless of who is behind the IP that opened this request, it is totally unacceptable for any editor to use language like "makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel". Excusing such an approach on the basis that it is someone else who should be whacked in the head with a shovel entirely misses the point. If it were an isolated incident, a warning would suffice. However, given the string of evidence presented, Mike Searson should be warned that further intimidatory language will result in an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

I've not yet ploughed through all of the evidence. For now, I'd just like to note that one-way IBANs, as has been suggested as a possible remedy by some, simply don't work. They just lead to more problems. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fair amount of the evidence is pretty old. I'm uneasy about the use of an IP to file this request, especially given recent events, but I guess it really doesn't matter who files a request if the complaint is valid. Yes, Mike Searson should dial down the colourful rhetoric, metaphors etc, which some people on his talk say is "army creole". There is a pattern and it is spread over a long time.

The block log is clean, which perhaps says something given the contentious topic area. Given that area and the comments, it is difficult to comprehend how he has not been blocked before but perhaps some context is being lost. I know that he is aware of the DS but has he had prior warnings about this type of language/phrasing? Can we go from zero to the extreme of indef block/permanent topic ban without collecting £200? - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielF: Thanks for that, and fair enough. I think Sandstein's latest three-pronged proposal is overkill but your point is taken. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (user)

Result concerning Mike Searson

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

Awaiting a statement by Mike Searson. @Lightbreather: Notifying you of this request on which you may want to comment; if you do, please also indicate any relationship between you and the anonymous user making this request. Sandstein 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because Mike Searson doesn't seem to be active at the moment, I'll offer a preliminary assessment. The request appears actionable. The evidence indicates a confrontative attitude towards others. In particular, the recent edits of 08:42, 16 January 2015 ("makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel", comparing editors with different opinions to child rapists) and of 19:10, 10 January 2015 ("GFY" edit summary) are aggressive to a degree incompatible with working on a collaborative project to write a neutral encyclopedia about controversial topics. The use of aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor in the context of disputes about gun control and gun violence by somebody who associates himself with a pro-gun point of view strikes me as particularly intimidating and inappropriate. The evidence of Mike Searson's past conduct shows that this is a persistent pattern of conduct, not an isolated incident. Unless fellow administrators see this in a radically different light, I am inclined to impose an indefinite topic ban. Sandstein 08:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, please let's keep this request focused on the conduct of Mike Searson. If you believe that there is actionable evidence of misconduct – in the form of diffs – that could require an interaction ban with respect to others, you can make a separate enforcement request about that. Sandstein 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The worst matter here by far is the diff from 16 January, which is beyond unacceptable. That one is probably sufficient for a topic ban. Add that to the other ones under "Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather" and it seems clear that Mike Searson's battleground approach is incompatible with further participation in this topic. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mike Searson is a great editor, especially on species articles, but the interactions with Lightbreather here are not acceptable. I am especially bothered by what Sandstein refers to - the "aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor..." Even if I took Scalhotrod's comments into consideration and assumed only the most benign intent behind those words, this would still be precisely what DS are supposed to prevent. I'm with Sandstein and Heim on this. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: - courtesy the log, the answer is yes, at least in principle: AE has instituted i-bans in the past.

@Lightbreather: - there isn't enough here, in my opinion, to consider an interaction ban. And if it is warranted, it would be a separate request, though whether this is the best place for it is a different question; it would have to somehow spring from this arbcomm case. Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Searson hasn't edited since 16 January. I suggest waiting *at most* two more days to see if he'll respond. There is a case that he has engaged in talk page disruption, given the aggressive language. If this were an WP:ARBPIA complaint we would probably be talking about a three-month topic ban at this point. Interaction bans are tricky and might be considered if nothing else were available. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for many years. Is there any reason to think that a three month topic ban will help? I would argue that we should be thinking indefinite, with the allowance of appeal, plus a one way interaction ban. Guettarda says he is a good editor with regards to species articles; that's the only reason I'm not arguing for a long term block. NW (Talk) 01:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Mike Searson's interim statement reproduced above, I agree that we can wait until Monday UTC and should then decide based on his definitive statement. Sandstein 10:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was the same as NW's: that a lengthy block might be necessary. Several of the comments taken individually are beyond the pale, but taken collectively they indicate an extraordinary level of hostility far beyond the occasional loss of temper or lapse of judgement. We all get angry, and I could overlook an isolated incident, but this seems to be a pattern of drastically over-personalising content disputes. And while the gender of either editor shouldn't really come into it, it's hard not to notice such intimidatory behaviour being directed at a woman; certainly if a man behaved like that towards a woman in the street, at least where I come from, passers-by would intervene. While I'm willing to wait for Mike to make statement if he does so quickly, I can't see how such a statement could adequately explain the conduct raised here; it could present matters in extenuation and mitigation, but to be compelling that would have to include a lot of evidence that Lightbreather has behaved similarly appallingly. Unless Mike's statement casts a completely new light on things, I recommend a one-way interaction ban (ie a ban on talking to, commenting on, or mentioning Lightbreather anywhere on Wikipedia) and an indefinite topic ban on gun control and possibly a lengthy block. amended 03:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GabrielF's description higher up on the page, and with HJ Mitchell just above. The amount of often sexualized aggression and hostility in the comments quoted by the OP is totally unacceptable. I don't care who it's directed at. Sneers like this… jeez. While a good deal of the stuff quoted is pretty old, this diff, singled out by Heimstern above as "beyond unacceptable", was posted just a week ago. At least a topic ban, for at least three months, from the firearms project is my recommendation. Six months would be better. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- The duration should be indefinite, with leave to request reconsideration after a certain period of time. Though those remarks are among the the worst I've ever seen from an established editor and I'm not fully convinced that a lengthy block is unnecessary, given the highly sexualised language and the references to violence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be fine with an indefinite ban or indeed a block. Bishonen | talk 01:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I am inclined similarly to NW and to HJ Mitchell. The stream of childish but vicious abuse spread across multiple edits on 28 December (not, I note, in relation to Lightbreather) does not speak well of this editor's ability to contribute effectively to even mildly contentious areas. The most recent (16 January) diff illustrates that the pattern of problematic editing is ongoing—if one feels that comparing one's adversary to a child rapist is acceptable, even in jest or as part of a dubious analogy, then one is not in a suitable state of mind for editing.
Looking at Mike Searson's (initial) response, while I have concerns about the arrival of a 'new' IP with an apparently deep background appearing at this noticeboard, in the absence of supporting evidence it strikes me that he has greatly overreached with his self-serving assertion that this filing was deliberately timed to take place as an "ambush" during his absence. Searson has not apparently made a habit of notifying Wikipedia editors of his planned comings and goings, and regularly has gaps of between 'a few' and 'several' days in his editing activity. I see no indication to support any reason beyond coincidence that this filing seemed to hit one of his slightly-longer absences.
As well, the idea that particular behaviors, attitudes, forms of address, or turns of phrase may be appropriate (or acceptable, or tolerated) in some situations, venues, occupations, company, or countries but emphatically not in others is not a new one. A nominally collegial, text-based discussion with fellow volunteers (some of whom may disagree with you) who are attempting to write encyclopedia articles reasonably calls for a different approach than then one evinced here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The additional statement by Mike Searson does not change my appreciation. That he may belong to a particular generation or subculture within one country does not change the fact that he engaged in aggressive, violent and arguably misogynistic and threatening commentary of a sort that is unacceptable in any collegial environment. I agree, in this respect, with what has been said above. I suggest an indefinite topic ban, an unilateral interaction ban with Lightbreather, and a block on the order of three months, all of which have already been suggested. Sandstein 14:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel

Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists. Sandstein 11:09, 25 January 2015 (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 Cwobeel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:NEWBLPBAN :

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

21:52, 23 January 2015 Restoring an unsourced BLP page with the edit summary: "nothing here is contentious".
4:02, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
4:05, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
4:07, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
5:10, 24 January 2015 Two edits (making a single comment) to defend IMDb as an acceptable BLP source and an invocation of Ignore All Rules.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13:33, 12 December 2014 Alerted of discretionary sanctions by The Wordsmith
13:38, 27 December 2014 Admonished for WP:BATTLE by Cailil following an Arbitration Enforcement request.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A BLPN discussion was opened by the user Cirt. Cwobeel responded and maligned Cirt's actions: I leave it to you to continue blowing up the work of good faith editors for no reason other than being super-narrow in your interpretation of policy. Have fun.[20] and While you are at it, go ahead and do the same with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and similar lists. There are many to keep your fun going.[21] This seems to be more of the WP:BATTLE behavior that merited the first admonishment. I believe that the restoration sourced only to IMDb following these comments are indicative of a lack of competence and understanding of WP:BLP and WP:IRS.

(updated 16:22, 24 January 2015) Numerous credits have not checked out at Nicholas Cage's list including three 2008 Razzie nominations for "Worst Actor".[22]. Two did not check out at the Susan Sarandon's list, included an award Boston Society of Film Critics: they instead awarded Melanie Griffith in 1988. I stopped on the Nicolas Cage one after 5 checks in a row came up dubious or not accurate. Adam Sandler's list doesn't seem to fair much better (Razzie 2008 again), but a large part of the list is negative awards. This is just to confirm the existence of problems on all three.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification made to Cwobeel

Discussion concerning Cwobeel

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 Cwobeel

We are talking here about innocuous articles listing the nominations and awards of known actors and actresses, nothing contentious that would warrant any type of intervention, and super easily sourced as I did here [23]. I am glad to see that at least he is responding with improvements and adding other sources after me placing a {{refimprove}} template [24]. OTOH, this editor needs to stop posting AN/I and AE postings against me over past weeks, and this last one is another example. This is bordering on WP:HAR. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:: It should be noted that we have many BLP-related articles in WP, in particular lists, that are unsourced for non-contentious material. (See for example Susan Sarandon filmography, and Nicolas Cage filmography, and we just don't go around blanking them and redirecting them. In these cases the approach should be to place a {{refimprove}} or similar template. The Yank Barry case was contentious to start with. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

statement by Collect

Where a claim is made which another editor deems reasonably to be contentious, WP:BLP is sufficiently clear. I would present the following as indicative of an example where a "nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize" claim was removed as inadequately sourced to show just why this is a proper position for editors to embrace rather than oppose. Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_1#Nobel_Peace_Prize_nominee, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_2#Nobel_prize_in_lead, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_4#Nobel_Prize_nomination_mentioned_in_Time_Magazine, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_5 etc. where I postulate that a Nobel Peace Prize is, in fact, a major award. It is not onerous to expect that reliable sources are findable for major awards. Collect (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

Kww is an WP:INVOLVED admin and shouldn't be posting in the uninvolved admin section.[25] I ask that uninvolved admins at WP:AE not rush to judgement. There is more going on here than this RfE might suggest. There is a long standing dispute in the community as to whether it's acceptable to delete content for no other reason than being unsourced. I think most are in agreement that it's perfectly acceptable for an editor to remove content in which they have a good faith belief that that the material is wrong or unverifiable. There is much debate in the community as to whether it is acceptable to blindly delete unsourced content for no other reason that being unsourced. See WP:PRESERVE. Also, see the discussion at WP:BLPN and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film as evidence that there considerable disagreement in the community as to whether such conduct is acceptable. Many editors consider blind deletions to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cwobeel

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

The request has merit. WP:BLP provides that:

"Contentious material about living persons (...) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

The material at issue was contentious because at least one person objected to its inclusion. IMDB is a user-edited website and therefore not a reliable source. The BLP policy must not be ignored, and in addition, the evidence provided that at least some of the material added from IMDB was incorrect indicates that the edits were not in fact an improvement to Wikipedia (wrong information is arguably more harmful than no information). The statement by Cwobeel indicates that they intend to continue violating the BLP policy in this manner. They are therefore immediately blocked for a week to prevent this. I'm leaving the thread open to invite the opinions of other admins about the possibility of a IMDB, awards or BLP topic ban. Sandstein 16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support any closure of this AE that ensures that User:Cwobeel won't continue to add information sourced only to IMDB to these articles. Cwobeel's view that IAR applies was expressed in the BLP/N thread. There's no justification here for IAR, especially when it's been pointed out (above) that many of these award citations are erroneous. A BLP subject shouldn't expect to find obvious factual mistakes in their Wikipedia article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a prohibition on restoring any material removed on BLP grounds without a) unimpeachable sourcing or b) consensus at BLP/N, to be enforced by blocks of rapidly escalating duration in the event of non-compliance. A total ban on any biographical content related to living people would be hopelessly broad and a siteban in all but name (if that's the sort of severity of sanction we feel is appropriate, we should be looking at a one-year AE block and/or an indefinite block as a normal admin action), whereas a ban on any specific set of articles would be too narrow and too open for gaming, in my opinion, to adequately address the issue. The restriction I suggest would seem to be a middle ground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that it does not prevent Cwobeel from adding problematic content if nobody reviews all of their edits, and they seem to have other ideas about what "unimpeachable sourcing" consists of than, well, most editors – a recipe for problems. I can't at the moment think of a better option than a ban from adding or changing any BLP content. Sandstein 19:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there are nearly 700,000 BLPs (~20% of the encyclopaedia) and almost every article is going to contain some sort of fact about a living person. If we're considering a total ban on biographical content about living people, we might as well block them until they bring their views on sourcing into line with the Wikipedia mainstream, because the alternative is endless wikilawyering and leaves them unable to edit most of the encyclopaedia anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of potential damage, this isn't a huge BLP issue. (Adam Sandler isn't going to get a job over someone else if an award is attributed to him that he didn't actually receive.) The problem is that Cwobeel doesn't seem to understand the issue here. (There's a difference between "I'll stop" and "I understand, and here's why".) And I'm not seeing that in the links posted or in his unblock request. What bothers me most about this is how utterly pointless it is. But I can't disagree with the block. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of editors that don't seem to see the BLP issues involved with the "List of Awards and Nominations ..." articles. I agree with Guettarda that they aren't huge, but they are there, they are real, and this class of article has become a cesspool of unsourced assertions. While I agree with HJ Mitchell that any Wikipedia-wide BLP restriction is, for all practical purposes, a Wikipedia-wide restriction, it would probably be reasonable to craft a restriction tailored at award and nomination lists.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: If you can think of wording that one couldn't drive a coach and horses through, please do propose it, but it seems there are concerns about the scope of the problem with Cwobeel's editing is broader than these awards articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a simple topic ban on lists related to awards and nominations for living people would be a good start. Additional restrictions may wind up necessary later, but that one would be a good start.—Kww(talk) 05:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be agreement that some action is required, although perhaps not as broad as a BLP topic ban. I'm going with Kww's proposal and am imposing a ban from editing any list of awards or nominations of living people, with the exception of edits that consist only of adding accurate and reliable sources, subject to the usual exceptions. If BLP problems continue in other topic areas, additional sanctions may be requested or imposed. Sandstein 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Eurocentral

Appeal declined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 25 January 2015 (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.

Appeal by Eurocentral

User who is submitting this appeal: Eurocentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction to be lifted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eurocentral, Topic ban from Hungary and Romania

User Ed Johnson sanctioned me "due to your quibbling as to the country of origin of various historians who write about Romania" I consider the Ed Johnson action as an abuse. Usually, all the pages of Romanian and Hungarian history are strongly modified by some Hungarian nationalist editors (I noted Borsoka and Fakirbakir) who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians (action similar to irredentism). They started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors. Their tactics are to erase all references of Romanian historians or all data who are against their principles. In order to avoid the 3RR and other wiki rules they acted alternatively. In this way they managed to blocked a lot of Romanian editors. I edited especially against the elimination of data of Romanian historians entering in conflict with Borsoka and Fakirbakir. I also edited in history of Hungary where I insisted to keep the exact data of Romanian historians.see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin, The use of leader's names instead of the nation name. It is obvious for Romanians that some Hungarian editors try to avoid the names of Romanians (Vlachs) to be mentioned. Also in this AN3 complaint (permalink) I showed there about the alternative activity of Hungarian editors who erased all data of a Romanian historian who wrote against their principles. My opinion is that all data of all historians have room in wiki pages. Censoring historians are similar to vandalism.

Ed Johnson wrongly considered these as an action against "various historians"

I want the ban to be lifted (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I will do what are necessary and ad some diffs to reverts discussed; normally diffs are in connection to reverts; why did you write "diff of notification to appeal". What does it means?

Eurocentral (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

User:Eurocentral has placed the reviewers at a disadvantage by not providing any links to what he is talking about. I won't hold it against him that he can't spell my name correctly, even though it's clearly visible on his talk page, in the various sanction notices.

Back in October 2014, Borsoka reported Eurocentral for edit warring at Origin of the Romanians. See this report. As a result of that report, I took no action but I notified Eurocentral of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE.

You can see the tone of the interactions between Borsoka and Eurocentral at the RfC on the talk page. There are many charges of POV exchanged there. At the time, I believed that Eurocentral didn't want the opinions of Hungarian historians to be trusted, simply because they were Hungarian. Now that I review the material, I'm not so sure. But he still seems to believe that Hungarian Wikipedia editors are trying to enforce a certain POV.

Here is a statement he made about User:Borsoka on that page: "Borsoka wants to erase all references in Romanian but to keep all references in Hungarian. All pages of Hungarian history have references in Hungarian language. Another example of his subjective and nationalistic attitude. Eurocentral (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" On my talk page he complained about gang tactics and irredentist editing by Hungarian editors.[reply]

It is possible that Eurocentral might have something useful to contribute but his limited English makes it hard for him to express himself clearly, and the net impression is of an ethnic warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Borsoka

Just a side remark: I have never wanted to "show the priority in history of Hungarians" (actually I do not understand what this expression means), and I have not "started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors". On the other hand, Eurocentral has for long been dreaming of an edit war between Hungarian editors on one side and the united forces of Romanian, Slovak and Ukrainian editors on the other [26]. No other editors have so far joined him. Eurocentral also expressed his biased views of Bulgarian editors during a debate about his (not unusual) abuse of scholars' name in order to substantiate his own OR [27]. Even a banned (and, by the way, Romanian) editor, who had (ab)used Eurocentral as his puppet, stated that Eurocentral "does not own the necessary skills for being a contributor here"; an other editor wrote of the "One Man Army of Eurocentral". Borsoka (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Eurocentral

Result of the appeal by Eurocentral

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

This was a pretty malformed request, I've formatted it to something resembling normal. Eurocentral, you must notify the banning admin of this request, and add a diff of the notification to your appeal, or it may not be processed. Sandstein 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentral, you must leave the banning admin a message that tells them you appeal the ban here. Then you must copy the diff (see WP:DIFF) of that message to your section so that we can see that you left the message. Please comment in your own section only, I've moved your comment up. Sandstein 17:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to let the bureaucracy get in the way, given that Eurocentral is not a hugely experienced editor, so pinging EdJohnston should suffice. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to dismiss the appeal as it does not address the reasons for it and instead personally attacks two editors by accusing them of being Hungarian nationalist editors [...] who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians, accuses the sanctioning admin of "abuse", and is indicative of a battleground mentality. I also note that Eurocentral has violated the topic ban at least once, resulting a short block. This all suggests that the topic ban is not only justified but absolutely necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with declining the appeal for the same reasons. The statement by Eurocentral indicates the sort of confrontative approach to encyclopedia writing that this topic area does not need. Sandstein 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no substantive editing outside the topic area since the sanction was imposed. Show that you can edit constructively elsewhere, on less contentious topics. Show that you can edit without getting into nationalistic confrontations. Make it clear that you won't get into confrontations like this, establish a track record. Do that and your request to have your ban lifted might be taken more seriously. At present, it doesn't seem like you understand the problem people had with your editing. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

Blocked for 48 h for violating a topic ban. Sandstein 18:16, 25 January 2015 (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: Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:57, 24 January 2015 (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

Eric Corbett topic banned indefinitely from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics.
Eric Corbett prohibited ... from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors.

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

16:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC) In a discussion at WP:WER about retaining and recruiting new editors, less than an hour after I asked if women had been invited to the conversation, and in direct response to that question, Eric Corbett showed up to criticize one of the proposals and compared the project to WP:GGTF
22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) After I tried to help Eric Corbett by suggesting his criticism wasn't about gender, he replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism...."
23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC) He belittled me in an edit summary (favours from you LB I really don't need).
00:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC) After notifying him of this enforcement request, he replied that he hopes that I get banned.[reply]

Eric Corbett had not been active on the project's talk page since 14 November 2014, when he asked Rationalobserver if she was making a legal threat.[28]

I tried twice[29][30] to simply have the comments removed at the talk page in question, but both requests for admin help were closed within a few minutes.

@Go Phightins!: As usual, when it comes to complaining about Eric Corbett, I had a knot in my stomach when I came here because I know how many people defend him. I only came here after I tried twice to correct his misstep, using the "path of least drama" as NE Ent puts it, at WER. Baiting has been mentioned here and there. Where did I bait Eric Corbett?

Also, when did I bring up GGTF? Not until after Eric Corbett had... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buster7: "Piqued" has two meanings, one of which is to feel irritated or resentful. I was neither of those things. I asked if women had been invited to the discussion because it seemed like a perfectly reasonable question. The men involved in the discussion had come up with a pretty good list of things to consider for retention and recruitment. You even invited others to "add to the soup." For this reason it seemed to be a pretty good time to ask, too, as there was also a suggestion to submit the list to the Signpost.

However, the answers ran from defensive (I don't see a way to fault those involved) to not AGF (a good way to derail something like this is to add the hot-button gender element to it). And then Eric Corbett jumped in with, "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in." Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: My question to the WER discussants had NOTHING to do with outing. There are many women who edit openly as women on Wikipedia, many respected women editors. And some of those women are members of WER. My questions was simply to suggest that the group invite some women to participate. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: It was Eric Corbett who brought up GGTF first... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EVERYONE To explain the series of events from my eyes. I asked a question. The group might have simply answered, "Good idea. Let's do that," but it didn't. By the time Eric Corbett joined in, there were some already singing the "Wikipedia is genderless" chorus. My first response to Eric was to ignore the first sentence of his comment (comparing WER to GGTF) and to agree with him (I did and I do) that one of the list items should be clarified. Then I proceeded to give my opinion on how to improve one of the other list items. There was a little opposition to the suggestion, and Buster7 brought up Eric's "rabbit hole" statement about the GGTF. Seeing that we might be heading into another dispute about gender, I said 1) Let's not use terms like "rabbit hole," and 2) That I didn't think Eric was talking about gender. (Yes, despite opinions to the contrary, I was trying to keep the discussion from devolving into the other hot-button issue: civility.) And, for those who don't click through, this is what I said:

My purpose in asking the question that I asked earlier today was to remind the project members involved in this discussion that they ought to consider inviting some women project members to join in. That's all. There is a gender gap on Wikipedia, and we do want to narrow it, and one way to do that is to get more women involved in these kinds of discussions. I don't mean for that to be a critical comment - just a factual one.

To which Eric replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism or whatever and then we populate it with imaginary villains and heroes." WTH? And then Buster7 wanted to discuss whether or not "rabbit hole" is a negative figure of speech, and whether by using "let's" I was presuming to speak for the group.

Seeing the signs of a derailing of the discussion (should we invite some women project members to join this discussion), I asked for an uninvolved admin to remove Eric's comments[31] per the GGTF ArbCom Remedies.

Please note that I only asked for his comments to be removed, and that I did not come here first.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

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

The next thing will be a request for clarification I imagine, hopefully leading to another replay of the civility debates and ending up with me at last being banned. But for what? Merely mentioning the GGTF? Eric Corbett 03:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expected that the hard-line enforcers such as Sandstein would do their utmost to stretch the meaning of "(iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics" beyond the limits of credibility, which is why I've been refusing to help with articles on female subjects. But if the editor retention project now comes under the remit of the GGTF then so be it, I'm guilty as charged. Eric Corbett 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

An administrator already told Lightbreather they considered Eric's participation allowed: please see [32] and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Question_for_administrator. NE Ent 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation the Eric "showed up" in response to Lightbreather's participation is not supported by evidence. The article info tool [33] indicates Eric is the sixth most frequent participant, with the following data:

Username  ↓ 	Links  ↓ 	# 1  ↓ 	Minor edits  ↓ 	%  ↓ 	First edit  ↓ 	Latest edit  ↓ 	atbe 2  ↓ 	Added (Bytes)  ↓
Eric Corbett 	ec · topedits 	121 	30 	24.8% 	2013-05-22, 21:55 	2015-01-24, 23:48 	5.1 	36,359

NE Ent 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein A block is inappropriate here. Conflicts should be resolved using the Path of Least Drama. As an administrator (Go Phightins) a) gave Eric a great light to continue and b) has admitted they erred, a block would be excessive. The simplest way to resolve is to simply remove Eric's post from the page (I'd have done it already but the committee chose to use the term "administrator" rather than "editor".) NE Ent 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chillum

I have read through the diffs and I have seen what is at worst mild abrasiveness. I don't think this behavior rises to the level of sanction. Eric has been rather impressively holding back over the last several weeks and has even demonstrated the ability to not allow provocation to get the better of him. He has done this while continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. I don't think much is to be gained for using enforcements against such mild behavior. Chillum 00:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I wrote the above the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" section was not filled out. I assumed this was about the civility restrictions. I now realize it is about a topic ban. While I stand by what I said above I recognize I have not addressed the issue at hand. Chillum 01:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

There is nothing here other than the ordinary give-and-take of editing. Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

ShortBrigade says Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. I'd suggest a well-aimed boomerang. People are not seeing the elephant in this room, which encompasses several other WMF-operated spaces (diffs on request). Alas, as I understand it, enforcement only works in one direction, unlike ANI. The volume is being turned up to eleven and "frivolous" doesn't even get near to covering it. - Sitush (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Go Phightins!

Insofar as I misread the topic ban as topics related to the gender gap, not merely GGTF, I erred in my initial assessment that there was absolutely no violation of the topic ban. Nevertheless, I chose not to block initially because Eric's participation was certainly not detrimental to the discussion, was only tangentially related to the GGTF, and even so, only because Lightbreather brought it up. Moreover, Lightbreather's decision to bring up the sanctions after arguably baiting or at least facilitating an atmosphere conducive to discussion of how the gender gap pertains to editor retention, a discussion in which I think Eric should have the right to participate. In short, when Eric began participating in the discussion, it was not about the gender gap, and only because of Lightbreather did it shift to that topic, at which point Eric's response catalyzed her reporting of him ostensibly violating a topic ban thereof. I do not support blocking Eric at this time, but as I told Lightbreather, I plan to continue to monitor the discussion on WT:WER. Go Phightins! 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: @Sandstein: – Upon reflection and re-reading of the topic ban and Eric's comments, I think you are right that Eric's edits do violate the strict construction of the topic ban, notwithstanding that they were not inflammatory and were appropriate in the context of the discussion, which was never supposed to be about the gender gap, and only shifted to that topic because Lightbreather made it shift that way. I would not feel inclined to block considering the circumstances, but another administrator would certainly be justified in doing so per the topic ban's stipulation that Eric refrain from discussing the gender gap topic. The argument to block on the basis of belittling another editor, however, I think is significantly weaker, especially considering there was definitely some two-way baiting going on here. Go Phightins! 13:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buster7

Editor Lightbreather came into the discussion piqued because no women were present. I just want to point out that no editor was invited to the conversation. No editor or group of editors was excluded. As is normal, it was many varied conversations that just bubbled up from the masses. It just so happened that none of those masses were women. It could have been handled in so many different ways that would have been forwarding and positive toward the issue that is important to Lightbreather. As a long time member and a co-ordinator at WER I feel some responsibility to maintain the proper decorum at the project. At no time did I feel that Eric had over-stepped the bounds of propriety. He never even got close.Buster Seven Talk 09:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Delibzr

Most of the people don't know that the complaint concerns topic ban. Delibzr (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

As I interpret the exact wording of the arbitration, Eric is clearly in breach of the sanctions. What happens next I will leave for others to decide. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hafspajen

I believe that the whole discussion was about the tread: How many women have been involved in these discussions? started by the same editor who also started this one. Is based on outing. Outing is not allowed. Or you have to declare you are a woman or you chose to say - I don't want to say = he edits or she edits. This kind of discussions are forcing people to disclose their identity. I believe it is every editor's fundamental right to chose what they want to disclose or not, but in this way it's soon impossible. Or is this a project for finding out people's gender? The answer is: You don't know the answer. You will never know: How many women have been involved in these discussions? - not until every single editor disclosed their gender. Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I suppose I'm hardly uninvolved since I have supported both editors in their various disagreements with others (Lightbreather, you may recall, had gotten somewhat unfairly in hot water in the whole gun debate thing and I mostly supported her arguments there), but this is indeed frivolous. Worse, it causes a chilling effect which I think is never OK--and I'm putting that mildly since I don't wish to use the H-word.

Statement by John Carter

I see absolutely no merit whatsoever to this complaint. I specifically stated that this discussion be taken to AE, but that as an individual I and I believe the other editors who have been given the authority to remove disruptive comments on the page apparently saw nothing that merited such action. The only possible grounds for declaring a violation are Eric mention of the GGTF, and, honestly, that seems to me to be an extremely weak basis on which to impose sanctions. I also note that Jimbo's talk page has historically been declared out-of-bounds by AE given his status. While I do not necessarily think that the ER group has the same status or authority as Jimbo, I do think that there might well be merit to having at least one other page where comments which might be otherwise less than appropriate be placed, and that the talk page of a group whose stated goal is to keep editors would be an appropriate page to serve that purpose. As I have indicated there already, several people have already been effectively declared as having the authority to remove comments that are counterproductive, including a few active admins. If the comments ever get regularly excessive there, then it may be necessary for AE or ArbCom to be invoked, but I have no reason to think it will ever get to that point, and that it is appropriate to allow some editors to express their concerns somewhere other than Jimbo's talk page somewhere on wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (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 section above.

Frivolous complaint in my opinion. In view of the history between the users, I would say that the talk from LB about 'trying to do Eric a favor' was pretty provocative, as were also her requests for admin to remove Eric's comments (repeating the request when she didn't like the first uninvolved admin response). Eric's comments seem mild enough, and not in breach of his GGTF topic ban. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Is your stated intention to apply a one-week block[34] a supervote, Sandstein? But in fact where I mentioned the topic ban, I've realized I missed where Eric Corbett mentioned GGTF without being prodded into it: here. Sorry about that. He shouldn't have, but a bare mention = a week's block? A warning is sufficient IMO. Lightbreather's other complaints are straight from the bottom of the barrel. EC's supposedly "belittling" edit summary here was in response to this. I could easily have said as much myself. EC's edit summary response might make LB self-reflect a little about her own belittling condescension ("I tried to do him a favor by saying that he wasn't talking about gender" — consider the history betwen them!), rather than complain. And EC's pettish response to LB filing an AE report is "[a violation of] his restriction from 'insulting (...) other editors'" (per Sandstein)? Please. This whole complaint is overblown, and I think you're overreacting too, Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
This does look a bit silly. Eric could perhaps not bring up the GGTF, but the mere mention of it is not a violation of his topic ban. Lightbreather could perhaps look past the person who made the comment and reply to its substance or ignore it, but I don't believe she is subject to an applicable arbitration remedy so there would be no grounds for a boomerang, even if I didn't feel that it would be excessive. In some respects, I'm glad this has been brought for outside input before it deteriorated any further, but I wish it had been taken to a forum that wasn't about imposing sanctions. Full disclosure: I met Eric IRL once and I've interacted with him off-wiki, but the same is true of possibly thousands of editors, including several that I've sanctioned. I believe I am objective on this matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too am inclined to think that this complaint is making a mountain over something that could not even be charitably described as a molehill. However, can someone explain to me why Eric's edits do not fall under the scope of the topic ban (parts 2-3, if not specifically part 1)? Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the complaint has merit and is not frivolous. By writing that "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in", Eric Corbett violated his topic ban from "participating in any process broadly construed to do with [the GGTF]"; see also WP:TBAN, which clearly extends topic bans to discussions. By writing that "Hopefully it will result in you being banned", which is an insult, Eric Corbett violated his restriction from "insulting (...) other editors". Considering Eric Corbett's long block log, I intend to apply a one-week block unless my colleagues show me something I've overlooked. Sandstein 11:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a frivolous complaint, in my opinion. Thin, but not frivolous. The real question is what's the appropriate remedy? Normally this wouldn't merit more than a warning. Normally Eric Corbett's block log would merit a block. But here's the problem - short blocks don't seem to bother Eric - and why should they? Longer blocks would be disproportionate, and not in the interest of the project. I'm at a loss here. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A technical violation but not one I suspect was done in bad faith. It appears an existing discussion was going on and it was swayed into the forbidden topic area by the poster of this report. I suggest a stern warning that the topic ban is to be interpreted strictly in the future and to beware of such pitfalls. Chillum 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most admins above recognize this request as actionable, but many think that the topic ban was violated only in a minor way, such that a warning suffices. I disagree. Whether the "prohibited from belittling" restriction was violated is indeed disputable, but the violation of the GGTF topic ban - by mentioning the GGTF in a discussion - is in my view not open to question. That being the case, if the topic ban is to have any meaning, it must be enforced as it is written. A warning is not necessary because the topic ban itself served as a warning, and a warning is not possible as a sanction because the enforcement provision envisions only blocks and not warnings as sanctions. A one-week block would be appropriate in view of Eric Corbett's long block log and also because the enforcement remedy provides for first-time blocks to last up to a month, which makes one week short in comparison. Also, a shorter block is likely not to be enough of a deterrent. Moreover, if action is not taken here, I consider it likely that Eric Corbett will continue to test the borders of his topic ban. However, in consideration of the concerns voiced above, I am now imposing only a 48 h block for this first reported violation of the topic ban, but subsequent blocks may be considerably longer. In reply to Bishonen, this is a supervote insofar as AE actions do not require and are not based on consensus, but Eric Corbett is free to appeal the block. I am closing this thread as resolved, but any admin is free to reopen it if they consider that other actions need to be discussed. Sandstein 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter

Both parties blocked for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 26 January 2015 (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 John Carter

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ignocrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: John Carter (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: Ebionites 3 interaction ban :

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

18:16, 8 December 2014 John Carter directly commenting on a post I made to Fearofreprisal's talk page re outing. Please note that the statement makes no sense on its own; the part about things left on the doorstep is clearly a response to my previous post.
23:34, 24 January 2015 John Carter making disparaging comments about me to Eric Corbett and putting words into ArbCom's mouth about how I am regarded by the Committee.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

John Carter AE block for previous I-ban violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

John Carter opposed my recent amendment request to relax the terms of the I-ban restriction: Ebionites 3 I-ban amendment request Therefore, John Carter should also be obligated to abide by the original terms of the ban restriction.

Simply put, John Carter can't insist on a strict adherence to the terms of the I-ban and then go around trash-talking about me like this. There is nothing frivolous about defending my reputation as an editor against aspersions by an ex-admin who has already been sanctioned for doing it. Ignocrates (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I requested by email that the I-ban restriction be relaxed during the HJ case after pointing out that John Carter had already violated it twice. I didn't push the point because ArbCom responded by temporarily relaxing the restriction within the case. You can verify this for yourself on their email archives along with the two diffs I provided as evidence. Ignocrates (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: This looks like speculation about my motives based on transitive logic, and that's all it is - speculation. This diff has nothing to do with John Carter, and this diff has nothing to do with me. It is stirring the tea leaves to find a pattern that isn't there. The issue of outing came up at ANI months ago when Fearofreprisal was T-banned, in part, based on his user name and what the patrolling admin believed that signified about his motives as an editor. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

17:47, 25 January 2015

Discussion concerning John Carter

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 John Carter

This request frankly to my eyes shows how completely and utterly out of control Ignocrates' obsession with me is. It should also be noted that the first link provided was in response to what was to my eyes an apparent attempt by Ignocrates himself to impugn me, indirectly, and clarifying that his implicit accusation had no basis. The second was in regard to my own earlier retirement and to the causes of it, in which his conduct played a role. In short, the first was in response to a violation on his part, and the second was about me more than anyone else. First, as I believe I have already to the eyes of the ArbCom itself in his recent request for amendment, he has apparently been doing little if anything for the past several months than stalking me. And I also indicated in that discussion, which can be found to have been withdrawn as receiving no support whatsoever here, he has himself done for the past several months little but making similar comments in his ongoing stalking of me in the last few months. The WP:DIVA hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed in his own recent actions, combined with his rather obvious recent history of stalking to the apparent exclusion of pretty much everything else, to my eyes cause serious questions as to whether this individual might now qualify under WP:NOTHERE, considering he apparently has few if any articles which relate to his sole topic of interest, his modern, non-notable, view of "Jewish Christianity" with which to occupy himself and has thus reverting to almost exclusive stalking, and I think that there are more than reasonable grounds for his being sanctioned for his persistent and transparently obvious STALKing and other hypocritical misconduct, in violation of his own interaction ban from the same case. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ignocrates' obvious misrepresentation of facts most recently added above, I did not at any time advocate a strict observance of the i-ban, I pointed out how the i-ban has not been adhered to, which is a separate matter. He seems to once again be displaying his inability to perceive reality. I indicated he had been stalking me, and that others including sitting arbitrators had told him to stop STALKing me, and in his arrogance he ignored them. He is apparently still engaging in his stalking, and now seems to have convinced himself that I am to blame for his inability to adhere to his own interaction ban or STALKing. I state once again that I believe Ignocrates' inability to view his own conduct and the criticism of it by others, including the arbs, in a reasonable light raise serious questions regarding his own grasp of and ability to abide by policies and guidelines, and believe that boomerang sanctions against him for his ongoing misconduct should be considered. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of Ignocrates' stalking is obvious in the comments I made at the page of ARCA to which I linked to, although the link is to the withdrawl of the request, here, specifically including a statement by a then sitting arbitrator, Worm, regarding Ignocrates' obvious stalking, and I regret the statement Sandstein quoted below was directed at Fear, not at Ignocrates, based on the conduct which got Fear topic banned in the Historicity of Jesus arbitration. Therefore, I can see no basis for saying that it is a violation of the ban, because it was not directed at Ignocrates. I regret the rush to unsupported and irrational judgment exhibited by someone who is supposed to review the material before passing judgment. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the closers: What level of evidence is required to verify STALKing? Also, at what point do we consider the possibility, as I raised at ARCA, that since the time of his "semi-retirement", basically since the last time he edited an article, he has shown no apparent interest in actually in any way contributing to wikipedia except with his opinions, and that almost exclusively in areas in which I had already been involved and which he had never shown any prior interest, seemingly motivated by my involvement? Frankly, can any person be expected to be on his toes every second, when he knows that there is someone out there who has no apparent interest in the project other than looking to trip him up, for no apparent other reason than vindictiveness? Are these matters which should be raised at ANI, or does a history of doing virtually nothing but stalking me into areas of contention itself, possibly for the purposes of tripping me up one way or another, qualify as sufficient cause to think that WP:NOTHERE may be applicable? Also, although it might be argued to have been considered "acceptable" because of NativeForeigner's lifting the interaction ban as long as the comments were constructive at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop#Iban between Ignocrates and John Carter modification, I wonder, does his casting aspersions on me as having a bad history with Kww as per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Proposed decision#John Carter and Kww, which is more than a bit of an overstatement, qualify as not abiding by the terms of the modification considering it is not constructive, rather over-simplified, and rather clearly intended to disparage? John Carter (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(IAR editing your section) You need to provide diffs that show Ignocrates interacting with, provoking, or commenting with regard to you or something else that shows that they have no intention of sticking to the terms of the interaction ban. It's unlikely to affect your fate, but it might be grounds for sanctions against Ignocrates. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are made to be broken. :) I believe that his comments here, which clearly relate to the ANI thread linked to and also once again demonstrate a dubious overriding concern over the alleged "reputation" of editors is yet another in his obvious stalking attempts. Also, it is worth noting that I have requested at WP:ARCA clarification if I would be allowed to take further instances of obvious stalking to ANI, even if it does not necessarily violate the i-ban directly, which would permit further community input regarding both the recent history of editing, and any concerns that might raise, as well as the nature of that recent history. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

WP:BANEX: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." This AE filing is a frivolous request. NE Ent 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fearofreprisal

Here, John Carter says of Ignocrates "The WP:DIVA hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed in his own recent actions..."

This appears to be the same kind of personal attack against Ignocrates for which John Carter was sanctioned in Ebionites 3 [35]

Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning John Carter

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

The request has merit. It appears clear to me that at least the following part of John Carter's first reported edit violates the interaction ban:

"And, honestly, to you directly, if you stopped engaging in the degree of self-dramahtizing and somewhat self-aggrandizing behavior you seem to rather regularly engage in here (...)"

In addition, John Carter's statements in response to this request also violates the interaction ban in that it contains accusations of misconduct and such statement as "(...) the hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed (...)". The second diff provided as evidence also seems clearly aimed at Ignocrates. While WP:BANEX does make an exception for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, the previously mentioned statements are not covered by this exception because they are not about the topic of John Carter's interaction ban, but about John Carter's disagreements with Ignocrates, the prevention of whose continuation was the reason for the interaction ban in the first place. Because the previous interaction ban violation by John Carter resulted in a two-week block, this one should result in a longer one, say, a month.

As to John Carter's complaints about stalking by Ignocrates, no evidence in the form of diffs is presented for that, so I see no grounds on which we could take action in this regard. Checking the edits of an interaction-banned editor to verify that no prohibited interaction occurs is, in my view, not "stalking". Sandstein 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is merit to the request, and I agree that since the last block for violation of the remedy was a fortnight, this one should be a month. That said, interaction bans only work if both parties to them keep their distance. It seems to me that Ignocrates has been careful to keep just enough distance to avoid attracting an enforcement request, and would do well to avoid John Carter entirely, including monitoring his edits to find perceived violations. Unless somebody presents diffs to suggest that Ignocrates has gone beyond following John Carter's edits and has outright violated the ban, I'm not inclined to take formal action, but I would suggest they be given words of advice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, another violation, and their comments here (eg quoted by Sandstein and Fearofreprisal) make it clear that sanctions to enforce are necessary, given previous block was too weeks I agree that this one should be a month. I can't see enough evidence against Ignocrates to do anything, though I agree that advising them to stay away and ignore would be the better idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little more circumspect here. I agree with HJM, Ignocrates has been "careful" with their line-stepping. That first diff which shows John Carter breaking the IBan is him reacting to what is the dictionary definition of wikihounding. That doesn't excuse John Carter's outburst but it has to mitigate it somewhat. I'd suggest if (and I'm not entirely in agreement that it should) action has to be taken I'd leave any block at the same level as last time.
I'd also point out that following someone one is banned from interacting with to pages they edited directly before hand (with the clear intention of poking the bear) is not merely breaking the spirit of an IBan it's wikistalking. (the edit by Ignocrates is this one[36] which was made in the context of two threads on John carter's[37] and fearofreprisal's[38] talk pages - while Ignocrates did not use John Carter's name this is a clear example of hounding).
Wikistalking / monitoring the edits of those one is banned from interacting with and then complaining about it in order to punish the other party is the definition of having "unclean hands". As such it's my opinion that in this context this report should be closed without action and with a clear warning to both. A) to John to ignore Ignocrates. And B) to Ignocrates for wikihounding and using AE to win a personal battle--Cailil ^talk 12:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore IMO the second diff is not actionable under IBan - it's poor form and a very bad idea in context but not actionable. The first is also over a month old (from time of filing) December 6th 2014. That's 50 days without Ignocrates seeing a problem, IMHO we would be bending over backwards to punish John Carter here with a block when some other remedy might have a calming effect, if it addresses problems on both sides--Cailil ^talk 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at Ignocrate's contributions and they haven't edited an article since November, and it does indeed appear that they have been stalking John Carter and skirting around the edges of the interaction ban. This does not, though, excuse John Carter's own misconduct. Thus, I've blocked both parties for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing

I'm closing this given (with admin hat not clerk) that the Infoboxes case review has been opened, interested editors can submit evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Evidence regarding the remedy in question. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 28 January 2015 (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 Pigsonthewing

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Pigsonthewing (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/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing_and_infoboxes :

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

Jan 25 2015 Please see this diff and Template_talk:Geobox#Boroughs where Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has recently proposed removing the {{Geobox}} template (an infobox in all but name) from 159 articles and replacing it with {{Infobox settlement}}. According to the active topic bans page "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.", so this is a clear violation of his ban. I leave it to others to decide what to do. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This can be parsed two ways, both of which mean Andy has violated his current ban. 1) If a Geobox is not an Infobox, then the 159 articles in question have no infoboxes and Pigsonthewing is proposing adding Infobox Settlement to all of them. OR 2) If a Geobox is a kind of generic infobox (which Andy seems to say), then he is proposing to both remove the Geobox, and then add Infobox Settlement. For the Wikilawyers out there who say this is a replacement, and that is somehow different than a removal followed by an addition, I note that Geobox Borough and Infobox Settlement are NOT functionally equivalent (and to me "replacement" implies substituting an equivalent, which is not the case here). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Andy has a long-running history of removing / trying to remove Geobox from various articles where it is used (and if Geobox is removed from a group of articles, he then removes the relevant code from the Geobox itself). Given that he has proposed the deletion of Geobox itself (which failed), my assumption is that his long-term plan is to remove enough uses and code piecemeal that he can then TfD and delete Geobox itself (despite earlier failures to do this). See my evidence in the ArbCom case on Infoboxes Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Ruhrfisch. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments - 1) since this issue has been addressed before, PLEASE link that clarification at the ArbCom current sanctions page and at the original decision page. It is already a daunting task just to ask if someone has violated their sanctions, no need to waste everyone's time but not providing links to prior clarifications. 2) I find it funny that the Geobox template, which was originally envisioned as being one large template which could be used for a wide variety of geographic features (i.e. one template that could fit many kinds of articles) is now being targeted by Andy "in favour of the few centralized ones he favours" (to quote Fut. Perf. below). Kafka would have enjoyed this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here diff Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Pigsonthewing

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 DePiep

The original poster quotes: "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes". Can I get a link to the original statement (with authoritative status)? -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

regarding HJ Mitchell #below, can you be more specific as to how WP:ARCA would be applicable here? I could not make a head or toe connection. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that EdJohnston (at 00:07, below) responds to this. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re EdJohnston below "recommend against a block or other sanction" - in this I disagree. The behaviour we are talking about is not isolated (ask me if you need more links). Also, there is no guarantee that Andy will follow the (intermediate) pacification you describe. Meanwhile, a lot and more editors are strained to the edge in patience with this behaviour. [39]. All in all, a block for disruptive behaviour should not be excluded (and why exclude it at all? If you trust it, then it's OK without -- if you don't trust it, then it is needed!). -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Must say, I am surprised to read about this issue {{geobox}}. Last months I've had a dozen or two rough encounters with Andy, mostly on TfD pages. And now I discover this post, new to me today, by about another, parallel line of behaviour.

So, independent from my recent meetings with Andy, this history exists. And on top of that: descriptions ofr "fait adccompli", "asinine" and [accusation of] "rig[ging] the figures in your favour". I myself have examples of good will editors being chased away from a discussion by Andy.

I wonder why this can go on so long. If the corps of admins could not steer this into good waters, I don't know why the arb is shy. What more does arb need? -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: could have to do with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

Copy of my cmt on Arbitration request talk page:

As I understand, coding is incomplete on Geobox, an info box-like structure but technically not an infobox. Andy is suggesting a remedy for that probelm. Further, as far I know he is not discussing the removal of a specific article info box which is what his sanction seems to have been specifying, but is suggesting a technical fix for a problem. I believe his usefulness in such technical situations has been established. At any rate the issue of how far his sanction extends is presently at arbitration. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)) (Littleolive oil)

Statement by HJ Mitchell

The discussion currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Infoboxes is relevant. Two previous enforcement requests have held that the restriction does not apply to discussions about merging or deleting infoboxes, and the amendment requests asks ArbCom to codify this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity. 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc and Sandstein: We've been through this before. Nothing has changed. ArbCom's absence of a decision is not a decision in itself and it's hardly Andy's fault that the arbs have largely sat on their hands over this. Andy clearly hasn't violated the remedy as written, and it's not up to AE admins to second-guess what the arbs meant—it's up to them to provide clarification if they can't write remedies properly; clarification they have thus far declined to provide, so the status quo prevails. As for whether Andy is causing disruption, that's a different question; one I don't know the answer to. If he is, then block him for that if it will prevent further disruption, but causing disruption and violating arbitration remedies are different things—it's entirely possible to do one without the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda Arendt

Clearly, replacing one kind of template by a better kind of template, which is not adding nor deleting, is no violation of the present (!) restriction.

Infobox consolidation is in the interest of Wikipedia, but you may wish to argue that this is of no relevance here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Your memory is wrong. The nominator was not well informed, as he admits (see above). The decision can not be overturned by a proposal to change it, as RexxS explained (see below). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the convincing summary by Floq: "Odd; I strongly agree with AGK that the remedy as written was clear, but at the same time I disagree with his interpretation of it. Since neither of us is a fool, I guess that's evidence that the interpretation of it isn't as clear as either of us think. So far, the things Andy has done that have brought him before WP:AE ... don't violate the restriction, and don't really look like attempting to test the boundaries of it either." - I conclude: the remedy is not clear. After it has been interpreted one way for more than a year (that discussions about templates don't fall under the restriction), we can't sanction what would be a violation of a different interpretation without first a clarification leading to a clearer wording.

@Ruhrfisch: You are not the first to mention Kafka in the context of this case. I am one of the authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

This previous clarification request from 21 July 2014 makes it abundantly clear that the Arbs never intended Andy's restrictions to include replacing one infobox with another. These are the Arbs' responses to Sandstein's suggestion that replacing an infobox with another was sanctionable: "This is not worth discussing"; "that wasn't adding an infobox"; "I agree that this was not the addition of an infobox and did not breach the restriction"; "This edit was not in violation of his restriction".

@Callanecc: You were a clerk last year and were clearly aware of that decision. In addition, you had accepted at AE the previous day that replacing an infobox was never intended to be part of Andy's sanctions: "Given the clarifying comments and discussion I have no problem with this being closed with no sanction. Thank you to everyone who commented it definitely helped to define this sanction. As I've said before whilst I take a fairly hard line to what is and is not a violation (and no ill will intended Andy) I am very happy (and generally prefer) to be proved wrong in cases like this. Thank you all, Callanecc"

I find it astonishing that you have forgotten so quickly. Now, I suggest you do the right thing and rescind your unfounded call for sanctions on an editor who has clearly not breached the terms of his sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: You should know that policy is never made by *not* passing a resolution. And you're quite wrong about the reason we're here again. It's because - as predicted - those who disagree with Andy find making complaints about him a useful tactic to try to remove opposition to their view. Ruhrfisch has a track record of conflict with Andy dating back to the infobox arbcom case and can't be considered as making this meritless request in good faith. DePiep is presently engaged in stalking Andy's edits, automatically opposing his TfD nominations and needs to be told to stop. These sort of attempts to game the system illustrate how anyone under any restriction will have those restrictions thrown at them time and again over unrelated issues. I find it most disappointing that you, Callanecc, are jumping on that bandwagon. The decisions from last year have not been overturned, and you need to abide by them. --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by(username)

Result concerning Pigsonthewing

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

At WP:ARCA, User:Courcelles offered a motion that, if passed, would clearly have allowed the type of work that Andy wants to do on Template:Geobox. It seems that motion has stalled and is unlikely to pass unless somebody changes their mind. Instead, it is likely that Arbcom will open a review. We could close this by advising User:Pigsonthewing to avoid participating in any discussions about revising templates until the committee has made its final ruling on the pending matters. In the meantime I would recommend against a block or other sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed on this. Guettarda (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, that motion has not passed, and no arbitrator has voted on it for around a week tell us that the Committee has decided that Pigsonthewing should remain bound by the restriction for the moment at least. For that to mean anything we need to enforce the restriction, in this instance, there is a clear violation. As such I believe a 48 hour block is in order. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda makes the point that this is replacing, which, if we accept, is the same as removing and adding. That the motion specifically included this as part of a motion to clarify (and relax) the restriction suggests that the original intention was actions such as this would be covered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Why do we have to be here again? Rexx is right this time: this was clarified last summer, and both we here at AE and subsequently the arbs told Andy that this sort of thing was okay. Callanecc, sorry, but you were there. I don't remember all the intermediate stages of this drama and haven't followed the currently open amendment request, but unless the arbs have in the meantime told Andy unambiguously something that overrides the outcome of that case from July, that outcome must still stand. The scope of the infobox arbcom case was behaviour in disputes over whether or not specific articles ought to have boxes. The question that Andy has been dealing with since, to what extent different box templates ought to be unified and reduced to a small set of templates, is quite orthogonal to what that case was about, and therefore outside the scope of the sanction, no matter how much we might wikilawyer over whether "replacing" is the same as "first removing, then adding". That said, there may well be another issue here: Andy's campaign of trying to discourage the use of certain box templates in favour of the few centralized ones he favours may well be showing signs of the same disruptive tendency of steamrollering opposition through sheer single-minded tenacity that was ultimately also at the heart of the problems about the "boxes yes or no" issues. Still, it's a different question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was, but since then the Committee has decided not to pass a motion (which specifically included TfD) stating that the interpretation was correct, in fact more than one arb said that the intention was to prevent disruptive behaviour (hence not in mainspace and mainspace talk). The fact that we are here again suggests that the behaviour is disruptive, so it's not really a different question at all. The arbs who have commented have told us that the sanction extends as far as the behaviour is disruptive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that in a previous case I was of the view that replacing an infobox with another means adding and removing one, which would make this case a topic ban violation. There are arguments in favor of and against this view, I suppose. But arbitrators at WP:ARCA#Motion (Infoboxes) are divided as to whether or not to accept a motion that would allow the conduct at issue here. This indicates to me that the Committee is not currently ready to explicitly allow this conduct, and that they all seem to assume that the conduct is covered by the current sanction (else the motion would be unnecessary). On this basis, I think that the edit at issue violates the topic ban currently in force and should be responded to with a block. The ArbCom remains free to modify this as necessary in the course of any review they decide to undertake. Sandstein 11:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Still disagree. The motion proposed by Courcelles on the amendments page was framed as a clarification of the status quo, not as a loosening of the restrictions, so even if it was not passed, the fact that something would have been explicitly allowed if it had passed, does not in any way imply that it is not allowed as long as it didn't. In fact, the discussion by the arbs shows clearly that they were fully aware that Andy had been routinely active at TfD all the time, making proposals of merging infobox templates just as he did now, and wasn't getting blocked for it. That's the status quo. They now decided they are going to have a review, which may or may not lead to a tightening of the restriction in order to include such activities. If and when they do this, such participation in TfDs will be forbidden; that will be a new sanction, which at this time is not in place. To Callanecc: if the "sanction extends so far as the behaviour is disruptive", I'm also not convinced of this yet. It may well be, but so far we have exactly one diff here, showing that Andy made one proposal that one other editor disagrees with (who appears to be just as much entrenched in this type of issue as Andy is). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has gotten intensely legalistic, for an obvious reason, but let me attack this from a different direction:

Andy was previously sanctioned (with much back and forth on details since) for bad behavior related to infoboxes. Generally, Andy's behavior around the edges of the sanction, while subject to back and forth, has been not abusive.

In this instance, is Andy being abusive or behaving badly?

I don't see so but have not tracked everything down yet. Can we get a rundown of whether this is truly bad behavior, or if we're just going to get legalistic around the edge of a ban? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

Not actionable. Ashtul, please do not use this board to attempt to win content disputes. Sandstein 22:29, 27 January 2015 (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 Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ashtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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

14:09, 7 January 2015 Blatant case of WP:POVPUSH by changing "Israel maintains that the blockade is legal and necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack" -> "Israel has sought to justify the blockade as necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack" based on a new source while an official Israeli source from IDF website is present. The word “maintains” appear in sources [11],[12] and [114]. There was no mention of this change is Edit Summary.
11:54, 7 January 2015 WP:LIBEL of Naftali Bennett and WP:CHERRYPICKING from Times of Israel. The article balances Bennett’s share of that tragedy which Nishidani failed to include. WP:ALIVE page states “The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism does not apply to biographies” and “Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page”.
18:33, 24 January 2015 Introducing information by jfjfp which is not WP:RS and was discussed here and here. Nishidani often uses WP:RSN and asks other editors to verify their sources on the noticeboard as well. 2nd revert after Ashurbanippal highlighted non WP:RS.
15:45, 16 December 2014 The sentence "It is known among Palestinians as "shit"" is upgraded to 2nd sentence in the lead. Later, a mediation was declined. WP:POVPUSH

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

The editor was banned indefinitely in WP:ARBPIA2 the topic ban was lifted by appeal

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

An arbitration request was not filed earlier as I wasn't aware of the existence of such system on WP.
During my investigation I have seen additional questionable edits by Nishidani. I will add them later in the evidence.
On Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 Nishidani WP:EDITWAR an WP:UNDUE lead. Several proposals for a WP:BALANCE by either adding pro-Israeli sources or removing sources were declined. Talk page. In response to my hope of settling our differences, Nishidani replied "Me settle? Never. I do admit to squatting, though. regularly every morning." Lovely! This wasn't one diff but on going difficulties.

This isn't about revenge or 1RR, this is about an experienced editor pushing his WP:NPOV in blatant way. He have accused me before of hounding and I have made it very clear that I don't touch any of his edits, as much as i may not like them, if they are grounded. From WP:HOUND "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". This isn't my goal and I have stressed it many time. I have been forthcoming and reasonable but was dismissed by him a few times. IjonTichy suggested I will get a WP:CLUE and this is exactly what I have done. I have interacted before with a few editors from Nishidani 'camp' and differences were always settle quickly and in mannered way (for example Al-Aqsa). I intentionally didn't bring up WP:PERSONAL as I understand it is part of editing. This isn't revenge or retaliation. A long-timer like Nishidani knows exactly what he is doing and Diff 1 is as blatant WP:POVPUSH as it gets. My frustration, as well as of editors such as Igorp lj, WarKosign Plot Spoiler and probably other from WP:WAREDIT is tiresome especially since Nishidani's edits are so extreme at the WP:POV they represent. Ashtul (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani has a special gift of presenting information in a misleading way. It happen in the previous AE and it just happen in this very arbitration.

21:08, 19 January 2015 During an arbitration (that led to my block), Nishidani's comment was in the grey zone between misleading to completely false. (a) What he claimed as 2nd revert wasn't the 01:29, 18 January 2015 edit but 14:51, 18 January 2015. (b) He neglected to disclose I've removed within minutes sources that he questioned or without damage. Now he pretends Ashurbanippal is a sign he didn't break WP:RS.

I would like to ask the administrator to refer to the diffs presented so far and explain how they are not blatant. Nishidani have been topic banned before but it seems like he forgot that important lesson.

Nishidani, can you please explain how are you edits justified? I had no problem with the word 'sh*t' but I did have a big problem with locating it before any useful information and go to WP:WAR for leaving it there. Ashtul (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to other editors

If any editor can explain me this and this edits, I will drop this request.

@Sandstein This isn't about dispute over content but repetitive editing behavior. Diff1 is an example of WP:Disruptive editing while diff 4 is just the tip of the iceberg of the WP:WAR that took place. I collected more evidence and I will share some more -

Here he edited back his own version of WT:Legality of Israeli settlements statement saying “ref to its legal status under international law in lead is normative”. So, he knows there is a norm but still chose to improvise a longer version.
A year after an extensive discussion took place on the talk page, he deleted ‘false’.
Here he felt one translation of a racist Israeli poem wouldn’t be enough.
Here an article from a no-name journalist on +972 (not RS) is introduced to say As-Seefer is nearby which can be done by simply looking at a map. Seem like a way to force pro-Palestinian article into the page.
Here he chose to take out the statement "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" and added "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya". His edit summary - “update”.

I believe this is enough to prove WP:Tendentious editing, WP:POVPUSH as well as WP:WAR. Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil As Nishidani said here and in the previous AE against me, I am a newbie. If I was aware of AE before, I would have used it. Nishidani was very teritorial over the Skunk page as he is over Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 now. Nishidani's and co. trying to dismiss this as retaliation is incorrect. If Nishidani can explain diff1 and why he changed "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" into "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya" I will cancel this request myself. Those two cases are great indicators of his WP:POVPUSH as well as WP:Tendentious editing. An editor with his history, had all the warning one may look for. Ashtul (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz, this isn't about a single edit but a repetitive behavior and not to mention the WP:WAR on Skunk_(weapon). We had a few exchanges on Al Aqsa and they all lasted 1-2 edits.

@Nishidani, I met a friend from Beit Lehem who smelled the Skunk quite a few times. I show her the page the way it was before and even she agreed it was not WP:Neutral. Ashtul (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, can you please give a sensible explanation to diff 1? or why you would change "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" into "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya"?

Many of the other changes included are result of WP:AGF that was lost when I saw these (in addition to your approach on Skunk page). Ashtul (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I didn't try to make this personal b/c overall I think you are good. On Alon Shvut you changed the agreed upon text!

It is OK for an editor to be biased, aren't we all. It doesn't have to be I/P, it can be Airbus vs. Boeing. But some of the changes you have made cross all possible red-lines. All my encounters with other editors were resolved in a matter of 1-2 edits, but with you, somehow it never get solved. Which is exactly why I started to look at your past edits and was startled to find out the amount of POVPUSH you practice. If you can explain how the two edits I have mentioned in my previous edit don't exhibit WP:Tendentious editing and WP:POVPUSH I will drop this request. Deal?

Nishidani, you are an excellent editor and it is easy to see you have tons of experience. I have a lot of respect for you and in a way, you are my mentor. This doesn't the fact many of your edits are blatant POVPUSH. Please answer my previous question and we can be done here. Quite simple, isn't it? Ashtul (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, The IDF link isn't and wasn't dead. Your statement about neutrality is a sad joke as even though I am not a linguist and English is not my first language, what I do know is that "sought to justify" in nowhere close to neutral, not to mention the removal of the word "legal". Sorry but I'm not convinced. This edit is not simply adding information that supports your views (like many other editors do) but POVPUSH through modifying an existing sentence.

As for the other diff, I didn't but mean for Bennett but this one. You don't see a source for "Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories." put a tag next to it. Replacing it with "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya." is just... well, I don't have words to describe it. (I worked there for about a month a few years ago and I can tell you it is true).

I apologize for wasting your precious time but the fact arbitration requests keep on being filed against might tell you, you are doing something wrong.

I might not be near a computer for the rest of the night Ashtul (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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 Nishidani

Statement by NISHIDANI

What's going on here? My talk page is subject to assault today (here, here here here), with the usual jibe I am or host anti-Semitic crap; red-linked editors are popping up everywhere I edit to revert, and now this? Of course, as User:Ashtul notified me, this, coming straight after the expiry of his one week ban, after I requested something be done about his stalking of me, is not 'retaliation'. I would note that if I have broken 1R, the proper thing to do is to advise me, to allow me to make amends. I can't see at a glance that I have done so.

This is an example of WP:Battleground as well as WP:Hound. Ashtul appears to have confused me with Ashurbanippal against which the request for an 1R violation should have been made, as the evidence above itself shows. I.e.,

~~Ashurbanippal, along with several other red-linked systematic reverters flooding in recently, just broke 1R at Battle of Shuja'iyya.~~

Ist revert 06:56, 27 January 2015, reverting an edit I introduced on the 24th of January‎

2nd revert 09:54, 27 January 2015‎.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ~~Wikipedia:ARBPIA - 1RR~~

The editor duly self-reverted immediately after I had notified him. Impeccable behaviour.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the pretext that Jews for Justice for Palestinians is not RS, there was no significant response, except for an obiter dictum from, uh, User:Brad Dyer. I have occasionally used it on several articles over several years, and have yet to have it challenged, even by experienced POV pushers. This place is getting chaotic, flushed with newbies on a mission. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to 'shit', it is standard practice per WP:NPOV to give both Israeli and Palestinian names for battles or things, in the lead. I can't help it if RS say that what Israeli Defence Force calls, quite accurately, 'skunk' liquid, is called by Palestinians sprayed with it, 'shit'. That's their word, and per parity, quite appropriate to the lead, however vulgar. Again, that is a content dispute, or rather an unseasonable discontent dispute, to misquote Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'this is about an experienced editor pushing his WP:NPOV.'The only thing wrong with this description of what I do, Ashtul, is the possessive pronoun 'his'. After several months you still have not understood that NPOV is not 'pushed'. It is a pillar of Wikipedia. With an area where a state of war exists, both versions of the reality of events must be incorporated. I stand by the principles I applied in developing Susya, where I edited comprehensively both sides of the historical and contemporary reality. As the edit history will show, most of the edit-warring consisted in removing material about the Palestinians, by editors who, though 'pro-Israeli', never troubled themselves to help me write the difficult synagogue section. Your objections at Skunk (weapon) Carmel, Har Hebron and elsewhere (you created umm al-Kheir, Hebron this morning by plagiarizing the Carmel article to keep two communities within 30 yards of each other separate, and remove all mention of Palestinians in the former article) is that Palestinians should not be mentioned, but put on a reservation, as it were, in separate articles, though they form, per sources, an integral part of each site's history. That is a political POV. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated, it's now every other month, filing of requests to get me sanctioned on frivolous grounds, is problematical, if only because a few stray diffs, on content disputes, constantly raised against one editor, leave behind an impression, even if the cases are dismissed, that there's no smoke without fire. For just a few of the recent ones, see here, here and here. The worst part of this attrition on everyone's time is that editorial incompetence is patent, and still tolerated. Just look at the first two diffs of Ashtul's new charge sheet, in his response section.

I restored the standard consensually determined voice and gloss of all wiki settlement articles, per ARBPIA and post-Arbpia negotiations. Ashtul doesn't know, and cannot recognize that
The removal of ‘false’ was correct. Ashtul has not read, though he cites it, the extensive discussion on why that was, factually, and in terms of both sources and NPOV, improper. 4 of 3 editors agreed to that. People shouldn't edit this cesspit unless they thoroughly understand NPOV, the rules, and bring knowledge, rather than a chip on their shoulders, to the subject. Ashtul's editing is vexatious, directed at wherever I edit, uninformed of the subject, and the report is retaliatory. Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I edit in that a Palestinian who stabbed several Israelis was a terrorist (neutral and objective) as here, Ashtul and co do not object. They let that pass. It coincides as a fact with an Israeli POV as well. But If I note, using a comment with attribution by one of Israel’s most outstanding minds, who happens also do be a peace fieldworker in the West Bank, that an illegal outpost, widely known for its cruelty to shepherds, was founded by 'fanatics', this is jumped at as proof I am pushing a Palestinian POV. In both cases, I couldn't care less whose POV is scratched on the back.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Collect. At Battle of Shuja'iyya, the article in the lead stated as an ascertained fact that Palestinian deaths ran to 120. The other day I made this edit, implying the guesstimate range was from 66 to 120. In this weird environment, that edit would be considered by POV pushers as subjectivizing to Israel's advantage the mortality figure, when, like so many edits, it is simply trying to make this encyclopedia reliable, regardless of which side is being documented.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem Ashtul is that, while you sound, and probably are, a nice guy, you can't read for nuts, and cause huge time loss on futile edit challenges that distresses people like myself who've 8 years of commitment to one of the hardest areas in Wikipedia which everyone thinks a death zone. I'll show you, by replying to your request to clarify the first two diffs, why you can't grasp elementary points, and cause needless stress and grief at time wasted to editors like myself.

Diff one: 'changing "Israel maintains that the blockade is legal and necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack" -> "Israel has sought to justify the blockade as necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack"

The IDF link you cite for the phrasing you wanted is a deadlink. One of the many sources I introduced, Human Rights Watch, neutral and critical of all sides, wrote:’ 'Israel has sought to justify its broad restrictions by citing security concerns.'

Well, neither Human Rights nor any other neutral international organization think that a blockade broad restrictions that denied the import of light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner, soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies, fishing ropes and rods, ginger and chocolate etc.etc. did so just to limit Palestinian rocket attacks. When this is the case, the Human Rights Watch (critical of both Israel and Palestine)'s phrasing ‘sought to justify’ governing ‘broad restrictions’ is adequate to the reality. No one can seriously maintain with a straight face that denying potato chips or tampons to the enemy will stop rocket attacks. That's my call. Others may disagree.

diff 2 which is, you claim, evidence I libelled an Israeli politician by cherry picking the evidence.

That is an absurdly crass interpretation of the diff. The article already contained both Bennett and other people’s defence of his actions at Kfar Qana (see the left side of that diff) . My fresher diff just gave more background detail missed by earlier editors. What is absolutely unacceptable here is that, had you read the diff sequence, you would have realized that rather than cherry pick the evidence, I earlier had already supplied testimony from an impeccable (to me) source namely from ( David Zonsheine) defending Bennett’s honour, a few minutes before .

I’ve wasted another fucking afternoon defending my integrity instead of building articles or preparing gardens for the spring. Get off my back, learn to edit, read policy, and, if possible, some books on the subject of the history of that area. It’s bad enough coping with the trouble you cause on articles without having to face down outrageous and arbitrarily vindictive accusations. It's not enough to say you'll drop the charges amicably if I come through with the goods. Editors must neither hound, raise spurious charges, nor be vexatious, and this is particularly true of the I/P area where attempts to keep serious editors are mostly doomed by the endless fatigue of IP or inexperienced editors intent on defending one's side national dignity, while blind to everything else.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Admins. I don't think this is just a content dispute. The evidence Ashtul presents represents his discontent with edits that he has failed to show are violations of NPOV, cherry-picking, etc. He may mean well, but he is making content disputes by consistently refusing to read and master the relevant policy pages, which I have frequently asked him to review, and by hunting, as he admitted, my edit history in the belief I am harming the national interest. I think this is a tad more serious than might at first seem to be the case. I'm not being vindictive, but this is a hard area, and these patterns of frivolous vexation shouldn't be tolerated. Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your new diff again is a content dispute, accompanied by the disingenuousness that plagues your editing. You cited a diff with an edit summary suggesting I was libeling Bennett. I demonstrated the totally inaccuracy of your interpretation of the diff, which looks malicious. You say now, you didn't mean that one (sure!), but another one on a completely different topic (Kiryat Netafim). I removed some WP:OR suggesting some harmony between Kiryat Netafim's Jews-only settlement and the villagers of Qarawat Bani Hassan. After all Kiryat Netafim 's sewage is all pumped on Qarawat Bani Hassan, and the village challenges its landuse. That is normal editing. You keep inventing stuff, all discontent with the information I add, and technically therefore content disputes. You have no case. I believe that having to cope with you over dozens of pages, when you can't even show cause on anything here, is unfair.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

This request by Ashtul comes on the day Ashtul's 1-week block expires. The block came as a consequence of Nishidani's request at AE concerning Ashtul, [40]. The hands are not clean, and the request is tainted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

As Nomoskedasticity says, this is a transparent attempt at payback for Ashtul's recent short block that he never accepted. The charges consist only of weakly argued content disputes. Zero^talk 12:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Collect

Appears to be a vanilla content dispute. Example 2 is not "libelous" AFAICT, and 3 may not be "best source" but the statement is attributed to a specific person, and should be verifiable otherwise as Battle of Shuja'iyya contains the same and similar claims. The Guardian states 120 deaths of Palestinians. Content dispute utterly. Collect (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

As Ashtul's comments make clear, this is a content dispute. Ashtul should we warned against using this forum as a means to gain the upper hand in content disputes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

At first glance this looks like a non-actionable content dispute to me. While our content policies such as WP:NPOV do have a conduct aspect, there is normally a wide range of defensible opinions about whether a source or text is neutral or otherwise appropriate for inclusion. That is the range in which consensus must be found among editors, and which cannot be reviewed by the arbitration or arbitration enforcement process, because we don't make content decisions. Editorial behavior only crosses the line into sanctionable misconduct if an editor's actions show that they are not here to in good faith help write a neutral encyclopedia, but to promote their point of view at the expense of neutrality, often by means of such conduct as edit-warring, source falsification or tendentious editing, that is, making edits exclusively in favor of one point of view. The evidence submitted here does not support a finding that this might be the case here. While I have and express no opinion on the sources cited and the texts edited, they do not strike me as so obviously unreliable or partisan that a sanction for misconduct could be seriously discussed. I would close this with a reminder to the filer that AE is not to be misused as a weapon with which to win content disputes, but only for genuine concerns of misconduct. Sandstein 12:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not actionable and is probably a retaliatory AE filing, and that a warning would suffice.
By way of clarification, there are issues here but only normal content matters, ones better suited to RFC or RSN etc. However, the hostility and entrenched belligerence "on all sides" of this topic area make that nigh impossible. The problem, like many many nationalist disputes, is the treatment others as "the enemy". This is an unsustainable mindset to bring to writing an encyclopedia or writing collaboratively in general. My point is that Ashtul's own attitude, and others who behave in the same way, is what gets in the way of the issues they see in this area actually being resolved--Cailil ^talk 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it appears uncontested among admins that this is not actionable, I'm closing the thread relatively early to avoid unneeded drama and excitement among the spectators, so to speak. I'm warning Ashtul not to misuse AE again. If there is evidence of other misconduct by Ashtul from after their recent block, it would need a separate request. Sandstein 22:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit

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

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

Appealing user: Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Ubikwit

The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled and not knowing how to handle it by disengaging, instead of engaging. I would like the ban overturned. The counterparty of the concurrently imposed interaction ban was a self-avowed activist that has subsequently been topic banned from all topics related to Judaism and appears to no longer be active on Wikipedia.
@NuclearWarfare: I've been in a couple of disputes, three or four that I can recall. One was related to sourcing used in relation to the Ukraine crisis; more specifically, a blanket rejection of sources from Russia. That ended up with my starting a thread on the Identifying RS Talk page, which was inconclusive but productive. Another related to a promotional article about "Jews in Nepal", which was eventual resolved satisfactorily thanks to the participation of Nishidani and Ravpapa, who found some reliable sources and almost single-handedly created an encyclopedic article from scratch. Finally, there is a current dispute I've been involved in for some time now related to the Soka Gakkai, which also involves huge amounts of promotional bloat and sourcing questions. I recently notified one editor of the ADVOCACY policy, due to repeated attempts to find a work around in a content dispute and insert content against consensus, which resulted in this AN/I thread. That seemed to be heading toward a BOOMERANG, but looks like it will be inconclusive, though a couple of editors have voluntarily withdrawn from editing the article itself. There is a series of related articles around that NRM that probably need discretionary sanctions to prevent such long-term disputes from consuming peoples time. The dispute addressed in that thread started back in August, approximately.
@Deskana: I do understand that it was disruptive to edit war, regardless of the status of the content dispute. I've since learned a significant amount about policy and dispute resolution and have done my best to adapt my approach accordingly.
@HJ Mitchell: That would be fine. I don't even have any specific articles I want to edit in the area at present, so a random selection or the like would suffice.

Statement by Deskana

I've not been very involved in this for a while now so I don't have any strong opinion about this appeal. That said, I would note that a good part of the reason why the sanction was imposed was because Ubikwit failed to realise that he was edit warring and instead tended to blame it on other people (see this example). The fact that the first sentence in his statement in this appeal is "The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled" would seem to indicate that he still hasn't really understood that his behaviour was disruptive. This, to me, would seem to indicate that the ban is still necessary. That said, I defer to those more active in this area to make a decision around this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

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

Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No blocks within 2014 is promising. Would you say that you got into any editorial disputes since your last block? If so, could you please link to and describe them? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The required notification of the sanctioning admin is still lacking. Sandstein 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay. I figured it out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from the sanctioning admin, but this looks reasonably promising. The sanction was imposed a long time ago, Ubikwit recognises the error of their ways and states that they've changed their approach, they've been active in other topic areas, and they haven't been sanctioned recently. Certainly on the surface this ticks all the boxes that we look at when deciding appeals, but I haven't yet done a deeper review of their recent contributions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ubikwit: How would you feel about having a relatively narrow range of articles to edit in the ARBPIA topic area for a few months, after which we could re-evaluate with a view to lifting the topic ban if you don't get in to trouble during that time? I'm keen to give some leeway because I don't like the idea that topic bans are forever, especially if the sanctioned editor abides by the ban and edits productively elsewhere, but I have to agree with Deskana that your opening statement doesn't fill me with hope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not. ~~Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes.~~ I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I got the I and the P round the wrong way.
  Having thought about this some more I'm moving towards thinking that we should just lift the TBAN completely (especially given it's been 2 years with no major issues) but make it clear that there will likely be a fairly low bar to placing it again if need be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett (2)

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: Rationalobserver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:38, 27 January 2015 (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/Proposed decision#Eric Corbett prohibited :

Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

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

January 27 Here Eric Corbett calls another editor "filth", he edited the comment moments later to read "they are filth", which violates the sanction prohibiting him from "insulting and/or belittling other editors".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

January 25 Eric Corbett was recently blocked for violating his related topic ban. He made the insult soon after his block had expired.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Well, moments later EC clarified by changing "it is" to "they are". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't canvassing, I didn't know what to do so I brought it there because that admin has dealt with the previous violation. On what grounds do you assert that I "lost" an argument with EC before reporting this? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant, but if you think I am wrong in that thread I would to hear why. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I first brought this to Sandstein's page, and I brought it here only after he advised me to. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that this was a mistake, but an admin advised me to bring this here instead of their talk page, where I originally broached the topic, and I assumed that such an obviously bad idea would have been discouraged. I'm not trying to throw Sandstein under the bus, but as a user not familiar with these processes I looked to them for guidance. Perhaps my thinking was overly simplistic, but saying that an editor is "filth" is an insult in my book. How was I to understand that the ArbCom restrictions are not to be strictly enforced? I would also assume that an editor who had only moments early gotten off a block for related violations might be scrutinized more closely when breaking the sanctions for a second time in three days. I see now that I was wrong, and that sympathy for EC outweighs the abuse he heaps on others. If it didn't, he would already be banned as 99.99% of any other editors who acted like he does would be.

As far as the meatpuppet/sockpuppet accusations, I call bullshit and lying. Folks here are too quick to accuse others of impropriety when they ought to be making a strong argument against the actual topic at hand. I see this as a lazy way to discredit anyone who rocks the boat, and I think Wikipedia has lost many editors to this tactic. These accusations are personal attacks. Sitush is lying, because I don't edit any message boards, nor do I know anything about the "mailing list". If I was in a secret cabal I'd have my goons review articles I've written, not help me "trick EC into making an attack", and the idea that EC needs goading to make attacks is spurious at best; he has a long history of unprovoked attacks on unsuspecting editors. Nevertheless, I won't be confronting him ever again, which is what I assume is the response of the vast majority of editors who do. They get ganged up on and realize that the anarchy of this place is aggressive and hostile, and each insult is open to debate. I've never filed here before, and I won't ever file here again, but there was no need whatsoever to personally disparage me for making an honest mistake. An obvious insult is obvious, but I had no way of understanding that the ArbCom sanctions are subject to Wikilawering; I thought it was much more absolute, but that was my mistake, and it won't happen again. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, you claim to have evidence, which might be moot "due to naming issues", so I call that a lie, because there can be no evidence of something I didn't do, and to imply that you have evidence you can't use because it might "out" me is a bold-face lie. This is a bullshit effort to discredit me as a person, that is obvious. You could have easily said that this report should have been closed without action without personally attacking me, but that wouldn't serve the long-term goal of silencing my dissent. You're so close to EC your comments should be disregarded anyway for lack of objectivity. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EChastain, is it at all possible that EC was reported twice in three days because he violated his sanctions twice in three days? And is it really necessary to have a behind-the-scenes conspiracy to goad him? Per Occam's Razor, that's a complicated and unlikely scenario, but if you accuse everyone who stands up to him of conspiracy, people will eventually stop standing up to him, which is suspiciously the exact result you apparently want. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

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

Statement by DeCausa

It's a pity that WP:BOOMERANG doesn't seem to apply to this Board as a block for Rationalobserver for this request, which is at the same time frivolous and vexatious, would be richly deserved. EC was merely "seconding" a widely held view. He followed an admin who had agreed with the view. It wasn't a breach of the spirit of the DS; moreover it wasn't a breach of the letter either: "it was 'filth'" (i.e. using the word it) can only be in reference to the edit not the editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

Eric does not appear to be calling any editor filth...only that he is agreeing that a comment is filth. What is this kindergarten? This needs to be shut down...I would say this complaint is harassment.--MONGO 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like some kind of vendetta. Eric just came off a block...you cannot expect him to be in a cheery mood after all. This was not in article space nor was it disruptive to article improvements. Great latitudes should be permitted on talkpages...and there is always room on usertalks to vent ones frustrations.--MONGO 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No such user

And how do we sanction editors who inject themselves into disputes that don't concern them in the least, for the apparent reason to only stir trouble and increase the drama? At some point, one of these needs to be sanctioned for a future reference. And this really seems like a fine occasion to exercise a WP:BOOMERANG. Latest actions by Rationalobserver present a WP:CIVILPOV at its lowest. No such user (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cas Liber

My understanding is that gangbanger is as much an American term as it is for other English speakers, which is why I can't accept this comment in good faith. At all. In fact it has a such a startling similarity to this comment by another user (where a user pleads ignorance to a very common idiom), which makes me think there is meatpuppetting or possibly sockpuppeting going on. I think we are all being played. Alot of editors are being goaded and baited I feel.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, can you honestly believe that anyone with any familiarity with English could have interpreted these words ("fucking" literally rather than idiomatically, and "gangbanger") as such? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent ..aaaand gangbanger would be one who engages in gangbanging? Hmmm? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent

I'm proud to be an American where least I know I'm free: Gangbang would generally refer to group sex, not necessarily non-consensual. Gangbanger would refer to a member of a gang, not necessarily having to do with rape and/or intercourse. NE Ent 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

It seems possible that there is a concerted campaign going on here. Given the present environment, it would be unwise for me to link to evidence that might support that but it does exist on WMF-hosted mailing lists. If any reviewing admin can't see the obvious, they are welcome to email me for an off-wiki diff that is particularly disconcerting because it involves another admin, although whether it involves the complainant is moot due to naming issues. Regardless, this complaint has no merit and is effectively yet another example of the piling-on that has been occurring. Sandstein made a poor decision with the last block, so please don't make things worse and please try harder to see the elephant in the room. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rationalobserver: rather than outright accuse me of being a liar, why not read what I actually said above? Possible ... although whether it involves the complainant is moot. Regardless, ...' - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

Cas, related to the G term above, I always hear it used in the street/criminal gangs sense and never related to the sexual activity.

It's subtle but "gangbang" is the multi-partner sex and "gangbanger" is the criminal gang and they're not ever connected in use.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Two kinds of pork

I'm going to 2nd Cas Liber and Situshs' opinion there is some sort of puppetry involved, most likely off-en-wiki MEAT collaboration. Dollars to doughnuts banned editor Neotarf is involved. This frivolous (and weak) filing is just the sort of thing she would do. I doubt Carolmooredc is involved. Whatever else anyone can say about her, she's not a coward and will have someone do her dirty work for her. There is no evidence that Lightbreather is involved in this, though she has come after Eric logged out of her account to avoid scrutiny before.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

This is patently ridiculous. Seems to me we have a concerted effort to run EC off WP altogether and that sort of baiting needs to stop. Now. Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giano

For Heaven's Sake! We all know perfectly well what a 'Gangbang(er)' is, just as we all know perfectly well what a vexatious stalker is. And as for the "fucking victim" - I recently, following storm damage, referred to my house as 'my fucking house' - does anyone seriously believe that I'm now running a brothel? Has the Arbcom really nothing better to do with its time than waste it discussing this? Giano (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

Is there anything at all here that relates in any way, shape or form to improving an encyclopedia, or is it just a bunch of grumpy editors wanting to gain their pound of flesh over an editor they don't like? Well, in the real world we have people we don't like too, but we can't simply wish them away with a ban hammer. This should be tossed out and the filing parties warned not to do it again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EChastain

Even if Rationalobserver was not directly influenced by comments made on WMF-hosted mailing lists, I've seen comments there specifically naming Eric Corbett. One links to EC's comments on WER that resulted in his last block, so it's is not "lying" to suggest the possibility of coordinated attacks. The two requests here in as many days regarding him and utilising the same ds sanction may be coincidental. [edited] EChastain (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hafspajen

Yes, it is as Montanabw said. Can't notice much good faith here. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

People, would a trip to WP:ARCA? help things out? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Knowledgekid87

Rational made a mistake here and she acknowledged it [42]. I think this should just be closed and we all move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

No good faith here whatsoever. With all respect there's far more important things on the 'pedia than this pointless report, Close it down and move on. –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather

The series of events, condensed:

14:10, 26 January 2015 Cassianto said on Sandstein's talk page: [LB] is behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget that it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose.[43]
15:02, 26 January 2015 OrangesRyellow replied: LB is a woman. To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA. You are the one who is baiting.[44]
19:46, 26 January 2015 Cassianto said of OrangesRyellow at ANI: While we're on the subject of incivility, how about throwing this into the mix? This piece of filth needs to be locked up.[45]
23:45, 26 January 2015 Viriditas advised Cassianto, on Cassianto's talk page: FWIW, the rape analogy was a misinterpretation, and I've pointed it out on the talk page of the user who made it. Please come back when you feel calm and relaxed.[46]
04:50, 27 January 2015 Cassianto told Viriditas: go fuck yourself[47]
18:45, 27 January 2015 NE Ent advised Cassianto: [Please] don't call others filth no matter how aggravated you are.[48]
18:47, 27 January 2015 Cassianto replied: They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor.[49]
18:55, 27 January 2015 Eric Corbett agreed: Seconded, they [OrangesRyellow ] are indeed "filth".[50]
19:01, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver reported Eric Corbett's comments (3 - 2 of which (about Lightbreather and Sandstein) preceded the "filth" comment) to Sandstein: [51]
19:37, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver asked Cassianto, on Cassianto's talk page: Why not just accept that they misinterpreted your comments and consequently misrepresented you (I'm not saying they did that, but it appears to be your perception, which is valid.)[52]
22:06, 27 January 2015 After other editors started arguing with Rationalobserver on Sandstein's talk page, he asked them to move along.[53]
22:11, 27 January 2015 Sandstein advised Rationalobserver: If you think that this is actionable, WP:AE is the venue in which to make any request.[54]
22:39, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver opened this enforcement request (only mentions "filth" comment): [55]

Cassianto got angry that Eric was blocked and said some pretty nasty things. OrangesRyellow misinterpreted what Cassianto got angrier and called OrangesRyellow "filth." At least two editors ask Cassianto to calm down. Cassianto re-asserted his angry insult; Eric seconded it. Rationalobserver, having already seen two insults by Eric since his block was enacted, reported them plus the "filth" comment to the blocking admin, Sandstein. She also asked Cassianto, on his talk page, to accept that OrangesRyellow had screwed up. Sandstein shut down the argument on his page about Eric's possible violation of his sanctions; Sandstein advised Rationalobserver to take it to AE if she thought it was actionable.

The evidence shows that 1) Cassianto was out of control and doing the baiting. 2) OrangesRyellow took the bait, but it was agreed that he misunderstood what Cassianto had said. 3) Rationalobserver also took the bait. Her only sin was not ignoring Cassianto's continued rampage against Lightbreather, OrangesRyellow, and Sandstein. She tried first to get help from Sandstein, and then she tried to reason with Cassianto. Coming to AE was not her first choice, but others want this to boomerang on her because she came here anyway. Looking at the evidence, yes, Eric did violate sanctions against him, and probably Cassianto ought to have some action taken against him, too, IMO. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Eric Corbett

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

User gets into argument with multiple people including EC at another user's talk page, which does not go well for them. Having lost that argument, they then decide to report EC here for a comment he made four hours earlier which, whilst not the best, was merely agreeing with something said by another editor. Not content with that, they then decide to canvass the admin who blocked EC a few days ago for a different issue. Is that a good summary of events? I for one am unimpressed on a number of counts. AE is not for petty retribution against someone you've just lost an argument with. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to OP: Because I am able to read. I've also just read Talk:Enid_Blyton#Oxford_commas, which is equally unedifying. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second reply to OP: I don't think it's in any way irrelevant. As Dr.Blofeld points out, you comment whilst EC is blocked, and when he does disengage from you - probably because he is worried about breaching his terms - you claim he's only doing it because he's wrong. Meanwhile, on Cassianto's talkpage, numerous editors tell you why you're wrong about a number of things, and then - brilliantly - you say about a different editor "but what good would come from giving a stale block now?". And then you go and report EC here. As I say, I am deeply unimpressed with this, and it looks like others are too. Anyway, I will see what other uninvolved admins think. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly in agreement with what Black Kite has written, above. I further consider that the implications of this are that the original reporter of this "violation" be themselves placed under some restriction (if possible) and any suspected meatpuppetry be quickly investigated. If it is proven, the severest sanctions should be placed on those who, at first sight, seem to be possibly gaming the system to try to run Eric Corbett off wikipedia. DDStretch (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is, IMO, a petty filing. The context from User:Cassianto's page:

"They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor. What would you call them, misunderstood? CassiantoTalk 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I have to agree with Cass on that. It's worse then trying to play the race card with no basis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Seconded, they are indeed "filth". Eric Corbett 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Thirded. It's hard to imagine a filthier lie. Writegeist (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"

Note the if in Cassianto's original statement, which is implied, if not stated outright, in the agreements that follow. Rationalobserver didn't report Cassianto or the other two who agreed - just Eric. I don't see anything worth sanctioning over. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly people, be less opaque with your statements. There are lots of statements that I read one way (say, critical of EC) which, based on the response it receives or the person it's aimed at, I can only assume is actually the opposite of how I read it. (For what it's worth, I don't see this as in any way worth the 2700 words that have been dedicated to it. Close this an move on.) Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2015 (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]

@@ Line 936: / Line 936: @@
 ====Statement by Davey2010====
 No good faith here whatsoever. With all respect there's far more important things on the 'pedia than this pointless report, Close it down and move on. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 18:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
+====Statement by Lightbreather====
+The series of events, condensed:
+#14:10, 26 January 2015 Cassianto said on Sandstein's talk page: ''[LB] is behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget that it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=644253026&oldid=644252095]
+#15:02, 26 January 2015 OrangesRyellow replied: ''LB is a woman. To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA. You are the one who is baiting.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=644258487&oldid=644256682]
+#19:46, 26 January 2015 Cassianto said of OrangesRyellow at ANI: ''While we're on the subject of incivility, how about throwing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=644258487&oldid=644256682 this] into the mix? This piece of filth needs to be locked up.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=644294090]
+#23:45, 26 January 2015 Viriditas advised Cassianto, on Cassianto's talk page: ''FWIW, the rape analogy was a misinterpretation, and I've pointed it out on the talk page of the user who made it. Please come back when you feel calm and relaxed.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=644325867&oldid=644308506]
+#04:50, 27 January 2015 Cassianto told Viriditas: ''go fuck yourself''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=644357908&oldid=644330171]
+#18:45, 27 January 2015 NE Ent advised Cassianto: ''[Please] don't call others ''filth'' no matter how aggravated you are.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=644439045&oldid=644433947]
+#18:47, 27 January 2015 Cassianto replied: ''They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=644439301&oldid=644439045]
+#18:55, 27 January 2015 Eric Corbett agreed: ''Seconded, they [OrangesRyellow ] are indeed "filth".''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=644440214&oldid=644440077]
+#19:01, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver reported Eric Corbett's comments (3 - 2 of which (about Lightbreather and Sandstein) preceded the "filth" comment) to Sandstein: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=644440907]
+#19:37, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver asked Cassianto, on Cassianto's talk page: ''Why not just accept that they misinterpreted your comments and consequently misrepresented you (I'm not saying they did that, but it appears to be your perception, which is valid.)''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=644445333&oldid=644443523]
+#22:06, 27 January 2015 After other editors started arguing with Rationalobserver on Sandstein's talk page, he asked them to move along.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=644465363&oldid=644465170]
+#22:11, 27 January 2015 Sandstein advised Rationalobserver: ''If you think that this is actionable, WP:AE is the venue in which to make any request.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=644466082&oldid=644465665]
+#22:39, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver opened this enforcement request (only mentions "filth" comment): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=644470000&oldid=644468613]
+Cassianto got angry that Eric was blocked and said some pretty nasty things. OrangesRyellow misinterpreted what Cassianto got angrier and called OrangesRyellow "filth." At least two editors ask Cassianto to calm down. Cassianto re-asserted his angry insult; Eric seconded it. Rationalobserver, having already seen two insults by Eric since his block was enacted, reported them plus the "filth" comment to the blocking admin, Sandstein. She also asked Cassianto, on his talk page, to accept that OrangesRyellow had screwed up. Sandstein shut down the argument on his page about Eric's possible violation of his sanctions; Sandstein advised Rationalobserver to take it to AE if she thought it was actionable.
+The evidence shows that 1) Cassianto was out of control and doing the baiting. 2) OrangesRyellow took the bait, but it was agreed that he misunderstood what Cassianto had said. 3) Rationalobserver also took the bait. Her only sin was not ignoring Cassianto's continued rampage against Lightbreather, OrangesRyellow, and Sandstein. She tried first to get help from Sandstein, and then she tried to reason with Cassianto. Coming to AE was not her first choice, but others want this to boomerang on her because she came here anyway. Looking at the evidence, yes, Eric did violate sanctions against him, and probably Cassianto ought to have some action taken against him, too, IMO. --[[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Eric Corbett===

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