Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive209

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

The Rambling Man[edit]

No action is required.  Sandstein  19:14, 22 January 2017 (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 The Rambling Man[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Jusdafax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 11:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 1/21/17 Despite recent warnings not to edit in an insulting way, TRM has once again violated the spirit and letter of his sanctions re: WP:ITN with his declaration that those opposed to his views in opposition to a proposed ITN blurb, regarding the current Donald Trump protests, are "obsessive." In my view this statement is gaslighting, in that the goal is to cast doubt on the mental health of those supporting the proposed ITN blurb. Worth noting: the consensus swang against his increasingly strident opposition to the Trump protests news blurb, which is now featured on the Main Page.)
  2. 1/21/17 The first edit by TRM to the 'Trump protests' ITN blurb discussion is TRM's oppose. Note the derisive and dismissive editorial tone, "all very nice" and "meaningless," the latter repeated in the edit summary.
  3. 1/21/17 As consensus begins to swing against his position, TRM sees fit to deride the position of a supporter, thus violating his sanctions' instructions to disengage. Note the uncivil and mocking disparagement towards a view other than his own, designed to chill discussion.
  4. 1/21/17 Three minutes later, another mocking retort, showing unwillingness to walk away as his sanctions require.
  5. 1/21/17 Two minutes later, still unwilling to let the matter rest, TRM posts on the back of his last. This example is notable for TRM's unnecessary POV editorializing shown against protests in general.
  6. 1/21/17 Again refusing to disengage with the editor, TRM derides their position in violation of his sanctions. Note the needlessly smug superiority in his edit summary, "please." Keep in mind, this is how he acts after resigning his adminship under a cloud, as noted in his sanctions, and which sanctions of October 2016 require civility and for him to disengage, and a subsequent block and further warning 5 weeks ago.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions
  1. 10/13/16 As shown in the diff, "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." Yet he now does so, using the perjoritive "obsessive."
  2. 10/13/16 Again, as shown in the diff, "If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve." Yet after his initial ITN !vote, TRM edits the 'Trump protests' nomination section, as shown in the diffs above, seven more times, clearly unwilling to disengage as consensus began to swing against his position, and clearly in direct violation of the sanctions directing him to avoid this type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.
  3. 12/16/16 The Rambling Man was the subject of an ArbCom enforcement request only five weeks ago, and was again warned, after a three day block at the time of his violations, regarding his previous sanctions.
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 10/13/16 by a 12-0 vote of the Arbitration Committee.
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12/16/16.
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12/16/16.


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Given the evidence presented, a block is required per the sanctions of 10/13/16 and the final warning given 12/16/16. Taken as a whole, the diffs show that TRM continues to be insulting and combative, creating an unwholesome editing environment at ITN for the discussion of sensitive topics. New editors, and even seasoned ones are discouraged by his ongoing repetitive battling to get his way. TRM has been the subject of countless hours of discussion and remedies that remain ineffective. Enough is enough.

  • @User:Sandstein Please read the above, and the linked case and sanctions carefully. The sanctions are specific and direct, and the violations are outlined in my presented difff. Jusdafax 12:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@User:Sandstein I am requesting The Rambling Man be blocked, per the following ArbCom case, as noted specifically above. You appear to request me to copy and paste the sanctions, which are as follows:

4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

  • @User:Harrias Given the sanctions TRM is required to observe, he is in repeated violation of failure to disengage, as directed. This is a clear violation. And calling others' positions "obsessive" is uncivil. Jusdafax 12:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @User:Softlavender and User:Black Kite - Eight replies on one blurb proposal by a sanctioned editor required to disengage seems a clear violation, again, in spirit and substance. I have supplied the diffs openly. I stand by my request. Jusdafax 13:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

notification


Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

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 The Rambling Man[edit]

Statement by Harrias[edit]

Sure, TRM can be insulting and belittling, that is without question. But if these diffs are where we draw the line, then we might as well all give up now. In the majority of these diffs, all TRM is doing is offering counter-arguments. Yes, they are perhaps slightly pointed, but in discussions/debates sometimes it is necessary to try and make a point. Saying that he thinks there is an obsession to get something Trump related on the MP is simply not offensive or belittling, it is a statement of opinion. Most of the rest could be construed as belittling, but of the women's march, not of other users, which is a key distinction. This request just seems like a waste of everyone's time. Let's come back and do this all again if TRM does something actually offensive, eh? Harrias talk 12:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender[edit]

I was fully prepared to knot the noose on this one based on Jusdafax's characterization of the affair, but I read the entire thread [1], and then I also did Control+F to highlight TRM's posts, and I have to say this case in my mind is completely trumped up. In my opinion there is no aggression, insulting, gaslighting, refusal to disengage, or personal attack going on in any of TRM's posts. Jusdafax is deliberately misquoting them, mischaracterizing them, quoting them out of context, and quoting phrases out of context. The worst of them is just TRM's opinion, albeit one that I do not agree with. I don't see that any of the posts violate the sanctions, as they are all mildly stated, no aspersions. In spite of all the disagreement between the various parties in that thread (and TRM's posts are hardly the snarkiest), no one is attacking anyone and no one is out of control, despite the emotions engendered by the subject matter. I don't agree with TRM's position (because having seen the end reports on Twitter I think he greatly underestimated the scope of the Women's Marches, for instance), but I defend his right to have and communicate it as he does there, comparing the protests to other protests or group sizes in order to provide what he believes is some perspective. In no way does he try to bully anyone or dominate the conversation. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: Again, you're not seeing or reading or reporting this clearly. Let's just ask Martinevans123, the editor who you say TRM "refused to disengage with", if he felt that TRM was "refusing to disengage". It seems fairly clear to me that you don't know Martinevans123 very well, or how he likes to engage in banter with others (especially fellow members of the British Commonwealth), which is what that side conversation is. Plus you haven't noted some of the odder points of Martin's edits and edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Do I reply here? Or do I have to make a formal statement? I was shocked by the utter weakness of TRM's oppose vote and decided to take him to task. His dismissive tone was certainly no worse than usual. Mostly friendly banter, I'd say, although I see how others might misinterpret. I don't even feel the slightest bit belittled, if that helps. I'm a bit baffled by the milk comment, though - perhaps it was a sarcastic pandering to my sense of the ridiculous. I've seen TRM adopt a much more friendly and balanced tone of late and I hope that continues (although I have largely given up at DYK, I must admit). I'm still a bit shocked that you suggest that Suffolk is part of the British Commonwealth! Isn't that where that well-known Churchill-bashing evil sock Harvey Carter hails from? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: Three times so far (twice here in your OP and again here) you have claimed that TRM used the word "obsessive", when he has clearly done no such thing [2], nor did he insult or belittle any editor(s). Your other characterizations of the conversation are in error as well. If I were you I would withdraw this filing before it possibly boomerangs on you. Softlavender (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi[edit]

'Eight replies on one blurb proposal' should have been disengaged from? They were eight replies to a blurb proposal which had seven alternative proposals... = eight replies to eight proposals, arguably. That sounds like a full and holistic involvement in a discussion as it evolved. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


Statement by Masem[edit]

(Involved only inso much I was involved in that debate). The topic of discussion was very heated and came off a few previous entries where everyone's tempers were slightly raised (effectively disagreements between what might be being widely covered in news, and the purpose of "in the news", including a few related to recent US political issues). That said, TRM's behavior in this specific case was very much tempered to what I would expect in light of the past decisions. Certainly not the level of incivility that he should be tasked for. There's perhaps a hint of passive-aggressiveness, but certainly no condescending mannerisms or apparent personal attacks. No action should be required. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

I haven't followed the TRM saga in much detail but these allegations are far-fetched, to put it mildly. (Yes, I'm struggling to avoid saying "trumped up.") Suggest closure with a firm warning to the initiator that bringing any more frivolous cases will result in sanctions. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010[edit]

Sarcastic somewhat - Yes, Incivil/belittling - No!, Unless I've gone blind I see nothing here that's block worthy nor I do see the need to bring this here, I would suggest speedy closing this with a strong warning to Justdafax. –Davey2010Talk 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Please specify the remedy or sanction of the case that you think is violated.  Sandstein  12:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would decline to take action because the requesting editor does not indicate which remedy of the case, if any, is to be enforced.  Sandstein  12:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The remedy has now been provided. You did not need to copy-paste it, just name it: Arbitration cases as such are not enforceable, only the remedies they contain. After looking at the remedy and the diffs, I would take no action here. These diffs are not "insulting and belittling"; they are mostly comments on content, not editors, and in any case are not aimed at any specific editor. The report borders on the frivolous, particularly with the allegation of "gaslighting".  Sandstein  13:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of these comments are just sarcastic, really. Converting "I think there's some kind of developing (or developed) obsession to get something or anything about Trump onto the main page" into "editors being obsessive" is pushing it a bit, I think. If I say my son is obsessed with his XBox or my daughter is obsessed with having perfect hair and makeup before she'll step outside the front door, I'm not claiming they're mentally ill. In a discussion where we have "Some generation snowflake bed-wetting muesli-munching sandal-wearing tree-huggers don't like the new guy. Wah, wah wah.", I don't think it's particularly bad. Note: I voted in opposition to TRM in the debate. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If that is so, I recommend that you move your comment out of the section for uninvolved administrators.  Sandstein  13:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Feel free to move it if you think that's correct, but I posted here because I am not recommending action against TRM even though I voted in the opposite way from him. I would have posted in the involved section if I had been on his side in the dispute. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I likewise suggest no sanctions. These allegations are massively (I'm so sorry) Trumped up. If it were any other editor that made these remarks nobody would blink, as it is within the normal bounds of discourse on Wikipedia. If you believe that these sorts of statement should not be the norm than I respect that argument, but that is a problem with the larger Wikipedia culture and not TRM in specific. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that no administrators here think that action is required, I'm closing this request. Any admin who disagrees is free to reopen it.  Sandstein  19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Kingofaces43[edit]

Meritless request. Complainant DrChrissy blocked for one week for topic ban violation and warned of possible further sanctions.  Sandstein  08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Kingofaces43[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [3] A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.
  2. [4] A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.
  3. [5] A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
See here [6]

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Background: Earlier this month at this thread [7], I read that an editor (@Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering[8]. Kingofaces43 replied within 14 mins, but rather than limiting themselves to addressing the wiki-lawyering content, they first attempted to poison the well by bringing up my ARBCOM-GMO topic and interaction ban.[9] Two further edits discussing my GMO sanction were made by Kingoaces43. This harassing behaviour is totally unacceptable. My sanctions have absolutely nothing to do with American politics or a moth. Kingofaces43 claims my comment was battleground behaviour being continued from the GMO case, yet I have not edited in the GMO area for 12 months because of my ban. Kingofaces43 has brought up my sanctions clearly to attempt to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, and to goad me (I am of course unable to discuss my topic ban to defend myself on the page where Kingofaces43 started their mis-behaviour).

Other evidence of recent interaction: Kingofaces43 also states[10] that he and I basically do not interact since my topic ban – again what is the relevance of my topic ban to this thread other than to cast aspersions and as a further attempt to discredit and goad me. Furthermore, Kingofaces43 demonstrates their spectacularly short memory. Less than 30 days ago, I applied at WP:ARCA to have my GMO topic ban lifted.[11] Kingofaces43 made a statement there[12], which they are entitled to do, but to suggest this is not interaction with me is totally misleading, if not a lie.

Why have I brought this to ARBCOM? Kingofaces43 is a very experienced editor and well aware that I am unable to even mention my GMO topic ban on article pages or other noticeboards; bringing this to ARBCOM is the only way I know of seeking action against Kingofaces43 to protect me from this harassment and goading without violating my topic ban. But moreover, ARBCOM have made several strong statements against casting aspersions, including in the GMO case. Kingofaces43’c statements are clearly about the ARBCOM-GMO and arose from that case. I suggest therefore Kingofaces43 comments fall under the same considerations, i.e. they should not be casting aspersions and discretionary sanctions can be imposed.


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[[13]]


@Sandstein, @EdJohnston If I can not bring this to ARBCOM where Kingofaces43's comments clearly relate to the ARBCOM GMO case, then where else do I take it? You seem to be suggesting that any editor can mention another editor's topic ban anywhere in the project to poison the well in the knowledge that they are acting with total impunity. Is this what you are suggesting? DrChrissy (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein Your statement is self-contradictory. In one sentence, you state you do not understand what arbitration case I want to have enforced and then a couple of sentences later you are calling for sanctions against me in the ARBGMO case - precisely the case I have made it patently clear I want enforced. DrChrissy (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: if you can give me information on how I can protect myself from actions such as those of Kingofaces43, I will gladly go away quietly. At the moment, you seem to be suggesting that any editor can come along and start attacking banned editors contrary to WP: CONDUCTTOBANNED - which is a policy. You seem to be supporting Kingofaces43's violation of this policy. DrChrissy (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Kingofaces43[edit]

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 Kingofaces43[edit]

This started with an incident DrChrissy was not involved in. An insect, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi, was named after Donald Trump's hair. I'm an entomologist, so I went to the page to make sure political issues weren't seeping into what should have been a cut and dry scientific description. Unfortunately for avoiding drama, one of the identifying features of this species is size differences of its genitals compared to the other closely related species. This cued comments on Donald Trump's "small hands" and other appendage jokes. This resulted in the AN3 case with the issue of 3RR being broken and these political justifications interfering with talk page content discussion. Because of the latter, I said in the case intro American Politics 2 DS could apply to the situation with no stretch of the imagination (even though it’s completely silly that politics are entering into an insect species page), but said nothing more on that.

Cut back to the GMO ArbCom case. DrChrissy received topic bans prior in part due to battleground behavior and following editors into other topics as part of that. The same thing happened in the justification for their topic ban in GMOs and their interaction ban with Jytdog for the same kind of thing going on towards me here. I also patiently dealt with a lot of this behavior, but I opted not to ask for a one-way interaction ban at ArbCom because I expected the GMO topic ban to prevent such behavior from DrChrissy directed at me. Aside from admin boards discussing their sanctions and appeal, we generally haven’t interacted since ArbCom.

Skip forward to the AN3 case. A mere 13 minutes after I posted the report, DrChrissy was there accusing me of wikilawyering[14] for saying that the American Politics DS apply in that intersection of topics. I don’t think a reasonable person would say they don’t apply, but it is extremely pointy to accuse someone of wikilawyering that at best. It's basically a continuation of the battleground behavior from DrChrissy in the GMO topics that was now proxied over to the AN3 board (not skirting a ban, but continued behavior that usually leads to such sanctions expanding), especially considering how they jumped in. Instead of escalating to AE, I just cautioned this, but they instead tried to claim I was goading them[15][16] while calling for my head as part of their continued battleground behavior. There was no taking advantage or goading per WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED while trying to caution them as I directly pointed out to them previously,[17][18] but they chose to continue misrepresenting and ignoring those reminders (i.e., WP:ASPERSIONS, a principle even amended at GMO ArbCom).

At the end of the day, I think I’m convinced that Sandstein’s one-way interaction ban option is looking like the best option to prevent more of this behavior the way this is escalating. Since I normally don't interact anymore with DrChrissy unless they come into areas I'm working on, and they were pursuing me in this case, this might be a case where it’s viable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by JzG[edit]

This is an attempt to crowbar a dispute into an area where there are DS active. The comments by Kingofaces are legitimate in context (they address behaviour that led to prior sanctions, not the sanctions themselves, still less the content area covered by the sanctions).

DrChrissy is sanctioned in more than one topic area. [19] finds nearly 70 pages of AN/ANI archives mentioning DrChrissy. My personal impression is that DrChrissy abuses process to try to gain advantage in content disputes.

Regardless, there is no AE sanction to apply here. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kyohyi[edit]

Not taking a position one way or another on validity, but this appears to be claiming violations of WP: CONDUCTTOBANNED. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iazyges[edit]

I think that as Trump is a well known and very vocal figure, and the moth is explicitly named after him, it does contain a certain amount of political connection. I must agree with JzG that this does appear akin to process abuse. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

I'm tempted to just put a facepalm here, as there clearly is no violation other than the topic ban violation and generally unhelpful complaint by DrChrissy. But per Regentspark, if there is any way to close this with an STFU to DrChrissy instead of a block, perhaps that would be for the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by username[edit]

Result concerning Kingofaces43[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It seems to me that this request is without merit. The reported diffs do not constitute sanctionable misconduct in any way that I can determine. Moreover, this request does not even indicate which arbitration case it wants to have enforced, so it can't be acted on for this reason alone. The comment by DrChrissy that caused the comments by Kingofaces43 that have been reported here seems to me to be unnecessary at best - admins can very well act on edit warring reports without input from uninvolved bystanders - and needlessly confrontative. Indeed, this very report - not being an instance of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX - is probably a violation of DrChrissy's GMO topic ban. I invite other admins to comment on whether a block and/or a one-way interaction ban of DrChrissy with respect to Kingofaces43 per the WP:ARBGMO discretionary sanctions might be appropriate.  Sandstein  18:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Sandstein that this complaint is without merit. If Kingofaces43 mentions that someone else is banned from GMO that's within his rights and such a mention does not violate the GMO sanctions. As Sandstein observes, this complaint is not an exercise of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX, and as such it may be a violation of DrChrissy's ban. User:DrChrissy should consider withdrawing the complaint now, before more time is spent on it, and forestall the chance you'll be sanctioned for abusing the process. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems unlikely that DrChrissy is going to take the hint to withdraw this, so I suggest we proceed with a one-week block for making a complaint at AE that is not permitted by WP:BANEX. (The editor, while topic banned, can't raise any complaints about the behavior of others on grounds of violation of the same case). And per DrC's comment above, they are asking for enforcement of WP:ARBGMO. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the cited 3RR complaint, DrChrissy said to Kingofaces43, "You might like to frame your edits in fallacious terms that you are not intending to goad, but I will state clearly that I feel like I am being goaded". It looks like DrChrissy insists on interpreting these remarks as an attack on himself by Kingofaces, but I'm not buying it. It's like he is saying, "I insist that you attacked me, and I won't let you deny it." EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The various diffs linked by the complainant don't seem particularly bothersome to me. I also think that they are being a trifle disingenuous with @Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering without mentioning the glaring connection Mr. Trump. I'm not familiar with the back story here (the GMO topic ban) but a block does seem in order. (Though, if I may add, I've seen some good work by DrChrissy recently so if a block can be avoided, I'm happy to support that too.)--regentspark (comment) 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Taking into consideration the comments above, I'm closing this with a one-week block of DrChrissy and a warning that repeating this behavior can lead to additional sanctions such as an interaction ban.  Sandstein  08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Holanthony[edit]

The appeal of the BLP topic ban is declined.  Sandstein  17:48, 30 January 2017 (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 
Holanthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Holanthony (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Indefinitely topic-banned from editing in the BLP topic area, specifically "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace".
Administrator imposing the sanction 
BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
Holanthony failed to notify me as required, but I confirm I am aware (thanks, Sandstein). BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Holanthony[edit]

I feel the topic ban was imposed unfairly and rashly without having been given a chance to respond. It originally stems from an unrelated personal/private dispute I have had with an elderly man that uses the username "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" on Wikipedia. He has now chosen to take this matter to a whole different level in a desperate attempt at petty revenge online. I can assure you dead to rights that he will try to protest this appeal with all his might and present further accusations and so-called "evidence", all of which I could easily stave these off had I had the chance to respond and by referring to WP:POTKETTLE, listing the number of violations this user has perpetrated. I will not however, for two reasons, 1. my topic ban would prevents me from discussing BLP related incidents. 2. I'm going to stick withWP:SCWTEGH for now. I also request that this user is disqualified from this discussion as he is an involved editor. By the same token, I also ask that BethNaught also be disqualified as they are no longer uninvolved as per WP:UNINVOLVED. Adding to this, BethNaught has also written on my talk page, accusing me of being a liar and having done various things (that were untrue) and said that they were not "sympathetic" towards me, so I have no reason to expect a fair and objective treatment from them [20]. Having said this, I believe the sanction was too harsh and one-sided and if it is to remain, I request that it be time-limited.

Statement by BethNaught[edit]

I will try to deal with what Holanthony says in order so I apologise for a lack of eloquence.

I certainly did not impose the sanction rashly. HW's request was made at 06:03 10 January and I saw it about an hour later. I handed down the sanction at 14:35 the same day. I did this after several hours of consideration and examination of the evidence presented. I don't think it was unfair that Holanthony wasn't notified before this, because he was warned at ANI on 29 June that further problematic BLP edits would lead to sanctions, and received a DS alert. I did examine all the evidence provided. Some diffs were better or worse than others but I pointed out two serious examples in the sanction and especially in light of the ANI I think the topic ban was reasonable. I do not believe that I was ever WP:INVOLVED as I have only interacted with Holanthony in an administrative capacity (to the best of my recollection). I did accuse Holanthony of lying: his revenge AE request against HW contained the claim: HW was "Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 28 September 2016 by Bjelleklang". That was linked to this diff. Not only is this diff not what it purports to be, but WP:AC/DS/L contains no log of a DS against HW (unless the search function in my browser is broken). Also, the reason I was unsympathetic to Holanthony's unblock request was because of the revenge report, not because of any bias.

When considering whether to make the sanction I debated very carefully with myself whether it was proper for me just to make it, instead of referring to AE. I knew that Holanthony might try to paint me as being a lackey of HW or as being used by them. But I did it nevertheless because of Holanthony's egregious behaviour on BLPs. BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: The wording could be improved upon, but if you look at the DS log, indefinite topic bans are commonplace. Some are by individual adminstrators. BethNaught (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]

@Lankiveil: This came to my attention some days after it was posted, and I don't really have anything new to add to the accurate comments below. I believe the problems with Holanthony's BLP editing are amply demonstrated by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/AE evidence draft, and his failure to appreciate basic elements of the relevant DS is conveyed by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208#Statement_by_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Holanthony[edit]

  • I've looked several times, but I see no valid grounds for appeal in Holanthony's statement, simply the clear fact that he doesn't like it. There is no discussion about whether the ban was appropriate, or whether Beth Naught had the right at the time to impose the sanction. The stuff about HW seems totally irrelevant, and whether BN is "involved" now (if she is, which does not appear to me to be the case) has no bearing on whether she was involved then, when she imposed the sanction. I would suggest that the appeal be denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have ever seen a less convincing appeal for anything. Her appeal seems to be solely based on the actions of others, and no one has questioned them. Also failed to notify topic-banning admin, which could be seen as suspicious. I also suggest it be denied. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Holanthony[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is one of the most unimpressive appeals I've seen for a long time. There's basically nothing to it except personal attacks and unsubstantiated complaints about other editors (see WP:NOTTHEM), but not a word about the only thing that matters: the appellant's own conduct for which they were presumably sanctioned. I can't check anything about the actual sanction because it is not linked to in the appeal. The only sort-of-relevant argument here is the allegation of bias with respect to BethNaught - but this allegation is not only very unconvincing, but the one diff provided in its support postdates the topic ban and cannot therefore be grounds for appealing the topic ban. I would decline the appeal and warn Holanthony that more appeals in this vein may lead to blocks. (If anybody considers it pertinent, Holanthony was recently blocked by me for violating the topic ban they now appeal).  Sandstein  21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm incorrect, but based on the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions, I was under the impression that indefinite topic bans could not be imposed by a single administrator under discretionary sanctions, only topic bans of up to one year. Is "of up to one year" meant to modify all sanctions in that sentence, or only blocks? ~ Rob13Talk 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocks are up to one year, but bans can be of any duration. Look at WP:DSLOG for examples. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Holanthony was notified of the ban in this diff on their talk page on 10 Jan. Holanthony was warned about BLP editing in a previous ANI from July 2016. There are other diffs in BethNaught's notice. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing anything in this appeal which would indicate that BethNaught was wrong to apply the ban. There is a procedural argument about failure to be notified, but in my view Holanthony should have been aware that there were concerns about his editing of BLP based on this edit. That being said, the ban is indefinite, not infinite. There are plenty of articles that are not BLPs that need love, and I'd encourage Holanthony to go and make positive contributions to them and give us a reason to trust them on BLPs again. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC).
  • Decline, the sanction is reasonable under the circumstances and after appropriate warnings. If Holanthony wishes to reduce it to a time limited sanction then they can appeal after (at least) six months of editing other areas of the encyclopaedia without any problems. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering that no administrator (or indeed any other editor) is in favor of lifting the ban, I am closing the appeal as declined.  Sandstein  17:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88[edit]

I think there's a clear consensus this isn't going anywhere, and events have overtaken it at any rate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:40, 1 February 2017 (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 Hijiri88[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hijiri88: Topic ban (II) : stating, and I quote here, "Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 30 January 2017 WikiProject Japan question about "Japanese reading of the title of a Chinese poem?"
  2. 30 January 2017 second edit in same section
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Feel free to call it nitpicking, but I have to assume asking a question about Japanese readings of material on the WikiProject Japan talk page qualifies as discussing Japanese culture. If I'm wrong, then having some sort of clear indication to that effect here would be useful, I think.

With the link provided below, I note that edits of this sort are permitted, although there is nothing on the arb page itself to that effect, and I would be willing to withdraw the request on the basis of that information. Unfortunately, I saw no reference to it on the arb page itself, and I think it would be useful for such material to be there as well. Also, it appears that as once again my actions are being questioned, I hit the wrong link once when filing the request for arbitration, that of Hijiri88's recent edits, and saw the discussion there. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
In response to the two arbs below, please note that I did indicate above my willingness to withdraw the request. Should that have been made more explicit, by my saying I wish to withdraw the request? John Carter (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
As I think is obvious from earlier discussions, I think I have before today only ever dealt at all with one request for clarification/amendment archived on the talk page, regarding possible expansion of a failed request regarding a proposed amendment to new religious movements, and in that instance I had to ask the arb who started it where the material was available sometime later. While I acknowledge that could be taken as being a WP:CIR issue of a sort, and acknowledge that, I also would have thought by now that maybe someone might have noticed and mentioned the request to withdraw this as well. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I have noted the starting of an ANI thread about this one while this one is ongoing by OID seems extremely questionable at best, and, perhaps, a form of FORUMSHOPPING by the individual doing so. Once again, I note his remarkable interest in this matter, and his regular comments, which are particularly interesting considering his own apparently very poorly-informed comment at the first ANI could reasonably be seen as being, in a sense, what precipitated much that followed. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, noting that my request to withdraw was at least implicitly made before the first admin responded, at 21:45 as can be seen here, two minutes before Sandstein's response here. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
There is the question of who was most involved in creating the dramahfest of this matter, and, honestly, whether that was me or OID, whose own conduct in this matter might be considered open to question. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notification here.

Discussion concerning Hijiri88[edit]

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 Hijiri88[edit]

Is this a joke?

ArbCom explicitly told me I am allowed cite Japanese sources when writing articles about non-Japanese topics, and I asked WikiProject Japan for help in formatting the name of a Japanese ref in an article on a Chinese poet.

On top of that, why is John Carter still following my edits? What about the TBAN?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't read JC's additional comment until just now. I saw that I was being reported and by whom I was being reported, and immediately knew what he was talking about (I checked the link to verify it). If John Carter has such a poor understanding of the difference between "Chinese" and "Japanese" culture, he should not be reporting edits like this even if it were not a ban-violation (and this isn't even the first time this has happened[21]). Asking for specific clarification each time this happens (on AE and not ARCA, mind you) is wikilawyering; the necessary clarification was already made last March. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sandstein: Sorry for the poor wording. It's a scholarly dissertation by a professor of Chinese literature at Tsukuba University, not an "essay"., as anyone who reads it can clarify. I was very careful to write an article about Li He rather than, say, Bai Juyi, because it's theoretically possible to write an FA about the former wihout mentioning his (negligible) relationship with Japanese culture. It's actually pretty hard trying to essentially prove a negative like that, which is one of about a dozen reasons I plan on appealing my TBAN in the near future. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

I have to admit that I have a little bit of history with both editors. I've agreed with both at different times, and disagreed with both at different times, the former more often with Hijiri and the latter more often with John. That being said, I'm a little concerned about this request. The edits in question seem to me to be more personally motivated than motivated by any intention to edit in the area of the topic ban, though the latter remains a possibility. However, the fact that this report was filed rather than a warning issued speaks poorly of the OP, who has been in conflict with Hijiri88 in the recent past. Combined with this Arbcom request which was made earlier today, I'm concerned about the possibility of the OP hounding Hijiri. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by 129.9.75.191[edit]

Doing a quick perusal of the edits of Hijiri88 at WP:Japan, they were asking about how to stylize an essay title in regards to a poem written by a Chinese Poet. How is this Japanese Culture and how does the ban apply? 129.9.75.191 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Just to note: John Carter and Hijiri88 are the subjects of a recently imposed Interaction Ban [22], and I'm not certain that John Carter's filing here is allowed by WP:BANEX. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal of this request is a good thing, but is it enough to give John Carter a mulligan? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox[edit]

Sigh. So I closed the ANI last week that ended with these two being interaction banned. John Carter asked me on my talk page if filing an arbitration request would be allowed and I said I believed it would be, so that's on me if that isn't the case. I would say that when he said "request for arbitration" I took that in the literal sense of an WP:RFAR and not an enforcement request. Frankly I was hoping he wouldn't do anything at all and just move on, which was kind of the whole point of an interaction ban, but here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at this the more it does in fact look like a violation of the iban. He told me he was already planning a request but this enforcement request is about edits that happened today, well after he was told to just stay away from Hijiri88. There is no reason he should still be following his edits and stirring up more drama, my response to his question was based on him filing a request based on things that had already transpired between the two of them, not stalking his edits looking to get him. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID[edit]

As the admins here are disinclined to boomerange this obvious violation of a community imposed sanction, I have raised this at ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sturmgewehr88[edit]

Pitching my two cents after the fact, but this is an obvious case of wikilawyering, which John Carter has a history of doing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Hijiri88[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • As a matter of first impression, it does seem to me that the edit by Hijiri88 about a "Japanese essay" on Chinese poetry violates their topic ban from Japanese culture because an essay as a piece of literary criticism is part of culture in a broad sense. Nonetheless the violation is borderline because the substance of the edits (and pages) is not about Japanese culture, but rather Chinese poetry. There are no prior violations by Hijiri88 on the record. I recommend closing this with a warning to Hijiri88. As to the apparent violation of a community-imposed interaction ban by John Carter, it is out of scope on this page because it is not a matter of arbitration enforcement, and any discussion about it should take place elsewhere.  Sandstein  21:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Editing at WikiProject Japan and asking about how to romanize something in Japanese is too much of a grey area for my liking. If Hijiri88 really wants to steer clear of his topic ban, he shouldn't be anywhere near that WikiProject if you ask me, as one could certainly make the argument that WikiProject Japan is "related to Japanese culture". That said, this filing is extremely ill-considered and I think John Carter should be blocked for violating the iban. That's not a matter for this board, however. --Laser brain (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • My two cents is that while this is a grey area, the clarification request that Hijiri88 links to would seem at face value to allow this. If it is a technical violation, I think that we could reasonably let Hijiri88 off the hook. It may be worth confirming with ArbCom whether they consider this sequence of events to be within the spirit of the restrictions. That said, there is nothing "technical" about John Carter's breach of the interaction ban, especially given that it relates to such a trivial matter. I’d be comfortable with a short block to emphasise that the community is serious about an end to the drama. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC).
  • Not opining on the merits here, but noting that (1) John Carter has asked to withdraw the request, and (2) there is a pending request for arbitration between the same parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC) And there is also an ongoing ANI thread. Geez. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything rising to the level of an AE issue here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

RudiLefkowitz[edit]

RudiLefkowitz is topic-banned from US politics-related BLPs.  Sandstein  08:49, 2 February 2017 (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 RudiLefkowitz[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
RudiLefkowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

(see additional comments by editor filing complaint for additional diffs evincing problematic behavior which occurred prior to the imposition of DS.)

  1. 21:03, 28 January 2017 This is well after the DS sanctions had been imposed, and Rudi had been warned by the admin that his editing was disruptive and a BLP policy violation. Note that while he's addressed the first complaints about his edit (that Milo's not a practicing jew) by choosing an ethnicity-oriented category this time, he's still not addressing the fact that most RSes question Milo's claim of having a Jewish grandmother.
  2. 21:45, 28 January 2017 Edit warring again.
  3. 17:51, 29 January 2017 At this point, he decides to make a pointy edit, removing a category from the page pertaining to Milo's ethnicity. In reverting this, admin Ad Orientem warns Rudi that he's "about one disruptive edit away from a topic ban."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 03:10, 30 January 2017 Blocked by EdJohnston for edit warring at this article. Rudi's first edit after the block expired (aside from blanking his talk page) was back on the Milo talk page, jumping right back into the subject as if nothing had happened.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Problematic edits prior to the imposition of DS

  1. 13:14, 23 January 2017 This was the initial edit which kicked it off. Rudi clearly understood that Milo is accepted to be a practicing Catholic, yet nonetheless took to adding a category reserved for practicing Jews.
  2. 13:30, 23 January 2017‎ After being reverted, he proceeded to edit war the category back in (this was prior to the imposition of DS on this page, with Rudi's edits being the reason for their imposition)
  3. 13:36, 23 January 2017‎ He then proceeded to edit other parts of the article, replacing attributed claims with the same claims in wikivoice (stated as facts) to support his case.
  4. 14:12, 23 January 2017 He then continues to edit war his claims into the article
  5. 14:13, 23 January 2017 He also continued to edit war his preferred category back in. Notice the broken category.
  6. 15:02, 23 January 2017 Continuing to edit war the broken category back in; accusing other editors of "cherry picking" and "censor"ing him in the edit summary. (Note that by this point, the problems with his edit have been explained to him multiple times at talk.)

In addition to the diffs above, Rudi has engaged in forum shopping and canvassing in order to attempt to force the rest of us to accept his views.

The source of the problem seems to be a potent case of selective dyslexia. Rudi's tactic throughout this has been to ignore any criticism of his arguments, and simply to repeat those arguments ad nauseum. It has been pointed out to him numerous times that RSes are highly skeptical of Milo's claimed Jewish ancestry, yet Rudi simply presumes that his one source which treats the claims as facts (in a passing mention, no less) must be accurate and ignores the rest. He's never once responded to anyone pointing out that the preponderance of RSes don't take Milo's claim seriously. Instead, he has taken to hinting at antisemitic motives for those of us opposed to his edit.

@MjolnirPants:: What you have just said is blatantly false! I never thought or wrote something that would "hint at antisemitic motives"! If you did not concoct up what you just wrote then you have grossly misread. The accusation of "forum shopping" is only correct in that I was erroneously trying venues that I thought could be relevant without knowing them, (no harm intended). Have not been in severe arguments before, so no need of them. On the charge of canvassing, I plead a bit guilty after familiarising myself with what that "charge" meant. Tried getting people on bord to argue against, in my humble view, "politicised editing and censorship" (i.e. WIKIPEDIA:NOTADVOCATE). But throwing in inappropriate words like "dyslexia" is very uncouth and reveal's your true colours. I have never stooped so low with anyone, even with you, and hope for an sincere apology. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, at the talk page, his level of engagement with others is highly questionable, and his editing style is highly disruptive. For example, after Rudi posted this comment, I attempted to respond multiple times for approximately 20 minutes, only to get an edit conflict every single time. Compare the difference between his initial edit and the current (as of now) version: even if I'd gotten my response posted, it would have been a response to an edit which, substantially, no longer exists. This level of difficulty in responding to him has been the rule since this drama started. It is not unusual for Rudi to continue making numerous minor and major edits to his comments for up to 45 minutes after initially posting them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)



Responses


@Shrike:, There are three notices shown, notice of BLP DSes was given at Rudi's talk on the 23rd, and notice of the US politics ds and the 1rr restriction given on the talk page on the 23rd, as well. Considering that Rudi edited the talk page 34 times between then and the DS notice on his user page, claims that he wasn't aware of the DSA sanctions are highly spurious. Nonetheless, I have moved diffs of all edits prior to the imposition of sanctions (which happened at the same time as the notice at the talk page) to this section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to everyone involved: This is not a content dispute. With respect to the content dispute, there is a fairly obvious consensus at the talk page. This is about the disruption Rudi has been causing to the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Two things: First, you are completely ignoring the fact that numerous RSes have questioned or expressed skepticism as to his claim of having Jewish ancestry in order to create this false impression of the argument being about whether a BLP subject is a sufficiently reliable source for such claims. That's extremely dishonest. The reason for the current content dispute, which has been explained to both of you before, by more than one editor, is that the RSes question this claim. It's not because it came from the subject. Second, even assuming you were absolutely correct, I'd have to ask you to point me to the part of WP policy which states that it's okay to violate policy if you think you're right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Excluding my responses to other editors here and my signature, and including the list of diffs at the top, the additional comments are only 438 words long. Diff 1 occurred after DS had been imposed, and constituted the 6th problematic edit since Rudi began pushing this issue. There are 6 edits prior to the imposition of DS on this article at the top of this section. I do not consider the first edit to be problematic per se, but useful in establishing the timeline. There is a clear slow edit war going on, here. Furthermore, my comments point out and provide diffs to evidence serious disruption of the talk page, and a threat to make mass pointy edits. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[23]


Discussion concerning RudiLefkowitz[edit]

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 RudiLefkowitz[edit]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

It's very hard for me to comment without violating guidelines so I'll be brief. There is ample evidence that Milo's mother and grandmother is Jewish. In addition, Milo stated, "I am a gay Jew." As for the categories, there are two categories in question, one was British Jews and one is British of Jewish descent. Even if you don't want to say Milo is Jewish, he is clearly of Jewish descent since he is descended by his mother. Furthermore, Milo self-identified as being Jewish when he said, "I am a gay Jew." Wikipedia is not the place to judge someone's level of religiousness. I have no comment on the behavior of Rudi other than I took a peek at the userpage and just saw edits and comments, nothing disruptive, he is of course one against many, it's extremely difficult to be right when faced with just so many wrong editors. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

OID, Halacha is irrelevant in this case. Milo said he is a Jew. So we don't need to see what others say or determine. He self-identified as a Jew. And even if he's not a Jew, he is descended by his mother, so he is of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Masem, forgetting that Milo said he's Jewish, wouldn't the fact that his mother is Jewish make him of "Jewish descent?" Again, there are two categories under discussion, one is identifying Milo as a Jew, and one is identifying his as being of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Mpants, but he has a point though. All those on his list that are of "... Jewish descent" how is that different than Milo who is of Jewish descent?Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, there are two Jew stories here, one Milo said he is a Jew and two, Milo has Jewish ancestry. It's also irrelevant why he chose to self-identify. I'm not commenting on the behavior here, I'm just saying that Milo has said he's Jewish and the sources also say that he is of Jewish ancestry. That some people don't like that fact is irrelevant. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Masem, no you are so very wrong. We do not require someone of Jewish descent to be of original bloodline from thousands of years ago in the Middle East. Same as how we have "of Italian descent" or of "Muslim descent". His grandmother/mother is Jewish so he is of Jewish descent. He is also of Greek descent from his father. He is of British descent from his mother (I assume, haven't checked the cats). We use basic common sense, if someone is Jewish, their descendants are of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike[edit]

The notice was given on 29/01 so any edits before it are irrelevant to this request.Is only about 1 diff.--Shrike (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike I placed a 1RR discretionary sanctions notice on the talk page of Milo Yiannopoulis on 23 Jan 2017. A 1RR edit notice was placed on the article on 24 Jan 2017. It is not possible to edit the article w/o seeing this notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID[edit]

This is an ongoing issue due to the dual nature of Jewish religion/ethnicity. Essentially the argument boils down to 'Is Milo an ethinic or religious Jew and should we categorise them as such'. Lets get the religious aspect out of the way: Milo is not a religious Jew as he is a self-professed practicing catholic. Therefore no Jewish-religious categories are appropriate regardless of how anyone else feels about it. Is Milo an ethnic Jew/of Jewish descent? This is the more problematic question, Halakha states he is - assuming his statement about his maternal grandmother is correct - and there is plenty of criticism/doubt about this out here - generally along the lines of 'Milo claims a Jewish relative in order to deflect criticism of anti-semitism'. The local consensus has been (in this situation with this specific biography) not to categorise them as such due to the various issues (we dont write articles deferring to a Jewish Religious Law interpretation - Halakha is not even observed by all modern jews (or historically in some areas), we dont have details on his grandmother who may have been religious but not an ethinic Jew, there is substantial doubt even regarding said claims etc etc) and to include where necessary in the prose of the article. This of course infuriates the Jew-taggers who feel the need to tag every celebrity they can as Jews. Even in the above post by Sir Joseph (someone who if you frequent the BLP noticeboards you can see also has strong views on who is/isnt a Jew) he comments on 'Wikipedia is not the place to judge someone's level of religiousness.' - well we dont need to. Milo is 100% not a religious Jew. 'he is clearly of Jewish descent since he is descended by his mother.' - this is a common view of those who do not accept the difference between ethnicity and religion. But to sum up - Rudi's arguments have been listened to and taken into account at the talkpage and rejected. And this disruption is still going on. Categories and infoboxs on biographies of living people are for clear and unambiguous facts, not ambiguous issues (which of course can be explored in the prose) - even more so when it enters core contentious areas like religion, ethnicity (and sexuality although not in this case) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Bradv[edit]

I was asked to contribute here on my talk page. I have no horse in this race—I showed up after a request for a third opinion was posted, which I declined because there were more than two editors involved. That discussion closed (with a consensus not to identify the subject as Jewish), and then RudiLefkowitz promptly opened a new discussion regarding the same/similar thing. I don't think there is a need for ArbCom enforcement here—this is a simple case of one person with a very strong opinion who edits in a slightly disruptive style. We thought we had a consensus a few days ago, but now it seems like it might be more complicated than we initially thought, and it's time to get some more input on this.

I would like to ask RudiLefkowitz if he would agree to abide by the result of an RFC. If he agrees to that, this discussion here would probably be unnecessary. Bradv 18:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

After seeing this, I think I may need to adjust my position. RudiLefkowitz is basically threatening to go on a rampage just to make his point. Some intervention is clearly needed. Bradv 19:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rudi[edit]

Removed: As User:Sandstein stated that; categories concerning ethnicity or religion should be applied to a certain article or not is a content dispute. Arbitration, and by extension arbitration enforcement, does not decide content disputes. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Anew: Rudi's statement[edit]

*@Sandstein: invites me to address WP:POINT, also in the conext of of this
I'm just pointing a future course of action I will soon start to remove/add categories which is contingent on the answer, final outcome and verdict ...you Are What You Say You Are!? What to do? Should we remove the Category:Jewish atheists completely?
at the very same time I'm also continuing to ask for a speedy conclusion, so editing can resume in one or another way: Ex: This is a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly! If we don't resolve the question of adding/removing category concerning descent, we will have this discussion all over again on another talk page! It will be Déjà vu! We must avoid being totally engulfed in ideological fads and try to find a principle that can be used equally in other articles. Maybe we should soon move to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom. Regards, RudiLefkowitz - RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
the same logic runs trough all of my statements and is discernible also here : I think a review/recommendation from a few Wikipedia administrators would be needed to validate user:MrX claim about what constitutes a "poor" source. Are the above mentioned "poor" sources and does reporting oneself, one's background make it any less valid? I would like to get this confirmed, before I will systematically apply it on all feature Wikipedia biographical articles. Thanks, RudiLefkowitz - RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The logical and totally congruent tone of my argument have been in harmony with my statement that: For some reason this biography in question has been targeted for special a overzealous scrutiny to prevent adding a category that would normally be the conventional common practice in Wikipedia. In my humble opinion, we should take inspiration from Kant ’s categorical imperative and try to Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.''
I once agin wrote in the altogether familiar logical and responsive spirit, waiting for directives, on Ad Orientem's talk page: We cannot afford anymore a coram non judice situation and urgently need reasoned and authoritative guidance. Maybe Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom or?
If things are read in context and in it's totality the style and tone of the replies do not raise questions of WP:COMPETENCE. Arduously working and pushing for good reasoned principles in editing and arriving at them as ASP and then back to the salt mines! Spirited, - so be it. Things should be read in context! We should not sweep this under the rug, but as User Talk:Masem put it, set a framework to how to properly use these various terms in a manner that avoids disputes like this. Nothing can be done if some one want's to draw blood by twisting my one sentence outside context and not reading everything. Please be kind and solve this issue it by creating a general, prospective, coherent, clear, and practicable framework. That's hard, but slapping me on the wrist, will be easy and a just going a bit over the top. Writing and wrenching about the whole issue is misery enough. I give up. Thank you. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: The accusation of "forum shopping" is only correct in that I was erroneously trying venues that I thought could be relevant without knowing them, (no harm intended). Have not been in severe arguments before, so no need of this "forums". I hope you have read my arguments above and could entertain the argument that there can be no real "threat", if the intended action is in contingent with asking for a final recommendation and speedy conclusion, and thus being able proceed on that very note in a systematic way. Where is the harm in underlining the urgency of the matter and waiting for a response? Please explain, so I could understand. But please read the mentioned texts above. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I end by quoting anonymously a person who participated in the even earlier debates concerning the wilful censoring and removal of references and sources indicating Mr. Yiannopoulos background and descent by a cadre of editors with possible other underlying motives. - And this is why Wikipedia is a joke. Do what you want to the article, I'm taking it off my watchlist. As always, bias wins over truth. - So going on a sabbatical. Tired and fed up with the endless use of wikipedia for politically charged edits, bad tempered blaming and then snitching. And as always -Thank you. I apologise, if someone felt abrasively confuted. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ad Orientem[edit]

Coming Soon: I have been on the road all day and just returned home. My inbox is overflowing. Give me a few to get caught up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Ok. I think I am pretty much up to speed on this. First I want to clarify that my involvement in this dispute has been purely as an Admin trying to put a lid on edit warring and what appeared to be a heated content dispute on an article dealing with one of the more controversial figures in modern politics. I have taken no position on the underlying dispute. Which is to say I am not INVOLVED in the content dispute. That said I wish to make the following points after which I will make some conclusions.
    • On January 23 I placed a Discretionary Sanctions Notice on the talk page of Milo Yiannopoulis specifically applying WP:1RR.
    • On January 24th I placed a 1RR Edit Notice on the article itself. It was therefore not possible to edit the article w/o being aware that it was subject to 1RR and other discretionary sanctions.
    • On January 26 the first discussion regarding the question of MY's Jewish identity/ancestry was closed with a strong consensus against identifying him as Jewish. Towards the end of this debate Rudi had changed his position to one of inserting a category identifying MY as being of Jewish Descent, vice actually being Jewish.
    • During the course of this dispute and after being warned about his obsessive editing, Rudi launched multiple appeals in different venues in what has been described, accurately I believe, as FORUMSHOPPING.
    • Subsequently Rudi opened another discussion concerning the claim of MY's Jewish descent.
    • During this period I cautioned Rudi on his talk page that his editing was becoming tendentious and appeared to be agenda oriented to the point of being an obsession. He was reminded by myself and others that discretionary sanctions were in effect.
    • On January 28 Rudi reinserted the disputed category claiming MY's Jewish descent. This was subsequently reverted by Bradv. There followed a very short edit war in which both parties violated 1RR. After issuing cautions to both, Bradv admitted his lapse and self reverted and I then restored the last pre-edit war version. I decided in my edit summary to treat the matter as good faith editing if lacking in good judgement and chose not to impose any sanctions.
    • On January 29 Rudi made an edit, already discussed by other parties, that was clearly a violation of WP:POINT and in my opinion was disruptive. I immediately reverted the edit and warned Rudi that he was courting a topic ban.
    • On January 30 Rudi was blocked for 48hrs for the January 28 edit warring following a complaint filed by Bradv. I was not involved in this.
    • Today on 1 February Rudi left a notice on my talk page, already discussed by other involved parties above, threatening a series of edits that are in my opinion both POINTY and DISRUPTIVE.
  • Conclusions We have reached the point where Rudi's editing has crossed the line from aggressive advocacy for a position in a content dispute to tendentious editing and now disruptive edtiting and threats of more disruptive editing in an effort to make a WP:POINT. Although I am technically not involved in the underlying dispute, out of an abundance of caution I am going to recuse myself from taking any administrative action here myself. That said...
  • I propose that Rudi be topic banned from Milo Yiannopoulis and any categories or discussion of categories relating to persons who are, or who are suspected of being, either Jewish or of Jewish descent. I would leave open the possibility of requesting a review of the topic ban after two years, conditional on his strictly abiding by it. It is clear that Rudi is obsessed with this subject and his editing has become disruptive.
  • I further propose that Rudi be blocked for a period of not less than two weeks for posting threats of disruptive editing on my talk page. If the AE request had not been posted, I would simply do all this myself based on his threats left on my talk page. But again, out of extreme caution I will let another admin deal with this as they see fit.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MrX[edit]

RudiLefkowitz's unhealthy obsession with the need to describe Yiannopoulos as Jewish has become very disruptive. He has ignored policy-based argument from multiple editors, cited weak-to-poor sources, misrepresented sources, used original research, repeated arguments ad nauseum, threatened to disrupt other articles, edit warred, and forum shopped. Based on my limited involvement with the article, I believe a topic ban of some sort is in order.- MrX 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning RudiLefkowitz[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Only commenting to affirm a key point in OID's statement: there is a long-standing Wiki-wide issue of differentiating the term "Jewish" between bloodline/genetics-related meaning, and the faith-based meaning, in conjunction with how Jewish practice can seem to conflate the terms, which often gets into long-winded battles. I think a separate RFC is needed to have some wiki-consistent policy about making sure the difference between these terms is 100% crystal clear for purposes of writing an encyclopedia. This specific case seems the latest argument over the terminology issue. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Sir Joseph: The problem that I know we've discussed before is the meaning of the phrase "Jewish descent" in a context-less manner. This implies, in every normal context outside the Jewish religion, that it is bloodline-related to the original Jewish tribes from the Middle East. It is complicated by the aspect of Jewish religion that says that regardless of ancestry a child of a practicing member of the Jewish faith can call themselves of Jewish descent. It is yet further complicated that there were discrete Jewish tribes that were not created by the Diaspora (eg Ethopian Jews). Hence the need for a discussion to set a framework to how to properly use these various terms in a manner that avoids disputes like this, while both respecting the Jewish faith definitions but without sacrificing our own clarity. There's behavioral problems at play at this AE, but this fundamentally rests on a standing content problem that needs to be solved. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Whether certain categories concerning ethnicity or religion should be applied to a certain article or not is a content dispute. Arbitration, and by extension arbitration enforcement, does not decide content disputes. We only address violations of conduct rules. The diffs submitted as evidence in the complaint do not all establish such violations. As to diff 1, adding "Category:British people of Jewish descent" to an article is, in and of itself, merely a content issue, and the complaint does not make clear how it violates conduct policy (such as WP:BLP). As to diff 2, a single (apparent) revert is not sufficient to constitute edit-warring; and in any case the user was apparently blocked for such after the edit at issue, which makes it moot for sanctioning at this time. Diff 3 is the only one that could be actionable per WP:POINT, also in the light of this, and I invite RudiLefkowitz to address this. (I have not read all of the additional comments by MPants at work because they by far exceed the 500 words limit.)  Sandstein  20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The also overlong reply by RudiLefkowitz is unhelpful. They go on and on and in a confusing manner about the content dispute, which as explained is irrelevant here, and to the extent they address the WP:POINT issues, they do not do so convincingly; indeed, the style and tone of their reply raises questions of WP:COMPETENCE. Based on this, I think a topic ban from US politics BLPs might be appropriate. I'd like to hear from Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) first, though, who has been following this as an admin.  Sandstein  21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This (and the similar posting above) suggests that some sort of restriction is necessary. That reads to me like threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Taking into account the contributions in this discussion, including those by Ad Orientem in their capacity as an admin, it appears clear that there is a conduct problem with RudiLefkowitz at least insofar as they have threatened to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and have not addressed or recognized this problem in their somewhat ... disjointed reply (which they have edited multiple times). The overly excited tone and tenor of RudiLefkowitz's reply also leads me to believe that they are temperamentally not well suited to collaborative editing in a politically charged environment. Accordingly, RudiLefkowitz is topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from editing anything related to biographies of living persons (BLPs) closely related to the post-1932 politics of the United States (including, for the avoidance of doubt, Milo Yiannopoulos). They are invited to appeal this ban after six months by showing evidence of productive, collegial collaboration in other BLP-related articles.  Sandstein  08:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Kuioooooo[edit]

No action taken.  Sandstein  13:43, 7 February 2017 (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 Kuioooooo[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Kuioooooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Feb 5 20:53 I removed the claim that his loan from an Israeli bank is a government connection.
  2. Feb 6 16:12 He then reverts, violating DS by not seeking consensus for a challenged edit.
  3. I then revert back to the way it was prior to his violation of DS, (using my 1revert in the process).
  4. Feb 6 16:14 He then reverts me violating his 1RR and DS for not seeking consensus.


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Even before my alert, he has been reverting other users without gaining consensus. Furthermore, this sentence of his, "He has received multiple loans from Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, a publicly held banking corporation organized and operating under Israeli law, and subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel-owned Bank of Israel."

seems to me to be just a weasley way to include that Kushner has a loan from Bank Hapoalim. Every bank in the world is under comprehensive supervision of the government of the country they are in. Bank Hapoalim is not a government bank and merely having a loan outstanding from that bank is not a government connection.

I have also given the editor a courtesy notice to revert and discuss but that went unheeded. User is a new editor and perhaps doesn't know the rules, but I have tried to engage and judging from his recent posts seems to be pushing an agenda.

  • On the talk page, he is doubling down, with this, "Bank Hapoalim is not only merely regulated under Israeli law, it's also subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel.--Kuioooooo (talk) 4:44 pm, Today (UTC−5)" Clearly someone has an agenda, when they are pushing government regulation as a source to be government connection.
  • Just to add, disregarding everything else, the claim that Kushner has a loan from Hapaolim is unsourced. (Which would possibly make it a BLP violation since it would insinuate that Kushner is beholden to a foreign government.)
  • Sandstein, I apologize, I fixed the diffs. Also, the edit notice only mentions BLP, but all the diffs I brought were after I posted the DS to his talk page. There were prior reverts, but he was not properly notified before, even though the talk page specifies. (Also, I am not sure why the claim that someone has a loan with a bank means they have contact with a government. I have an account with a US bank, does that mean I have connections with the US?)

Also, the NYTimes source was not in the edit, it was added recently. In addition, I don't appreciate being called a sockpuppet.

  • Georgewilliamherbert, his first revert was a violation of ds, not 1rr. His second revert was a violation of 1rr (and ds) And as for your claim of clubbing, please note I gave several courtesy warnings. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764067119

Discussion concerning Kuioooooo[edit]

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 Kuioooooo[edit]

I only revert once in 24 hrs, as allowed by the discretionary sanctions, and only reverted Sir Joseph once ever.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That said, Sir Joseph removed well-sourced relevant content that have been in the article for sometime, and after getting reverted, they are supposed to get consensus before attempting to remove the extant version again.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The whole section was removed earlier by a new account with 17 edits to date, the first 10 being on their own Sandbox [24] That editor was reverted by Jim1138 [25]. I strongly believe some kind of sockpuppetry is going on here.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Jared Kushner (Government relations section), user Sir Joseph first pretended that they couldn't find the NYTimes source that's been in the article for sometime, then claiming that stating relevant facts as they are, under relevant section, is not right.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Kuioooooo[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Sir Joseph, please format your request such that all diffs are identified by date and time. Also, tell us why you think that Kuioooooo was aware of the 1RR restriction at the time of their last revert. It doesn't seem to show up in the edit notice.  Sandstein  22:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Kuioooooo, please tell us why you should not be sanctioned for re-adding obviously contentious material about a WP:BLP (a) that is based only on a primary source, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and (b) is based on a source that does even not name the person at issue and seems therefore unsuited as a basis for the statement you sought to add?  Sandstein  22:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we can overlook the issues given that everyone backed off to the talk page. I suspect the removal by Ryk72 is correct but it's not all so obviously wrong or unsourced that zero tolerance is needed. Sir Joseph, your timeline accuses him of a problem on his first revert, which is not how it works unless 0RR is applied (and it is not for this article). AE is not a club to beat disagreeing editors with. Kuioooooo, you need to pay attention to the content criticisms in the talk page. Try and move beyond going back and forth with Sir Joseph and discuss with others there.
I would close no action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with closing as no action, but on different grounds. Even as amended the complaint does not make clear that Kuioooooo was properly notified of the applicable sanctions before the edits at issue. Closing accordingly.  Sandstein  13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Islington Bloor[edit]

Disallowed RfC comment struck, user blocked for a week for personal attacks.  Sandstein  17:58, 9 February 2017 (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 Islington Bloor[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Islington Bloor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#500.2F30 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 09/02/2017 Participating in RFC that new users shouldn't participate.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [26]


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I probably don't think any sanction is warranted against a user(though some of the comments of the user raise the question if the user is really new) but I ask that EC protection should be applied on a Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy till the end of the RFC as new users can't participate in it per language of the restriction " This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[27]

Discussion concerning Islington Bloor[edit]

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 Islington Bloor[edit]

As I said when I restored the comment it's improper for an involved editor to remove someone else's comment. The closing admin can decide for themselves whether to accord my comment less weight becauee I'm a new editor. It's not for Shrike to, using a technicality as a pretext, ynilaterally remove a comment he coincidentally happens to disagree with.

    • (responding to Laser brain's comment) I didn't edit the article. I contributed an opinion to the discussion on the talk page. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Iazyges: The absurdity of your position here is I would be able to comment on a deletion discussion but not in a name change discussion. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @Laser brain: I guess I could take the easy route and say that I actually am an established user who lost his password a few weeks ago and opened a new account but I see that you've actually gone to the extent of crossing out my comments in the Talk page of the article. That act is such a magnificent monument to bureaucratic stupidity and officiousness that it would be a shame to remove it and, in any case, I don't have the patience and can't be bothered to jump through whatever bureaucratic hoops are required to prove that I had a previous account and besides, even though the other account has not been accessed in weeks and cannot be accessed and this new account was opened subsequently and has not edited concurrently with any other account I'm sure you or some other bureaucratic idiot would say oh, it's a sockpuppet and then I'd have to go through some tedious lengthy procedure to prove that no, I'm not a sockpuppet. So how about this laser brain. You can let it sink in that you are a manifestation of all the worst bureaucratic stupidity of wikipedia, part of the reason why so many editors give up and leave in frustration and why the number of active editors is on the decline and why Wikipedia is becoming more and more sclerotic and I'll simply disable my account and go off and do something more productive with my time like watch paint dry. Congratulations. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Iazyges: Schroedinger's Wikipedia Account? First you argue that I"m probably not a new user "suspicious for a new user" and now you argue that I obviously am a new user "your seeming lack of knowledge... seems to go against your claims"? Somehow, by your argument, I simultaneously am a new user and am not. Again, this is the sort of culture of bureaucratic stupidity and sophistry that drives people away from Wikipedia. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've scrambled my password and am now logging off in order to do something useful instead of this nonsense. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iazyges[edit]

I don't think this breaks any DS, but I do think it should get sent to either SPI, or ANI. That they commented in an RFC (or even found one) is suspicious for a new user, considering they commented before even creating their own user page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Islington Bloor: please move your comment to your own section, per instructions on the top. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I can assure you that I have not commented already in that "vote" under any other name or edited the article but feel free to run an analysis. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, please comment in your own section. I would also say that regardless of if your claim of being a new account of an old user is true, you are REQUIRED to say so, unless you are taking a fresh start, which you obviously aren't given you outed yourself (which clean starters aren't supposed to do). Your seeming lack of knowledge in certain areas seems to go against your claims as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

I don't think any action is warranted, at this point. We can just strike the comment at the RFC. If the editor continues to unstrike or reinsert the comment, then further action can be taken. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not simply mark the comment as a new comment? The comment is civil and constructive, the content is not at all objectionable, is it? Islington Bloor (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Exemplo347[edit]

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen an attempt by someone to get an Arb. Sanction widened because they're having a dispute with someone else. The standard methods of resolving disputes are more than sufficient to deal with comments in an RfC discussion - Dispute Resolution, AIV, SPI, even AN/I - those processes all work very well. Arb Sanctions aren't some secret weapon that can be deployed to shut users down, bypassing the usual processes that the vast majority of editors have to go through.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Islington Bloor[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Islington Bloor: You're not allowed to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict until you reach 30 days and 500 article edits, per the banner on that Talk page. Consider this a final warning to that effect. I've applied EC protection to that page through the end of the RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The disallowed comment by Islington Bloor has been struck. The statement by Islington Bloor above contains personal attacks. For that, I am blocking Islington Bloor for a week. I think we can close this now, as further discussion is unlikely to yield something productive.  Sandstein  17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Asilah1981[edit]

No action—incorrect venue. Please use WP:AN/I. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2017 (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 Asilah1981[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

I require enforcement at breach of agreement after a long Incident discussion (see Incident link below) and continuous litigation and irregular editing by the editor in question, as well as successive incremental blocks and eventually an alternative, constructive sanction to a block, 3 month mentoring, that has eventually been equally breached by the editor, as detailed by the mentor User:Irondome [28] and [29]

  1. 06-01-2017 Incident closed with resolution to start 3-month-mentoring period; an archived discussion with all the details, diffs not available
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. [30] I add all the block log, the last one being in late December / early January with two different incidents overlapping
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
I posted notice on the editor's talk page
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the areas of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The editor has changed during mentoring the overall tone of his language. He has also blanked most of his talk page lately [31] for which he is entitled anyway. However, evidence of irregular editing has not change.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[32]

Discussion concerning Asilah1981[edit]

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 Asilah1981[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Asilah1981[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • the editing may be problematic, but that's a matter for ANI or other fora, not AE, as I'm not seeing an Arb case here needing enforcement. Relying on a block log is insufficient, at AE you must show that this editor needs to be sanctioned for actions covered by an Arb case. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by dailey78[edit]

Appeal declined. Establish a solid track record of editing peacefully in unrelated and topic areas, and then try again in 6–12 months. --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (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 
dailey78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Rod (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles
Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles talk
Administrator imposing the sanction 
EdJohnston (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 dailey78[edit]

I have made numerous useful contributions to the various articles regarding Ancient Egypt. They have enriched the site and made it more encyclopedic. Three years ago, I received a topic ban for editing a highly contentious and controversial article, which is guaranteed to produce disagreement (hence the controversy). After three years, it seems unreasonable and unfair that this ban is still being enforced. Is it a murder conviction? I would like the ban lifted, because my contributions have and continue to enrich the site. In fact, a lot of what you read in various articles on Ancient Egypt, I contributed. Also, without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia.

If you have not been involved in a topic ban before, I don't think a reasonable person would assume that the ban would last for 3 years. I was made aware of the violation today. I only read the fine print of the ban after Ed Johnston suggested that I reread it today. Yes, it's meant to be taken seriously. I have edited articles on mini dental implants and other dental implants. My primary interest in Wikipedia is history and specifically Egyptian history, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that most of my edits have been around A.E. Some of the articles on A.E. are not contentious and I've made many edits that were helpful and improved the articles without incident. I am essentially being given this multi-year ban for editing an article that is extremely contentious. Everyone that attempts to edit the article ends up in contentious discussions on the Talk page. It is extremely difficult to make any improvement to such a contentious article without offending someone. We've learned to discuss it on the Talk page and move on with our lives. At the end of the day, these articles are in much better shape after I started editing them than before my contributions (speaking as objectively as possible about my own work).Rod (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Laserbrain suggested that I post the following conversation from their Talk page:

I'm three years older and wiser and should be given a chance to contribute. If it doesn't work out, just ban or block me again. We all agreed to discuss the highly contentious topics on the Talk page and then edit the article. It seems that I'm the only one being forced to follow that agreement, but I have followed it. The administrators are complaining about recent edits, but have you actually reviewed some of those edits. In one edit, a sentence said "authors said xyz", I added several citations so that readers would know exactly which authors made the statement and where they could read more about it. The article was enriched. What is there to complain about?Rod (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dailey78: Thank you, and I do think it would be a benefit for you to post this to your AE request so the other commenting admins can read it. I'm willing to extend good faith generally and I believe you can make useful and productive contributions. When when conflicts occur, and they will occur, how will you react? --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
All the editors of the highly contentious article(s) agreed to post contentious edits on the Talk page and discuss there, without edit warring the posts on the actual article. It's the only workable solution, because editors disagree strongly and often about this topic.Rod (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(Admin note: Statement exceeding 500 words removed.  Sandstein  21:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC))

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

Statement by Doug Weller[edit]

daily78 writes ": On Feb. 5, 2017 editor [Temple3] edited the article and removed the word "fringe" because it alters the balance and is not NPOV. Following the lead of [Temple3], I removed the word "fringe" three days later from a different sentence. That's two editors agreeing that "fringe" is inappropriate for the article. However, editor Doug Weller reverted us and reintroduced "fringe".

What actually happened is that Temple3, with their first edit since 2012-05-21, removed the word fringe. I did not revert that edit or replace that instance of the word fringe. My edit summary clearly says "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk): Rv edits by topic banned editor." The first bit of that, "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk)", is of course not something I wrote but is what the software adds. I'm not going to get into the content discussion, but I'm disturbed by the fact that I obviously didn't revert Temple3 but am accused of doing so. All I did was revert the posts of a banned editor. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Rod, what I would suggest is that you spend six months editing in other areas that interest you. There must be some, and if you can find areas that do have issues that require careful work within our policies where you can show that you understand and can work within them well, I believe an appeal would be successful. Doug Weller talk 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by dailey78[edit]

Result of the appeal by dailey78[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • You weren't topic banned "for editing", you were topic banned for behaving poorly in that topic. For us to consider removing the ban, I'd like to see some indication that you understand your role in the disputes, why you were banned, and what you would do differently going forward. As far as I can tell, you are quite recently making potentially contentious edits and I think the probability of your getting into further conflicts is high. Getting into conflicts and disagreements is not problematic in and of itself, but how you behave in those conflicts is critical. --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this meant to be taken seriously? Dailey78 was topic-banned from "all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles" in 2014, yet as recently as yesterday they have been violating this topic ban by editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy (e.g., at [33]). It seems that they have never edited anything unrelated to this topic. Asking for a topic ban to be lifted a day after violating it is preposterous. I'm instead considering a lengthy enforcement block.  Sandstein  18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is slightly complicated by the 12 month Wikibreak they took 2014-2015 and then the 18 month 2015-2017 break. But not much. I can extend a bit of good faith IF their current edits weren't disruptive and IF they stay stopped during the discussion, that they might legitimately not have understood the sanction was permanent / nonexpiring. Enough if both are met to withold sanction now and discuss whether they can address prior issues enough to consider some form of standard offer. But I have not yet reviewed the current edits enough. Reviewing now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This can't be serious. Arguing that three years is too long for a topic ban would make sense if you'd spent those three years editing other areas on Wikipedia but, instead, you merely left and then returned three years later to continue where you had left off. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this appeal, demonstrate that you can edit non-combatively by editing in other areas, and then, after a reasonable period of time, return with evidence that the ban is no longer necessary. Otherwise, I think we'll have to go with Sandstein's enforcement block suggestion. I'd also suggest not making statements like without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia, they aren't exactly reassuring. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein. Showing you can edit in other areas constructively is the solution to a TBAN. Rocking up after a long break (having not edited anything else) and editing where you have been banned is not a good formula for getting a TBAN lifted. I'm seeing nothing that makes me confident that the editor has the capacity to edit constructively. A six month enforcement block seems about right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident[edit]

Blocked for two months for topic ban violations.  Sandstein  17:29, 11 February 2017 (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 Neptune's Trident[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate (topic ban) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (repeated violations):
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Edited Mike Cernovich on 29 November 2016, 2 December 2016, 8 December 2016, 17 December 2016, 9 January 2017 (and again), 29 January 2017, plus other dates. Check the history of that article and search for "Neptune's Trident", I'm seeing 72 edits, only a few of which are mentions by other editors
  2. Edited Vox Day as recently as 10 February 2017 but the history shows 36 edits and 4 mentions by other editors
  • These were not simply uncontroversial grammar or punctuation changes, either. Some of these edits were reverted on
  1. 5 August 2016 and again 6 August 2016 after Neptune's Trident re-added unsourced content. When reprimanded 13 July 2015, Neptune's Trident was specifically told to "discuss the issue without repeating the claim".
  2. 10 February 2017 as unsourced
  • Editor has been warned repeatedly about BLP-violating edits after the block:
  1. 25 October 2016 which was removed without reply
  2. 25 October 2016 (again) which was removed without reply
  3. 25 December 2016 which was removed without reply
  4. 10 February 2017 which was removed without reply
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 12 March 2015 DS alert for both GamerGate and BLP
  2. 12 March 2015 Blocked for 48 hours for violating BLP
  3. 12 March 2015 Blocked for 1 month for violating BLP while already blocked, and topic-banned from GamerGate
  4. 6 July 2015 Brought to AE for creating the article Giant Spacekat (company), a company cofounded by Brianna Wu. This AE was closed on 13 July 2015 and Neptune's Trident was subsequently reprimanded for violating topic ban
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the areas of conflict as noted above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

There was a brief discussion about potential topic-ban violations here and here, but it doesn't look like anything happened. Pinging @HJ Mitchell: as requested in that last link.

@EdJohnston: I can't find a diff of someone directly telling him about the connections, no. He was alerted to a discussion at User talk:zzuuzz where the connection was discussed, but he did not join that conversation. It's entirely possible that he never read the discussion and that he didn't make the connection on any of the articles. That being said, even assuming a great deal of good faith, it's implausible. The articles mention GamerGate, as do Sad Puppies and Milo Yiannopoulos, both of which he edited on 25 October 2016 (SP, MY).

On Vox Day, he filled in citation templates on articles that mention GamerGate (1, 2, 3) which suggests he read them, and he edited a paragraph mentioning GamerGate (1). On Mike Cernovich, he added a block of text from a New Yorker article that mentions the connection, which again suggests he read the article. Woodroar (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
User talk:Neptune's Trident#AE Request

Discussion concerning Neptune's Trident[edit]

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 Neptune's Trident[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Statement by Kelly[edit]

If this user is under a topic ban regarding Gamergate-associated subjects, then the editing on Vox Day can be considered a violation - the article subject's blog contains the Gamergate hashtag in the header. On 25 October 2016, I also warned this editor about adding the category "Alt-right writers" to the BLPs of science fiction authors associated with Sad Puppies, which is also considered by many to be Gamergate associated. (See the Sad Puppies article for refs). These controversial edits to BLPs were frequently made without any reference to reliable sources. Kelly hi! 01:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @EdJohnston: - Speaking for myself, I didn't specifically warn him these articles were Gamergate-related (I didn't know about his sanction at the time.) I did, however, specifically warn him that he was editing BLPs. Kelly hi! 04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The editor has removed the notification from their talkpage, indicating they are aware of this discussion. Kelly hi! 04:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Neptune's Trident[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It is logical that Vox Day, Mike Cernovich and Sad Puppies should be covered by the Gamergate sanctions, but did anyone notify Neptune's Trident that these articles are included in his topic ban? He doesn't help himself by constantly deleting warnings from his talk page, which may suggest that he is up to something, and by hardly ever participating on Talk pages. But I'd like to see evidence that he continues with problematic edits after being notified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't believe for a second that this editor isn't aware of Vox Day and Mike Cernovich's connections to Gamergate. I'm willing to extend good faith a certain length, but not across the Grand Canyon. Recommend a three-month vacation. --Laser brain (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Laser brain about AGF here, but reckon a more substantial block needs to be implemented. Gamergate is linked in Vox Day and Mike Cernovich, so Blind Freddy could tell that they were included in the TBAN Harry handed him in 2015. I reckon a six month block would be more appropriate given this is not a one-off that could be explained as a mistake. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is clear that Neptune's Trident has violated their GamerGate topic ban by editing articles about subjects who according to their articles support the GamerGate "movement". This means we do not need to determine whether he has also violated WP:BLP. Neptune's Trident has declined to make a statement here. There have been four previous blocks of up to one month for various misconduct. In line with our practice of escalating blocks, an enforcement block of two months therefore appears appropriate. Closing accordingly.  Sandstein  17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub[edit]

No action taken.  Sandstein  12:04, 13 February 2017 (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 Guccisamsclub[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Guccisamsclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement :WP:ARBAP2, WP:ARBAPDS
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 20:53, 11 February 2017 As an example of condescension toward other editors in the talk page environment Guccisamsclub says, "It's an "opinion"? Well duh." later in this same comment he says, "You also thought that the intel community did not conclude Iraq had WMDs, that the hacking findings are endorsed by 17 agencies, and plenty of other mind-bending stuff." This last phrase is applied as a rationale for saying this:"Frankly Steve, you are not in a position to critique any source on this topic." So here this editor is demeaning my editor capabilities based on an unrelated discussion on the talk page of another article. Hopefully my reply to that post will shed further light on this issue: [34]
  2. 21:41, 11 February 2017 This is an example of more personal insults and disrespectful behavior, which I characterized in my next post: 21:48, 11 February 2017
  3. 11 February 2017 Here Guccisamsclub mischaracterizes my post with "That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research..." rather than adding anything constructive to the conversation. By now it might be clear the he is attacking rather than contributing. Here is my reply 23:56, 11 February 2017, which essentially says "it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet."
  4. 4 00:02, 12 February 2017 and 00:04, 12 February 2017 he mis-characterizes my editing behavior with "or have you not read the article youre attacking" and adds to this "wouldn't be the first time". I am not attacking anything. And he denigrates my input into the conversation by saying I have not read the article and this wouldn't be the first time. In other words, rather than focusing on the editing and contributing he engages in WP:NPA behavior. Also at this point Politico was not part of this discussion, and he was the only one who mentioned it, but without any kind of reference as to why it was relevant. So, rather than providing rationale for how this is relevant, he would rather use this as some sort of stick to figuratively beat me over the head, or to show a weakness I might supposedly have. In any case, here is my reply, hopefully shedding some light on this 00:50, 12 February 2017. Also, this is the third time he brings up Politico, finally providing a rationale for referring to it after using it to engage in WP:Battlegound the previous two times. And this was not the reference under discussion by a number of editors - only him.
  5. 12:30, 12 February 2017 He mischaracterized my editing behavior by (I suppose) chastising me "If you talk without reading you are being disruptive. If you actively refuse to read, you are being intentionally disruptive," So here he is accusing me of disruptive editing or disruptive behavior, which is way off the mark, based on some sort of presumption or set of presumptions.
  6. 15:53, 12 February 2017 Here he is accusing SPECIFICO of being the only editor who is "consistently and successfully gaming Arbcom..."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

None

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: [35], [36].
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Guccisamsclub inexplicably appears to be consistently engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior while also contravening WP:NPA.
Also. it appears that Guccisamsclub is too involved with the topic of this page, (2016 United States election interference by Russia), to be able to edit constructively on this talk page.
I appreciate the feedback and outside perspective from the Admins. I am glad cooler (uninvolved) heads prevail. I am accepting your feedback as advice. Closing this with no action suits me. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
However, had I seen what was happening in the main space per the diffs below, I probably would have added them to my complaint, if I thought these were DS violations. It appears there is reinsertion of what I would consider to be wp:undue re-inserinsertions. For instance, it seems Ritter is an outlier in the intelligence community according to his own opinion piece in the Huffington Post [37].
One instance Ritter cites he says he was "ultimately proven to be correct" but there is nothing to back that up or in what way he means he was proven right. The point is, by his own admission this appears to be a minority view (and so on), below Wikipedia "balanced view" criteria - and I would be against having this in the article. Anyway, my point is - if the diffs below are main-space DS violations, do the Admins wish to address this? These edits involve Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, MrX. Perhaps input from the editors would be helpful. I leave it up to the Admins to decide. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

20:22, 12 February 2017


Discussion concerning Guccisamsclub[edit]

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 Guccisamsclub[edit]

  • What I said to SPECIFICO was in response to this:

    Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Steve himself seems like a polite enough guy, but I've seen him overreact to completely innocuous statements with threats:

@Steve Quinn: You make a very good argument for inclusion of the word "alleged." As you say, reliable sources report that US intelligence agencies have alleged Russia interfered in the US elections. Going from the fact that US intelligence agencies have made those allegations to a statement that those claims are correct would, however, be WP:OR. You can have a personal view on whether or not the CIA, the FSB or any other intelligence agency in the world is trustworthy on any given issue, but unless reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) on the whole state something as a fact, we cannot do so here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: please do not mischaracterize my post (what I said), and please do not do this again. This is considered disruptive editing and contravenes WP:NPA. I am not here to defend against mischaracterizatizing my words. Please do not be presumptuous enough to tell me what what I mean either. Please be attentive to the Arbcom DS restrictions template above This is fair warning. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Confused ...

Here Guccisamsclub mischaracterizes my post with "That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research..." rather than adding anything constructive to the conversation. By now it might be clear the he is attacking rather than contributing. Here is my reply, which essentially says "it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet."

So who was making the personal attack here? I'm confused.

  • Why not read the source at some point?

Also at this point Politico was not part of this discussion, and he was the only one who mentioned it, but without any kind of reference as to why it was relevant. So, rather than providing rationale for how this is relevant, he would rather use this as some sort of stick to figuratively beat me over the head, or to show a weakness I might supposedly have. In any case, here is my reply, hopefully shedding some light on this. Also, this is the third time he brings up Politico, finally providing a rationale for referring to it after using it to engage in WP:Battlegound the previous two times. And this was not the reference under discussion by a number of editors - only him.

Before complaining here, why not actually read the damn article from politiFACT, not CO, as I've already told Steve on the talk page. I've implored Steve read the immediately relevant source several times, to no avail. It seems he still hasn't done so.

  • This was already retracted...

wouldn't be the first time

That was retracted and crossed out as potentially impolite, though arguably accurate. Why didn't he even mention that?


The discussion on the page is pretty heated, though some editors have managed to be consistently polite. My impoliteness—or frankness—towards Steve has to do with the fact that he consistently posts unsourced patent nonsense to the talk page and does not respond to requests to read any sources. Steve's theories do not qualify as OR because they are not backed by research, which is why I termed his posts (NOT his person) "OH". Just read our two exchanges, the one on the Iraq war is hatted. Speaking without reading sources is profoundly disruptive behaviour. Saying over and over again—without any sources—that the intel community's conclusions were largely inconsistent with the claims made by the Bush admin in the runup to Iraq constitutes patent nonsense, which is also disruptive. There is no nice way to say to someone: "you are consistently unaware of basic facts and refuse to learn about them." If I am ignorant about a topic, I'll avoid talking about it. If another editor showed me a source and demonstrated that I had no idea what I was talking about, I'd promptly retract my statements and only continue the discussion after having thoroughly read all the relevant sources and then some. That's elementary circumspection. Anything else is disruptive behaviour under WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTFORUM.

I actually haven't edited the article much at all (!), because I know that several editors will simply revert any edit they find controversial. Under 1RR and Abcom, this means that it's very hard to mount a counter-challenge. So what is actually meant by my "battleground attitude"? Refusing to agree with Steve on the talk page?

Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely pathetic. All but the first one were reinstatements of apparently longstanding text. As for the first revert, it was immediately reverted with no action on my part. SPEC, VM and MRX have all violated 1rr and/or DS, btw. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

@Sandstein: There have been many instances in which Guccisamsclub appears to have violated the provision of DS that states, “Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).” For example, he reinserted text reverted by me, @MrX: and @Volunteer Marek:.

[38] [39] here

[40] here

[41] here

[42] here

[43] here

On Guccisamsclub's talk page, I asked him not to do this, but he declined here.

Guccisamsclub appears to deny that these are violations, so as long as he is here at AE, I thought we could ask to have that question adjudicated. In the DS environment, various editors have said that it feels like edit-warring and it feels like he should not be editing in American Politics articles.

I expect that I'll now face the customary barrage of off-topic attacks for appearing here, but I will try to step back and let the Admin process work.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Guccisamsclub[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not seeing anything here to get excited about, to be honest. Sure, the snark and sarcasm could be dialed back on all fronts. If we start sanctioning people for such when discussing American politics, I'm not sure we'll have many editors left. --Laser brain (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed.  Sandstein  22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Few people are very nice on pages about recent American political events. We will sanction actual persistent personal attacks and nastiness, but I don't see anything like that in the diffs offered by Steve Quinn. Steve's own tone on the talkpage isn't exactly warm either, as here. Suggest closing with no action. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
  • Closing as no action regarding the diffs submitted as evidence per discussion above. The diffs submitted separately by SPECIFICO can, if they are actionable, be resubmitted as a separate enforcement request - in proper form, with dates and explanations.  Sandstein  12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)