Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

WP:AE
WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Darkness Shines

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

Request concerning Darkness Shines

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:20, 13 May 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: WP:ARBIPA

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

12 May 2015 tendentious editing. Reappears on article talk after three weeks to make a declaration that he will be inserting the image yet again when he has been told by multiple editors that it is against consensus, and does it immediately.
13 May 2015 You're obviously an idiot. non constructive to say the least.
13 May 2015 And what the fuck is that fo? Edit summary: dick.
27 April 2015 When is this constant hounding going to be fucking stopped? He is told in ani: Request has no merit but he continues it several times all over the place. Exemplary assume bad faith over an extended period.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15 May 2014 Darkness Shines is blocked for two months and topic banned from WP:ARBIPA related pages.
8 December 2012 Darkness Shines is warned under ARBPIA for his inappropriate comment.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

His tendentious editing, assuming bad faith, and uncivil comments discourages collaboration acutely. He has been advised to avoid these multiple times before and in the light of the fact that he just returned from an indefinite block and still repeats similar behavior recklessly is a serious concern in my opinion.

@Kingsindian: The diffs and case evidence presented is entirely of Darkness Shines and is related to his interaction with McClenon as well as Fut. Perf. It is his attitude that is disruptive. Wikipedia is not therapy. Making tendentious edits, assuming bad faith and being uncivil towards Fut. Perf. and McClenon is entirely on him. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush and RegentsPark: the block was made by Callanecc, because of DS's conduct towards Robert McClenon not Fut. Perf. I had not even considered that diff in adding the request here. The diffs I added also contain interaction with McClenon. While there is criticism of Fut. Perf. here, it does not resolve the concern raised about DS, and clearly ignores that the other side includes McClenon here. There were other uninvolved editors on the page,RfC was suggested, instead he tendentiously inserts the image a 7th time. The restrictions were placed on him due to his own actions. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Messaged on his talk page.

Discussion concerning Darkness Shines

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

Statement by Darkness Shines

Statement by Fut.Perf.

This is actionable under three different provisions at once: as a breach of the civility parole imposed under the BASC unblock, as a matter of WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and possibly under WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions too. On the civility side alone, I'm finding a 72h block as imposed by Callanecc remarkably light, given that Arbcom prescribed a block sequence for infractions that should escalate to indef in at most 4 steps [1], and given the long history of prior blocks and recidivism for the same issue. DS has had more than 30 distinct blocks, not counting the indefs for his various sock reincarnations, and the latest few NPA blocks among these were of 7 days (at least three times) and 14 days respectively. In addition, this most recent outburst is the immediate continuation of the pattern of hostile edit-warring and tendentious misuse of sources discussed only a few days ago at ANI, in a thread that unfortunately sank into the archive without action, but where at least one uninvolved admin observer (User:Akhilleus) opined that the pattern of disruption was enough to justify a reimposed indef ban.

In terms of WP:ARBIPA, keep in mind that DS is already indefinitely topic-banned from all India/Pakistan topics and that the article Female infanticide in India is merely an exception, granted for him to try to bring it to GA status. At the very least, this exception ought to be rescinded at this point. Reasons:

In the seven weeks since his unblock, DS has in fact done nothing to improve the quality of the article at all. Every single edit he has made to it was a hostile revert to his old version [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]; he did nothing to address any of the quality issues noted in the GA review. (In fact, you will find that he has barely done any constructive content building anywhere else either; virtually all his mainspace contributions since March have been reverts.) This: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] is the total of his contribs to the talkpage during the same time; it shows constant hostility and refusal to address other people's concerns.
As a result, the GA push has effectively failed. The GA nomination was rejected [19], and there are no signs of resuming work on it anywhere.
In the specific matter of the image in question, he has conducted a slow but persistent edit-war, reinserting it 7 times since March [20][21][22][23][24][25][26] (plus at least twice before his block [27][28]), against a growing consensus of pretty much everybody else on the talkpage (at least four other editors having spoken out against its use).

Frankly, I can't see any reason why DS was unblocked in the first place; the project will clearly be the better off the sooner his inevitable reimposed indef will come. Failing that, for now, a block of a duration commensurate with his prior block log and a scrapping of that topic ban exception should be the minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:: it is hardly for me to say, as I'm obviously involved here, and it's commonly known that if it was up to me DS would have been indef-banned years ago, but it's my impression that for clear-cut violations of restrictions that come up at AE standard minimum block lengths start somewhere around 2 weeks. That would also be the minimum kind of block length that would follow logically from the prior block record. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc:: it is of course true that the arbs have specified a progression to indef in several steps, implying several further chances, but that's the provision for infractions that are just one-off lapses in civility. What we have here goes significantly beyond that. It's a pervasive, structural pattern of disruption, involving low-quality content editing, source distortion, inability or unwillingness to constructively engage with other editors over content problems, and long-term edit-warring, with personal attacks coming just as the icing on the cake. Ed is spot on in saying that short blocks seem of little use here. Surely, the BASC decision cannot be construed as protecting DS from sanctions that admins would be justified in imposing on any other editor under comparable circumstances? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedural fairness, could somebody give DS a talkpage note that this is still open and sanctions beyond the present block are being considered? (I'd do it myself, but he doesn't like me posting there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Can we get some action here soon-ish? DS is back from his 3-day block, and is immediately back to exactly the same behaviour in yet another case: edit-warring [29][30][31] to reinsert an image that's apparently been misattributed to the wrong historical situation (explanation here: [32]). Again, DS uses blanket Twinkle reverts, without any effert at all to engage with other people's arguments, in fact without even a word of explanation. (Note that this is now no longer in ARBIPA but in ARBEE territory, another area from which he has previously been topic-banned.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what's going to happen now? It's been four days since the last edits in the admin section below; we have a consensus of three admins favouring an indef block, with one considering alternative restrictions instead. DS has declined to comment [33] and has given no signs of willingness that he might somehow modify his behaviour. We are, in short, back at exactly the point we were at before and after every single one of the 31 blocks in the past: waiting for the next time DS will act disruptively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And .... we're still waiting. And DS is still edit-warring messed-up and ungrammatical POV content into articles without talkpage participation and with false edit summaries [34]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And.... while we're waiting (still), DS has again broken his existing IPA topic ban [35] (not for the first time, and after being clearly warned against skirting around the edges of the ban just at the last ANI thread a few weeks ago [36]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: About your two points: What, a single edit to an article can't be revert-warring? Of course it can. It is edit-warring if it is done as a continuation of others reverting back and forth over the same edit, and especially if it is coupled with other signs of disruptive and aggressive editing, as in this case: (a) insertion of obviously POV-motivated material in the lead, (b) blanket revert of multiple passages at once without explanation, (c) refusal to discuss on talk, (d) false edit summary involving a blatantly false invocation of WP:BURDEN (as the material in the lead that DS was reinserting was a very recent, undiscussed addition, which the previous editor had removed by reverting back to the longstanding version of the lead, so WP:BURDEN would have applied the other way round if anything). Such an edit is an instance of edit warring especially if it occurs as part of a pattern of an editor doing virtually nothing but hostile reverts of this sort, as DS has been doing ever since his unblock. Your second point: what, my noticing his TBAN violation supports a "suspicion" that I am following him? Don't be ridiculous – of course I have been following his contrib history; who wouldn't? I am interested in documenting a systematic pattern of abuse in his editing, and of course I have an interest in seeing how he reacts to these proceedings, so of course I check his edits. Bad edits need cleanup, and bad editors need scrutiny, that's what we have contribution histories for. – You, RegentsPark, have long displayed an inexplicable pattern of shielding DS from sanctions and downplaying his disruption, but in your desperate attempts at defending him you are now taking recourse to methods of dishonest special pleading that make me lose my patience with you, fast. Maybe you should consider keeping out of anything DS-related in the future, if you want to retain some credibility. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: what, no admin wanting to take further action? What about yourself? You, too, clearly advocated a renewed indef block. Why are you suddenly talking about your own subsequent inaction as if it was a reason for dropping the matter? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I am uninvolved in this matter, but I have had interactions with DS in WP:ARBPIA (mostly disagreements). While Fut. Perf. was of course within his rights to edit any article which he wishes, and DS does not own any article, it seems a bit strange for him to focus on DS's edits so much. The disagreements with DS on many articles are not straightforwardly changing "wrong" edits. The picture at Female Infanticide in India is a good example. While I am of the opinion that the picture shouldn't be included, I can see DS's argument that it is just an illustrative picture, and is not meant to show actual female infanticide. It seems to me that DS has become exasperated by Fut. Perf's perceived following of his edits. Surely, Fut. Perf. can give the guy a break, though he is of course not required to. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

Recent block has likely increased the chances of further blocks. That's why I think that the requirement of 3 blocks before indef is still fair. Maybe he has some plans for better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: DS has not contributed to any WP:SPI since his return, and last SPI contribution goes back to November 2014,[37] but given that sockpuppetry is on a rise, I think that we should wait for his statement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.perf: I have notified him.[38] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

Uninvolved but have commented on DS at AE and ANI.

ARBIPA. Still reading/digesting diffs, Female infanticide in India, and GA review. Absolute population sex deltas in FiiI (25, 35, 50 million) are very troubling; saying infanticide is underreported (male+female infanticde is 111 per year) gives implication of 50 million female infanticides. Article on India's population, Demographics of India#Neonatal and infant demographics, gives more neutral view and states, "These [female infantcide] claims are controversial. Scientists who study human sex ratios and demographic trends suggest that birth sex ratio between 1.08 to 1.12 can be because of natural factors, such as the age of mother at baby's birth, age of father at baby's birth, number of babies per couple, economic stress, endocrinological factors, etc." Compare also Female foeticide in India. The FiiI article could have a much better PoV, but I don't believe DS is the one to bring it. The interaction between DS and FPaS clouds many issues (see Kingsindian), DS has some traction (OR for sex deltas on years rather than sources), but I continue to get the sense that DS edit wars without understanding the underlying issues (see, for example, Talk:Female infanticide in India#Why do you keep edit warring OR into this article? where infanticide not related to sex is not addressed). As I understand it, the article was an exception to the TBAN. I'd remove the ARBIPA exception because the GA failed, DS did not significantly improve the article, and DS said he would no longer edit the article.

I read clause 3 as applying only to civility blocks. The grant allows DS to be rude three more times, but it is not a license for (slow) edit warring or going against consensus. Three days may be light given the history, but the block length under clause 3 is not an issue for me. There can be an advantage to starting with a short duration: 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and done would keep the civility issue current.

There are significant problems with DS's editing: neutral point of view (WP:5P2), civility (WP:5P4), understanding, edit warring, and consensus building. Twenty-two blocks in 3.5 years. I'm sympathetic to an indefinite block but this venue seems wrong, and there was little interest at ANI. Glrx (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I don't like this 'editing under restrictions' thing because it rarely works. It is relatively easy for the other side in a dispute to take the editor to AE and, given the tendency on Wikipedia is to look unfavorably toward any editor who is under arbcom sanctions, sooner or later the restricted editor ends up banned. For example, the complaint filed by AmritasyaPutra would likely have got little traction on ANI but here it resulted in an immediate block. (I also don't see why there is a civility restriction on DS when his ban was for socking. Ideally, the only restriction that should have been placed on DS is "one sock and you're out". And, as OccultZone points out, DS has been a consistently good sock finder but is barred from filing SPIs. Go figure that one!) There is also the history between FPAS (who, imo, in every non-DS matter is an excellent admin) and DS that colors any interaction between the two and I suggest not giving excessive weight to FPAS's opinions about DS.

As Girx identifies, there are significant problems with DS's editing, which doesn't fit the mould of polite non-commitalness that we're constructing through various arbcom rulings. But, this tendency to be draconian toward anyone who doesn't fit the mould comes with a cost and particularly impacts editors like DS who take (as Girx identifies) a 'blitzkrieg' approach toward editing. An approach that involves throwing a lot of stuff at an article and then fighting anyone who tries to clean it up. On the face of it, this sort of editing is troubling but, from a larger perspective (the 'forest' so to speak), it is actually quite good for the encyclopedia, particularly if it does not come from a single well-defined POV (and, while he may push certain views in specific articles, it is hard to identify DS with any agenda). We get a lot of material on subjects that are only peripherally covered, if at all, in other encyclopedias and we have something to prune and refine and shape into something encyclopedic. Unfortunately, when we toss these sort of editors out of Wikipedia, we end up tossing out the baby as well. Meanwhile we are left with the polite POV pushers who collect enough fringe sources to make their material look mainstream and, because they are polite and do not attract block ready admins, they are very hard to combat. (I know, none of this is appropriate here. But it seems to me that we're continually fighting the wrong battles on Wikipedia!--regentspark (comment) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest report by FPAS and the comment by User:Heimstern exactly illustrates my point above. DS reverts FPAS once. FPAS comes running to AE. and Heimstern says "edit warring - let's indef block". This wouldn't even merit a blink in the normal course of editing. At least for content focused editors (as opposed to wikispace focused editors). --regentspark (comment) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc:. Reviewing the sequence I can see that your block was actually independent of the AE report so I stand corrected on that point (and, under the conditions laid down, is probably a warranted block). But, the larger point is still valid. Most of what DS has done would not be sanctionable (or even worth examining) in the normal course of editing (particularly FPAS's last report). --regentspark (comment) 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Re your last two postings on this case. In the first you accuse DS of edit warring with this diff as your evidence. I'm sure you know that there is no way that a single edit on a page over the span of a month, on an article that an editor has edited a sum total of two times in the last six months, can be called edit warring. I hope you're not just throwing dirt around in the hope that no one looks beyond your words. That, combined with your latest post, which accuses DS of breaking his IBAN, certainly gives the impression of hounding. Perhaps DS is breaking his IBAN - innocuous though that edit appears to be - but, considering that you've never actually edited the page in question, it does add credence to the suspicion that you're following DS around. That is not becoming of an involved admin. Perhaps the appropriate outcome of this enforcement request would be a ban on FPAS bringing or commenting on any action against DS. --regentspark (comment) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: FPAS, I've said this before but I'll say it again. I think you're a great admin - except for this apparent vendetta you have against DS. Clearly, DS is going to be site banned sooner rather than later so there isn't much point in defending him - "I come to bury DS, not to praise him" :). Rather, it is this relentless 'digging for dirt on DS" that is concerning. On Wikipedia we, too often, take whatever an admin says at face value and, when those words are exaggerating or misstating the situation, that needs to be called out. Perhaps your motives are pure, perhaps I am completely mistaken, but this is what I'm seeing. --regentspark (comment) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

I am with RegentsPark on this. A big part of the problem here is FPaS, who seems to be stalking DS, and other people are piling-on for what are often very minor things. The Heimstern example given is a classic: I wouldn't have survived 5000 edits if that was applied to me. Content creation is a world that too many policers do not understand and if someone was stalking me as FPaS has for a long time been stalking DS, I would react very similarly to DS. In situations such as this, the stalker has the advantage because we all makes mistakes in content from time to time but the stalker only has to find one to push the button. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Akhilleus

I'm puzzled why this section is still open and no action has been taken. From my perspective, the solution is obvious: if someone returns from an indefinite block and immediately starts edit warring, swearing at other users, etc., it's time to reinstitute the indefinite block. I would have done this myself, as I noted at ANI, but I've posted on the talk pages of one or two articles that DS has edited, so I held off from blocking him for fear that I might be accused of being "involved"....too bad, it would have saved time.

As Fut. Perf. notes, DS is a problematic editor and his edits need to be monitored. His conduct is objectionable, but the more serious problem is that he simply doesn't understand some of the topics he's trying to write about, and so he misrepresents the sources he draws upon. Insulting editors is inside baseball; it doesn't really matter to most users of Wikipedia, who barely ever bother to come to an article talk page. But bad content misleads readers, and in a sane system would be sanctioned more harshly than being mean to other editors. At any rate, if this process fails to mete out an indefinite block to DS, I'll make sure to pay some attention to his future contributions, just as Fut. Perf. is. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Darkness Shines

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

Was already in the process of blocking for this edit when I saw a note on their talk page about this. Blocked for three days per item 3 of BASC unblock conditions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally closed this however I've been asked to reopen it on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely Callanecc's 3-day block is the minimum that should be considered. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you want to propose an alternate duration? Based on on what you have said, I assume you must be thinking of a month or more. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now read some past discussions and have reviewed Darkness Shines' block log. Between November 2014 and March 2015 DS was under an indef block. On March 26 the BASC accepted an appeal under a set of conditions that he has now violated. (More details were in the April 26 ANI). I recommend that the indef block be restored. Short blocks (say from 1 day to one month) usually are issued in the hope that the editor will take note and return to editing with a different approach. It seems to me that short blocks have no power to motivate DS one way or the other. Either we accept his presence, and put up with the constant stream of problems that seem to follow him inevitably, or issue an indef block. After 30 blocks and the failure of the last reprieve it appears that the time has come for an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The unblock conditions said after 4 offenses the block becomes indef so he gets a few chances (I wouldn't have had it that way but it's not m call). We could impose three blocks with long durations, however my approach would be (and is) that instead we impose three blocks (no more than 1-3 months) in the hope that they'll get the point if they don't then it's indef with appeal to BASC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - My reading of the unblock conditions would be that the four blocks rule is a floor, not a ceiling. That is, if DS makes an edit judged to be grossly uncivil or a personal attack, he is definitely going to be block, and a fourth instance of such will definitely result in an indefinite block. I don't read it as prohibiting harsher sanctions if the need arises. Since this request shows a pattern, rather than a single instance, I wouldn't read Ed's proposal as out of accordance with the unblock conditions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - As one of the drafters of those restrictions, my personal view is that they apply to blocks for incivility/personal attacks only - a second block for such must be longer than the first, a third longer than the second, and a fourth indefinite. They do not specify the starting duration, other than it may not be indefinite, nor do to they preclude blocks (of any length or number) for reasons other than incivility, should the community feel that justified. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        So, everyone, do we have any sort of consensus here about what should happen? I'm tending toward Ed's view of reimposing the indef block based not so much on DS's incivility as his slow edit warring as shown by FutPerf. Alternatively, I would favour a lengthy block, at least a month, plus seeking consensus for the topic ban exemption to be rescinded. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I also agree with Ed that restoring the indef is appropriate. We should also remove the topic ban exemptions. T. Canens (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        With the case DS's return to edit warring, I believe the case for restoring the indef is now solid. @EdJohnston:, @Callanecc:, do you have anything to add at this point? If not, I plan to go ahead with the indef. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I still don't think an indef is necessary. I'd rather (re?-)ban them from ARBEE, and remove the ARBIPA exemption for Female Infanticide in India. Plus possibly also looks into other sanctions (such as 0RR or 1RR (per 7 days maybe)) as I agree that they are still a useful contributor they just have problems working with others. I'd like to hear from Darkness Shines though - perhaps if it was a binding, through blocks, voluntary restriction to get a consensus before reverting (except for WP:BANEX). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to removing the exemption/s to the TBAN but I can only (unilaterally) remove the SPI exemption the exemption for Female infanticide in India needs to be removed by consensus if we want to go down that route. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Darkness can report socks, that's one of the exemptions I gave them to the TBAN I imposed and I don't see that there is a need to remove it. I disagree that if taken to AN or ANI it wouldn't have resulted in sanctions, I would have blocked for personal attacks whether the restriction was there or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to keep this from being archived without a close. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint about Darkness Shines has been open since 13 May (two weeks). User:Callanecc issued a 3-day block that has expired. There doesn't seem to be any single admin who wants to issue a further block. FPAS can't act on this due to being involved. User:Heimstern Läufer and User:Timotheus Canens who were in favor of blocking are not very active at the moment. Please respond if you want to do more here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Will get to this soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still open to my most recent suggestion above if others are as well? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamergate hatting thing has blown up again

Discussion of notice moved to subpage. Zad68 20:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not an actionable request at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Excuse my informal address here; previous cases of this kind were handled by informal appeal on a community sanctions page which has now been superseded, so I'm unsure what else to do.

The upshot is that it was established that off-topic discussions and other disruptive sections which are frequently created on the talk pages in the Gamergate topic could be hatted (usually collapsed), and any disagreements over an instance of hatting could be handled on the community sanctions page.

Well that's broken down rather egregiously and we now have arguments about arguments about hatting, all on the talk page itself. It's a mess.

Perhaps a new rule could be made to clear up this mess, before it has to be resolved by a formal filing about disruptive conduct. --TS 16:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, if you see a discussion being unhatted at Talk:Gamergate controversy and judge that to be inappropriate, consider reporting that at AE. Use informal language if needed. Since the 500 edit rule was only imposed on 17 May, the benefits (or not) of that rule haven't had time to fully sink in. Nothing that has happened at Talk:Gamergate controversy since the 17th looks worrisome. You might be thinking of an issue that was summarized by User:Johnuniq at User talk:Chrisrus#Topic shift 2. That issue has not continued since Johnuniq's post on 13 May. In my opinion the 500-edit rule could imply that unhatting will become less of an issue, because the off-topic threads were often started by inexperienced editors. Many of those editors are now unable to post on the talk page at all. Some people might consider that restriction on new editors to be excessive though I consider it merely a proportionate response to a severe problem. The restriction might go away after a while. I suggest this report be closed for now. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It does sound as if you're on top of the situation. Unless somebody else has serious concerns that aren't addressed above, I have no objection to closing this report. Thanks. --TS 21:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin please collapse this 52,000-byte section as an AE action. See my list at User talk:Chrisrus#Topic shift 2 for previous attempts. That list stops at 04:06, 13 May 2015. Since that time, Chrisrus has made 15 edits at Talk:Gamergate controversy to add a total of 13,720 bytes, almost all of which appear to be continuing the unproductive meta-discussion. The plan of gently talking editors through the issues to achieve a good outcome has been given enough time, and closure is needed. No doubt everyone has good intentions at gamergate talk, but perpetuation of pointless discussion drives away good editors—after a while, civil repetition becomes highly disruptive with worse effects than a few uncivil outbursts. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant principle that can be cited in this context is here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know what current practice is on that page, as I deliberately stepped back a few months ago to give new editors a chance. But during the period immediately before and during the Arbitration case we had a pretty aggressive policy of restricting discussion to the topic of content and sourcing. As I remarked earlier, there are many locations at which one can discuss conduct issues, policy questions and the like, which can easily bog down the editing process if they are discussed at length in the wrong venue such as an article talk page.

I certainly do not approve of the attitude that an appropriate response to misplaced complaints is to let them play out in the venue where they are raised. Particularly on contentious topics, such a response indulges and encourages disruptive habits. We end up drowning out important content discussions while somebody tries for the tenth time to argue for their eccentric interpretation of the neutrality policy. --TS 01:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be a mistaken belief that meta-talk page discussions are off topic. They are not. If they were, discussions of such things as, for example, improvements to the FAQs, archive rates, and so on, would be off-topic. As meta-talk page discussions take place on talk pages all the time all over Wikipedia, there is no way that meta-talk page discussions could possibly be off-topic.

Please reply in such a way that demonstrates you understand this. It is important that you do. Chrisrus (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York Brad nailed it above by referring to a principle adopted in a 2011 arbitration case. This point is further elaborated in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --TS 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is moot because the bot has archived the discussion (I was surprised that it removed a section with quite recent comments, but I see it uses "algo = old(2d)" and two days have apparently passed). An admin might like to let Chrisrus know that their above comment does not apply to a page under discretionary sanctions—attempts have been made to explain the issue but at this point I think a simple statement of fact regarding how AE works is all that would be possible. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Tony Sidaway, Having read the principle, I'm not sure that it is necessarily apropos; it appears to be a reiteration of WP:NOTFORUM, with which I would hope we all agree.

I do concur that the best place to discuss community standards around policies & guidelines is at the Talk pages of those standards; but where behaviour on an Article's Talk page deviates from accepted community norms, the correct place to discuss the deviation is indeed at that Article's Talk page.

Also, as the "hatting" is itself in violation of WP:TALK(WP:TPO) et al, I'm not certain that it's the best support for questioning editors who object to such behaviour. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Tony: You seem to believe that the discretionary sanctions make meta-talk page discussions off-topic. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems familiar. Role model? --Calton | Talk 15:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins: we’re at an impasse. [39] Great walls of text are being thrown up as two editors propose to discuss, define, and redefine all sorts of Wikipedia policy on the Gamergate talk page. Is that what you want?

In the close above, it was suggested that this be reported to AE informally if it recurred. It has recurred, and in doing so Ryk72 suggested that if people disagreed with unhatting they should go to AE. So, here we are. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Administrators,

The discussion "hatted" by MarkBernstein, and "un-hatted" by myself is an on-topic discussion of what information should appear on the Article Talk page to alert & remind editors of the presence, and effect, of the current discretionary sanctions. It was opened as a result of other editors informally reminding the community of the presence & effect of these sanctions on this same talk page; demonstrating a deficiency in the existing Talk page notices.

The statement above in some way misrepresents the nature of the discussion; editors involved in the discussion are not attempting to define & redefine policy - they are simply looking to document it, such that other editors might be aware. By my simple count, at least 7 editors have been involved in the discussion in some way or other.

The recommendation to bring the matter here, placed in my unhatting comments, is in line with the discussion here, as refined by the discussion here. Perhaps a better alternative would have been to suggest a "Request for Closure" here.

I do not see on what basis MarkBernstein objects to the discussion, as no reason has been articulated, other than perhaps WP:IDLI. I humbly suggest that if editors are disinterested in this discussion or see it as pointless, that this can best be resolved by simply "scrolling down". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend filing a formal request at AE or AN/I or begin an RfC if you think that will resolve the impasse. I don't think that anything will come of this informal discussion here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals put forth by Ryk72 and Chrisrus have been considered and commented on by multiple editors at the page- they have been rejected by consensus. These two editors do not agree with consensus, and seem to be set on taking up as much space as possible in continuing to discuss it. Many editors have hatted the constant reiteration of previously discussed points, including administrator Gamaliel on two occasions that I've noticed- this has just led to assertions that hatting their 'on topic' soapboxing about censorship and the recent discretionary sanctions placed on the page isn't ever allowed because they don't want it to be hatted. It would be fantastic for this disruptive editing to cease. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC) — PeterTheFourth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The assertions in the previous comment by PeterTheFourth are refuted - The links provided relate to other discussions, and no consensus to close the discussion at hand has been reached. Additions to the notices on the Talk page have been been discussed by many editors, with material contributions from the at least four editors (Chrisrus, Bosstopher (here), PeterTheFourth (here) & I). Other editors have sought to derail & disrupt the discussion, including prematurely closing it; it would have been preferable for those editors to simply state that they did not believe improvements to the notices were necessary. Editors now bring the matter here, consuming Administrator time. I ask the Administrators here to note that the issue is not with editors discussing improvements to either the Article or the Talk page, but with editors seeking to disrupt & close such discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryk72 and Chrisrus are established editors acting in good faith. I don't see the need to hat that discussion. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators: there is a somewhat cryptic notice that doesn't age off into the archives about one of your administrative decisions at the top of that talk page. Please if you would do stop by and help us understand what if anything there might be in that and any of the other decisions you have made about that article and talk page that new talk page users and/or new article contributors should know beforehand and which aren't already well covered by the warning hatnote at the top and the FAQs and so on. We could really use your help.

Thanks, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins, Is this the right place to say something or not? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question on the table appears to be - Can the hatting be restored and trouts handed out or do we need to jump through hoops, formally open a "case" and get the block hammer out? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's required that you formally need to open a case but I'm betting if you do, clearly asking the question above, TheRedPenOfDoom, you're more likely to get a response from a number of admins which I think is a much better situation than a single admin responding to this informal conversation and everyone taking that one comment as a new commandment on how editors should behave on this article talk page. It benefits all sides in this discussion to get feedback from more than one administrator and that is more likely to happen if a formal AE case (or even a thread at AN) is filed where the roles are clearly defined. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible close. What happens when consensus is reached in the subpage discussion, the updated text is inserted on the talk page and someone reverts? Two possibilities: (1) discussion of the proposed text takes place on the talk page and we're back to where we started, so this close accomplished nothing or (2) discussion continues on the subpage, and we've set the precedent that complaints about meta-talk page discussion should proceed as follows: the objecting editor will file an AE request, an admin will review the filing, create a sub-talk-page, link that sub-talk-page from the main talk page and discussion will proceed at the sub-talk-page. Which is supposed to be less disruptive than a thread with fewer than a dozen on-topic posts. Nonsense. The obvious, effective solution would have been to tell the complaining editors to stop complaining - as the complaints, which take up the majority of the thread, are clearly the disruption. For once I'm in agreement with Liz - the commandment was spake and your god is a fool. 185.22.183.200 (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gamergate Talk page request

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

The amount of discussion, meta-discussion, and now meta-meta-discussion is simply mind-numbing. An article Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. A small amount of meta-discussion is normally tolerated. This goes beyond what is normally accepted. Therefore this is what I will do as an Arbitration Enforcement action:

The entirety of the Discussion of notice section will be moved to a subpage
No more editing on this topic will be allowed on the article Talk page
There will be a notice placed under Sanctions enforcement pointing interested users to the subpage
The editing requirements for the subpage will be the same 500/30 requirements as for the article and the Talk page
Although interested editors may continue discussion on the subpage, there is no guarantee that anything they come up with will be allowed back on the article Talk page itself; notifications about sanctions are ultimately managed by uninvolved administrators

I will then close this AE request. Zad68 20:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed this request has been handled and is now closed. Zad68 20:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket

No action; WP:TROUT for filer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Hell in a Bucket

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hell in a Bucket (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: ANI discussion Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed. :

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

23 May 2015 Edit warring on prohibited page (Lightbreather's talk page)
23 May 2015 Edit warring on prohibited page (Lightbreather's talk page)
23 May 2015 Prohibited interaction

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning Hell in a Bucket

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

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Well I figured this might happen, perhaps if the illustrious User:Hawkeye7 had been more on top of his game he would've reverted it. It was indeed a violation of the Iban. I waited a couple of minutes and when no one was reverting it I decided the right thing to do was to remove it. As Sitush mentions there is some very serious accusations being thrown about editors off wiki. At least one person has been victimized and it's possible both mentioned in the post were. The allegations are something that could have effect in real life and there has been threats made to make it happen. I certainly will not violate the ban under ordinary circumstances but I thought that this was worth an exception and if not I'll take the block. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't agree with others that the filing party should be sanctioned. The judgement was questionable but requesting a review is hardly a hanging offense. I personally wouldn't support anybody being sanctioned. Shit happens sometimes and unless there is some history I'm not aware of a non action close is good enough for me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

C'mon! HiaB was removing very insulting/disruptive posts by anons. This has been spreading from off-wiki harassment of a very nasty nature and while maybe they could have left it to someone who was not IBANNED, the sooner it went, the better. You'll note that the stuff (which I saw in some cases) got revdeleted. You've been waiting to pounce, Hawkeye, but this is not the moment to choose. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

Even if the editor in question is I-banned or T-banned, it is still one of the usual standard to revert socks or harmful speech, like Fut. Perf mentions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Wasting the community's time on asinine "gotcha" complaints like this is disruptive. (If it matters, I'm not a Lightbreather fan.) There need to be consequences for such behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hell in a Bucket

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

Obviously frivolous request. HiaB was reverting edits by some IP sock troll that were subsequently fully oversighted as severe BLP violations. I don't know what those edits were, but given the oversighting I assume they were of such seriously harmful nature that their removal must have been justified under WP:BANEX. I don't know, nor really want to know, if those IP edits were attacks against Lightbreather or against HiaB himself, or against some third party, but I don't think it matters either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous complaint. HiaB was removing anonymous posts so nasty that they have since been suppressed. I suggest some sanction or at least a serious reprimand against Hawkeye7 for wikilawyering and pointy timewasting. In fact I was considering blocking him briefly myself, in view of the rules for this page ("groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions"), but I see he has a clean block log, and so I hesitate. What do other people think? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Filing this complaint is evidence of a fundamentally flawed attitude. Perhaps, in lieu of blocking the OP, a ban on making any further AE reports? Leave AE reporting to people with more clue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be a gesture, Floquenbeam, but on checking Hawkeye's contributions for the last couple of years, I see it's not a habit; they have not posted to this board previously. (If I'm using the search function right — I always worry when it finds nothing.) So an AE ban would be sort of pointless from a practical point of view. They're getting a bollocking right here and now from indignant admins; perhaps that'll do. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I think Hawkeye7 needs at least a severe reprimand for this astonishing complaint. Even the most cursory examination of what was happening (even if the posts in question were already suppressed) would have given anyone with any clue the reassurance that HiaB was acting quite properly and should be thanked for his prompt action, rather than be the subject of this attempt to get him sanctioned. DDStretch (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think HiaB's actions fall under the ban exemptions given the nature of the reverts. As for the filer I think a meal of trout will suffice. Chillum 15:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, closing this per consensus. Hawkeye7 is severely reprimanded and will be required to upload a scanned restaurant bill or equivalent document as evidence of the consumption of at least one trout. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone

No action against User:OccultZone for violation of the temporary injunction. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning OccultZone

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Esquivalience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: OccultZone (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/OccultZone#Temporary injunction

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

23 May 2015 - OccultZone is violating his temporary injunction by going beyond the scope of ArbCom's permission to use SPI to report a sockpuppet. In this diff, OccultZone was asking Reaper Eternal to email a copy of a SPI (here) against me. It is related to this case, because I was one of the mostly-uninvolved participants in the Workshop phase, and OccultZone opened a SPI based on my Workshop participation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable.

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

Not applicable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are also disruptive editing concerns, see proposed editing talkpage and deleted SPI that should be counted in the final decision.

You were only allowed to open a SPI, not request administrative action off the SPI page nor keep holding the stick and request a copy. Esquivalience ^t 03:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning OccultZone

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

Statement by OccultZone

Misleading report at best.

You are obviously allowed to ask for deleted copies, since SPI has to do nothing with "personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case",(discussion) this sock puppetry issue took place after the evidence phase was already ended. Although I thought that it is not going to make much difference since all admins have access to deletion files. That's why I had self-reverted too.[41] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: First of all, there was no violation, 2nd there was forumshopping by the OP, who previously posted this on talk of PD.[42] Second thing is that even if my edit included anything else, self-revert had to be counted. Here, a warning to OP is clearly warranted.

What do you think about the IP hopping earlier in relation to this complaint?[43][44] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: You observed, that Guerillero's suggestions are really helpful, but he talks about "allegations pertaining to parties", the editors in question are not parties. Other than that, upon the discovery of far newer evidences, now I observe that suspicion has also taken place on other case where the OP has contributed.[45][46] I guess that the only route is DRV. What do you think? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Sorry, and talking of Arbcom, I am allowed to go for DRV by Guerillero and I just asked you what would be the better suggestion. It is clearly up to me, where I would lead myself. How can you say that I should drop the matter on which I have already worked further, you haven't seen my evidence yet and I can assure that it is much compelling than what I had before. How others would even find a single account or multiple IPs, the way I did? It is simply impossible for others to, especially when they are stale for nearly 10 days or have limited scope. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: You are not an uninvolved admin, you have significantly participated in this case[47] in question, thus you cannot talk as a sanctioning admin.[ OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I think the disruption is taking place here, first there was IP hopping over the report[48][49] and now Magioladitis, who didn't even knew where to comment a few minutes ago,[50] is pretending to be an uninvolved admin[51] when he has significantly participated in the case[52] in question, and now he is making similar unnecessary accusations by removing my comments.[53] He has never contributed on WP:ARE ever before.[54] Would you move his comments back to "statement by"?

Since I am exempted from SPIs,[55] his comments are clearly misleading. Would you consider closing? Any ruling related to the SPIs are up to Arbcom, this board is only for addressing the violation of restriction, and there wasn't any. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning OccultZone

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

I hatted the section on the arb pages and gave OZ three routes of appeal (Reaper Eternal, DREVIEW, and Arbcom). I'm not sure what is left to do. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend closing with no action. In my opinion the responses of User:Guerillero in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision#Moving forward are an adequate action. There is nothing more for us to do here. Arbcom obviously has jurisdiction if they want to sanction OccultZone for this. I read that particular SPI, which is now deleted. OccultZone would have shown better judgment by not filing it at all. If the Committee feels their time is being wasted they might eventually grow restless. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EdJohnston that this can be left in the hands of the Committee in the context of the pending case, but I think OccultZone would be well-advised to stay completely off the SPI pages until the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OccultZone, now you are really becoming disruptive. I instruct you to drop this matter. If there really turns out to be an issue, which certainly did not leap off the page based on your SPI submission, then it is best left for someone else to address. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI was deleted by an admin. OccultZone now discuss, via this page, with a second admin over the same matter. And this matter is also connected to the ArbCom case he is involved. This the same pattern continued. I suggest that we take some measures about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What I get from OccultZone's comment: He realises that the SPI is connected to the ArbCom case and this is a violation of his restrictions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my view User:OccultZone is just digging the hole deeper with his comments here. Since I don't believe any AE action is needed, I suggest this request be closed promptly before OccultZone embarrasses himself any further. My reading is that Guerillero won't pursue any sanction for your possible violation so long as you don't ask other single admins about it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Noughtnotout

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: Noughtnotout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: <Topic Ban Dawoodi Bohra [[56]]. Imposed for being perceived to have declared a winner [[57]] in the succession controversy>

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

Notification of that administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=663931981&oldid=663672272The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Noughtnotout

Statement by EdJohnston

In January, the Dawoodi Bohra article had been suffering from edit warring due to a leadership succession controversy. Partisans of the two sides had been reverting articles about the Dawoodi Bohra to claim success for their respective candidates. I first became aware of User:Noughnotout due to some edit warring taking place on one of the articles in January 2015. I alerted him to the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions here at 05:41 on January 12. In a talk thread I advised him to get a talk page consensus before changing the article. This advice happened at 06:07 on 12 January. Somewhat to my surprise, later that day he went ahead with a large change to the Dawoodi Bohra article which was not supported by anyone else on the talk page. Since I had been watching for socks, and a brand-new partisan editor who avoids discussion is sometimes a sock, I went ahead with issuance of a topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. At the time I indicated I would consider lifting the ban in three months if I thought that progress had occurred. But since that day he has done fewer than 50 edits anywhere else on Wikipedia, I don't see a case for lifting the ban at this time. Since January he has left numerous messages on my talk page that I didn't find persuasive. They strengthened my initial impression of him as someone who was wedded to his POV and wasn't likely to defer to the verdict of reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

I would recommend declining this appeal. Noughtnotout certainly looks like an WP:SPA, nearly all of his contribution concerned Dawoodi Bohra. He still don't explain if he is willing to contribute to these articles without violating WP:NPOV. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have made major contributions on Scalextric which is still not enough, it just shows the possibility that you are capable of contributing on other subjects and you should continue it until you have significant amount of fair contributions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Noughtnotout

In four and a half months, Noughtnotout, your contributions to actual Articles space amount to 12 edits on Scalextric. That's it. In fact you've edited less than 50 times since your topic ban. I just don't think it's enough. Now, I see that you were topic banned about four days after you created your account, so you are presumably very new. So go out there, edit even more articles! Surely there's something else you are interested in? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Noughtnotout

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

Erlbaeko

Report violation of WP:SCWGS at WP:AN or WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Erlbaeko

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Erlbaeko (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:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant :

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

[58] Revert on a 1RR restricted article
[59] Revert on a 1RR restricted article
[60] Revert on a 1RR restricted article
[61] Revert on a 1RR restricted article
[62] Revert on a 1RR restricted article

There's at least two separate violations of the 1RR restriction active on the article in those five reverts.

Add: IP addresses are NOT exempt from the 1RR restriction, nor are these edits clear cases of vandalism. Nor is it the case that Erlbaeko discussed any of these changes on talk (although they demanded in their edit summaries that others do so). This is clearly edit warring by Erlbaeko of the kind that the 1RR restriction is supposed to prevent. Add to that the fact that they are doing the same on other articles, per the warning on their talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

When an editor tries to make change to the article a big warning box pops up which states: "In accordance with Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction may lead to blocks." Hence, obviously User:Erlbaeko was clearly aware that they were violating a discretionary sanctions/ArbCom restriction when engaging in the edit warring.
Previous warning over related edit warring: [63]
My notification with a request for a self revert: [64]. User:Erlbaeko's response was to refuse the opportunity and responded with "No need to wait. Just, go ahead" (as in, "go ahead and report me").

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The account was active briefly in 2011 in regard to the Norway attacks of Anders Behring Breivik. It then went dormant and was reactivated in 2014 to focus on the war in Syria and the troubles in Ukraine.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [65]

Discussion concerning Erlbaeko

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

Statement by Erlbaeko

All reverts are done within our 1RR-restriction polisy, and revert 4 and 5 are not even in the same 24 hours periode as revert 1, Ref. WP:GS/SCW.

1. Is a revert of Volunteer Marek.
2. Is a revert of an ip, which are exempt from 1RR.
3. is a revert of clear vandalism from an ip.
4. Is a revert of an ip, which are exempt from 1RR.
5. Is a revert of an ip, which are exempt from 1RR.

Erlbaeko (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update. #5 is a revert of this ip-edit. Instead of just re-reverting, I tried to find a third version (according to Alternatives to reverting) of the text that addressed the IP's RS-concern (by attributing the statement). After no consensus could be reached for my version, I reverted to a previous consensus (according to WP:BRD). Imo #4 is therefor also a IP-revert, but even if that is considered a revert of Kudzu1, it is within our policy of 1RR per 24 hours. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 92.3.5.255

4 is a revert of Kudzu, not an ip, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.5.255 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

Earlbaeko is incorrect, edits #4 and #5 are reverting users, not IPs. However, Earlbaeko never reverted any user within a 24-hour period, and of the IP edits, one was obviously vandalism (it is deeply unfair of Marek to cite this as a revert, since they or anybody should have reverted it), and the other is almost certainly a recently banned editor. The only reason I haven't reported the IP yet is that their edits haven't yet become particularly egregious. -Darouet (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudzu1

While Darouet appears to be correct regarding Erlbaeko's reverts of users, and I agree it is probable that there is a connection between a blocked editor and the IPs that have been active on the page, I think it is a slippery slope to begin ignoring reverts of IPs as counting toward 1RR -- especially considering how Erlbaeko handled his reversion of my edit (describing it as reverting an IP) and the fact that he reverted Volunteer Marek less than a day and a half later (with more IP reverts in between). Whether Erlbaeko is deemed to have violated 1RR or not, the article in question clearly needs greater oversight, and probably more stringent page protection. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mnnlaxer

I think engaging both Erlbaeko and the content and sources of the article is vastly preferred to any administrative process against Erlbaeko in this situation. While there are some things I find problematic about some of Erlbaeko's edits, in no way are they worthy of sanction. In general, Erlbaeko is open to collaboration, is operating in good faith, and has worked to improve the article. - Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I find it amazing no one here, who are very interested in engaging or policing an edit war, felt the need to start a Talk page discussion on the content of the edit war. I have done so here: Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack#False_flag_motivation_-_actual_content_of_edit_war. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

User Erlbaeko believes that their very obvious edit warring was just fine [66], even after being warned about edit warring in general [67] and specifically on the article talk page [68]. Therefore, she/he will continue doing the same. Why the edit warring? Here is the diff [69]. This is removal of a reference to UN report and insertion of a speculation that "the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line". That shows the bias. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Erlbaeko

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

I've semiprotected Ghouta chemical attack and Khan al-Assal chemical attack. At least one of the parties involved was an IP-hopper. As to User:Erlbaeko, I suppose we can consider the matter here to save bureaucracy, but the WP:GS/SCW sanctions are not from Arbcom, they are community sanctions. Any admin actions in closing this request would be 'community' admin actions, not AE decisions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VolunteerMarek: this 1RR restriction doesn't count reverts of IP editors toward the 1RR. So there isn't actually a 1RR violation here. At most, you have a case of long-term edit warring. But if so, more than one party needs to be looked into. My own review of the content suggests that User:Erlbaeko wants to include a speculation about the motives of the insurgents for staging a gas attack to embarrass the Syrian government, sourced only to editorial opinion, which seems adventurous. Anyone is free to open an WP:RFC about this. It would be tedious to impose full protection but unless anyone here wants to propose active WP:DR that might be the result. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Mnnlaxer, we now have a properly focused discussion taking place at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack, about the claim that the gas attack was a false flag operation. I would like to close this report as "Not an issue for AE, take to AN or AN3" and do nothing beyond the semiprotections. My personal editorial opinion is that User:Erlbaeko is on thin ice. But he wouldn't be the only who is making reverts that are not fully justified by talk page discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

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

Request concerning Eric Corbett

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned :

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

20:51, 26 May 2015 Editing on WP:GGTF
20:51, 26 May 2015 Edited again

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

January 2015 Topic ban enforcement block for 48 hours by Sandstein
February 2015 Topic ban enforcement block for 72 hours by Coffee

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

First diff edit summary is a strange feeling, but certainly one worth another punt at AE. Clearly has no intent on respecting topic ban

Eric's ~~and Cas'~~ comments about contrition and unwittingness ~~are~~ is a bald faced lies. As mentioned directly above, Corbett clearly knew he was editing on GGTF saying that it was "worth another punt to AE". Corbett knew exactly what he was doing and knew this would be brought to AE.

As expected, Corbett's fanclub has arrived to extol his virtues. Corbett's contributions do not negate his willful disruption and disregard for his topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[70]

Discussion concerning Eric Corbett

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

Statement by Eric Corbett

EvergreenFir is quite right in claiming that I unwittingly posted on a page I ought not to have done, but we all make mistakes. Eric Corbett 01:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cas Liber. There's a mechanism in place, and it's designed to punish the likes of me, WP pariahs. Just the way it is.

Statement by Cas Liber

Contrition has generally been looked upon favourably in arbitration-related issues and it has been four months since the previous block. The bulk of Eric's editing recently has been about content improvement and review sprinkled with some amiable banter. Given the comment wasn't aimed at any editor in particular I'd recommend clemency in reviewing this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir - this probably would have gone unnoticed if you hadn't adopted a battleground mentality and diverted everyone's attention yet again. What does it serve? You feel better having initiated this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

@EvergreenFir, I'd hesitate to call a strange feeling, but certainly one worth another punt at AE a "bald faced lie", nor does there seem to be any lying in Cas Liber's comment. Eric Corbett has all sorts of topic bans etc in place and has to step round things on all sorts of pages. That's why you see him so often saying that he can't comment because he might unwittingly step over the line, eg: here. Give me some time and I could find diffs where he muses on whether he can or cannot say something: judging how far one can go can be tricky.

FWIW, I know that feeling because I've got the most ridiculous IBAN sat against me, given that the person involved is never going to find a way back on to this particular project. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: now you are calling it "wilful disruption". Even if it was, I've seen much worse. I'm not commenting on the pro's and cons but rather on your comments, which seem somewhat misinformed. Certainly, you should be apologising to Cas Liber. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GregJackP

Eric is one of the best content editors that we have, and considering all of the others who have done far more without repercussion, why are we even considering taking action against him. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

It looks to me like two diffs of one edit have been presented above. Will this drama never end? How about everyone just stop playing GOTCHA! With Corbett and rising to the bait? WP:IGNORE!!!! Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Milowent

As Mr. Corbett didn't know where he posted, how can he punished for this? Was his post a positive contribution to the discussion? No, but how can he be faulted for this, since he didn't know where he was posting? He likely forgot about the existence of the GGTF, and didn't even know what a girl band was. We all make mistakes. Surely, if the edit doesn't fit, YOU MUST ACQUIT!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Knowledgekid87

Eric was topic banned from the GGTF and he posted there, did anyone here expect any other result? I see no evidence of WP:BAITING, the discussion was about girl bands. I also don't buy the argument that this was all some mistake, he edited twice and make a remark about the AE in his edit summary. If the edit had not included the edit summary and a self revert was done, then yeah I could see this as some kind of mistake made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

One need not be a criminologist to see this matter as a triviality, a mere trifle, unworthy of enforcement. It is comparable to driving 1% over the speed limit, and enforcement of such minor infractions is widely seen as unwise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

If people truly believe that this editor should be allowed to post in the gender gap topic area, they shouldn't be opposing the enforcement of the topic ban- they should be opposing the topic ban. Clearly a violation of the topic ban, whether a just topic ban or not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gobonobo

It was established at WP:ARBGGTF that Eric Corbett "is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic". Having him belittle another editor by referring to their contributions as "absolute bollocks" right on the GGTF talk page suggests a return to the antics of last year and open mockery of that ban. He also violated the topic ban in April, daring anyone to block him "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. Now block/ban me, and see if I care." This is an ongoing problem. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

That second diff is a heinous offense! How dare Eric go and properly indent his comment with a colon to show who he was responding to! I trust that Eric did forget to not edit that page and suggest he dewatch it to avoid posting there in case he forgets again and responds to a comment he notices was made by one of his "fan club".--MONGO 06:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eric Corbett

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

The edit summary made is perfectly clear that Eric Corbett knew this was a controversial (if not a flagrant violation) comment due to the topic ban and I'm fairly sure we've had the it was a mistake excuse before (page title should have given it away). Block length increasing in duration per the arbitration decision to one week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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