Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nado158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 24 March 2015 Editing article about a Serbian soccer team to chnage the name from the English language version to the Serbian language version (this is very similar editing to that which resulted in his indefinite ban)
2. 29 March 2015 Editing article about a Belgrade soccer team to change the name from the English language version to the Serbian language version (again, the same pattern as previously)
3. 11 April 2015 Removed mention of the involvement of Serb Chetniks alongside Axis troops in the Kozara Offensive, with the edit summary "No Chetniks". This is a clear POV-warrior move, as the academic literature is crystal clear that a Chetnik leader called Rade Radic and his detachment participated on the Axis side against the Yugoslav Partisans during this offensive.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22 February 2013 Nado158 is banned for 1 year from "from all articles and discussions related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania, broadly construed"
2. 15 June 2014 Nado158 is topic-banned from everything related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania (this was an indefinite ban).

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

• Most recently given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15 June 2014 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would probably not have come across Nado158 if it was not for the most recent edit. I had some minor dealings with him over some problematic edits back in 2013, but nothing since then that I can recall. Having looked at his edit history and previous bans, it would appear that he is continuing with exactly the same behaviour he was previously banned for.

I will just add that Nado158 clearly doesn't care about the TBAN, as he appears to think that this is about the content of his edits rather than the fact that he has contravened the TBAN. The community can't have editors who ignore TBANs. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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.

Oh come on, first the Name is not BSK Beograd, this is a false lemma, as well as "Sabac Stadium". On WP are lemmas to be preferred in the local language, you know that. The name is Beogradski SK and not BSK Beograd (which is a artificial lemma which does not exist). Also, the stadium Name is Gradski stadium Sabac (Sabac City Stadium) and not Sabac Stadium. The current versions are wrong. I also have removed tha part about the Chetniks, because there is no source available. Your intentions are clear, I see absolutely no willingness for cooperation from your side. But, I see insinuations and offensive behavior against me without reason. Did I revert you? No. Have you tried to start a discussion? No. You acted instantly offensively and unbiased, and way is clear who processed here every day in this field. I am not the POV-Warrior here.--Nado158 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ban previously were exaggerated, based in part on incorrect facts and were so picky placed in the wrong light as you try now and have nothing to do with the things now. Again, did I revert you? No. Have you tried to start a discussion? No. Did i removed somethin what had a source? No. Did i put my POV ther? No. Did I removed the correct names and put the wrong name there? No.--Nado158 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don t understand. really. I had beem previously unjustly punish. Because of this processing (See here [1]) Please keep in mind exactly. I updated the article, add sources, and the other User reverted me. On prejudice, without arguments, discussion or sources. How can that be? He broke the WP-rules, not me. And i would punished??? And this with the support of the Croatian and controvers Admins Joy, who often abused his position for his controvers POV. How can that be please? Not I broken the rules, the other user. And Joy abused his admin options. Luckily someone else had seen. Nevertheless, I was punished for nothing. Look here [2]). Please look and this. I was punished, although this processing has proved to be true. I cant believe it till today what have you done to me. To date, the lemma is false. I tried to improve and to update this article, but I was constantly attacked, accused, etc. Although I was right at the end and that's why I was punished??? Where is the justice? This is very very unfair what are you doing with me. At the time I tried to explain everything, but nobody answered to me, no one was listening to my arguments, just like today. All wrote and talked as if I do not exist. Why??? That's not fair.. Like now. That's not fair. Look here ([3]). This is not a profile of a rampaging nationalist user or POV-Warrior.

The user who is accused me constantly are involved in conflicts and has an anti-Serbian attitude. Please look at his profile and his resume on WP. Please. As soon as I'm back, he is trying to represent me like a bad man for nothing. You's doing me wrong, again and again and gives me no chance. Simply because I am going to upgrade Football Articles and for that i will be punished, ridiculous, sorry. This are Serbian Football not Croatian ect. Did i make racist statements or POV? No. And, I've removed the Chetniks, because after the sentence was not a source. The rest of the text I have not read. Also in the infobox I saw no Chetniks. So that's why I removed it. Why he has not show me the source? And beside this, I also have not reverted him or anything, just for this I am attacked so hard. I did not even reverted. I saw later it was true. This is ridiculous what's going on. Sad.Nado158 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FK_Partizan_Kosovska_Mitrovica, Nobody was interested until this article till today, he was false and miserable, so I had updated the text. I have pointed out before, wanted a discussion, at some point I started to work with my own hands, because nobody react, and what you do, you ban me out for correct information and because of the updat of the WP article, and the one who broke the rules and acussed me, reverted all the work which was sourced you let unpunished, I was punsihed for the info which was correct. He remains unpunished. THANK YOU WP-Team. Now the same again, now for three words, 2 right words and 1 removed word for a thing, because i didnt saw a source there. New record for the WP-guiness book. Thank you.Nado158 (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter...I belive i speak with a wall here. I said I was bannade before unjustly. Because of this processing (See here [4]) Please keep in mind exactly. I updated the article, add sources, and the other User reverted me. On prejudice, without arguments, discussion or sources. How can that be? And the funny thing, I made the update, the things was correct, and I was punished???????? And you speak about my topic ban, the topic ban was fake. And Again, my Edits was right, Beogradski sport klub (Belgrade Sports Club) not BSK Beograd. You can se this. For funny things i am attacked.Nado158 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: Yes the blocking admin was involved and it was not an AE block. You can read more at User talk:Joy#Use of very long blocks in a case in which you are involved. Nado158 is not an active editor and his sanctions were updated by Sandstein on 15 June 2014. Thus the block from 2 June 2014 should not influence on this complaint. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

From a June 2014 AE, "Nado158 is topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from everything related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania". The first diff shows editing about football in Serbia. So we can tell these edits are contrary to his ban without needing to look into the actual naming issues. I'd recommend an AE block of appropriate duration. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes this is actionable. Last AE blocks were in April 2014 for 48 hours, and then one in June for one month, but the block log says the block was "Removed" because the blocking admin was involved. So we do not count that one at all? I am inclined to ignore that June 2014 block altogether. Given the length of time since the last block and the duration of that block I'm leaning toward something like a block between 2 days and a week. Striking the part discussing duration because I want to look at it a bit closer. Zad68 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid we need an AE block of a medium duration here, the user is very explicit that they are not going to respect the topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored from archiving 18 April. 05:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Unless other admins disagree, I'm planning to block for one month. Nado158 is currently banned from Serbia, Kosovo and Albania but is not following the ban. Their above statement expresses their disagreement with the ban, which they think is unfair. That's not what we are discussing here. We assume the ban is valid and we want to do whatever is needed to be sure it is followed. Edits to change the name of a Serbian football team violate the ban from Serbia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be a good decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I endorse the proposed one-month block. Even if we could argue about the first two diffs (the names of the football clubs), the third is is clearly within the scope of the topic ban, and Nado158 does not seem to be willing to abide by the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the discussion here, I've blocked User:Nado158 for one month as an AE block. Closing this request. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

LightCalvary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Darkness_Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkness_Shines#Topic_ban

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

1. [5] Example of bad behavior on a TBAN article on India
2. [6] Example of bad behavior on a TBAN article on India
3. [7] edit warring on a TBAN article on India
4. [8] edit warring on a TBAN article on India
5. [9]edit warring on a TBAN article on India

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkness_Shines#ArbCom_discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Female_infanticide_in_India

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• 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 Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Unable to inform user, because I have insufficient rights to post on the user talk page

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

The filer is almost certainly a sock of the same master as the earlier ShoeMacneil (talk · contribs), likely related to the "IAC" sockfarm. Now, I make no secret of it that I myself also think DS needs to be sanctioned (again), but I don't like socks getting away with this kind of thing, so I'd ask this to be speedily closed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the other issues might be here, this is not a TBAN violation, because DS was specifically granted a TBAN exception to bring that article to GA status. The IAC sockfarm strikes again, it would appear. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There's something mighty suspicious about a "new" editor whose first edit is a complaint on this page. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There's almost certainly something to be discussed here, but I don't see any reason why we should do it on the say-so of an obvious sock. I'd close this, we can look at it again if an editor in good standing posts it. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPSCI#Discretionary sanctions and specifically enacted via this noticeboard [A topic ban from astrophysics and plasma physics.

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

1. 20 April 2015 Commenting on a fringe theorist who primarily speculates about Velikovskian fantasies about the position of the planets.
2. 20 April 2015 As above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 4 November 2012 Related restriction
2. 21 May 2012 Previous return.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 November 2012 by Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User_talk:Iantresman#Sheldrake? apparently shows that the topic ban from this material was never lifted.

Now that Ian has removed his contributions, I think we should assume good faith that he will steer clear from broadly-related astrophysics/plasma physics pages in the future. I support the closure of this report.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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

• Thank you user_talk:Zad68 for requesting my comments. Please bear with me as I have a busy day today, but at first glance it looks wholly without merit, for reasons I shall show with comments and diffs in due course. --Iantresman (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believed that my current "topic ban from astrophysics and plasma physics", was sufficiently remote from the biographical article David Talbott. WP:TBAN specifically mentions AfDs, and gives the example of a meteorologist. David Talbott falls into no categories related to my ban. I believe that if I had edited any material to do with planets, there may be a case. Also per WP:TBAN, I do not believe I made any edits that could be considered to be "contributions have been disruptive".

I would also ask you to consider my contribution to the AfD[10] which was constructive and provided satisfactory sources, in direct response to the original poster, per WP:AGF and WP:TALK#FACTS.

I recognise that others consider the AfD to fall under the "broadly construed" umbrella, and I have struck my comments accordingly[11]. It would have been much better, if a single uninvolved admin just clarified whether an article was in an areas of conflict, instead of making editors tip-toe around an unmarked minefield.

I hope you will consider my edit as one of good faith, and that since my return to editing in 2011, I have contributed significantly to enabling three articles reach GA status[12][13][14], and created over 150 new articles[15]. --Iantresman (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. I believe the 4 November 2012 sanction mentioned above has expired, as it states it runs for "six months". I believe it also supercedes the one dated 21 May 2012. --Iantresman (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This does appear to have merit. As far as I can tell the editing restriction against astrophysics, "broadly construed", is still active, and the edits were in a discussion concerning an author that can be broadly construed as in the topic area. Ian does have on his User Talk a recent discussion about his current restrictions and he is aware of this one, as he referred to it. I would like to hear User:Iantresman's thoughts about whether he considers that his edits were in the topic area, and if he would remove, strike, hat etc. his comments at the AFD. Zad68 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ian for showing that you understand the facts and relevant WP:PAG here, and especially for bringing up the directly applicable example at WP:TBAN. Given the amount of time since the last actionable infraction and the quick action to back off from the questionable edits I am inclined to close this without further action other than logging that this happened so that it may be found in the future if necessary. Will leave this open for a bit to see if there are any other comments. Zad68 13:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing, Ian cautioned but not otherwise sanctioned. Zad68 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Motion:_Arzel_topic_banned_.28February_2015.29 :

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

1. 18 April 2015 Refuses to acknowledge the connection of climate change denial to American politics.
2. 18 April 2015 Ongoing argumentativeness in climate change politics.
3. 7 April 2015 Clearly edit-warring in an area that is related to US politics (broadly construed).
4. 22 March 2015 Clear involvement with US politics

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 February 2015 Clearly made aware of his topic ban.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's pretty clear this user has no intention of complying with his topic ban. jps (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Arzel's topic ban extends "across all namespaces". That is normally interpreted to include talkpages. jps (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Clearly global warming is an American political issue. So can you provide an example of a kind of edit on global warming which would cross the boundary of a topic ban on American politics broadly construed? Are these three edits provided by Ubikwit below more illustrative perhaps? [16][17][18] jps (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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

It is this kind of crap that makes people stop editing on WP.

1. Anthony Watts is in the categories (1958 births, American television meteorologists, Climate change skeptics, Environmental bloggers, Heartland Institute, Living people, People from Chico California). I view it as a BLP issue. I don't see American Politics in that list, I don't see politics in general in that list. He is not a politician and this issue has not been about politics.

2. JPS Canvasses to try and get some same thinking people to edit on his behalf and he calls my noting of it "Ongoing argumentativeness? He should be getting at minimum a warning for that kind of behavior.

3. I made one revert to the Anthony Watts article. Under no circumstance can that be called edit warring. JPS has made 12345678910 edits, if my one edit "Clearly edit-warring" then his definitely edit warring.

4. Hands up, don't shoot has as its categories (2014 introductions, Gestures, Phrases, Race and crime in the United States). @Future Perfect at Sunrise: how in the world is that clearly an American Politics article? I made one talk page edit almost one month ago on that article (March 22). Since I made that one edit, not a single editor has made a single remark about it being American Politics until now. And that is only because JPS is really struggling to find something to pin against me.

I have been very careful to stay away from any article in the American Politics categories. If you are going to topic ban someone from a topic then it needs to be clear how to determine what is included in that topic. If you think an article is related to American Politics then that category should be added to the article.

I won't repeat everything that AQFK or Peter have stated about JPS as it was stated quite well by them. But I will say that JPS's resorts to WP:HARASSMENT to try and force those that disagree with him off those articles by intimidation and a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. His attempt to change the MOS so that WP:LABEL would not apply to his attempt to call Watt's a "Denier" really takes the cake though, or maybe his edit warring over it is even worse. Arzel (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding "Hands Up, Don't Shoot". I still don't see the connection to American Politics. The saying didn't originate as a political saying, it is a race/police issue outside of politics. That some people tried to use it for some political gain is not relevant. Politicians co-opt stuff ALL THE TIME. By this logic there is nothing that is not related to politics in some way. Additionally, if it was so clear than why is that not a category for American Politics? Please state why it is clearly American Politics. Personally I don't care about that article, I was simply making a note that there was no discussion regarding a known fact which was being edit warred. I made one edit and haven't edited it since and reiterate that if it was a big deal why didn't Mr. X report me those many weeks ago? He got me American Politics TBAN'ed in the first place and I made my comment ON THE SAME DAY.

• Regarding Watts. Please state the Clear American Politics angle on that article. There is no mention of politics that I have seen, he is not a politician and Climate Change is a scientific and global issue. By the logic stated there is nothing that does not have some abstract political angle. Jobs, Healthcare, Farming, Manufacturing, Small Businesses, Churches, Sports, Military, Economics, Astronomy, Space Exploration, Hospitals, Whales, Entertainment, etc. All of these article have some connection to American Politics in some abstract way either through specific legislation or lobbying or regulation or political talking points. One has to ask if the goal is to uphold a TBAN or silence someone. Arzel (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Could I please have all the editors calling me a climate change denier to stop. I find it continually insulting. I am an Operations Researcher specializing in Optimization, Simulation and Predictive Analysis with a strong background in Statistics. I am skeptical of the models of the AR3 which predict future warming and find it insulting from a scientific point of view that so many claim that it is settled. The models have to this point been unable to accurately predict temperatures within the margin of error which means possibly a couple of things. Either CO2 has a lower effect than predicted and/or there are some other factors which are mitigating the effect of CO2. Arzel (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), none of the diffs presented show Arzel discussing anything political, American or otherwise. This seems like a frivolous request.

However, this brings into question the filer's own conduct. Let me plainly state that the filer has been banned and sanctioned more times that I can possibly count for their repeated disruptive and battleground mentality. (I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has used numerous account names, including ScienceApologist, Joshua P. Schroder and Vanished User 314159. Look up their record.)

Their pattern of battleground conduct goes back years and has not ceased. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has shown repeated and recent misconduct including threats, harassment, BLP violations and other battleground conduct:

• "I am happy to take you down." - Threatening me on my talk page.
• [19] Unsourced WP:BLP violation which I correctly removed.
• Bizarrely, rather than apologizing for inserting unsourced negative content about a living person, or seeking clarification on my talk page if they honestly didn't understand that unsourced contentious content about living persons is a BLP violation, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc immediately launched into battleground mode by filing this AN/I report[20] which was so ridiculous, it went nowhere without me even responding.
• "asshole move" Self-evident.

How many second, third, forth, fifth, sixth, etc. chances do we give this same problematic editor? They are clearly not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Enough is enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected regarding the fourth diff, which appears to be a clear a violation of Arzel's topic ban. Sorry, I missed that reading thru the OP's post. But given that was two months ago, I would think that violation is now stale. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the voice of reason but:

a) Guy has expressed a strong opinion on the subject during the course of this AE request at another venue, "It is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise"[21]

b) Guy has done so in a very uncivil matter, resorting to an ad hominem attack, "Only an idiot would state otherwise".[22]

It's difficult to tell whether Guy's accusation of being an "idiot" applies to reliable sources or their fellow editors. But either way, calling other people "idiots" is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Have the standards of conduct at Wikipedia devolved so badly that it's now acceptable to resort to ad hominem attacks? Guy clearly has a strong opinion on the matter and by expressing their opinion on the content dispute, they should no longer to be considered WP:UNINVOLVED.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even worse. Guy is now editing the very article that they're supposed to be uninvolved with.[23][24][25][26] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The filer also threatened me about WP:AE (here and here), and I agree that it is the filer, not Arzel, whose conduct deserves attention. Recall that I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps ScienceApologist etc.) filed this after Arzel understandably questioned whether jps was canvassing (here), and that jps's conduct after Arzel mentioned WP:LABEL on an earlier occasion was questioned by a MoS-talk-page editor. I'd also plead that the Anthony Watts (blogger) article mentions no politician or party or election issue outside Chico California -- it's a BLP of Anthony Watts (blogger), and Arzel seemed to me to be sticking to points about that, with respect to guidelines. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change, and acceptance or denial of it is definitely an issue in US politics. Since many administrators are not from North America, I will provide a couple of external links to illustrate this. Here, Paul Waldman in the Washington Post discussed the fact that most of the likely republican candidates for president in 2016 deny that man-made global warming is happening. Here, in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik discusses how journalists should treat politicians who deny climate change, and mentions the difference between the two main American parties on this subject.

Since climate change is currently an issue in American politics, and since Arzel has been editing the climate change articles, Arzel has definitely been violating the remedy that says he may not make edits related to American politics, broadly construed. Cardamon (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This particular article is a BLP who is not political and whose politics are unknown. He disagrees with the scientific conclusions regarding climate change. This puts him at odds with a number of people including politicians. But unless we are willing to say everyone that opines about climate science is political, this claim is without merit. We don't know the political leanings of Watts. His personal choices of solar power and other indicators would make him a green party candidate. Does the same apply to Lindzen and Curry and Mann and Hansen? They all have views. Participating in a democratic society doesn't define a person as political. Nor is a stance regarding science a political one. Anti-vaxers are numerous and cover a broad spectrum of politics but it would be incorrect to imply that every bio of an anti-vaxer is political just because it's also a political issue. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel makes a good point that topic bans are difficult to understand here on Wikipedia. Many mistakenly believe that topic bans are only subject to narrow designations, and some even wrongly believe that we have implemented software controls that would enable a topic ban. As I understand it, "broadly construed" is intentionally wide-ranging and is used to prevent gaming of the system. I am keenly aware that it is precedent that it is not simply articles that are in a particular category which determine the topic. WP:TBAN tries to explain this, but using a single example "weather" which doesn't really give a hard-and-fast rule that is easy to follow is perhaps not ideal. DHeyward's example of anti-vaxxers shows how confused people get. "Broadly construed" is a heavy burden and, indeed, I think that someone who jumped from a topic ban on American politics immediately into editing a page on anti-vaccination movement or someone who advocated for such would be treading in the subject of American politics, broadly construed.

I think it's not hard to determine that basically every instance of article or talkpage involvement that Arzel has had since his topic ban has been related to American politics.

That said, I do not even think the protestations of Arzel and his supporters are particularly honest in their claimed disbelief that American politics is related to article about a prominent person in the broader popular-level discussions over climate change. Instead, I see wagon-circling on the part of climate change denial supporters and their allies. This is part of the ongoing climate change issues we have at Wikipedia, and it is a shame that these ideologically driven editors which seem determined to slant Wikipedia into claiming that there is some sort of controversy over reality of human-caused climate change. The hope for AQFK, Peter Gulutzman, DHeyward, and Arzel is that we adopt the talking points of the climate change denialists. E.g. they hope to refer to them as "skeptics" in spite of many sources which show that this is an inexact and inappropriate euphemism for denial. They don't want sources that are written by accomplished climate scientists used in the article. They insist that the claimed "controversy" over human-caused global warming be highlighted as a battle between equals rather than a political battle between a vast consensus of scientists and a devoted group of activists who are convinced that they can muddy the waters enough to provoke doubt in the settled science of human-caused global warming.

Finally, with respect to the attempted WP:BOOMERANG by AQFK, I do acknowledge that I find his (perhaps sometimes only tacit) support of climate change denial to be difficult with which to deal and I do think it may eventually lead to a reinstatement of his topic ban on climate change. Together with Peter Gulutzan and DHeyward, there are many issues with article ownership and BLP zealotry that will likely require further dispute resolution (not to mention a lot of instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). If administrators want a more thorough account of this dispute, I'm happy to provide it. But things are certainly not being helped by a topic-banned editor engaging in the tag team. I'm trying to work out these issues one at a time, and this seems to me to be the most unambiguous problem.

jps (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems plausible that Arzel was not deliberately breaching the topic ban, at least with respect to the climate change article. After all, very few contemporary social, political, environmental, or security issues are completely unrelated to American politics. I wonder if the administrators in this case would be willing to clarify the parameters of the topic ban, or offer some additional criteria for determining whether the editor is running afoul of his sanctions. TheBlueCanoe 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some like to over use the terms denialist, denier, etc. all too often in BLPs. It equates to Holocaust Denial and is oftentimes used in a partisan fashion when many of those subjects have never said anything other than they are skeptical...while others are.merely opposed to alarmist responses to climate change mitigation and merely want a cautious measured response. With that said, an edit dated two.months hence is past sell by date and me thinks this is best left as a caution for Arzel to tread lightly in such issues so he doesn't upset the snake oil salesmen.--MONGO 20:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "climate change" edits were not concerned with the 3.3 micron infrared absorption band of methane, or whether changes to heavy precipitation follow Clausius-Clapeyron scaling, or anything else of a scientific nature. The edits instead were within the context of the U.S. political debate over the issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The argument here seems to be that U.S. politics edits are acceptable as long as they also are relevant to some other topic. A request for clarification to the arbitrators would be helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of any involvement by parties, it's kinda weird to see how ruthlessly all significant information has been removed from the article. We are severely harming Wikipedia when we permit this kind of deletion to prevail. --TS 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cardamon and others, the material is related to American politics, with the attempt to dismiss the peer-reviewed academic-press book by Mann regarding his statements on the Watts and his "Watts up with that" blog being an illustrative example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: These edits are not about science[27][28][29]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I find it interesting the swift juctice the process seems to at least want to give out to some, while the amazing amount of evidence needed to get any sanctions on an editor that has been pushing a conservative POV for years. I know this may sound crazy. But it almost seems that Wikipedia not only has systematic bias, but also favors a certain POV in its punishments. I mean, its not like wikipedia has a disproportionate number of white males from the US who tend to hold a conservative POV... or anything....Casprings (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: To ignore his opinion is to ignore the context for the case. With the context, it is clear that he is editing with American Politics in mind. Climate change denial is an important WP:Fringe of the American right and very connected to American politics. He has a long history of editing with a conservative POV (see last post). So with that context, how is it not a reasonable conclusion that his edits are within the scope of American Politics, "broadly construed"? Yes, if you ignore all the context one could make the argument that it is not connected to American Politics. However, you are ignoring the history and the context.Casprings (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000 and EdJohnston: I find your logic difficult to accept as the original rational of the Arbitration committee. I must agree with Mastcast. I would also note, many of the differences in the original finding of fact do not meet this very tight connection to American Politics. I plan on asking the committee for clarification.Casprings (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request for clarification can be found here. Casprings (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this. [30] . I really don't think he thought those edits were a violation. Whatever the clarification, I think he should not be sanctioned . One has to assume good faith given that this is an issue that needs clarification with others too. I still think the punishment system is biased against certain POVs. Casprings (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zero0000 here. These edits are about a climate change denier/skeptic, not US politics. The guy is not really a climate scientist, and of course politics has to do a fair bit with his popularity, but that does not automatically make edits to his page related to US politics. I also see no evidence of edit-warring. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, every article or talk-page edit that Arzel has made since his topic ban deals directly with American politics, and thus violates his topic ban. I'll go a bit further: virtually every edit that Arzel has ever made on Wikipedia is closely linked to partisan political talking points. This is the sum total of his editing, both before and after his topic ban. Find me some non-trivial edits by Arzel that aren't directly derived from hot-button issues in U.S. partisan politics (race relations, climate change, environmental legislation, various right-wing media personalities, etc). He doesn't edit anything else besides American politics. So either the topic ban should be applied here, or we should just pretend it doesn't exist. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A web search also finds a (rather biased against Watts) sourcewatch.org page mentioning that Watts for a while ran the web site for the Butte County Republicans([34] entry of Sept 27, 2008; Wayback link since the sourcewatch link is dead), and the "Welcome" post (Sept 25, 2008, same url) on that site, saying "We need to get Republicans elected to office... We elect Republicans by turning out voters on November 4th." were posted by "Wattsupwiththat" which was presumably Anthony Watts, who made other posts from to that site as well. Plus he supplied a webcast to the site (Oct 6 entry). So while calling Watts an actual politician is at most borderline, he was clearly a Republican party activist and briefly a conservative-labelled candidate for elected political office. Plus there are the political overtones of the climate change thing. I'm not going to yell about AE sanctions for the past edits but in the context of the TBAN, I think it would be better if Arzel avoided the Watts article going forward.

Anyway, DHeyward's take[35] that Watts' politics look aligned with the Green Party might have been a nice guess but it doesn't hold up to a little research. My main issue with Arzel's (or anyone else's) editing is not about the narrow question of whether the article subject is a politician, but about whether the editor is contributing using a neutral point of view or a biased one. We all have our biases but I think we should recognize them and adjust for them in our editing, so that we always make an effort to edit neutrally, following the overall spectrum of existing published sources rather than emphasizing just the ones we agree with. I hope Arzel (and everyone!) can make good effort to edit in that spirit regardless of the specific articles being edited. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I see merit in this request. The argument raised by AQFK, that the climate change topic is a scientific and not a specifically American political topic, appears specious to me: the debate between "climate change proponents" and "climate change deniers/skeptics" is clearly a central issue of American political life, and an article about an American blogger who focusses on this debate seems to me to be well inside the bounds of "American politics, broadly construed". With the fourth link, regarding the "Hands Up" article, there can be no doubt at all that it is within the area of the topic ban. On both counts, a sanction will be in order. I haven't looked yet at the allegations made against the filing party. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Climate change is clearly part of American politics. So is the "Hands Up" article. This is a good moment for Arzel to reconsider his position and withdraw from such disputes. If he won't do so a block appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind, see below. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Arzel is also commenting on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) (Watts is a prominent climate change denier). I would say that Arzel is pushing the boundaries and needs a firm reminder to step back. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000 It is hard to think of a topic more closely identified with American politics, than climate change. The "debate", such as it is, exists solely because of political activism from the right in US politics. America is pretty much the only country where the fact of climate change is controversial, everywhere else the debate is what to do about it, not whether it exists, because the fact that ti exists has been established beyond reasonable doubt, as our articles show. Arzel is active on the article on Anthony Watts, the claim that he is not a political figure evaporates under any kind of scrutiny: he operates a climate denial blog funded in part by the Heartland Institute and has been used as a source of climate denial materials by climate deniers in the US political arena. That article is a US political article. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000 I get your point, but climate change is politics and Watts is American, and the Heartland Institute is an American political body and Watts is cited by Republican climate deniers. It's political, and it's American, and it's notable only because of American politics. I'm not arguing for a sanction, but I am saying this is a case for Arzel backing off because it's virtually impossible to decouple that article form American politics, especially right now as the climate deniers are rallying for one last hurrah (while, no doubt, buying hilltop property as a hedge). Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I ask my fellow admins to note that Arzel's topic ban does not ban him from articles related to US politics, but rather from making edits related to US politics. I think the "hands up" edit fails this test (though I don't understand it), but I'm not convinced that the climate change edits do. As someone noted above, just about every issue of public debate is somehow related to US politics. That doesn't make every such issue included in the topic ban; more relevantly it does not make every edit related to climate change automatically related to US politics. I also note that the list of examples given by arbcom are almost all much more clearly of a US-political nature. At the very least, Arzel's argument that the edits were not US-politics related is plausible and does not prove bad faith. If we want to include climate change in the topic ban (for what reason?) we can do so, but I don't think Arzel should be sanctioned now for a judgement that many reasonable people could make. Zero^talk 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: the topic ban certain does apply to talk pages, and I didn't say otherwise. To Casprings: I deliberately did not attempt to figure out Arzel's position on climate change; it is irrelevant to the current process. Zero^talk 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG Climate change denial is a very serious problem in my own country, which is not the USA, and I know of other non-US countries where that is true too. So I believe your statement to be factually incorrect. Also, I'll repeat that it is not relevant if the article is related to US politics, but only whether the edits Arzel made were related to US politics. That's what the topic ban says. The argument that they were about the climate change "debate" and therefore about US politics is not a valid argument, imho. As for "active on the article on Anthony Watts", he/she only ever made one edit to article space, definitely not the usual m.o. for an activist, and his/her edits on the talk page specifically focus on the science and not the politics. I disagree with practically every word he/she wrote there, but I don't see a topic ban violation. Zero^talk 13:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG, you say "climate change is politics" and of course there is a sense in which you are right. But the same can be said of almost every issue which is the subject of public debate. Debate about health care, mining, public transport, drug trafficking, education, sexual discrimination, etc, is also "politics" in the same way. What I question is whether arbcom intended the topic ban as widely as that, rather than more tightly. My interpretation is that "US politics" refers to workings of US governments and interactions with those governments. One option we have is to ask arbcom for a clarification. Zero^talk 07:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I now agree with User:Zero0000's position on this. The entire article on Anthony Watts (blogger) doesn't fall under a US politics ban, but any edits to add or remove mention of US politics would be covered. So I don't see the diffs submitted above by jps to show any ban violation. If you think that User:Arzel's editing on climate change generally is inappropriate, you could ask for a separate topic ban under WP:ARBCC. But I'm not aware of evidence for such a ban. It would be unusual to define a ban on US politics so widely that anything which a politician could potentially have an opinion on would be covered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@jps: Looking at the diffs submitted in this report, #3 comes the closest, but I don't see any actual mention of politics there. It looks like yet another round of the denialism vs skepticism debate, which is a familiar dispute within our global warming articles. No Republican politicians are mentioned in that revert. To the extent that Arzel is not paying attention to the edges of his US politics ban he may unexpectedly cross the line and then a sanction will indeed be appropriate. #3 is a large change to the article and I doubt he is watching the issue carefully enough. We hope he is aware now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to uninvolved administrators (and others), there is an active clarification request relevant to this AE request:

ArbCom clerk note: This request is the subject of a current ArbCom clarification request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I had read through this discussion looking to close it and was working through the question "Are the edits in the area of the topic ban?" before noticing this small note. So, I removed the small tags.) Zad68 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: Consensus of ArbCom was that Watts edits were not in the area of the topic ban, but the Hands up edit was. At this point though the Hands up is stale and further editing in that area doesn't appear likely, so no action is needed prevent disruption. Regarding the Watts edits, Arzel is cautioned that editing in areas adjacent to the topic ban increases the chances of an inadvertent topic-ban breach, to respect the topic ban and to be careful to avoid editing in the area of the ban. Zad68 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Gobonobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 15:18, April 5, 2015 Eric Corbett notes his topic ban then violates it by referring disparagingly to GGTF. He also makes a personal attack against another editor, referring to User:Sue Gardner as "terminally dim". Eric started the 'Forbidden topics' section on his talk page stating that "The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything."
2. 13:30, April 26, 2015 Eric Corbett writes that GGTF supporters "have blocked up their ears and closed their eyes to the reality"
3. 13:57, April 26, 2015 When asked why he made the comment that started the section, Eric references the WMF's attempt to rectify the gender gap writing that "millions of dollars thrown away to address a problem that nobody really has any evidence is a problem at all".
4. 19:53, April 26, 2015 Eric Corbett follows me to Giano's talk page and replies to my post, "One has to wonder which hallucinogenics are at work here."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 25 January 2015 Block by Sandstein for violating the GGTF topic ban
2. 27 February 2015 Block by Coffee for violating the topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since the GGTF arbitration, Eric has received two short blocks for violations of the topic ban. Per the Arb Com remedy, a third violation should result in a week-long block. I recommend fully protecting Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of any block because it is where this latest violation took place.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

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.

This is all very tiresome. Callanecc clearly wants to issue a 72-hour block for something or other, so I suggest that he just gets on with it and stops wasting everbody else's time. Eric Corbett 01:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Is it too much to expect a little bit of parity? In just one fairly small section of Lightbreather's talk page I am mentioned no less that 26 times today, and not much of it in a complimentary way. Eric Corbett 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of this it happened over three weeks ago and this editor is simply trying to dig up dirt on Eric and cause trouble. I would hope that this is swiftly closed and thrown out and Gobonobo given a warning. This sort of thing wastes everybody's time, including the arb clerks who surely have better things to be sorting out. I don't see any gross violation here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc Do you not think a 72 hour block three weeks after something was said would be a little pointy though? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A warning to the filing party is in order for digging up mud that is already past its sell by date.--MONGO 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Lightbreather (talk · contribs) resurrects a dead thread on Eric's talk page, gets blocked for something else and within an hour or so gobonobo decides now is the time to raise the dead thread at AE? What a coincidence. Where have these people been for the last three weeks?

Eric has plenty of watchers. Any report should have been made at the time. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo: your diff of 26 April in clearly in response to Lightbreather's obvious baiting. The question is, why did she reignite that thread? - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: it isn't merely "pretty mild" - see ^ ^ Is AE intended to police to the letter or to the spirit? - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam and Callanecc: I don't usually look at LB's talk page and haven't done so for a long time, but she has pinged me there and produced a house of cards to cast aspersions (one of her favourite phrases, IIRC) about motives etc. All this does is make her look even more combative/less collaborative. Eg: in this first bit she jumps from drawing one suspect conclusion to another, where the only connection is in her head, eg: I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him is simply not capable of substantiation because we're not mind-readers, not supported in fact in this or many other instances and seems to be an attempt to blame me for drawing Eric into this palaver - all cleverly strung together with a "might" to avoid direct accusation. Among the other insinuations is I've mostly been working in my preferred subject areas, which you have started to get involved in. I think I'm involved in one article that LB frequents, which is the one mentioned in the AN thread and which I joined because of an open RfC and because I happened to know one of the central characters who was being used as a source (the late Hugh Trevor-Roper). That isn't the multiple involvement that LB implies, nor is it unreasonable for me to be there, although I'm trying to keep some distance because her steamrollering, edit warring, trying to chill with vague accusations of sockpuppetry etc is only going to end badly somewhere down the line.

This sort of spreading of poison needs to stop and if the only way to do it is to apply some version of BOOMERANG even though she is not a named party here then so be it. So, whether you decide to transpose her comments to this request or not, please do examine them carefully: they are not quite what they seem and I'll put money on her using them again in the future as part of an even bigger shaky construction when she inevitably ends up in another drama-fest and people have forgotten the backstory. - Sitush (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original gag order was utterly daft, especially in light of its extraordinarily broad nature. Enforcing it would be even dafter (if that's a word). If there are problems with the nature of comments then deal with those on their own terms rather than banning someone from commenting on a particular topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint seems to be a sheer search for More Dramah, much as described above. I see no merit to it, and no advantage to pursuing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation has died anyway, so there is nothing preventative about action here, only punitive, which blocks are not meant to be. I can't understand why the nominator is dredging up old incidents now and appears counterintuitive to harmonious editing and a contravention of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting user should be at least warned about this dirt-digging of old threads. Furthermore, a stern warning might be considered by the committee about attempts to harass Eric Corbett by game-playing AE enforcement in this way. A more suitable solution might be to completely revise and amend the restrictions placed on Eric Corbett, given the extent to which various editors are continuing to attempt to harass him by using AE and the committee in this manner.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that using the "later evidence" in isolation from the events that led to it is ignoring the dynamics at work here. The original report was stale and it seemed to me and others that it was a case of harassing Eric Corbett. The tactic didn't work at a naive level. But in reality, it did work, because it provoked a series of responses from Eric Corbett that were immediately seized upon and submitted by the original reporter to strengthen a case for a block. I suggest that we should not let this tactic of gaming the system work towards blocking Eric. The original poster should be warned severely about posting old threads that have certainly caused disruption, I suggest. Whether just a severe warning is sufficient is another issue, but I am getting fed up of these series of reports that all seem to be a "let's try to get Eric Corbett blocked" action by certain editors. In terms of an IBAN between Eric Corbett and Lightbreather, I would say that this might have potential, but we need to be aware of another kind of gaming the system, whereby an IBAN is used to prevent one editor contributing to an article just by virtue of the other editor jumping in to make a pre-emptive edit to it. Given tactics I suggest we see here, I wouldn't put this past some editors to try to do, which is definitely against all that wikipedia claims to be.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: I really think some comment is needed about he advisability of posting complaints based on old,stale comments. This is how this AE report started, and I suggest that it should never have been started in this way. (Whether the later "evidence" should have been the way to begin a different AE report is a different matter.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just for the sake of non-argument, I'll put my comment here rather than below. Suffice to say that I strongly endorse the views of Bishonen, and DDStretch. It's the people who provoke discord who should be admonished, NOT those who respond to the provocation. That's not to say that I think "2 wrongs make a right", but I DO think people have every right to defend themselves. Going "By the book" may have it's place, but as said above, if it's only to support the "letter" rather than the "spirit" - then it becomes part of the problem. — Ched :  ?  13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather made seven baiting comments on Eric Corbett's talk page in the hour before she was blocked (apparently for other misdeeds) and one hour before this ds was filed.

1. [37] (edit summary: Do you people never tire of self-congratulation?)
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]
6. [42]
7. [43]

Isn't this baiting? Is it really true that Eric Corbett is forbidden to use letters of the alphabet? G, T, F? Prohibiting this is just shutting up the opinions of dissidents on their own talk pages regarding political matters, I think. EChastain (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh not this again .... I have recently had two good GA reviews from Eric, where he (as ever) goes beyond the call of duty and fixes issues himself and has been collegial, polite and helpful. I've said it before but my view is now thoroughly cemented - if you want to work on articles with Eric and do the job well, he's brilliant. If he tells you to fuck off, there's probably a good underlying reason for it. Now can we go back to article work or do we need some more dramah first? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Can you explain to me exactly how blocking Eric for 3 days will help improve the encyclopedia and reduce disruption? Because past experience shows it does the precise opposite as Eric doesn't care, blocking him for three weeks won't change a thing, but "Eric Corbett" the soap opera (not to be confused with Eric Corbett the editor) will take traction and editors will get giddy with all the drama. Seriously, why is hitting the banhammer on Eric so important to you? PS: An interaction ban between Eric and Lightbreather sounds like a possible alternative - I don't think Eric will care much about being stung with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be considered an uninvolved admin, as I've worked closely with Eric many times and consider him a friend. That aside, I think this is a tad ridiculous. Eric made a comment on his own talk page 3 weeks ago and then didn't comment again...until he was baited repeatedly by Lightbreather, who came specifically to do so. If she weren't blocked already, I would have taken her to ANI for baiting after I saw that. Eric is not going around the encyclopedia trying to break his sanctions - he made a single venting statement on his own talk page and then let it go until LB posted a lot of text about the subject of his sanctions - with a note that she knew he couldn't respond there or he'd get in trouble. That seems like taunting. Please close this. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, I would support a mutual interaction ban between Eric and Lightbreather. Although I will note that Eric has been leaving Lightbreather alone and has not discussed her (to my knowledge) since his last AE block. The diffs presented here came only after she arrived at his talk page and left a series of baiting messages. On the other hand, Lightbreather has been collecting interaction bans - is there a list anywhere of how many editors she is now barred from speaking to/about? I'm not sure how many are actually in effect and how many she proposed that didn't gain consensus. Is there a point at which we become concerned about the number of IBans a single user has gathers and/or requested? Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ekips39, I think the first diff, Sitush's comment, was baiting Lightbreather. The second diff, Eric's comment, was in direct response to a comment that Lightbreather had made about her injury and the lack of sympathy for it. Sitush's baiting of LB, while inappropriate, has nothing to do with her baiting of Eric. Basically, she inserted herself into a stale conversation on the talk page of someone with whom she did not agree in order to defend an initiative (that wasn't being attacked) that she knew Eric wasn't allowed to talk about. When she didn't get an immediate response, she posted again - this time a direct question related to the topic that he shouldn't be allowed to talk about. That led to diff 2 in the evidence above - which, although worded poorly, did convey the fact that he didn't intend to discuss the matter. Lightbreather acknowledged that he couldn't respond but continued to post on his talk page. That led to diff 3 in the evidence above. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with Eric on a couple of articles I was trying to get to Featured Status and he was friendly and brilliant. Instead of censoring content creators like Eric, more users should strive to emulate him. Besides, if he told someone to piss off, bugger off, or whatever, they probably deserved it.

The filing party should be trouted or warned, as keel-hauling is no longer in fashion. GregJackP Boomer! 23:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EC's behavior and language has not been problematic. I think we have clear cases of baiting here and on his page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callanec as you seem to be the only one lobbying for a block what words can EC say and can he not? Why twist it so that EC can only talk about fluffy clouds? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily endorse a speedy close per WP:BAIT. I also think that Lightbreather needs to be banned from posting to Eric's talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More tag-team baiting of Public Enemy No. 1. Note my lack of surprise that Lightbreather is involved. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who looks at EChastain's diffs and sees Lightbreather being baited? [44] [45] Maybe that's not what it is, but those comments don't seem much better than what LB said. (I'm uninvolved, if that matters.) ekips39❦talk 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support Zad68's proposed close. Would also advise said parties to avoid reading or discussing each other's talk pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Regardless of the outcome of this Enforcement report, the GGTF Arbcom case may require amending. A clarification on broadly construed & additional I-Bans, would be wise. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This edit is three weeks old. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second diff, the editor was responding to a comment on his own talk page, directly on the subject of the GGTF. It is unrealistic to expect him not to respond, in that context. I support taking no action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily agree, the banning policy makes it quite clear that you cannot talk about it anywhere and at AE in the past we have expected that users would say that they can't comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a formally defensible view and has the advantage of reflecting a clear, bright-line, readily enforced standard. Nonetheless, in this context, I continue to disagree, because the purpose of remedies is to prevent disruption of encyclopedia-building and community harmony, and seeking out this sort of violations on the user's own talkpage does not really serve that goal. (In the words of Benjamin Cardozo, relevant by analogy here, "Jurisdiction exists that rights may be maintained. Rights are not maintained that jurisdiction may exist.") However, I take a harsher view of Eric's post on Lightbreather's talkpage, and while I will not support a block for that so long as it is not repeated, I instruct him to stay off that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree that the various comments in question don't disrupt community harmony, I don't see how insulting and/or belittling, no matter the context, doesn't do that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The filer has added a diff from 26 April which seems to breach both of the sanctions cited so it looks to me like a block is appropriate. Given that we've had the first 72 hour block (c.f. Eric Corbett prohibited) it seems appropriate that the second 72 hour block is imposed this time as enforcing both sanctions. Regarding the filer, a reminder probably to include recent evidence is appropriate, not a warning as I haven't seen any history which indicates that they have a record of inappropriate filings. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Um ... which of the first sanctions does that break? (I can see how it might be taken as breaking the second, though it's pretty mild). Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Discussing this diff since there are more now) It's about gender gap task force which is a violation of the topic ban, and (while I do agree it's mild) it's also "insulting and/or belittling" so a violation of the prohibition.

Regarding the two new diffs, I'm not too concerned about this one though it was probably ill advised. This one could be considered insulting and/or belittling but I'm not too concerned with it either. What does concern me though is that this is ongoing, even after this AE request was submitted Eric continued skirt the boundaries (if not breach) the restriction/s. If this were (almost) any other editor they'd be blocked, but I'm not going to do it just yet as I want to see what others have to say about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the sanction is as written above, simply mentioning the GGTF doesn't appear to be a breach (especially in reply to an editor talking about it). I'm not convinced that this is enough to issue a block. And I'd say that about any editor, not just Eric. I think AE blocks have to be really clear-cut. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, the one quoted above is incorrect. The scope of the topic ban was amended (in Feb 2015) to ...editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a little more understandable now. I'm still unconvinced though, given the situation and the clear baiting involved. Call me neutral now. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This AE request seems of a piece with the equally frivolous civility warning to Giano that Gobonobo posted three hours later.[46] That too was for a post on Eric Corbett's page. Note that taking Giano's words out of context, as Gobonobo did in the warning, they might seem offensive and/or sexist (similar to the second diff Gobonobo offers here). The context is provided a little further down in the thread on Giano's page. I propose no action against Eric Corbett and some strongly worded advice to the filer to not go round looking for trouble. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• I propose to speedy close as no action.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Misread Callanecc's comment, unless they change their mind speedy would not be approppriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have much of an opinion on the result of this request - if Eric doesn't care, why should I? But I do want to know why a blocked editor is being invited to submit a statement against Eric on their talk page, by the admin who most wants to issue a block? I don't care what LB says in her own defense on her talk page, but I object to it being transfered here, and I cannot fathom why this is being enabled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's pretty standard procedure when someone is being discussed (ie some of the diffs concern Lightbreather and they've been accused of baiting) who can't reply for an unrelated reason (ie block isn't due to behaviour in this AE request). And it wasn't an invitation, they asked to address some of the things which have been raised about them and I told them how it's done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen statements transfered when the blocked editor is the subject of an AC/AE/AN/ANI thread. I haven't seen it in cases like this, and I think this is a bad precedent (or, if it really has been done before, I think those were bad precedents). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's especially important when they're the subject of the report but AE sometimes (was going to say tendency but not sure it's that often) to hand out sanctions to more than just the subject and filer when supported allegations are made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dr. Blofeld: I agree, I'm not suggesting we block for that diff, but for the other three recent ones which have been reported plus the ones to Lightbreather's talk page NYB refers to. As well as the pattern which is developing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also considering an IBAN between Lightbreather and Eric given that this (including the statement on Lightbreather's talk page) is another instance of disruption between the two of them. Thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  This might be a good idea, including prohibition of posting on each other talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to Ddstretch's comment above that "some comment is needed about he advisability of posting complaints based on old, stale comments": AE has no stated limit on how old a diff can be. Generally diffs considered "stale" aren't actionable, but there's no hard definition of "stale." I see no evidence that Gonobono has ever been involved in an AE request before so there's certainly no history of them misusing this process, and Gonobono went to NYB's User Talk page here to ask about it after Brad's comment. So my evaluation is that Gonobono's filing of this report was done in good faith, and NYB's comments should be enough. Zad68 17:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a solid consensus among uninvolved AE admins and commenters alike for no block for Eric, generally based on feelings of "No clear violation" and "Would be counterproductive", with Callanecc dissenting and leaning toward action. There is support for some remedy to reduce interaction between Eric and Lightbreather. Proposed closure, which I support, is:

• Eric and LB are prohibited from posting on each other's User Talk pages, except for necessary templated notifications banned from interacting with each other. Upgraded to IBAN after Rich's comment

with no other action. Zad68 16:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This strikes me as a reasonable outcome. In any event, I would like to come to a conclusion soon rather than have this request stay open and generate more ill-will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would close now with the Iban except Eric might conceivably think I was biased, so I will just strongly urge someone else to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this with a two-way IBAN but I do not see that administrators have the ability to issue that kind of remedy under the particular Arbitration case cited in this request. As this sanction is the result of a community discussion, this IBAN is to be considered a Community Sanction with any appeals to be made at WP:AN. Striking to replace with below Zad68 00:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closure has now been changed to be an Arbitration Enforcement action under The GGTF case closure as amended February 2015. Zad68

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 26th April 2015 Editing article for A Voice For Men, a Men's Rights website.
2. 26th April 2015 Editing Calgary Expo article to include information about Gamergate.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 4th April 2015 Standard Gamergate topic ban administered by Gamaliel

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 4th April 2015 by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think editing the article for a Men's Rights website violates this editor's topic ban from "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy" broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[47]

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.

"All pages related to people associated with gender-related controversy" could arguably pertain to 100% of articles about people on Wikipedia. If you dig deep enough, there would inevitably be a gender-related controversy in any person's life, even if it is something as simple as "which parent do you favour" or "which sex are you attracted to".

I have contacted Gamaliel about my concerns about this broadness. It was undue, and it effectively operates as a 1-year block altogether (not a topic block) since:

1. it's too vague and applies to everything except discussion of basic concepts like chemistry or math
2. I am told "demonstrate an ability to deal with sensitive issues regarding living individuals in other areas of the encyclopedia" yet there is no way to demonstrate such an ability if I am banned from discussing living individuals altogether

As best I've been informed, this has been based upon

1. citing tweets by person Z on the talk page of the article about person Z
2. linking to a page on appropriate disambiguation pages

The reasoning has been spurious. The tweets and their data were not libelous or inaccurate, because they came from the person they were about, we use the same Twitter account to support the birth year in the article.

I also do not find them 'unflattering', I have a great respect for the career in question. This is like saying "Chris Jericho loves hockey" and an admin who hates hockey thinking it unflattering, not taking into account that this is not the viewpoint others take of the hobby.

I made efforts to demonstrate ability-to-deal by talking and was not being given due consideration, and it was unjustified to put it up to begin with. Ranze (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it would be against the rules to reply to the below commentators in their own sections so I will do so here:

• @A Quest For Knowledge: Anything but discussing carbon can be twisted into being called that. I'm not discussing gender issues at all, for AVFM I was fact-checking what our article said and what the references said. I think if you had an issue with the accuracy of the edits themselves you'd bring it up, their neutrality speaks for me staying within bounds of not injecting my opinion into topics. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bilby: The focus here does not appear to be on making valid edits, because anyone else could add that as a reference to establish game notability. I avoided doing so because I'm trying to stay within bounds. Simply mentioning GP covered it is not me making GG commentary, I avoided doing so and left the decision as to whether to do so to others. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Heimstern: my perception is that the edits did not expressedly concern GG because the actual text I added to the article did not mention it. I do not understand a topic ban to extend to me having to make sure that references make no mention of it either. I was willing to modify the titles to omit references to it if necessary. Could you please inform me of how to go through an appeals process? Gamaliel did not do so, so I was trying to negotiate it directly with the admin who put it there. I think it is unfair to put in a sanction and then leave the sanctioned person in the dark as to how to appeal it. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @HJ Mitchell: I agree it is not covered, but I don't understand why such a broad "gender-related dispute" thing needs to be applied. The conflict here was not even about GG it was about ZQ and discussing tweets on a talk page. This is like outlawing editing articles about math because of a conflict on a biology article because it's all 'science' or something. You mention "covered by the GamerGate sanctions" but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions says "The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded" so I thought there was nothing standard anymore and that sanctions should be based on what is relevant to behavior. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @EdJohnston: I thought the point of a 'pages related to' sanction was to protect the integrity of articles. Redirects are not articles so I thought it was okay. I first checked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Milo+Y to make sure there were no other people named Milo whose surname ended in Y that we had an article about. It seemed harmless to do since he is the only Milo Y on Wikipedia at present. "Yiannopoulos" is just a really hard name to remember the spelling of when I want to type something easily in an address bar. I was linking to the article in discussions about this very issue (since he was a source for some data that was under dispute) and thought it would lessen clutter to have that shortcut. Is there any interest in looking into the neededness of these sanctions to begin with? I'm working on making that appeal. I would've thought a process like this necessary to impose them in the first place, rather than something a single admin can apply. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the first diff is a violation (perhaps I missed something?), but the second diff certainly appears to be a clear-cut violation of the topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection, the discretionary sanctions include "any gender-related dispute or controversy", so both appear to be pretty clear-cut violations of the topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add to the two edits noted by PeterTheFourth a third - creating the article Afterlife Empire. Although the stub Ranze created doesn't specifically mention GamerGate, the game was noted for having been heavily funded by GamerGate supporters, and includes the GamerGate mascot as a character. Although a direct reference wasn't added, Ranze made mention of GamePolitics.com reporting on the game. The article concerned, [48], is focused entirely on the relationship between Afterlife Empire and GamerGate. I can't see this as a coincidence, and Ranze's reference to the GamePolitics article makes this clear. - Bilby (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranze, the problem is that you've been making edits regarding the topic of GamerGate, in spite of the topic ban - creating an article about game sponsored by GamerGate, and adding content about a booth evicted from an expo when they were selling GamerGate material. That in both cases you attempted (with limited success) to avoid using the term "GamerGate" doesn't mean that they aren't violations of the topic ban. The issue is editing the general topic of GamerGate, not whether or not you mention the specific term. - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some sentiment among the admins below that Men's Rights Activism is not a gender-related controversy. I'd love to know whether this is intentional, and a precedent, seeing that Lena Dunham and Campus Rape are definitively gender-related controversies per ARCA. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranze still seems to be skirting the edges of the topic ban even after being warned for making a clear-cut violation. The fact that he seems to be treating this as something of a game is concerning. It isn't hard to avoid editing articles related to Gamergate and gender controversies unless you're here to push a POV rather than build an encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Mark's concern that there would be any question that "Men's Rights Movement" would not obviously fall under Gender related controversies broadly construed when the arbs have clearly stated that campus rape is somehow both gender related and controversial when EVERYONE thinks campus rape is bad.

"Men" is a gender too, you do realize, i hope.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that of the three admins, one mentioned concerned Men's Rights and allegations of misogyny, I can't see how this could be anything but a violation of the topic ban issued by Gamaliel and another said this is a clear-cut violation of the topic ban ... there is clearly an overlap between MRM and "gender-related dispute or controversy", I think that MarkBernstein and TheRedPenOfDoom simply doth protest too much. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Given that one of these edits expressly concerned GamerGate, and the other concerned Men's Rights and allegations of misogyny, I can't see how this could be anything but a violation of the topic ban issued by Gamaliel. Ranze, your argument seems to be that your ban was unjustified. If that is the case, you need to follow the appeals process to have it lifted. Until such a time as it is, you are bound by it and may be blocked if you make edits that violate it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ranze: you're right that you should be informed of how to appeal your topic ban. You can do that at this page by creating a new section and using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If you do appeal, you should make the strongest case you can that the sanction itself is in error. In the meantime, understand that you must abide by the ban and not edit in this topic area, even if your edits seem innocuous.
  • As for this thread, I agree with HJ Mitchell to close with a warning only. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Registering no objection to EdJohnston's suggestion, since it seems Ranze has failed to heed my two attempts to caution against any further editing in this area. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this is a clear-cut violation of the topic ban (consensus is, I believe, that the Men's Rights Movement is not in itself covered by the GamerGate sanctions, but there is clearly an overlap between MRM and "gender-related dispute or controversy"). I suggest a warning and provision of a Men's Rights article probation notice, assuming this is a first topic-ban violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• While this AE complaint was open (on 27th April) Ranze went ahead and created a redirect at Milo Y, which goes to Milo Yiannopoulos. See Milo Yiannopoulos#Gamergate for the obvious and blatant connection to Gamergate. So Ranze appears to be oblivious to his ban from Gamergate. I'd favor a two-week AE block for the topic ban violation: the Yiannopoulos link and the other diff submitted that was clearly about Gamergate. This leaves aside the first diff about MRM where not all the admins agree that it's a violation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. User:Ranze is blocked two weeks for violation of the ban from Gamergate. The diffs I am taking to be ban violations are the submitter's diff #2 above and the creation of the Milo Y redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Parishan (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Ban from the article Caucasian Albania and its Talk page for one week, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ninetoyadome

Administrator imposing the sanction

Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[49]

The sanction was applied for "(1) edit warring, (2) baiting, and (3) failing to cite reliable sources".

1. I do not believe that three reverts in a three-week period really qualify as "edit-warring".
2. I had made a sincere effort to warn the other user (Ninetoyadome) to make better use of talkpages on Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles instead of reverting them blindly. I certainly did not wait around for the 1RR restriction (in place for the article Caucasian Albania for all users) period to expire to make that edit; if one looks in my history, that was my first edit on that day (not counting a small edit I made just a minute prior). If I had had an interest in baiting Ninetoyadome, there were multiple opportunities for that weeks earlier because he had reverted that article more than once (and not only that one, cf. his block for a month for edit-warring and violating his 1RR restriction on many AA2 articles) and had been ignoring the discussion page for two weeks, leaving questions addressed to him with regard to his recent addition to the article unanswered. I referred the user to the talkpage one last time in my edit made to remove the controversial addition (it also seemed the only way to direct his attention to the article in question). He chose to revert me, again without replying. Logically it does not make much sense for someone who is out to bait a user to give so much chance to the 'baited' user to redeem themselves, therefore I question the accuracy of this observation by Zad68.
3. I do not see how I was expected to focus more on reliable sourcing than I had already done. I was one of the few users who actually did refer to reliable sources and suggest that others had not done so. It was not me who added new information to the article, to begin with. Hence it was not up to me to provide sources to substantiate it. I do not believe "failing to provide sources" is accurate criticism in my case.

User:EdJohnston, I think the admins are getting the wrong idea, because none of those who has responded addressed the particular issues I raised in the questions above. I am not necessarily arguing the suitability of the sanction. I am questioning the applicability of the terms "baiting" (of which there is absolutely no evidence) and "failing to cite reliable sources" (for which the ball was not in my court) when imposing the sanction. One can imagine a reliable source that supports the pertinence of a template. But how in the world can one imagine a reliable source that argues against the inclusion of a template? With regard to leaving comments in the month of April, whom would I have left them to, if there had been no response to my March comments? Parishan (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, as I said, I am not looking to persuade anyone to lift this sanction. I just need clarification of its wording, which would give me a better idea of how to act and how not to act in similar situations in the future. I am only looking to get answers to three questions: (1) Are three reverts in a three-week period considered edit-warring? (2) How does the term "baiting" apply in relation to a user who has been caught edit warring so many times (and which no one was accused of baiting him into) that it earned him an indefinite 1RR restriction over a year ago? Does it look like this kind of user needs to be "baited" into reverting a page? (3) If a user does not add any content into an article, is it still up to them to "provide reliable sources"? I would really appreciate it if any one of the admins could shed some light on this issue before closing this section. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given my reasons for the (very mild) sanction I applied, both here and at my User Talk. I don't really have anything to add, but would be happy to answer any (new) questions. I would genuinely welcome input from other uninvolved admins about whether my actions were appropriate and furthering the goal of reducing disruptive editing in this contentious topic area. Zad68 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment does not concern the merits of the sanction, but my frustration in regards to the editing of the article Caucasian Albania mentioned here (which caused the said sanction). My position is made clear in the talk page. I offered an alternative that neither of the two editors involved here replied to. I don't know if Parishan even agree with that alternative. The only reply I received which directly had anything to do with my proposition was from Hayordi, who mainly made clear that he was absolutely not open for any sort of concession. Personally, I believe that the box removed by Parishan had little place there, and I am completely neutral when I write that. On the other hand, it is hard to not add anything as alternative, given that the only material scholars have of that country from that country was written in Armenian (from what one can gather from some basic search in the relevant databases without using any filters). What I proposed was to drop Armenia and replace it with a more appropriate box (I have given two alternatives).

The problem is that editors are free to edit, but everyone has his own standards which is dependant to their inherent à priori biases. If I ask Parishan what standards he uses to include and exclude material, those standards will be different than his opponents. So what I basically proposed was a standardized structure everyone could agree with and how to achieve that. But after much writings and being unheard, I decided it was better for me to just quit before I regret having been here. Yahya Talatin (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no more admin comments I would decline this appeal. I didn't know that Wikipedia had a cast system, but would not surprise me a bit. Yahya Talatin (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A one-week topic ban from Caucasian Albania is a very mild sanction. Parishan did not make any posts at all at Talk:Caucasian Albania during April, even though that is the period he was making these reverts. Yet he was claiming the absence of any posts by the other guy on the same page justified his reverts. I see both sides making unconvincing arguments for the inclusion of their respective history templates. Caucasian Albania is an unusual case. The land it occupied is part of the current territory of Azerbaijan. But in historic terms it is not really part of Armenia nor of Azerbaijan. The most practical solution may be to omit both the {{History of Armenia}} and {{History of Azerbaijan}} templates. This is up to the consensus of editors. But if User:Ninetoyadome and User:Parishan plan to continue editing Caucasian Albania I hope their talk page contributions will show good understanding of the material in the references and will reassure us of their intention to edit neutrally. I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't find Parishan's arguments persuasive. In any case, it is now April 20 and in less than 24 hours his sanction will have expired. At that time he can go back to normal editing at Caucasian Albania. If there are no more admin comments I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored Parishan's appeal just now, since it had been archived by the bot without formal closure. Let me know if anyone has more comments. It is likely to be closed as moot within 24 hours, since the sanction has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]