Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

Philip Cross

No action. Sandstein 19:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On 26 July 2018, ArbCom indefinitely topic banned User:Philip Cross from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. On 3 August 2018, Cross made a series of five consecutive edits to the BLP of British journalist Decca Aitkenhead. According to our BLP, Aitkenhead in 2009 won Interviewer of the Year at the British Press Awards, having "particularly impressed the judges with her remarkable encounter" with Alistair Darling, a Labour Party politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2007–2010. Before moving this month to The Sunday Times, Decca Aitkenhead wrote for The Guardian, where she most recently (27 Jul 2018) interviewed Salisbury MP John Glen, an incumbent British Conservative Party politician. Such professional activity puts Aitkenhead squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics. On 5 August 2018, Cross made a series of fifteen consecutive edits to the BLP of British actor and politician Andrew Faulds. According to our BLP, Faulds entered British politics in 1963. His obituary in The Telegraph, cited in our BLP, reports that as a Labour MP, Faulds twice served as front-bench arts spokesman in the British House of Commons. He held that post until sacked in May 1982. Such professional activity puts Faulds squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics. This ANI discussion request for enforcement is not about the content of Cross's edits but solely about his flouting of ArbCom's indefinite topic ban just nine days after it was imposed. KalHolmann (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Update as of 7 August 2018. At another page, one of the drafting arbitrators of ArbCom's sanctions against Philip Cross has clarified this issue. "We definitely did not intend the topic ban to be construed to not apply to some edits to pages about the topic area," writes User:BU Rob13. "All topic bans apply to such edits. We chose the wording of 'all edits' rather than 'all pages' to emphasize that even edits that cover the topic on pages that do not typically cover the topic are covered, which is the standard meaning of a topic ban. If we intended to place a restriction other than a topic ban, we would not have called it such. I think even the admins at AE occasionally need a reminder not to wikilawyer - a topic ban is a topic ban. If it helps, we can strike 'all edits about' and just say Philip Cross is topic banned from the topic area." (Emphasis added.) I urge the closing administrator of this request for enforcement to give BU Rob13's clarification the full weight it deserves and to not be misled by the uninvolved administrators' unanimity below—which happens to be unanimously wrong. This infraction by Philip Cross is fully actionable. KalHolmann (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Philip Cross Decca Aitkenhead is a journalist specialising in interviews of prominent people rather than a political journalist except for occasionally interviewing politicians. The changes to this article are here and do not contain any mention of politics. The edits to the article about Andrew Faulds I made earlier today are here. It can be seen that I made no edit about Faulds post-1978 career. The topic ban does not include post-1978 sources, unless "broadly construed" includes post-1978 journalism about pre-1978 events too. Philip Cross (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Reverted my recent edits to the Aitkenhead, Faulds and Colin Jordan articles. Philip Cross (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by JzG What [PC was] doing [above] is called Wikilawyering. It never works. Your topic ban scope is unambiguous, and the Faulds article is unambiguously within that scope. We can do without KalHolmann's creative interpretations of scope, which are unnecessary here. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Recommendation: Close as no action base don the self-revert, and counsel KalHolmann not to engage in creative interpretations of scope as part of his ongoing campaign against PC. That only weakens his case and reduces the chances of decisive action when an unambiguous breach does happen. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Huldra Well, since Philip Cross has self reverted, my 2 cents is that he should be let of the hook, for now...BUT with a stern warning that any new infractions will be sternly dealt with. Huldra (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by RebeccaSaid Cross is a highly experienced, long term editor. He is, beyond any shadow of doubt, fully aware of the boundaries of his Topic Ban; post 1978 British Politics broadly construed. Both Andrew Faulds and Colin Jordan fall within that scope. The content of the edits themselves are irrelevant. He is pushing the boundaries. Broadly construed "Broadly construed means that one shouldn't attempt to "nibble around the edges", so to speak.... If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first". Don't be fooled by claims of misconstrual, he is too well versed in the system for that. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Please see clarification from the case drafting Arbitrator. Clarification: BLP issues on British politics articles A Topic Ban is a Topic Ban, irrespective of the mental gymnastics used to turn it into a Topic Ban Lite. Cross' edits, self-reverted after the fact, fall within that reach and should be recognised for what they are. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Actually I have a question around self-reverting. The implication here appears to be that Cross can edit wherever and, as long as he self-reverts when his edits are flagged up as potentially problematic, that's fine? Yes or na? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by 2017 Complainant In the light of the authoritative statement below specifying the scope of the topic ban, much of the earlier discussion here, including my censored contributions, is no longer relevant. The edits themselves have been reverted and were in any case innocuous, problematic only in that they violated the ban. I suggest that this enforcement request should therefore be closed forthwith, because there is nothing that needs to be done. The ban violation, which must now be recognised as a fact, can be appropriately taken into account later, when and if any appeal by Philip Cross is received and considered. 121.72.182.89 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Govindaharihari If that passes it will be a good clarificaion and one that I'm sure Phillip will take on board from now on, there won't be any need for admin actions on this report.Govindaharihari (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Philip Cross This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I would close this as not actionable. The wording of the remedy is in relevant part: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics". This is more restrictive than a usual topic ban per WP:TBAN: while a usual topic ban covers both pages related to the topic and edits related to the topic, the unusual wording of the remedy ("banned from edits relating to ...") indicates that this ban is intended to cover only edits related to the topic. The normal wording would have been something like "banned from anything related to ...". In this case, the edits as such were not related to politics, and the remedy was therefore not violated. Sandstein 06:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ”Anything related to” is not the standard wording. A topic ban is defined in the wikilink included in the remedy. Any edit to a page relating to post-1978 British politics is covered. This is a standard topic ban. ~ Rob13Talk 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC) @BU Rob13: Thanks for the feedback, but the remedy as written appears to contradict itself. While it links to WP:TBAN, which defines a standard topic ban that includes both topic-related edits and other edits to topic-related pages, the clause "edits relating to" has, as I read it, a limiting effect such that only topic-related edits are prohibited, not other edits to topic-related pages. To avoid such uncertainty, I recommend that future remedies are worded to only make reference to WP:TBAN without additional clauses, e.g., "... is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from British politics". Based on the current wording, I myself would take no action here, although of course other admins are free to interpret the remedy differently and take action. Sandstein 13:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Agree with Sandstein, the TBAN specifies edits relating to post-1978 politics, not a ban from editing pages containing content relating to post-1978 politics. And so no action should be taken. That being said, 99.9% of Wikipedia articles contain no link whatsoever to post-1978 British politics, and it would probably be sensible for Mr Cross to stick to those, as eventually this testing of the waters will result in a collective cessation of patience. Fish+Karate 13:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I suggest closing as no action based on the self-revert. Given Sandstein’s reading I would also suggest interested parties take this to ARCA because I have a suspicion that the committee intended a standard TBAN. (@JzG: you may be the best to do it, since you’re familiar with both the case and how ArbCom works.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC) WP:TENFOOTPOLE, mate. The partisans (other than PC, who seems quite sanguine about the whole thing) don't accept me as an honest broker. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC) I, too, would close this as not actionable. While this diff gave me pause, reading through it carefully shows that Philip Cross followed the his restriction as written. Were that not enough, he self-reverted, suggesting an abundance of caution. Now had the restriction been worded the normal way this would have been a violation, so I, too, recommend ARCA if this is in doubt. Since there is no support for a sanction here, I will close this as "not actionable" shortly if no further comments come in. Vanamonde (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC) No admins seem to be interested in taking action at this time, particularly in view of the self-reverts. I'm therefore closing this. The scope of the topic ban is likely to be clarified in the WP:ARCA thread. Sandstein 19:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by פֿינצטערניש

Appeal declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 פֿינצטערניש (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the Israel-Palestinian conflict Administrator imposing the sanction Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The only possible notification I can give is this: @Sandstein:. I am not able to edit their talk page. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Here is the diff of the notification I just gave. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I have also sent the following email to Sandstein, and am including the whole thing for transparency's sake. If you copy this to your talk page, please do not include my email address. First, I wanted to inform you, if you weren't aware, that I have appealed my ban from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that I was unable to edit your talk page in order to notify you of this, so the best I could do was ping you and send this email. Secondly, it's obviously not true that the issue isn't with what I am writing, for a few reasons: Icewhiz has demonstrated a clear problem with what I am writing or requesting be written, as shown on the discussion page for "Human rights in Israel", where my request that information about a controversy be added was immediately met with a purely political, purely opinionated response. Icewhiz chose this route specifically instead of simply asking you to protect the page. Icewhiz has shown no good-faith interest in keeping any of the edits that were made to the article that would benefit the reader in getting a full picture of the controversy surrounding Dareen Tatour. Good faith means that if something would help an article, you keep it while also protecting the page. Bad faith means that you use policy to keep it out of the page, without addressing the content. This is obviously an attempt to use policy to control what facts end up in an article. Otherwise, the edits would not be reverted; the articles would be protected and the edits would be considered on their merits. So obviously the issue is with what I am writing. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by פֿינצטערניש I was not treating Wikipedia as a battleground, nor was I arbitrarily assuming bad faith. In fact I had first begun to interact with User:Icewhiz through a straightforward request that a controversy over Dareen Tatour, one condemned by PEN International, be added to the page on human rights in Israel, which was protected against my editing it. On the other hand, their responses, seen at Talk:Human rights in Israel#Dareen Tatour, make it clear that they were there, from the start, to make the discussion political rather than about whether condemnation from international human rights organizations should be added to the article. Subsequently I edited an article on Dareen Tatour to remove loaded language and add condemnation from other groups (PEN International in addition to PEN America). This article was not protected. But instead of asking an administrator to protect the page, they chose to inform me specifically about it, which makes me wonder what they would have done if someone who agreed with them had made edits to the page. They then proceeded to remove from the lead of the article all information (existing prior to my edit) about the fact that Tatour's conviction and sentencing was widely condemned by human rights activists, an omission (or erasure) of facts that they have shown no interest, even now, in correcting. The lead, as it stands right now as of this edit to my statement, still omits the primary reason for her notability, which makes it obvious that this had nothing to do with informing me that I wasn't allowed to edit the article; the intent was specifically to omit facts. Thus my conclusion of bad faith was the only reasonable one. I considered their warning a blatant abuse of the discretionary sanctions, because it was. Anyone who genuinely wanted to help the project would have seen the problem as the page's lack of protection, not the fact that I specifically was editing it. As I stated in my original defense, the user is either a bumbler who doesn't understand Wikipedia or they have an ulterior motive, and the former is obviously untrue. They obviously know Wikipedia in and out. My assumption of bad faith on the part of Icewhiz, and subsequent response, was only after interacting with the individual and observing their behavior. I do not see Wikipedia as a battleground; I simply find it important that all the facts be added to articles, whereas despite Icewhiz's thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies and awareness of how to use them against anyone who brings up facts that make Israel look bad, they are clearly using the site as a battleground. This is evident from the actions they take and the general theme of their responses to the discussion on Dareen Tatour - which, unlike my initial comment, were specifically political from the very start. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) additions and redaction of a misspelling in italics פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC) bolded the word arbitrarily which had already been italicized in my first edit פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sandstein I'm copying what I wrote on the user's talk page in response to this appeal: "I have read your appeal below and will not be lifting the ban. In your appeal, you are mostly blaming the other user for what you consider their inappropriate conduct. This is inappropriate in an appeal; see, by analogy, WP:NOTTHEM. You do not address your own conduct by which you accuse the other user, multiple times and without evidence, of being a paid agent of the state of Israel and of spreading propaganda for that state. Wikipedians are expected to assume good faith towards one another, and to resolve disagreements about article content by discussing the merits of the content, not by attacking one another personally and casting aspersions against the other and their motives. See, generally, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS. Because you do not understand and abide by these basic conduct requirements, I believe that you should not be editing controversial topics for the time being." Sandstein 06:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Onceinawhile I edited alongside this editor at Dareen Tatour. Their behavior at that page was constructive and source-based, in contrast to that of the editor who brought this case to AE. This editor’s English wikipedia contributions are limited, but they have made 3,300 edits globally. @Sandstein: could there have been a process mistake here? ARBPIA3 does not specify that the 500 edits need to be made to English wikipedia... If the editor would take it upon themselves to apologize for the personal attacks against Icewhiz, and the failure to WP:AGF, I would be supportive of them being given a second chance. Their edits so far show the potential to be additive to this project, and I think we might have been guilty of WP:DONTBITE a little too soon. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I am willing to apologize for the personal attacks against @Icewhiz:, and for the assumption that they were deliberately spreading propaganda, as well as the implication that they might be doing so for money. I'm aware that such behavior on my part can be toxic and make collaboration difficult. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC) And I am also willing to commit, for the sake of the project as a whole and for the sake of an atmosphere conducive to collaboration between all editors, to no longer making such accusations against anyone without direct smoking-gun evidence, no matter how strongly I believe them. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz I politely informed the user of the DS regime and the general prohibition. To which they responded with this, this, and this - calling into question my physical fitness as well as my editing. I will note I chose to report this not only after fully notifying the user of the DS sanctions, but also a a further specific exploratory note on the general prohibition and its applicability to their edits. As for the "additive potential" and DONTBITE - the user has an on-off record on en-wiki dating back to 2015 - including such BLP questionable edits such as this on 5 January 2017 which categorized a BLP as a Nazi, and edits on other Wiki projects. I will note the following edit performed on 21 July 2018 across a number of Wiki projects - an.wiki, el.wiki, simple.wiki tr.wiki - in which Israel was modified to a theocracy. A similar edit was also performed on the same date on this this project - en.wiki. This change was reverted as un-constructive across all the wiki projects I looked at.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Shrike Though the user was topic banned[1] he still use his talk page to violate his ban[2].@Sandstein:,@Fish and karate: could someone revoke his talk page access thanks --Shrike (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC) @Dweller:You misread the ARBCOM decision "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits" As the user was account with fewer then 500 edits this sanction is apply to him --Shrike (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC) @Fish and karate: The user keep violating their topic ban [3] --Shrike (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by E. M. Gregory My error. I had taxed the editor with holding a discussion on a persoanl talk page that ought have been at the article's talk page, and when s/he asked me to move it, I thought, well, I complained, so I'm morally obligated to comply with the request. Although I can see that I wought to have wondered why s/he was blocked form that a page, i never had that thought. What I felt was that I had been rude to an editor I had no previous relationship with, and that it was only polite to help her/him out by making the move. This sort of imbroglio is why I mostly stick to adding content. And to the more black-and-white judgments at AfD. I see now that I ought to wonder why the editor was not allowed to join the discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC) This comment was made in response to Fish&Karate below: moved here by Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 5) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by פֿינצטערניש Any discussion about the contents of פֿינצטערניש's edits, or of the general value of the editor to Wikipedia, appear to be completely irrelevant, since Sandstein writes explicitly that the block was not based on the content of the edits, but was because the editor didn't qualify to edit in that subject area at all due to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, and had been told so before they continued to make edits there. Unless it can be shown that these facts are wrong, that the editor was qualified to edit in the ARBPIA area, or that they were actually never informed of that restriction, then the block should stand as legitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I'm a bit puzzled by the initial warning: this account was not an IP, so not subject to edit count, and had edits much older than 30 days, so why did this even start, Icewhiz? That said, my advice to פֿינצטערניש is to withdraw this request and reflect and return with a less adversarial attitude and a different approach before asking for the sanction/block to be lifted. Your first responses to Icewhiz screams out that your personality is not suited to collaborative editing here. Demonstrate to us that that wasn't so. Because at the moment, you're reinforcing the perception, not overcoming it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Ah. There's an embiguity in the ruling caused by an Oxford comma. "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure". The comma before the "and" implied to me that the words preceding it apply only to IPs. So it read to me that IP editors are welcome if they have more than 500 edits and 30 days and registered accounts just need 30 days. If that is not the case, this is poor drafting and should be fixed. Bump that up to Arbcom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Shrike see this addition. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Suggested revision: "All IP editors are prohibited from editing [XYZ]... Registered accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days tenure are also prohibited." Sparse language that's unclear is a bad idea. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) No, must be "fewer than 500 edits OR with less than 30 days tenure". (Not commenting on case, since involved.) Zerotalk 12:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Making my point about poor drafting even more strongly. We need to bounce this up. Any Arbs watching this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, I've passed the issue on to our mailing list. I had no idea it was being interpreted in such different ways. So far as I've understood it it's "and", not or, and at times the clock has been reset on editors gaming the system - the edit clock, that is, we can't reset the actual time. Otherwise all an editor would have to do is register an account and wait 30 days, which was never the intent. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks Doug. (For those who are confused, I am not Doug and, to the best of my knowledge, Doug is not me. See the banner at the top of my user page). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Dweller, it means the equivalent of extended confirmed, which is both. The reasons 30/500 blocks have become more common this year is because all of the main ARBIPA3 articles have been protected, meaning that users who are committed to editing in the area (and are usually POV-pushers) have started as a trend to seek out obscure articles related to the conflict to edit to the point where blocks have unfortunately been necessary rather than ECPing every possible article in relevant category trees by hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks Tony. Whatever we mean, we ought to say it, and say it clearly. Especially if it's going to be thrown (gently or not) in the faces of newbies. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Result of the appeal by פֿינצטערניש This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Recommend not removing the block, and allowing it to stand. The entirety of פֿינצטערניש's appeal is focused on pointing out what Icewhiz has done wrong, rather than taking responsibility for their own actions, which were a clear breach of ARBPIA3, and which is just reinforcing the fact that פֿינצטערניש has issues with BATTLEGROUND. Fish+Karate 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I think it's also worth warning פֿינצטערניש that one further instance of using their talk page to create content in breach of the topic ban (as they did here: [4]) will see a lengthier block imposed, with talk page access removed. And I'm going to politely remind E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) that proxying for a topic-banned and/or blocked user as they did here is not ok, as they may not be aware of this. Fish+Karate 09:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Note: comment by E. M. Gregory moved to separate section above: it can be bureaucratic, I know, but the sections are there for a reason. Is cool. Fish+Karate 09:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC) I have removed פֿינצטערניש's talk page access for the duration of the block, as they are again using their talk page to produce edits about a topic from which they are now banned ([5]). They can appeal this via UTRS. If this means I am now 'involved' (I'm never quite sure what constitutes involvement, it's nebulous) then please feel free to move my comments appropriately. If the removal of talk page access is inappropriate then any admin may feel free undo that tweak to the block without prior consultation with me. My suggestion is to concurrently extend the block duration, but I'll leave that as a matter for discussion here. Fish+Karate 12:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC) I edit-conflicted with you while attempting to revert their addition and leave a warning saying that talk page access would be pulled the next time, but I think pulling immediately was also within discretion. This does not make you involved, as as far as I am aware, you have only interacted with them in an administrative capacity. Vanamonde (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Reading through this mess, I see two legitimate questions we need to address; 1) whether edits outside en.wiki contribute towards the 500/30 requirement (it's not made explicit at WP:ARBPIA3, but common sense would suggest "no") and 2) whether the 500/30 requirement should be enforced via t-bans or page protections, other things being equal. That said; the language used by the appealing user is appalling, and their appeal addresses none of their own behavior, so I would deny the appeal at this time. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Agree that only edits on en.wiki should count towards the 500/30 requirement. Edits on other wikimedia projects will/may have different requirements, policies, etc, and are not analogous. Fish+Karate 10:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC) The intent was that this would cover only en.wiki actions. We can't anticipate every page where 500/30 will be relevant, so I'd say T-bans. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Per my comments above, the block is certainly good: the user isn’t extended confirmed and never has been, which from a functional level is what the restriction means and how it has traditionally been interpreted (namely, the conditions for extended confirmed were designed to match this restriction.) To Vanamonde93’s point re TBAN’s: see my response to Dweller above. We’re quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns on further ECP (it should still be done, but we can’t reasonably be expected to protect every article in the topic area, and those who want to be disruptive have proven this year that they will find the unprotected articles.) I personally prefer enforcement through blocks to TBANs in these cases, but I think Sandstein was within discretion, so I’m endorsing both the block and the TBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC) As no admin has commented in over 24 hours, and there is not a consensus to lift the sanction, I am closing this appeal as declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Noto-Ichinose

Noto-Ichinose has received an indefinite checkuser block and an indefinite NOTHERE block. Vanamonde (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Noto-Ichinose User who is submitting this request for enforcement GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Noto-Ichinose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Rapid additions of the AfD template to BLP articles. No AfDs have actually been created so far, only the templates were added. These are the first edits after the user came off a 72 hour block a few days ago, and after the BLP topic ban was imposed. 18:41, 10 August 2018 UTC 18:42, 10 August 2018 UTC 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 16:38, 6 August 2018 72-hour block for "Disruptive editing--POV editing, edit warring, unwarranted warnings, and finally an ANI boomerang (thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=853728167)" 17:21, 6 August 2018‎ Topic ban from BLP edits 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. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 17:21, 6 August 2018‎ by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint The diffs pretty much speak for themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Wow, nice catch Calton! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [6] Discussion concerning Noto-Ichinose 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 Noto-Ichinose Statement by Calton Can someone run a checkuser? Because at first glance, their most-recent edits seems to follow those of PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk · contribs), who added a slew of PROD tags to the same articles. --Calton | Talk 22:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Noto-Ichinose This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Clear case of go-ahead-block-me-see-what-I-care. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Concur. I'm convinced they don't care. Tiderolls 21:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I disagree with my honourable friends Sarek and Tide rolls; I think it's a case of I-have-no-idea-what-topic-ban-means-and-I-don't-want-to-find-out. It's surprisingly common, and therefore I generally give topic banned editors one vio for free, with a mere warning. This, though, isn't one vio, it's nine, and there was obviously no time to warn. I recommend a 48-hour block. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC). Id block for this, and not for a second shorter than a fortnight, and would be fine with anything up to two months. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC) What Courcelles said. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I'd also look at what Calton said above - all the AfDs were on articles PRODded by User:PaleheadedBrushfinch, who PRODded dozens of articles about notable women, whilst bizarrely creating articles about notable brothels... as for Noto-Ichinose, I'd just indef them now and save ourselves wasting anyone else's time later on. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Hmm, I saw what Calton said, and checked; CU had already been run two weeks ago but nothing came of it, apparently. After Black Kite's comment I figured I might as well see if something was missed, and lo and behold. As for Noto-Ichinose, I blocked them twice: first per NOTHERE since they deserve that, as a timewaster, and then as a CU block. Thank you all, esp. you, Calton. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross

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 Philip Cross

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

KalHolmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Philip Cross (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/BLP issues on British politics articles :

On 26 July 2018, ArbCom indefinitely topic banned User:Philip Cross from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed.

On 9 August 2018, ArbCom enacted a clarification of that remedy by modifying it to read:

"Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."

On 12 August 2018, Cross made a series of edits to the talk page of Wikipedia's BLP Louise Ellman, a British Labour Co-operative politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Liverpool Riverside since 1997.

Wikipedia's relevant policy states in pertinent part:

"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase 'broadly construed.'"

In providing an example of weather-related articles, the policy expressly includes, "and their talk pages [emphasis added]."

Accordingly, Philip Cross's edits to the talk page for Louise Ellman violate ArbCom's topic ban.

This request for enforcement is not about the content of Cross's edits but solely about his flouting of ArbCom's indefinite topic ban just three days after it was clarified. KalHolmann (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning Philip Cross

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 Philip Cross

Self-reverted. I can assume my old edits will be regularly challenged on talk pages by the same handful of users and I have no public means of responding. I was civil to User:RebeccaSaid and AGF. Philip Cross (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As it is raised below, I should point out that I did not know the topic ban applies to talk pages and must thank User:KalHolmann for pointing it out to me. I was not topic banned for my edits, but my off-Wiki behaviour [and the COI issue this created]. The tweets in question from last May, which I admit were problematic, have been deleted. My Wikipedia and Twitter accounts are no longer directly linked. Philip Cross (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Modified with thanks to IP user 121. (etc) below. Philip Cross (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Calton

As User:RebeccaSaid is referring to one of my edits I think I should respond are the first words I see in that edit.

Personally, I'd feel better about this report if it had been done by someone other than Philip Cross'S self-appointed parole officer. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike(Uninvolved)

I second Calton sentiment also the user has self-reverted I think warning will suffice in my opinion --Shrike (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RebeccaSaid

I raised a legit example of double standards regarding sourcing on the BLP of Ellman. It was a valid question, I raised it generally and it wasn't directed at Philip Cross, hence why I didn't ping him. If I was after his opinion I would've asked him on his own Talk Page.

I note the "self-revert" justification is being raised already. as it was in the previous breach. Philip Cross. So editors can effectively ignore their TB & as long as they self-revert after a breach has been raised - that's fine?

With regard to who raised the case, what's that got to with anything? A breach is a breach. It's not like he wasn't advised after his last foray onto pages that fall within his ban.... Word to the wise......... --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by 2017 Complainant

This is the second enforcement case for violations of his topic ban by Philip Cross within a few weeks of the ban being imposed. The first time no action was taken, and it's remarkable that inaction is still being suggested for a second offence committed only days after the first let-off.

Is it normal for early and repeated topic ban violations to be simply ignored in this way? One problematic aspect of the original Philip Cross case, the case that led to the ban, is that the problems with his editing were raised multiple times over many years by multiple people, but nothing was done. Is that pattern of non-accountability to continue on the enforcement of his belated ban? Is it all just a matter of who your friends are?

I note that some editors supported the previous no-action decision only with the proviso that the enforcement case must serve as a warning and that further violations would have to be met with some kind of sanction. Obviously, given that the second offence took place only days later, no such warning effect was actually achieved.

Philip Cross in his statement above did not attempt to deny the ban violation. His position seems to be that he should be able to violate the ban to "respond" to "challenges," relying on self-reversion to get out of trouble when his violations are pointed out. If no enforcement action is taken again this time, then his position will have been effectively accepted by Wikipedia and his topic ban will be nugatory. 121.72.186.230 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross has stated above that he believes that his topic ban was not for his edits but for his taunting of people he dislikes on Twitter while editing their pages. In fact ArbCom applied two sanctions to Philip Cross: a warning and the topic ban. The warning relates to the conflict of interest created by his abuse of certain individuals while editing their BLPs. The ban covering the whole topic of British politics, broadly construed, clearly relates to his non-neutral edits in the area of British politics. Possibly this failure to understand that his editing in the topic area has been problematic has contributed to Philip Cross's obvious lack of respect for his ban. 121.72.186.230 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

(posting here as while I'm uninvolved with this dispute I don't consider myself neutral regarding British politics)

I'm in favour of a short block on this occasion - PC wasn't specifically asked for his opinion on this occasion, the question wasn't one that only he could be reasonably expected to know the answer to, and there can't be many subjects less clearly covered by the topic ban (which was clarified only a few days ago) than a sitting MP. Self-reverting when called out on topic ban violations is not a free pass, and really only cuts the mustard when the violation is borderline or it is done immediately, without prompting, after a good-faith mistake. I'm unconvinced that this was a mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

The edit was a violation of the topic-ban, but rather innocuous -- it was simply a talk page comment providing information, now self-reverted. I would suggest a warning to Philip Cross, and a suggestion to them to simply remove such BLPs from their watchlist. They can create a custom watchlist if they get occasionally curious about how these BLPs are faring nowadays. But having such BLPs on the normal watchlist creates such temptations. Also, directly bringing up these violations with Cross on their talkpage is a more lightweight method, instead of opening an AE request. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Philip Cross

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

• Self-reverted, so I'd close this with a mere caution to Philip Cross to be more mindful of his topic ban in the future, with the advice that future edits and self-reverts may not be looked on so kindly by passing admins. Courcelles (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm actually fine with a block, though I still prefer this line in the sand: If I see another violation of this topic ban, I will block Philip Cross for no less then a month. If, IMO, the violation was deliberate or egregious, I'd make it longer without AE protection. It is time for this topic ban to be taken seriously, whether a short block is issued by Sandstein or another admin for this violation, it absolutely must be the last time. I absolutely cannot be clearer about this point. Courcelles (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not too happy about this series of edits; while PC was posting there in response to queries about content he had previously added, I'm fairly certain he is aware that such a response was still a t-ban violation. I would be okay with a warning on this occasion, but only with the understanding that PC is not going to be cut any more slack. Vanamonde (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  Philip Cross, I find it difficult to believe that as an editor of 14 years standing, with 130k edits and then some under your belt, you are unaware that t-bans apply to every namespace. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• In my view, a block is now necessary to deter Philip Cross from future violations of his topic ban. While it is good that he self-reverted the edit, we shouldn't need to have an AE thread each time this happens. Sandstein 08:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• (My comment here is as an uninvolved administrator, not as an arbitrator, and should receive no more weight than that of any other administrator.) In my opinion, a block is now necessary. A short one, perhaps just 24 hours even, but a block nonetheless. We were just here with another case of boundary-pushing that was not acted on due to what was effectively wikilawyering. If PC receives another warning rather than a meaningful sanction, I see this happening again. If he didn't understand what a topic ban was last time, which I find somewhat dubious, he was given ample opportunity to review the rules. At this point, he is expected to know them. I also note that PC should expect some amount of scrutiny on his past edits, given that they reflected a conflict of interest. Conflict of interests usually attract scrutiny due to the tendency to edit in subtly biased manners, even when there is no direct intent to do so. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Given that there is agreement that this was a topic ban violation, and in consideration of the discussion above, I am blocking Philip Cross for a week. Sandstein 12:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)