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

Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – MrClog (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

1 month block (sanction log) (AE discussion)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[1]

Copied from User talk:Roscelese#June 2019 by MrClog (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC):[reply]
As I explained at AE, I complied with my restriction in discussing all reverts on the talk page and in making only one revert per day, since consecutive edits are universally understood to constitute one edit. I didn't realize until later that another user had made intervening edits, and I did not revert the same text more than once in a day-long period. It's troubling to me that Sandstein seems to be taking the words of the filer (who filed this report after I'd made a report about his long-term disruptive conduct at ANI) at face value, despite them being demonstrably false - the diffs that I did not discuss were not reverts, my restriction does not require me to start a talk page thread about every edit which I make, and I did not revert the same text more than once in this period. The block is invalid because I did not violate the restriction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal should be declined. For example, here are two non-consecutive reverts by Roscelese on the same day, June 10: [2], [3]. Roscelese did not discuss these reverts, or any other of her reverts of that day, on the talk page, as she is required to. Even after repeated blocks, Roscelese continues to ignore her restriction, as seen in the sanctions log. Sandstein 18:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline. The diffs in the original appeal are clearly reverts and, given the block history, 1 month is not inappropriate.--regentspark (comment) 23:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrClog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

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

1. 00:42, 11 June 2019, 14:07, 11 June 2019 & 17:08, 11 June 2019: Reinstating bold edit after being reverted instead of first discussing the matter (WP:BRD). I tried to initiate a discussion at the talk page, but the editor has only responded one time, refusing to discuss the matter any further.
2. 14:50, 12 June 2019 After I had originally placed a 3RR warning at the editor's talk page (because an edit war was starting), this was then removed. I then placed {{OW}} on the user's talk page. The editor then removed it, calling it "vandalism" (WP:NPA). When PaleoNeonate told them they shouldn't do this, they removed their comment as "completely off point and irrelevant".
3. 21:47, 12 June 2019 Here the editor removes a friendly message of me asking them to discuss the matter at the article's talk page (now that the page has been protected for 5 days at my request so that there'd be no need for an edit war), calling it "hogwash". This once again shows that the editor is not willing to discuss the matter, but rather that the editor wants to force their own version in through an edit war.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 01:11, 3 February 2019 The editor was topic banned from Elizabeth Warren for one month by Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (also post-1932 American politcs).

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 01:11, 3 February 2019 by Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

None of the supplied diffs would require a sanction if they were an isolated incident. The problem here is, though, that the diffs show a pattern of refusing to discuss the contents of Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, instead wanting to force their version of the page through, despite my attempts (like here and my message on their talk page inviting them to discuss the matter) to start a civil conversation on the talk page. Instead, the user makes Wikipedia a battleground, making uncivil comments and personal attacks, and all this whilst being previously topic banned for similar offenses in the same area (post-1932 American politics). A general post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, topic ban may be necessary, but I will leave that up to the administrators.

I just saw the comment by CharlesShirley. Please note that I wasn't made aware that the editor decided to stop working on the page, but still I find the way the editor worked the last couple of days, including personal attacks and incivility, as well as refusal to discuss the matter on the talk page, troubling, especially when considering they have already been sanctioned for similar behaviour before. --MrClog (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: The diffs are already provided above, but to sum them up: here, the user accuses me of "vandalism" (personal attack) and an attempt to civil discussion is called "hogwash" (uncivil). Similar uncivil edit summaries can be found in the recent history of editor's talk page (please also see PaleoNeonate's comment below). The editor meets awareness criteria #2 (previously TBanned from Elizabeth Warren). --MrClog (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC); editted 17:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

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.

I have simply chosen to stop working on the article Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. I have decided to take a break from this article, to de-escalate the conflict and to remove myself from the negative attacks on me from other editors. This whole arbitration/request/enforcement action is an attempt to goad me into debating with these other editors and inflame tensions more. These two editors will simply not leave me alone and who apparently will not let me withdraw from working on the FTB v Hyatt article. This whole process makes no sense to me because I have decided to take a break from the article and to simply walk away from the conflict. I would hope that whomever the admin or arbitrator of this process would respect that decision.--CharlesShirley (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not engaged in any personal attacks. That is simply not true. Also, I have not engaged in any incivility either. Please do not repeat these claims without providing evidence to support these claims. Please stop. I understand that you did not like the good faith edits that I did to the article, but you have really need to stop now.--CharlesShirley (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this AE entry so may as well comment. I recently warned this editor about offensive edit summaries (which they of course reverted with a similar edit summary - Special:Diff/901538297, Special:Diff/901540049). This gave me the impression that there is an important interaction problem. However, when looking at the talk page history, I did see a few instances of communication. The attitude could be improved, Wikipedia being a collaborative system. I will not post additional diffs for these, but the edit summaries are visible in the talk page history and user contributions. —PaleoNeonate – 08:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These two editors will simply not leave me alone and who apparently will not let me withdraw from working on the FTB v Hyatt article. If this includes me, I have not been involved at all at that article or in the topic. I also didn't know MrClog until I noticed these irregularities a few days ago. I have not engaged in any incivility either ... evidence to support these claims. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - This "silliness" is part of important standard Wikipedia processes that may lead to sanctions. As I previously warned already (WP:SUMMARYNO) edit summaries also apply for civility, although blanking is fine (WP:BLANKING). As for rarely discussing instead of reverting with an offensive summary, here are various links (some essays, other policy or explanatory supplement) that emphasise the importance of communication: WP:ENGAGE, WP:DISCUSSFAIL, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:RADAR, WP:TEAMWORK ... —PaleoNeonate – 19:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging that we are not able to objectively or calmly edit a particular article/area is a good start and this may temporarily mitigate the issue if the same situation does not reproduce constantly with other articles. I noticed that before the apparent recent tension, a bot was automatically archiving posts. Perhaps that editing in less stressful areas will also as a result reduce the urge to write abrasive edit summaries. —PaleoNeonate – 19:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• From what's it worth, I've unprotected the article, since one of the parties has withdrawn from it. I recommend closing this without action. Note that there is neither an AP DS editnotice nor an article talk page notice. El_C 17:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Claims concerning personal attacks and incivility, indeed, need to be supported by evidence in the form of diffs. El_C 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyperbole and less-than-civil impoliteness do not rise to the level of personal attacks. The user says the edits constitute vandalism, which may be unintentional, they're not saying explicitly that that the other party are themselves a vandal. Hogwash may not be that polite, but it isn't particularly egregious, either. El_C 17:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, though Charles Shirley would do well to modify their use of edit-summaries to a more civil level. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Galobtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :

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

1. 11 June Reinstating a challenged edit without consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive251#WookieInHeat: Warned for violating 1RR/consensus-required for making this exact edit repeatedly

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See El_C's warning. Their previous reversions on the same page can be seen here.

In response to He appears to be trying to maintain his preferred version of the article without any compromise or consensus, by simply ignoring those he disagrees with and hoping they'll go away: my life isn't arguing with people in the area of American Politics. I find it very unproductive to continue to argue in this area, and the way to resolve disputes here is to solicit more opinions so a consensus can be determined. An WP:RfC is a good way to get more opinions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

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.

My last edit to the disputed paragraph was a month ago, I received a warning (I misunderstood the WP:1RR initially) and ceased the behavior. Galobtter ignored my last reply to him on the article's talk page regarding WP:NPOV in the lede, and has not participated in that discussion in several weeks. I'm not the first editor to raise this exact issue, only to be ignored. He appears to be trying to maintain his preferred version of the article without any compromise or consensus, by simply ignoring those he disagrees with and hoping they'll go away, while relying on the 1RR restriction to prevent any changes. WookieInHeat (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, @Doug Weller: linked to a page I didn't comment on. He is talking about this reply to him, on the talk page of an article I have never edited, which obviously isn't relevant here, nor warrants his "I hope you agree that his presence isn't required" comment. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: the edit you linked to is regarding Vice as a WP:RS in relation to political topics as per WP:RSP, which is a separate issue from the WP:NPOV of the lede with its own discussion on the talk page. And yes I understand the complaint, I was just trying to keep my reply concise. I mentioned my edit a month ago to highlight that I'm not trying to edit disruptively. I ceased what I thought to be the offending behavior and waited patiently for a response from Galobtter, whom ignored the conversation for weeks only to instantly come running to file for AE when I made the edit again. From my perspective it seems the WP:1RR is being gamed. WookieInHeat (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I'm not involved in this dispute but am involved at Talk:Antifa where he's also arguing against a consensus, one that has been unchanged for over a year, so I'm only here to say that Lord Roem hasn't edited for a week. This shouldn't be ignored because he's not around and I hope you agree that his presence isn't required. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WookieInHeat is of course correct, my link was to the dab page. Apologies. My comment ""I hope you agree that his presence isn't required" was obviously about Lord Roem, I don't understand how that could have been misconstrued. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Lord Roem: This is your sanction, want to take a look at this? Sandstein 10:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is a pretty straightforward block. Can't do it myself as on my phone which really hates Special:Block, and won't be at a PC for some hours. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WookieInHeat removed a paragraph from the article, "Removing disputed paragraph as per talk page looks as though it lacks any talk page consensus. (Their words 'as per talk page' look like mere hand-waving and I don't see any actual talk page agreement that the paragraph should be removed). Per the notice posted a Talk:/r/The Donald you have to get "consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Another editor had reverted similar material back into the article on 8 June, so it was material that had been recently challenged. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though WookieInHeat has responded above, I am not sure they understand this complaint. They state "My last edit to the disputed paragraph was a month ago.." They should be explaining why they shouldn't be blocked for the edit named above, which occurred *not* a month ago, but on 11 June, which is just yesterday. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that WookieInHeat has reverted their last change. Does this allow the complaint to be closed? EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but I think it would be best to close it with a formal warning to WookieInHeat not to do this again. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Arglebargle79 (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:ARBAPDS, {{American politics AE}}

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

1. 17 June 2019, 01:20 UTC Arglebargle79 restores his/her edit of 00:24[6] despite Mélencron's revert at 00:58[7], thereby violating the "Enforced BRD" sanction prominently displayed as an edit notice.
2. 7 June 2019, 14:21 UTC Arglebargle79 claims that a unanimous AfD outcome was a "false consensus", while s/he was the only editor disagreeing with the community. Proceeds to enact his/her suggestions despite talk page opposition, see Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Revision suggestions
3. 9 March 2019, 17:11 UTC Arglebargle79 recreates an article, claiming "there was a discussion on this and a consensus was reached just the other day", whilst the actual consensus had been to merge it. This action was reverted and further discussed at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates#Recreation of article.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• None

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

• Notified on 18 January 2019 by NinjaRobotPirate

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The above evidence shows a pattern of disregarding community consensus, which is disruptive, no matter the topic area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.[8]

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. i know that my response is longer than the maximum and I apologize, but I thought it necessary and request it remain as is.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start out with one of the so-called "warnings", shall we?

• Notified on 18 January 2019 by NinjaRobotPirate

if you notice almost all the reversions and attempted deletions have been gratuitous, unnecessary, and have almost always been reversed. The quickest ones that come to mind are: France's only Vice President, the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, 2019 Japanese imperial transition and territorial presidential caucuses from the last election cycle. This doesn't show that I"m disruptive, this just shows that young wannabee "cyber cops" like to assert some power. I have no problems with someone coming and improving my work, rather quite the opposite.

Now, as to the current situation. What is going on is completely bogus. Yes, I'm a bit of a fan of creating stubs. Stubs are necessary. For example, the de la Meurthe article, which was called for deletion because the one and only Vice president of France wasn't notable, is one of these. There are lots of these and it's part of what Wikipedia is for. So it was with the 2020 Democratic candidate and Debate articles.

AS to the latter, The article was created last December along with the "candidates" page. Election articles are fluid and need revision constantly. If you take a look, the December 2015 revision of the 2016 United States presidential election article looks absolutely nothing like the current version. Same thing with the subsidiary articles. Setting up a requisite number of stubs somewhat early in order to get everything right when the time comes is, in my opinion, a good idea, we have the templates finished and we could start popping info in. Easy peasy. But did they? No. A few people (six, in fact), decided to have a "consensus" without informing me or anyone else about it. Having noticed that the two articles were suddenly gone, I complained. There was no consensus. When a few people said it might be a nice idea to revive the "candidates" (actually if you look at the talk page conversation the people who requested it didn't know there was one) because the article was becoming too unwieldy.

I left a note saying that since this was the case if there were no objections in the next three days, I'd revive the article. There were none, and so I did it, and then a couple of days later, WHAM!!!!! They were deleted again, saying that there was a "consensus" last December. I vociferously objected. Therefore the two alleged "violations" were justified and therefore not violations at all.

Now as to Mélencron's starting an edit war with me there's a difference. Mélencron generally reverts everything I do whether it's necessary or not (and it usually isn't). I reflexively revert his reversions. His reversions of my trying to note who has been invited to the debates and who haven't are the disruptive stuff. It is necessary to inform the reader the basic info on the assumption that the reader is not going to move to another page unless he or she actually WANTS to. When it's easy to add more information in an unintrusive way, like adding an "*" to a name, then we should do so. Keeping the information from readers is always bad.

IN other words: it wasn't I being disruptive, it was Mélencron... and finally, I'd like to quote this explanation of a revision of my stuff: David O. Johnson contribs‎ 170,133 bytes +1‎ Undid revision 902165738 by Arglebargle79 (talk) we don't have to go by what the DNC says" In my opinion, it's better if we do when they make the rules. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you will notice on the Israeli election thing I was thanked. Banning me for starting articles which need to be made (like the September Israeli election kind of misses the point. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to currently comment extensively on this and I will come back to this later, but in general I intend to echo JFG's comments about a long-term pattern of disruption, combative editing, and WP:CIR issues with the user in question which has remained unchanged over the years. Mélencron (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick remarks – I don't believe my conduct on U.S. politics-related articles has been problematic and I've been scrupulous to abide by 1RR on the article in question (though I can't remember any instances off the top of my head). There is no way in which my conduct was at all disruptive: I made a single revert to a major edit for which I viewed as having no existing consensus and ran contrary to previous discussions on the talk page about separating major/minor candidates; just part of the BRD. IIRC, they're correct in that they've proposed this change before (splitting the candidates list based on the debates), but there was never any consensus for such a change and the current state of the article reflects that arrived to on the talk page (candidates included in most polls and with substantial media coverage – based on candidate lists).

I also don't "reflexively revert" edits by them (though I scrupulously monitor my watchlist and many of the articles they've edited are on my watchlist), though I find that in many cases there are obvious WP:CIR issues and an unwillingness to change their editing behaviors or respond to other editors' concerns about them. These basic CIR issues remain despite them having edited for years (see here); Number 57 can attest to these as well, and there has been no distinct change in their editing behavior (and sometimes bizarre comments on article talk pages) or attitude towards overriding roughshod over existing consensus to try to get their way over time.

At the same time, I have zero interest in anything involved to the WP namespace, so I'll end it here. Mélencron (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I find Arglebargle79's reply somewhat unfocused and a bit all over the place. It lacks diffs, and frankly, is a bit unresponsive, especially vis-a-vis the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries edits. El_C 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Diff 1 pertains to a sanction by Awilley (talk · contribs), who should determine if enforcement is needed. Diffs 2 and 3 look like content disputes, which AE does not resolve. Sandstein 17:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, diff #1 is a violation of the BRD rule. That said, my personal preference when enforcing BRD (and the older Consensus Required rule) is to see that the user has been specifically made aware of the rule, and for first-time offenders been given some opportunity to self-revert. Because the rules are a bit different than the rest of the 'pedia I prefer to avoid "gotcha" situations. On the other diffs I've had time to look at #2 and agree that ignoring consensus is not good, but wouldn't block for that alone. So maybe put me down for a warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley (talk • contribs)
• This has been open for nearly three days with no one arguing for sanctions beyond a warning: I’m closing without any action due to lack of interest in sanctioning at this time. Additionally, the immediate disruption seems to have stopped and they haven’t edited in a few days, so I’m not sure what good any sanction would do. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pinchme123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Enforcement

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

1. 21 June 2019 This first edit by 63.141.56.198 removed appropriate content from the page, which had previously been established via editing consensus over the past week. I challenged this edit via a reversion (21 June 2019) and stated, "At this point any disagreement should find consensus in the talk page before removal."
2. 21 June 2019 Rather than abide by the discretionary sanctions requiring edits challenged via revert to be discussed for consensus on the Talk page, 63.141.56.198 reinstated their edit. Not wanting to myself violate the discretionary sanctions by reverting a second time within 24 hours, I instead opted to open this here.
3. 21 June 2019 Since beginning this form, this editor has again reverted their edit, which was challenged by yet another editor, Serial Number 54129 (21 June 2019)

Given that multiple others have reverted this edit, it definitely qualifies as a challenged edit and thus should not be reinstated without first finding consensus on the talk page.

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)

Editor's account appears new, with only edits the last few hours. However, editing this article requires first viewing a banner noting the discretionary sanctions, so it is highly likely they are aware of them. In my revert comment, though I did not mention the sanctions directly, I did state, "At this point any disagreement should find consensus in the talk page before removal"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

With regard to the edit itself, the editor violating sanctions incorrectly points to an inaccurate description of the article's content in the opening section as justification for removal of the content. That description notes that "refugee camps" are to be excluded from the article. However, the content in question is about concentration camps that happen to hold refugees, not "refugee camps." There are other examples of concentration camps that happen to hold refugees in other parts of the article. See List of concentration and internment camps#Australia, Canada: Internment of Jewish Refugees, Denmark: After World War II, Finland: WWII, France: Spanish Republicans, India: World War II, Netherlands.

(I have never submitted one of these requests for enforcement before, so apologies if this is inappropriate and unnecessary information.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 21 June 2019 Notice provided to editor's talk page.

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MJL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:08, 22 June 2019 (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/Civility enforcement#Amendments

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

1. 22 June 2019 This is a comment about RFA.
2. 22 June 2019 Bbb23 gives him an out.
3. 22 June 2019 Corbett then expresses open contempt for this topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This seems awfully cut and dry. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really going to say things like this? ..Really?

I am just in utter disbelief right now. Is there even a point in responding to that remark? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am in bizarro world right now. A Bbb23 literally warned Eric that this was a violation of the ban. Eric said he didn't care. Then he said it again. [9] (!) It takes an unbelievable amount wiki-lawyering to say this isn't blockworthy. I just don't know what is happening anymore... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is like a nightmare I can't wake up from. Seriously. What would possibly be considered a violation of this topic ban in your minds if this wasn't it? He literally says "What leads you to believe that I give a rat's **** about my topic ban?" (semi-bad word omitted). Why enable him? Why even have this process if it's so unbelievable broken we can't even justify a 24hr block for clear topic ban violations anymore... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

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.

I have not even the slightest interest in the outcome of this case, but I would just like to correct something. I did not express contempt for anything, despite what the over-zealous filer may claim, I merely stated my opinion that I couldn't care less about it.

And I will add my observation that against the backdrop of the recent over-reach of power by the WMF to suppress the unwelcome opinions of one particular editor, to suppress the unwelcome opinions of yet another seems like a dangerous option. Eric Corbett 21:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: It doesn't matter whether he's engaging in threaded discussion, the actual remedy is a topic ban from RfA with an exception for ask[ing] questions of the candidates and express[ing] his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA, and both of his comments clearly do not do either of those things. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't participate in the RFA process except for voting and asking the candidate questions; That was the ruling of the Arbitration committee, and they even went so far to explicitly name the sections Eric is allowed to participate in; The comments section is deliberately omitted from that list. Would suggest at the very least removing the comments and a authoritative reminder to the user concerned so as to ensure WP:ARBCOM's ruling is properly enforced.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB: That is a matter for an amendment, which Eric is more than entitled to raise with AC if he wishes. Perhaps that can be the compromise; No action taken, but Eric clarifies with AC if comments is in or out for next time. Right now it's out, and to assume it's in is an indulgent interpretation that isn't what's on paper.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting this here: [11]

Considering he was initially replying to me, I’m not commenting in the admin section, but I don’t really care that Eric replied to me and let’s not let this turn into even more dramah that is unnecessary. If someone wants, remove the comments, but this is pretty minor. AE should not increase drama on the project when unnecessary, and I’d hardly call it necessary now. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of anything else, I wish this had not been brought here. I have no interest in seeing Eric sanctioned. I don't care whether his comment is removed. I do think the comment is a violation of the ban, but I'm not going to argue with those who disagree as, uh, I don't care that much. I think Eric's response was worse than his "violation", and although not surprising, certainly not sanctionable. I will have nothing more to say here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'd hardly call that "engaging in threaded discussion" unless you're going to be ridiculously over-literal. ‑ Iridescent 21:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If this were to be deemed a violation, the initial remedy appears to simply be the removal of the comment in question. For several reasons, some obvious, I would really prefer for this issue not to blow up at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "general comments" section at the bottom did not exist in RFAs in 2012 as it does now, so we can't infer a specific intent to exclude Eric from that section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Newyorkbrad. Given the bigger picture at the moment, this is really not a good time to be nitpicking over the semantics of such sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't know how uninvolved I am given that I voted for the candidate, which would suggest Eric considers me not knowledgeable; on the other hand, ah well: storm in a teacup. If anyone wants to do something, they might remove the comment or whatever. "Over-literal" is a well-chosen adjective here. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• De minimis non curat lex. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong :

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

1. 16 June 2019 In my previous ANI case, he dug up some of my old edits, and together some random news articles, engaged in soapboxing and slyly suggested that I'm a CCP spy.
2. 22 May 2019 Soapboxing about the evils of CCP in a RFC comment about number of FLG members
3. 29 April 2019 Similar soapboxing on talk page, attempting to discredit sources critical of FLG
4. 31 March 2019 Calling for the removal of Chinese government sources, using a US-funded NGO as evidence
5. 31 March 2019 Same as above
6. 27 March 2019 Further soapboxing, accusing another user of being "50 Cent Party" (a slur against users deemed pro-CCP).
7. 27 April 2019 Accused another user of being a "CCP apologist".
8. 7 February 2016 Previously engaged in 3RR violations and demonstrated a clear disregard of WP policy, launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him [12]
9. 6 December 2015 Accusing other users in the 3RR case of being "CCP sympathizers"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 6 Dec 2015 48 hour block for edit warring

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [13]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User is a single purpose account whose major edits are in the Falun Gong related articles [14], demonstrating a similar editing pattern to User:Asdfg12345 and User:HappyInGeneral who were topic banned.--PatCheng (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

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

It seems to me that the awareness criteria are not met. The editor has received 1 DS notice more than 12 months ago, and the 48 hour block was not a AE block, but a regular admin action for violation of the 3RR. The editor has never participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement.[16] As such, this request should be denied. I will send a DS alert to the user now, but that's obviously too late. --MrClog (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This was previously discussed in the ANI thread, which wound up not being acted on, but in which Marvin 2009 said he will improve his talkpage etiquette, which is an issue raised here. Since the ANI thread ended, he's made just one edit, not in this topic-area. There is also the "awareness" issue noted above, which has now been addressed. I suggest we close this without action in the hope there will be no further issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that action shouldn't be taken here in the absence of a timely DS notice. The notice has now been supplied by User:MrClog. Though the 3RR block from 2015 was unrelated to any Arbcom sanctions, the page where they edit warred was Epoch Times, a publication that is associated with Falun Gong. If the user's behavior from now on suggests they can't edit neutrally about the Falun Gong, we may be back here soon. The ANI thread just mentioned was at this link. The best way to tell if ARBFLG sanctions are being violated is to watch out for soapboxing, whether in articles, talk pages or edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Enforcement_of_restrictions :

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

This thread over his t/p contains 11 diffs of mine reverting several of Mehrajmir13's edits (with explicit edit-summaries), because the source did not support the content.

After I posted that message, the user ceased editing, all of a sudden only to return a month and a half later and immediately archive his entire t/p, including the above thread! This is perceived by me as an attempt at evading scrutiny.

Coupled with his usage of DYK to push POV-laden inaccurate hooks (vide here, here et al) to main page, he is a grave threat to our reputation as an encyclopedia.

Diffs of previous relevant warning/sanctions, if any

1. 6 February 2019 Sitush warns him for unexplained removal of sourced content and whitewashing articles.
2. 19 February 2019 Kautilya3 warns him for edit warring w/o indulging in any discussion.

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

• Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 30 January, 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am asking for an indefinite topic ban from any article linked with "India-Pakistan conflict", broadly construed.

@Clog:-The editor is free to archive their t/p but is not free to avoid queries, related to their dubious editing. In that t/p message, I explicitly mentioned that returning to editing w/o answering will lead to an AE request. I though appreciate your proposals for a boomerang; some amount of humor is always necessary.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified over here.

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

A few notes:

• The only diffs provided are the 11 diffs included in the talk page message by WBG on 20 February 2019, 2 DYKs from before that date and a diff of the user archiving their talk page.
• The only diff provided regarding an edit after WBG warned the user February 20, is the user archiving their own talk page.
• Assuming that a user archives their talk page (with a link to the archive on his talk page) as an attempt at evading scrutiny doesn't seem to be assuming good faith, to be honest. The editor is free to archive their talk page.
• As such, it seems (based on the diffs provided) unnecessary to sanction the user in question, because no policies/guidelines have been violated since Feb. 20.
• Boomerang for failing to AGF? Not sure, to be honest. This report could be an honest mistake from the reporter (maybe they forgot to add diffs from edits after Feb 20). Leaning towards no boomerang necessary.

--MrClog (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: The editor is free to archive their t/p but is not free to avoid queries, related to their dubious editing. In that t/p message, I explicitly mentioned that returning to editing w/o answering will lead to an AE request. The point is that you have not provided any diffs that show that since the talk page message (Feb 20), the editor has been violating Wikipedia policies. If these diffs exist, please share them. If they do not, then apparently they have got your message at the talk page (even without them responding) and there is no reason why a sanction is necessary, because there is no current conduct issue of concern (For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased). --MrClog (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've undone a closure of this thread by Winged Blades of Godric. Parties must not close their own requests, because there is a possibility that they may themselves be sanctioned (though probably not here). But they may declare their requests withdrawn. Sandstein 15:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's close this without action, either as withdrawn or as stale. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:58, 1 July 2019 (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

1. 14:49, 1 July 2019. Eric accuses a candidate at requests for adminship of "poor judgement [...] in her membership of WiR". Eric's statement is a reference to WikiProject Women in Red, which is a "process or discussion relating to" "the gender disparity among Wikipedians [...] broadly construed", as specified in the above-referenced topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. GGTF enforcement log and ARBAE2 finding. Eric has previously been subject to numerous, escalating blocks for violations of the topic ban.
2. ARBAE2 enforcement restriction. "The Arbitration Committee [...] mandates that all enforcement requests relating to [the topic ban] be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours".

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:57, 1 July 2019

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.

• I think I referred to the candidate as "she" as well, so definitely worthy of sanction, I agree. Eric Corbett 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newyorkbrad: "Are you willing not to agree to refer to WiR on-wiki in the future ...". I'm quite willing not to agree to anything in the future if it will help. Eric Corbett 22:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Montanabw: I think you misunderstand my position; block me for as long as you like, it will make to difference to me, only to the credibility of Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newyorkbrad: In a word no, I will not agree to any such thing. Eric Corbett 22:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: Given the egregiousness of my transgression I really don't think that a month is anything like long enough. I'd suggest making it indefinite, until I apologise. Which will of course be never. Eric Corbett 13:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems from some of the "uninvolved" commentary that I may have failed to get my point across, so I will speak plainly. I don't care about the enforcement of any ArbCom sanctions one way or the other, and I care even less about anything that the WMF's T&S department might do. Eric Corbett 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iridescent: You make a fair point, and I would have no objection whatsoever to any block that might satisfy those clamouring for my removal, but I do find the accusations of misogyny and disruption to be rather off the mark though and very disrespectful. I don't need to edit here, and have really only done so to help with a few FACs, against my better judgement. I might have entertained the idea of continuing with that to a limited degree, but not in this unnecessary hostile environment with constant harassment from the likes of Sandstein. Eric Corbett 22:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that this is a violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Scope_of_topic_bans. El_C 19:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I find Eric Corbett's statement deflective and unresponsive. El_C 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Another plaintive cry for attention, as I read the block history, or trolling if there is still a difference. Dropping it at the RfA is a demand for a response. cygnis insignis 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: well said. And I say this: The initial comment was calculated to have that effect. The downplaying of the harm this can do to the community and real life people is not helping with the perception by those who are vulnerable to "grumpy" reactionaries and their legions of trolling lost boys driving others away. The idea is what? Give this a pass so the misogynists don't get to bent out of shape and do something worse? What is that phrase: Time is up!? cygnis insignis 19:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the attempt to characterise this as "extreme pettifogging over a very trivial technical breach" with a reluctant block that is somehow the fault of the WMF, is too clever in playing to supporters thinking up new ways to disrupt and blame others for Saint Fram's martyrdom. Blech! cygnis insignis

Since I filed this request, there clearly has been an escalation on the part of Eric. [17]

I'll probably post a more in depth statement later, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TracyMcClark: What? I'm still not home, so I can't respond to everything here. However, it's not a question whether Eric can vote (which is yes; Eric can), it's a question of whether he has to be civil about it and abide by the relevant topic bans. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I'd like to mention that this is currently happening under the backdrop WMF claiming that we, as a community, are unable to deal with incivility. It is also to say nothing of Eric's general escalation of rhetoric. [18][19][20][21] All of this was written after my previous report, so he clearly wasn't clueless to the current situation.
If you ask me, this is just evidence that Eric Corbett is slipping back into old habits and deliberately gaming the system here. If he gets blocked here, it shouldn't be for less than a month. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: I would say the diffs I just provided are not necessarily relevant to the gender discussions topic ban, but concern the civility topic ban. I had felt they would be helpful for administrators in assessing this case from a more generalized perspective. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: It's the same case. What do you want me to do? File a separate enforcement request? What reason do we have for being so narrow here? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: I respectfully disagree, but it looks like I may be the only one who does so in this case. My apologies for the stubbornness I've put on display here. :/ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd like to contrast this case with that of BorchePetkovski below. BorchePetkovski is a new user with an (apparently limited) understanding how Wikipedia works. They have thus far refused any plea to edit constructively and have been topic banned from all Macedonia related topics broadly construed. Well, since the imposition of that topic ban, they have made numerous minor edits in violation of it.[22][23][24][25][26][27] They have been much less than a communal timesink than Eric Corbett has been in my opinion, though. I was not once called overzealous for originally filing an AE request against them. Now that BorchePetkovski is back at AE, where are their defenders?
  I've filed two requests here, and they both were for the same reason: when arbcom makes a decision, it matters. For BorchePatkovski, it was the discretionary sanctions in Macedonia. For Eric's topic ban, though; it came after a month long affair while Arbcom was deciding GGTF. After weighing a mountain of evidence (both for and against taking action), they decided to issue these sanctions exclusive to him. They aren't discretionary as was the case for BorchePatkovski; they're mandatory. The alternative to enforcing them is appealing them to arbcom.
  Until that happens, we need to stop giving Eric special treatment. I can't speak beyond my limited experience here; but if this was me on the chopping block, I would probably be sobbing as I clung to my last bit of WP:ROPE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nishidani: Wikilaw is a proposed project request on Meta btw- [the first thing I thought of].
  I'm not trying to punish Eric for an infraction nor promote zero tolerance. I just want to see him conduct himself in a manner more fitting for a community I care deeply about. I've never interacted with him before last week, and my initial impressions of him were incredibly poor. If a one-month block is the silver bullet to help him step back for a bit, then that's what is needed here. Were he the least bit apologetic about his actions, I'd be singing a woefully different tune.
  @Mendaliv: My preference for a month block is due to a number of reasons: (1) it's how long it took for arbcom to apply the original topic ban, (2) it's long enough to where the WP:FRAM nonsense will have likely been resolved, (3) it will give Eric sufficient time to reflect on his contributions to the project, and (4) it's preventative because he has indicated his unwillingness to abide by the parameters of the topic ban (thus we must assume he plans on further violations).
  @Stephan Schulz: With the exception of the last thing you said, I couldn't agree more. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mendaliv: You are very mistaken in your inference of my second point. The intention is not to silence Eric, but to put a stop to these unnecessary sideshows he keeps causing. If he previous did not bring it up in the previous AE filing, [28] I'd be not mentioning it now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Dave's statement for it's raw honesty. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: This system allegedly makes sense to the veterans and admins here (but of course not to us newbies). I'm with you on this issue, though. I'd love to know where this Get Out of Jail Free card is, so I can get one myself. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corbett has been on parole for a long time. His last block of record was in 2015. I wish he hadn't taken a swipe at WIR (of which I am a member), but I recall with gratitude his support of my RfA a number of years back, so I owe him one here. In short, yes, he made a five word crack that was out of line, should have been struck, but striking it now would probably just inflame the drama. Here, I don't see a previous violation in the relevant section on the GGTF restriction since 2015, and that the record is confusing , nor any violation since 2012 of the RfA restriction. (If I am in error, please provide the diff). Given that the GGTF decision states that a one-month block is the standard remedy, but that two previous month-long blocks handed down in 2015 were reduced to a few days at most, I suggest that the admins make this a one-week block (thus more than the 24-48 hours he actually served for his most recent blocks in 2015). I'd take his "definitely worthy of sanction" remark above at face value (even if it drips sarcasm) and not let this escalate further. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: - I think you mean "Are you willing to agree not to...." Otherwise....

@Liz: Hi Liz. I'm am sure that Eric is entirely unconcerned, but I find your use of his surname to address him here as unnecessarily jarring and tbh, rather rude. I would not wish to be addressed as "caldron" Leaky caldron (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: This case concerns very specific issues relating to gender. In what way do the various posts you have linked on the Fram case by Eric Corbitt have a connection - however broadly construed - to gender issues? Leaky caldron (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Thanks. In fact, they have zero to do with gender and therefore nothing, on the face of it, to do with the case. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: The reported alleged breach is not about civility. The diffs and your comment appear to suggest that civility is implicated. It isn't. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: Eric has not disrupted RFA for years. He has a sanction which, AFAICR, he has assiduously followed. His comment at RfA was not disruptive n the sense of causing widespread chaos. Nor is this case about stopping him contributing to Framgate, or anything else for that matter. It is purely and simply to deal with an alleged breach of a 4 1/2 year old sanction relating to broadly construed gender issues. Any new sanction cannot be a coatrack to satisfy all sorts of editor wishlists. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Wikipedia's voting rights for "criminals" are being decided here so be aware while setting the precedent against Universal suffrage on Wikipedia.--TMCk (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will be much better off, when we start seeing editors as being non-gendered. There's no such thing as male & female editors. There's only 'editors'. The abolishment of GGTF & other such groupings, would be best. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment that the timing of this (as well as the other) RFA is tantamount to strikebreaking, but that's really not the nominee's fault. I think the "poor judgment in Women in Red" comment is ill-formed, at a bare minimum, but according to terms of his probation, Corbett can not comment again to explain himself in the RFA thread. Tagging him for AE for this is completely a chickenshit line of argument, in my view. Decline. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tempers are running high everywhere at the moment; candidates running for RfA this week are seen by some as strike breakers. I would urge no action be taken against Eric Corbett on this occasion. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: I don't consider the RfA restriction "...topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA." to be broken; commenters are required to explain their rationale and blank "Support" or "Oppose" votes can be discounted by the bureaucrats. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I have personally found Eric consistently helpful and friendly, a good collaborator and reviewer. In addition to his heaps of excellent content, often written in collaboration, he also did years and years of Good Article reviewing. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this is on an RfA I started, what I'm about to say should be taken with a large dose of WP:INVOLVED. (For what it's worth, I'm not bothered about Eric voting on it, and I'm pretty sure neither Valereee or Megalibrarygirl are either). In the past, I would have said something like "aww jeez not this again", but MJL is right that if we don't sort this out, there's a risk that the WMF T&S will do it for us. With that in mind, Eric, if you want a self-requested indefinite block à la Bishonen, just respond here in the affirmative and I will do the deed, and I will try and persuade those here not to enact any formal Arbcom-enforced sanction. If anyone else thinks such an action is unacceptable, please state so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think one should look at the remark by Hans Adler on Eric's page. It goes to the heart of, if the extreme monitoring of p's and q's introduced recently, the problem of making 'civility' (operatively this means 'etiquettish fusspottery') the baseline for everything here. Most of us see dozens of edit summaries, talk page comments which can be read as snide, impatient, acerbic etc.every day. If we are to demand that some consequential grammar of neutrality take command of every editor before they comment, that opens the door to endless complaints like this (I've often considered leaving Wikipedia because I find the daily harassment no problem: it's the damned strain of trying to live up to the politically correct that is stuffing up my pleasure in vernacular thinking). Really, who gives a flying Donald Duck? Why note such trivia? Particularly in this newer climate, which promises to give massive scope for grassing any and everyone on the strength of a single diff, and where we are at risk of confirming a precedent whose status is yet to be confirmed. Auden, I think to George Plimpton, once remarked:'I think if men knew what women said to each other about them, the human race would die out.' I've never told that to either men or women without it getting a solid laugh. If Auden had written that here, you'd probably get a complaint re either gynephobic or androphobic sexism, depending on the sex of the sensitive plaintiff. Let Mrs Testy get the better of Mr.Testosterone by all means, and vice versa, but it is all unutterly tedious twitter. We're not here for that.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL Wikilaw is not internally coherent: it is profoundly context bound, - to me it is rather like Alice in Wonderland and basically I prefer that to living under a rigorous regime of 'zero tolerance' and absolute logical consistency- and analogies, while your's has a certain thoughtful cogency, rarely hold up. I've seen known sockpuppets under a new handle screw admins, unbelievable bad editors obtain bans over trivia against editing adversaries, etc.etc. Eric's obstinacy invokes a penalty. Punish the infraction by all means, but not the attitude - he knows that- but I can understand contextually the reason. He doesn't object to a sanction. Neither did I when, for different reasons, I refused to self-revert, on being taken to AE for an (inadvertent) IR violation. I could have got off scot-free by just reverting. My problem was - the egregiously bad editor I reverted had falsified a source, and I couldn't bring myself to revert false information back into an article. So I got a strong sanction by one of the admins I admire most, with no rancour. He applied the law, one must take it on the chin. That dispute, in my view, like this perhaps, shouldn't have got here, because the ultimate ratio for these disciplinary functions is to block behavior that is inhibiting encyclopedic work, not to engineer the proper attitude conducive to making everyone happy.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a thought. If a block is needed let it be four hours: the amount of time between the comment and the filing of this report (1449 to 1858 UTC). Given the concern is disruption through the comment, the recognition that Eric has violated by a community member means that counteractions to any disruption were underway. Given there are no allegations of ongoing disruption from the comment, I don’t know if there’s need for anything more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about preventive vs punitive strikes me as a bit nonsensical. If four hours is punitive, how is a month not? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that MJL’s second point, that a goal here is to prevent Eric from participating in the ongoing discussion about the WMF’s role in enforcing enwiki community norms counsels against such a long block. The goal of AE should never be to silence people, but to prevent disruption. I mean, worst case, block him until the RFA he commented on closes. That would prevent him from disrupting RFA. Otherwise we’re just talking about sanctioning “just because”, which is not only contrary to policy but would be manifestly unfair. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something because you're worried that otherwise the WMF will do it is exactly the same as just letting the WMF do it. No comment on any other aspect of this; if Eric doesn't care, I won't either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Women in Red even part of the gender gap among Wikipedians topic? Women in Red is about the disparity in articles about men and women, not about Wikipedians. How is this even a part of the topic area? I understand that the GamerGate case has been expanded to include any discussion about editors or article subjects but I dont see where Eric's topic ban, specific to the Gender Gap Task Force and related discussions, has been expanded to include article subjects and not editors. nableezy - 20:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this should be declined, Mainly because I like the guy and feel he's a valued editor here - It's a lame reason but meh ... it's a reason nonetheless. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone wants to cite Eric for jaywalking. Come back when you have some meat to add to the potatoes....otherwise this is simply petty.--MONGO (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So this is the level of bureaucratic idiocy we have come to. Eric Corbett may oppose an administrator candidacy for reasons related to a subject for which he has been topic banned, but may be punished for a brief, clear, and nondisruptive statement of his reasons. It would be better if ArbCom acknowledged that such a sanction is inimical to the basic principles of community decisionmaking that underlie the process for selecting administrators and declare that the sanction as originally framed was overbroad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I’m new around here; can someone please clue me in on what it is that’s so great that Eric does/did that gets him this walking-on-eggshells treatment from so many veterans? Is it writing FAs or is there more? Because I have a hard time understanding how he, or other “unblockables” (like Fram), can rack up a history of so many sanctions, and yet still be described as a “net positive” by so many editors. What is up with the “yeah, they’re a total a-hole, but damn can they write well!” line of thinking? Is there any consideration for how many other people are out there who can write FAs but don’t because of the non-collegial environment? Do the veterans just think those prior sanctions were unwarranted, and that’s why they’re not respected? I really don’t get why long-standing jerks are routinely coddled on this website. Appreciate anyone giving me a clue. Thanks. – Levivich 02:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Montanabw: Please note that the case states that violations may result in a block of up to one month, not that a one-month block is the standard remedy. @Eric Corbett: Are you willing not to agree to refer to WiR on-wiki in the future, in order to help resolve this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Mr. Wolfe would say, Pfui on me. @Eric Corbett: Please excuse the typo. Are you willing to agree not to refer to WiR on-wiki in the future, in order to help resolve this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bishonen: It's an approach that has sometimes worked for me in defusing situations in the past, though it obviously didn't in this instance. That said, any block for this infraction seems harsh to me, and a one-month block for a one-sentence comment certainly seems disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Corbett will not agree to the most basic of conditions to not violate his topic ban again, offers no explanation and seems indifferent to whether he is blocked over this infraction. Does that sum things up? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The request has merit. The edit violates the topic ban at issue. And Eric Corbett agrees that it does. I would impose a one-month block. (Disclaimer: I supported the RfA at issue, without participating in any discussion. I don't think this makes me involved here, but parties may disagree.) Sandstein 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the maximum block length of a month is necessary.

• Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. Blocks and bans should therefore be as long as is likely needed to deter future misconduct. Because they are not intended to punish past misconduct, they do not need to reflect the degree of disruption that triggered them. Given the long block log of Eric Corbett, and his dismissive attitude towards the sanction and this request, it is questionable that even a one-month block will deter Eric Corbett. But any shorter block will make him even less likely to comply with the sanction from now on.
• As others have said, in the light of WP:FRAM, it is important to reaffirm that ArbCom sanctions (especially related to harassment) are binding, whatever their merits may be, and are effectively enforced. Otherwise, we invite WMF staff to continue their unaccountable and intransparent sanctioning practices. Sandstein 19:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm against sanctioning for this, especially for a whole month, because I think it's a trifling matter. So far I seem to be alone in that, in this section. But in relation to Eric's "deflective and unresponsive" and sarcastic replies I would point with all the emphasis I can muster to Editors have pride. A good essay, which I think should be required reading for any admin who thinks answers such as Eric's indicate he's "indifferent". @Newyorkbrad: I very much respect your understanding of these things, and hesitate to refer you to some essay. Nevertheless it's a shrewd essay, so perhaps just take a look at what it says about the likely consequences of asking an editor to "agree to edit constructively"? Would Archie Goodwin have agreed to such a thing? (Note for Sandstein: I obviously disagree with your proposed sanction, but I don't think you're involved.) Bishonen | talk 16:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• [Since my comment was addressed, excuse me for writing in this space, even though, like Sandstein, I participated in the RfA.] The question is what do we do about a user who violates their Arbitration-mandated restriction and then "plainly" says they don't care about having done so. Do we accept it again as De minimis non curat lex? And the next time? And the time after that? By all means, I'm open to suggestions. El_C 17:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• El C, I've already said I don't think Sandstein is involved, and I don't think you are either, if it's just about participating in the RFA. You should feel free to post in this section. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Thanks. Clearly, this editor is a boon to the project. And he definitely should take pride in that. I don't think that is in dispute by anyone. Cost/benefit-wise, he is a net positive. That having been said, what do we actually do? I'm happy to go with Newyorkbrad's softer touch over Sandstein relative heavy-handedness, but there has to be something, anything. El_C 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts exactly. The last AE was 10 days ago. If this is closed as "no action" - what happens if we're back here in 10 days? Do we just declare the restriction null and void? - I suppose the action then would be to punt to ArbCom at WP:ARCA, and see if they have solutions.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric won't thank me for saying this, and I consider this complaint extreme pettifogging over a very trivial technical breach (the comment being reported essentially parses as "the candidate is active in a project I consider disruptive and as such I don't trust their judgement", which is a perfectly legitimate oppose regardless of whether one agrees with it or not). However, given that we're currently driving Wikipedia full-tilt towards a cliff-edge exit from the WMF over the principle that Arbcom is the final arbiter of decision-making on English Wikipedia, that means a willingness to abide by Arbcom's bad decisions as well as its sensible ones. Very grudgingly endorse blocking, with the proviso that (provided Eric is willing to do so) we open a WP:ARCA to get the "gender gap broadly construed" provision more narrowly defined, as restricting Eric from making this kind of comment was clearly not what the committee had in mind when these restrictions were drafted. (Clarification; I'm certainly not suggesting the maximum one-month for something this trivial.) ‑ Iridescent 18:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm seriously pissed off, because this situation was trivially avoidable by Eric. The comment about timing is fine. The comment about WiR is a stupid mixture of mysogny and the chinese whispers version of guilt by association. I think that in addition to the GGTF sanction, there also is the 2012 RfA comment ban. This does have an exception for simply stating his preference without engaging in threaded discussion, but this is very close to the line. The only reason I'm only lukewarm is that I doubt a block will help. I also blocked the user under his former name back in 2012, but I think WP:UNINVOLVED applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me add one thing: I think a reasonable block is the least bad outcome here. But I disagree with the argument that just now we need to be particularly strict about upholding ArbCom decisions. Basic fairness requires that we do not base our decision on something external to and irrelevant with respect to the problematic behaviour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A minor violation, but a straightforward one. I see no reason not to enforce the sanction here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For the reasons discussed above, I am closing this as follows: For violating his topic ban, Eric Corbett is blocked for a month. The block may be lifted, either by myself on appeal or by another administrator, if Eric Corbett explicitly and unreservedly commits to observe the topic ban in the future, such that, in the administrator's judgment, the block is no longer needed to ensure compliance with the topic ban. To be clear, this does not require Eric Corbett to agree with or like the topic ban, ArbCom, or me. It just requires him to agree to comply with the ban as long as it remains in force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandstein (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 July, 2019 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

• 30 June 2019 [29] - Makes an edit to Macedonians (Greeks) linking to Macedonians (ethnic group)
• All edits 25 May-4 June [30] are directly related to Macedonia or Macedonians.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• 24 May 2019 Indefinitely topic banned from all areas pertaining to Macedonia, broadly construed, indefinitely
• 6 June 2019 - I gave a warning on their talk page noting that all their post-topic ban edits were in violation, and that future violations would likely result in blocks.

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

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

  18 May 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was tempted to just issue a 24 hour block after MJL made me aware of the edit, but it is already 2 days old and they only appear to edit sporadically so I'm not sure if something likely to be symbolic is best? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this, and the easily appealed indefine block as a normal admin action does seem likely to be the best option for this situation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [31]

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

Thank you for pinging me Thryduulf.
It certainly doesn't give me any pleasure to see this user get banned. Initially, I was really concerned my reporting them to AE originally was rather WP:BITE-y, but then I know they know how to use a talk page.[32][33][34] That just makes me think they must be deliberately ignoring the talk page messages they've gotten so far (whether or not that is with mal intent, I cannot say).
The ridiculous part to me was that this was all avoidable were they to either abide by the topic ban or had originally promised to work more constructively with others. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• They've only made about 80 edits and have already managed to get themselves topic banned from Macedonia; both before and after the topic ban, every edit they've made, as far as I can tell, is related to Macedonia. I think they should be indefinitely blocked - this would be a specifically indefinite, not infinite block, and they can unblocked as soon as they file an appeal where they indicate an understanding of what a topic ban is and what areas they would continue to edit in. The issue here is that they don't edit often enough for any short block not just be symbolic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Flagrant violation of their topic ban (which, full disclaimer: I am the one who applied) — agree with Galobtter. El_C 17:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @El C and Galobtter: AE can only do 1 month on the first block. We could theoretically normal admin action block them, but to me, that seems to go against the idea of having limits on AE actions for first violations of AE sanctions, and I'd rather not get into the "1 month AE, rest non-AE" thing for first AE blocks. I think a 1 month block, explicitly allowed to be reduced, would serve the same purpose, and also serve as a final warning of sorts. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  TonyBallioni my intention was a regular admin block, as that's what I would do if this was a regular topic ban. To my understanding, for WP:AC/DS blocks there is no "initially up to one month, then up to year" - there is only a limit of one year, since it has its own enforcement provisions separate from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions. To me, the point of limitations on the length of AE blocks is that they are not as easy to overturn as regular blocks, and so I don't see issue with going straight to an indef block. I think that an indefinite block which could be overturned in days if they appeal would best accomplish the goal of allowing them to edit productively in other areas, if they wish too, while not wasting further time if they don't. But, a 1 month block would serve the same purpose, as you say, and so I have no objection to that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've always read the one month rule on first violation as applying to DS since DS are a remedy under the case, and I think that's been what we've followed here in the past. I could be wrong though. Regardless, it's not worth an ARCA to figure out, especially in the current circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are right that we should only block up to one month for this specific violation. But we can indef as a normal admin action, considering their whole editing history to amount to NOTHERE. I would normally argue against this, as I think this editor could be quite useful if they didn't have such a big POV to push. But a one-month block is unlikely to be very effective, as they only have a handful of edits per month anyway. Galobtter's proposal may be all we have left. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the normal admin indef block proposed by Galobter. Sandstein 06:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Noticing that User:Thryduulf, the filer of this AE, now supports an 'easily appealable indef block' I am going ahead with that. Such an outcome was originally proposed by User:Galobtter higher up in this thread. This is not an AE block, and I give permission for any admin to undo the block if they become convinced that BorchePetkovski (talk · contribs) will follow policy in the future and will also obey their topic ban. Since they edit sporadically, and haven't used a talk page since May, a short block may not succeed in getting their attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cinderella157 (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/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban

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

1. 19 June 2019, edit pertaining to Waffen-SS reenactment
2. 20 June 2019, same
3. 1 July 2019, same.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Cinderella157 performed three edits at World War II reenactment, dealing with the subject of reenactment activities around Waffen-SS, the combat branch of the German SS.
• Cinderella157 has previously been reminded of the topic ban by Bishonen in an unrelated matter: "Please don't return to old battles in an area that you're topic banned from" 5 March 2019.
• I requested that they self-revert 20 June 2019. Cinderella responded to my request that he did not believe that the article fell under the topic ban and performed the revert that I listed as diff #3. I'm therefore bringing the matter here for admin review.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• diff

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

The edits are not about the Waffen-SS. They are not about the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945. This is really too long a bow to draw to construe that they are. That is my sincere belief (as I responded to KEC).[35] They are about two relatively recent events categorised as "controversies". The first being in the US, where a US congressional candidate offended people by dressing up in costume, and the second, in the UK where two (reported) neo-nazis were filmed running-off at the mouth.

The ban imposed was specifically not about WW2 more broadly, as Drmies appears to be construing. There is explicitly not an interaction ban with KEC. I cannot speak to TonyBallioni's intentions (they have not been recorded) but link to this discussion.[36]. I did raise concerns regarding transparency which relate back to statements now being made. I referred to WW2 reenactment at the case request as being contradictions between KEC's actions elsewhere and what they were alleging in the subject case.

TonyBallioni has identified their participation in the case. The think the same is true of Drmies.

Yes, I used rollback to revert two edits which were essentially the same that had been previously reverted and for which there were comments. I forgot that there were no comments and had intended to comment that previous version (after edits by Hohum and Xx236 were of "better" weight in respect to the tag. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and Galobtter: the wording of the topic ban that passed was written by me as an uninvolved case participant, IIRC, so commenting up here. In my view, this is a violation of the sanction. I wrote it the way it was to intentionally prevent any editing related to the Nazi-era. It was drafted with this statement in mind, where Cinderella157 had compared K.e.coffman’s work to a Nazi era atrocity. Note that historical re-enactment was also included in that statement by Cinderella157, so I’m not sure how he can’t see the connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinderella157, while the ban was changed to allow you to participate in content about the Pacific Theatre of the war, the ban as written was explicitly larger than WW2: it limits you from commenting on anything broadly related to the Nazi-era. As an example, you should not be commenting on the Nuremberg trials even though they occurred after 1945 because they were about crimes that happened during the war. Reenactment of the Second World War regarding Germany and restoring content around the Waffen-SS and German armed forces of the Nazi-era is similar to this, and 100% falls within the scope of a WP:TBAN, which was linked in your sanction and posted on your talk page. The ban also notes that it is broadly construed, which the TBAN policy helpfully links to. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that in this comment on Cinderella157's talk page in March, Bishonen reminded C157 about their topic ban and its scope, and warns them that comments they made on ANI (in a discussion about me, to be perfectly clear) were a violation of that ban. Thus, C157 has received a prior warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Cinderella157, I don't understand what I'm missing here. Are you going to argue that a WW2 reenactment is unrelated to WW2 and thus to your topic ban, given the relation between WW2 and the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945? Because otherwise these seem to be pretty obvious violations. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see now that you do. It seems pretty clear to me that this falls under the topic ban and is thus a violation. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cinderella, if one is banned from editing topic X, and one edits "reenactment of topic X", it is not a stretch to say that one violated the topic ban. It's the opposite of a stretch, really. To my fellow admins: this is one of those cases where I don't see how a block will do much good; I'd rather have an editor promise to be on better behavior and not try to skirt around a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks a clear violation to me too. I would refer Cinderella157 to WP:TBAN and WP:Broadly construed: a topic ban from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945 - that history which of course includes the Waffen-SS - would also include the topic of reenactment of Waffen-SS and so on. Continuing previous disputes with Coffman in the area doesn't look good either, and seems precisely the kind of behavior this topic ban was imposed to stop. (As a side note, Cinderella157, your use of rollback here is inappropriate per WP:ROLLBACKUSE.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a block of a week or so in duration is appropriate, unless Cinderella157 quickly and convincingly explains that they now understand that this was a topic ban violation, and that they won't do it again. Sandstein 06:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No one here except Cinderella doubts this was a violation. A one-week block, as proposed by Sandstein, seems reasonable; since the last comment here (and the last edit by Cinderella) was two days ago, I will issue a five-day block. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :

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

1. 8th July First revert within 24 hours
2. 9th July Second revert within 24 hours, no consensus on talk page for edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11th May 1 week ban for edit warring at Stefan Molyneux, also within the American Politics 2 area

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

• Asks an admin whether or not an edit violates the 1RR/consensus required restrictions on the page here.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Page placed under 1RR & consensus required by ST47 here. Wumbolo claimed a WP:BLPSPS exemption for his edit removing this. The removal had been contested in the past. The material removed does not relate to a living person and thus WP:BLPSPS does not apply. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]

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.

I have self-reverted the edit. wumbolo ^^^ 07:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBySouthBaranof is misrepresenting sources; I will provide diffs shortly. wumbolo ^^^ 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: consider this edit, made today, attempting to recklessly revert an edit of mine without any regard to Wikipedia policies and the encyclopedia, plus calling the edit "POV edit by notorious POV editr [sic]" which is a pattern combined with previous reckless BLP-violating reverts [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] in which they call it "POV edit" without any actual rationale while I provided an explanation for all of them but one. And you accuse me of edit warring, while BMK has been blocked 11 times for EW and recently also edit warred which I reported at both AN3 and ANI but was closed as no action (I'm still thinking whether to go to AN or RFAR). wumbolo ^^^ 17:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The table contains misrepresentations of sources by NorthBySouthBaranof. (emphases in table are mine) wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid: I apologize for attacks. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo: see #9 and #10 in table. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans was always the one misrepresenting sources. I have been consistent. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I can't respond fully because of the limit, but the table above should provide sufficient information. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: personally no, but you have the authority to impose "consensus required". wumbolo ^^^ 20:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using twitter as a third party source in an article about a living person is a BLP violation. This edit is not subject to reversion restrictions, and is fairly clearly marked as an edit made under BLP. GMG^talk 22:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: You would be wrong on both counts. GMG^talk 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: BLP covers 1) all content on articles where the subject is a living person (or recently deceased), and 2) all content which concerns living (or recently deceased) persons regardless of the subject of the article. Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMG^talk 00:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMG^talk 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @ST47: It's not entirely clear here what is ambiguous about unless written or published by the subject of the article. Is there some confusion about whether Robby Soave is the subject of the article? GMG^talk 10:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I don't believe WP:BLPSPS applies, as I noted in the initial request, because the material removed does not relate to a living person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Feel free to explain, Mr. Intellectual Dark Web. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I'll explain in detail.

WP:BLPSPS states that "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person"

The removed material was "Robby Soave, who wrote about the incident for Reason, reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation."

To support this material, Robby Soave was cited.

We could conceivably say that we are using a self-published source as a source of material about a living person, but only if we were talking about using it a source of material about Robby Soave - and WP:BLPSPS has a specific exception for this in unless written or published by the subject of the article.

I would say the spirit of this would be that using a source published by Robby Soave is okay to use for material about Robby Soave.

We're not using it as a source of information about Andy Ngo, per reading the text I quoted.

Do you follow? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at talk:Andy Ngo. Following from those comments, I recommend trouting both Wumbolo and Pete, and possibly also GMG for the argument above, and then closing this AE report with no action. Added: Full thread is here, including my corrected comments as it was PTF not W who started this AE. EdChem (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, Wumbolo is repeatedly removing reliably-sourced descriptions of the "concrete milkshake" claim as a hoax, dubious and/or false, from the Milkshaking article. They have ludicrously claimed in edit summaries, without the slightest shred of evidence, that these are debunked "hoax" allegations spread by antifa members, rejected the clear conclusion of Snopes that the claim is "false" and removed DailyDot claiming that it is an "unreliable clickbait company" contrary to WP:RSN consensus. They are doing this because they apparently disagree with or reject the conclusions of these sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ran in to some of this same behavior from Wumbbolo on the Antifa talk page, specifically with regard to Mr. Ngo and milkshakes. I think this person is a good editor, but needs to find a way to be a bit less WP:POINTY. Everything did seem to be framed as Wumbolo's edits vs. terrorism. They even managed to get under my skin, and I apologize for being a bit brusque in reply. That being said, if they are willing to honestly try to assume good faith and edit in a less overtly political way, I don't think a block is necessary. Then again, I'm an old softie, and often wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both users, the reporter and reported edit aggressively and exhibit exceptional rudeness in heated to and fros. Both seem to be spoiling for a fight, not contribute positively in my experience of them, bringing it here is just part of a campaign. cygnis insignis 00:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:: Consider this edit, made today, attempting to whitewash the article about Laura Loomer with the removal of sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Wumbolo shouldn't be topic banned for following WP:MOS and removing those WP:CLAIMED and WP:ALLEGED the very least. I don't understand the insistence on WP:BLPCRIME or tip-toeing whether it sounds like an assault or not. It can't be BLPCRIME, for once, because no one has been appherended or even recognized from the masked, unknown protestors. And anyone can be a part of the "Antifa" network, so there's no need to tip-toe that for BLP reasons either. You don't need to secure a conviction when there are no suspects and reliable sources have reported the attack. Wumbolo was right in describing the attack accurately per sources and removing the ALLEGEDs, but he should have left the Snopes piece intact. But all these separate things were modified in the same edits. --Pudeo (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to time to get into this particular dispute, but I'd just like to note that this editor is problematic on all Wikipedia pages that relate to right-wing YouTube and Twitter celebrities and fads (Andy Ngo is another example). He repeatedly and often grossly misconstrues what cited sources actually say, and then edit-wars his changes into articles. Most recently, he edit-warred content not supported by the source into Ben Shapiro's article[43][44]. He also removed text that a RfC concluded should be in the Shapiro article.[45] In an attempt to get the RS noticeboard to give Ben Shapiro's website 'Daily Wire' RS status, he blatantly misrepresented how the website was covered by other news outlets[46] (and recently did the same for LifeSiteNews[47]). He also misconstrued sources on the articles for Shadow banning[48], YouTube[49], and South African farm attacks[50](where the editor was falsely claiming that RS did not report that a "white genocide" in South Africa was false[51][52]). In my opinion, this is something that should be considered a cardinal sin on Wikipedia, because it forces other Wikipedia editors to waste their time sifting through his sources, engage in discussions with him and deal with the edit-warring in good faith. It's an enormous time sink. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Wumbolo does make a good point about BMK's personal attacks here and in edit summaries. I am concerned with your dismissal of that given our communities lack of response to such things. A new AE filing is of course not needed for that given anyone that comments here can have their conduct examined as well. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @ST47: this is your sanction, could you take a look? Sandstein 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. The statement was Robby Soave...reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation. Who is the living person on whose behalf BLP is being claimed? It can't be Andy Ngo, as this statement isn't "material about [him]". It might be Robby Soave, in that our article said that "Robby Soave reported...", but in this case BLPSPS would allow this sourcing. We're saying "Robby Soave reported X" and citing Robby Soave's self-published tweet in which he reports X. WP:BLPSELFPUB would seem to expressly allow that. It feels like a long walk to claim BLP on this.
  • There was a prior discussion on the talk page regarding whether this statement was relevant to Andy Ngo or not, but that's not in the scope of BLP and that discussion was still ongoing. ST47 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't looked at this too deeply, and I'd like to wait for more comments, but edit summaries like this make me think we should be looking closer at Wumbolo's behaviour in this area and that a topic ban may be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I've had more time to look at his conduct on this article right now, and honestly, it is pretty concerning. In addition to the diff above we have the following:

• Restoring claims of assault to the article claiming that punching someone wasn't a crime (ironic giving the edit summary above...)
• Appears to think that not using the word assault to describe an assault means it isn't a crime
• Long-term edit warring over the involvment of Antifia

• [53]
• [54]
• [55]
• [56]

• Misleading use of edit summaries that introduced a NPOV violation
• Fighting over Ngo in other articles:

• [57]
• [58]

At the very least an article ban is required here with a warning that if the disruption exists in other parts of the AP2 topic area, an indefinite topic ban from AP2 will be next. The only reason I'm not fully on board a topic ban at this point is that he doesn't appear to have been sanctioned before in the topic area, but if he continues to act like this on other articles, a topic ban would be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo, thanks for responding. I appreciate it. If there are concerns with the conduct of another editor, you should file a new AE. This is about your behaviour. I think you mean well on that article, but it looks to me like you're displaying WP:OWN type behaviour on it, which is understandable since you are it's primary author. At the same time, I don't really think the way you've acted is acceptable there. I'd be fine closing this as a logged warning if you agree to take disputes to the talk page, and come to consensus there rather than reverting over the same topic repeatedly. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, bringing up the bad conduct of others is not a defense for one's own bad conduct. This thread is about Wumbolo's actions, not BMK's, which aren't particularly relevant to an AE thread that's examining conduct on an article that BMK has never edited, so I don't think looking at them here would do anything other than muddy the water. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo, I'm not interested in the content dispute. Just a yes or no: are you willing to contain any disputes to the talk page and not the main space article? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyBallioni: I'd be a bit worried about sanctions on the basis of the diffs you provide. While the argument over whether assault is a crime is a bit bizarre, I'm a lot more concerned about editors who insist on the "allegedly" weasel-word and on replacing "antifa" with "anti-facist" when RS seem pretty unanimous on describing the incident as "assault" and identify "antifa" as the perpetrators (a quick search turned up CNN, the Independent, Vox, WSJ, Fox, Slate, RT, Yahoo News, the Spectator, the Atlantic, NYT...). There appears to be a sustained campaign to downplay the role of antifa in this article and Wumbolo has been on the side of the sources. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GoldenRing, I disagree: you are essentially making a content argument, and it is not our job to do that. It is our job to look at the behaviour and determine if it is compatible with Wikipedia’s behavioural standards, which this certainty isn’t. It’s not a weasel word to insist that an article actually make clear that something is alleged when it is criminal and no court has ruled on it, nor is the edit warring okay, or the fairly blatant POV-pushing, misleading edit summaries, and multi-article disruption on this topic. The question is whether or not an indefinite AP2 ban is needed or if a ban from Ngo would be sufficient. I’m leaning Ngo at this time, but would be open to AP2. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Enforcement

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

Persistent attempts to insert negative information into Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, through gaming the 1RR/24h rule (note the timings)

1. 13:13, 10/07/19
2. 13:24, 11/07/19
3. 13:35, 12/07/19

However, forgetting they had already made another revert ...

1. 16:44, 10/07/19 thus violating 1RR (they had also edit-warred over this statement, violating 1RR, on 2-3 July)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Block Log
2. Blocked on 22 February 2019 for 48 hours as an Arbitration Enforcement action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
3. Blocked on 14 March 2019 for 72 hours as a normal admin action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
4. Blocked on 25 March 2019 for 1 week as an Arbitration Enforcement action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
5. Blocked on 1 April 2019 for 1 month as a normal admin action for immediately continuing to add the disputed material to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

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

• As above. BLP DS warning was placed on 31 August 2018, and ARBAP2 DS warning was placed on 22 February.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I would suggest at the minimum a topic ban from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, although stronger sanctions may be considered. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Here

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

It was stated that I have "skirted" the 1RR rule. Stated another way - I complied with the rule. I am not trying to "skirt rules" - I am sincerely trying to comply with Wikipedia rules, which rival the U.S. tax code for complexity.

Snooganssnoogans (talk) has stated that I continue to "edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS." That is not true. The material I inserted into the Ocasio-Cortez article regarding Pastor Rodriguez' assessment of detention facilities was true and cited to a reliable source. The statement that the Democratic Socialists of America has a long-term goal of ending capitalism is from the organization's own web site, and is also included in the Wikipedia article on the group. Characterizing this edit as a unsubstantiated smear and blatant falsehood, as Snoog did on my talk page, is absurd. I am sincerely not trying to be a jerk about these recent edits; I have been simply trying to include factual, relevant information.

The real issue is that Snooganssnoogans simply reverts edits if he doesn't like the contents, even if the edits are factual and properly cited, and then accuses an editor of edit-warring if the editor attempts to re-insert the information that was reverted without a valid reason. I also don't appreciate Snooganssnoogans' abrasive statements on the article talk page, my personal talk page, or his talk page, accusing me of lying, fabricating, being illiterate, and not operating in good faith. I am not going to request any enforcement or whatever for that, even though it is warranted.

Further - what happened in the past is not relevant to this matter - I was already penalized for my past transgressions.

Finally, I sincerely appreciate Drmies (talk) pointing out how to state my case in this matter - Thanks!

I trust this matter will be handled fairly. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One additional thing - I hesitated to mention it here before, but it is very clear that Wikipedia has a double standard when it comes to editing and enforcement. A left-leaning editor like Snooganssnoogans can revert edits simply because he doesn’t like the content, and is not sanctioned in any way. He can also say I am lying, fabricating, smearing, and more - all untrue - and do so without recourse. Somehow that is allowed, but editing the AOC article to include true, reliably sourced information is not allowed since Snoogy, the self-anointed ruler of this article, doesn’t like it. I have changed my mind, and request arbitration and enforcement against Snooganssnoogans.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that this page is also under enforced BRD, which seems to have been ignored by the user in question. A topic ban does seem to be in order given the history. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been repeatedly warned about (1) DS, (2) edit-warring and (3) BLP violations, yet he continues to edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS.[59] The editor was literally part of discussions where it was clearly pointed out how a group of pastors did not specifically say that AOC was misinforming the public[60], yet the editor edit-warred this falsehood back into the article.[61] The editor was also informed that a source did not substantiate that the Democratic Socialists of America "has a long-term goal of ending capitalism," yet repeatedly edit-warred that back into the article (see diffs provided by Black Kite). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo, I explicitly said "blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears", and as you can see above I clearly describe the falsehood as being about the pastors and the unsubstantiated claim being about the DSA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some more edits by this user and found that in August 2018 he was edit-warring in WP:WEASEL and WP:FRINGE-violating language on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories [62][63][64] to leave it unclear to readers whether birther conspiracy theories were false, and changing RS language that states that a book publisher "misidentified" Obama as being born in Kenya to original research that says the publisher "identified" that he was born in Kenya. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out [65] ... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does this user just not get it? They have CANVASSED on PackMecEng's user talk page regarding this AE filing. They also stated that "what happened in the past is not relevant to this matter - I was already penalized for my past transgressions", yet they have been repeatedly warned about various bad behavior on American Political pages for years (see user's talk page). Some examples of WP:TEND editing on American Politics pages include: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]

Moreover, the behavior (adding descriptors, commentary, or other language about AOC being a socialist and/or part of the DSA and the political positioning of the DSA) being reported has been occurring since at least February 2019: [76], [77], [78], . Other edits try to discredit AOC: [79], [80], [81], [82].

This behavior shows no sign of changing if they think that "the past is not relevant". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans writes in his statement here that adding that DSA wants to abolish capitalism is a "falsehood". He also said that on JohnTopShelf's talkpage, and in an edit summary.

In fact, the DSA does want to abolish capitalism according to reliable sources. Vox [83]: Like most socialist organizations, DSA believes in the abolition of capitalism in favor of an economy run either by “the workers” or the state — though the exact specifics of “abolishing capitalism” are fiercely debated by socialists. Slate [84]: Economically, it entails the abolition of capitalism. The Week [85]: DSA's national platform calls for abolishing capitalism. NPR [86]: the DSA views capitalism as an oppressive system.

JohnTopShelf should have used a better source as it was only implicit from the one used by him, but stop accusing him of posting falsehoods. You are wrong. I suggest a warning for Snoog for calling facts supported by reliable sources "falsehoods" because he wants an editor sanctioned on AE. --Pudeo (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is further evidence of issues any ban that might be imposed should be limited to anything about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...the bio on her etc. Seems that each block and this complaint focuses solely on the situation there.--MONGO (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first set of diffs provided by EvergreenFir above are, aside from one ([87]) not specifically harmful unless they were part of a pattern of edit warring. Aside from one definitely bad example linked, they appear to be merely slight changes in wording and in some cases backed by RS. Again, all of the problematic edits are directly related to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as far as I can see.--MONGO (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley:...the only one in the diff you have suggested is the changing of the wording on the section on the Breitbart piece from misidentified to identified. The rest look like mostly word choices and not alarming. If you look at that diff the first blue highlighted change is merely removing the word "falsely" after the linked word Conspiracy Theory...but a conspiracy theory is by it's very definition, considered to be based on falsehoods...so what's wrong with taking out a double negative?MONGO (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also take issue with Snooganssnoogans misrepresentarion of the issues mentioned by Pudeo above. Maybe JohnTopShelf could have provided better references as Pudeo has done rather than a primary one as he did and maybe he did not have consensus for that addition, but the fact is that RS clearly demonstrate the objectives of that political entity and to state that this is not the case is incorrect.--MONGO (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is much more about protecting BLPs than the small potatoes other diffs that are relatively of small impact. It's a shame that AE has to always take the road of most destructive and draconian measures to silence people when it would be more Wikipedian to take warning a shot across the bow, topic ban him from the primary BLP in question and allow this to be the lesson for now. I will not hesitate here and now to say its immeasurably obvious that there is far more leniancy given to similar infractions by those who edit here from a left of center perspective. It pains me to say that and it's not intended as a insult but as a observation that can be easily demonstrated by a review of similar cases.--MONGO (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: those blocks all seem related to the editing issues this user has on Alexandria Ocasio-cortez. Eliminate their editing capacity on that BLP and maybe the problems will disappear.--MONGO (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JohnTopShelf: I am sincerely trying to comply with Wikipedia rules, which rival the U.S. tax code for complexity. If the editor thinks that 1RR is that complex; perhaps AP2 is not an ideal arena for their contributions. (Hope that doesn't sound too snarky.) I also don’t like the concept that violating the spirit doesn’t violate the rule. All guidelines are written with an underlying rationale and Wikilawyering about the “letter” of the rule is bothersome and a sign of collaborative problems. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note the Vox article cited by Pudeo as "proof" that the DSA wants to abolish capitalism is an opinion piece representing the views of the author, a "former reporter". It is not a news piece. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If JohnTopSelf has engaged in edit-warring, then so has Snooganssnoogans. [88] and [89] were done in less than a 48 hour period, so do they also violate the "spirit" of the 1RR? I think we probably could let both go, but the bigger issue here is Snooganssnoogans removal of content based on the fact he simply doesn't like the source. As per numerous discussion at WP:RSN, the community has decided that Fox News IS a reliable source. Yet, Snooganssnoogans frequently removes content simply because it has been sourced to Fox News. In the AOC article alone we have "remove rubbish source with misleading content" [90], "fox is not a rs for content related to this woman" [91]. In the talk page discussion he again asserts "This is a perfect example of why Fox News is not a RS, and how they're actively making shit up to smear AOC." [92] He then calls former ICE director Thomas Homan "not knowledgable about the issue in question" and "a partisan" without any source to back up the claim. While Fox News is his favorite target, it goes beyond this, he disparages any source that presents information that he does not like. He also called the New York Post "a bad faith actor" [93]. In other articles he called The Hill (also widely considered reliable) "non rs" [94], called Fox New a "non-rs" again [95]. It is clear to me that he goes against policy and consensus and evaluates reliability of sources simply based on whether he likes them or not.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rusf10, I hope you don't mind if I place a note here, since it's not about JohnTopShelf: I am looking at your Snoogans-diffs, but this one, from The Hill (which is, as you say, generally accepted as a reliable source), I wonder if User:Snooganssnoogans removed it because it was an opinion piece (and just should have left a better edit summary). Personally I believe that facts cited in opinion pieces in reliable publications should generally be accepted, though it certainly is not the best practice to pull one's facts from opinion pieces. As for the Fox comment, that's again about the group of pastors--the source that JohnTopShelf added did clearly not say they thought AOC was lying, so whatever Fox source was used better have better direct evidence, and it may well be that they did not report the pastors' words accurately (and that Fox doesn't much care for AOC is clear: Fox is frequently at least somewhat reliable though biased, as are some of the publications on the "liberal" side). Either way, if you want to start a request about Snoogans, that's fine--but this is not the place to do it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• So, pointing out that someone violated the spirit of a sanction means they complied with a sanction? This, which Snoogans pointed at, is indeed a misuse of the source (the pastors don't say AOC was misinforming the public). The slow edit warring is clear, and that the DSA edit was a type of smear seems to be confirmed by Bradv in this revert. So, regardless of whether we judge the timestamps to be evidence of manipulation or not, it seems to me what JohnTopShelf fully deserves a topic ban from at the very least this topic. I have not delved very deeply into their other edits, but this also is cause for concern: "the reader" doesn't need to be left in the dark about the fact that Deep State conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. So an AP topic ban wouldn't be a crazy idea. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading over my colleagues' comments, and particularly the diffs supplied by User:Hut 8.5 (some of which are just jaw-dropping), I am more than convinced that there's not just a vendetta against AOC here (I mean, seriously), but a political drive behind many of the edits in the AP-post 1932 field, which run the gamut from casting doubt on science, POV-editing the articles on news organizations, to smears on BLPs (and, I should add, an editor with this lengthy experience should know better). A topic ban of at least six months for the topic area is appropriate, I believe. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanamonde, I am fine with your proposal. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yikes, looking at this on the surface I was going to suggest going with something lighter, but after looking into the diffs and doing a little spot checking of my own I would definitely support a long topic ban. That kind of axe grinding is not helpful here, especially on high profile BLPs. ~Awilley (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: Do the additional diffs like this one provided above by Snoog- convince you that the problem extends beyond AOC? ~Awilley (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have very little patience with users obviously too intelligent to genuinely believe the arguments they are advancing to justify their position. Taking the diffs presented above in toto, I think we need to give JohnTopShelf an extended break from the broader topic, and that they need to demonstrate their ability to edit without a battleground attitude before they return to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies, Awilley, Hut 8.5, and Sandstein: We seem to be in agreement about the troublesome nature of the edits, but not so much with respect to the scope and length of a topic-ban. I am personally of the opinion that topic-bans for POV-editing should not have an expiry date, because an inability to set aside personal POV when editing isn't something that simply disappears with time. I also think that we have sufficient evidence of problematic editing on pages besides Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I think an indefinite AP2 topic-ban, appealable after three months, is the best outcome here, but I want to suggest it to you before implementing it, in case any of you believe it to be too harsh. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MONGO: Two brief responses. First, I am a firm believer in "warning shots across the bow"; but we have an editor here with five escalating blocks, none of them overturned or lifted on appeal, in five months. That is more than sufficient warning that a more draconian sanction is on the horizon. Second; an editor's political affiliation doesn't matter in the least on Wikipedia; but their compliance with policy does. Wikipedia has an operational definition of a neutral point of view based what we have defined to be reliable sources. It makes no mention of liberal or conservative politics, certainly not in the narrow sense those terms are understood in the US. That definition results inevitably in a manner of presentation that is less palatable to people whose views don't align with the majority of reliable sources; but the place to argue that definition is not here, it is at the village pump or some similar venue. Here, we will enforce policy as currently written. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• At a bare minimum I think this needs a long-term topic ban from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I'd support something stronger. The edits made here gamed the sanction to include inappropriately sourced negative material into a BLP. 1RR is not an entitlement to revert once every 24 hours without consequence, it's a bright line rule to ensure that people discuss things on the talk page instead of reverting. This has to be combined with previous blocks for disruptive editing on that article, someone who gets blocked for something and then does the same thing again can expect a stronger sanction the second time. Just looking into JohnTopShelf's recent edits I can see plenty of tenacious editing, e.g. [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101] and especially [102], which suggests the behaviour is more widespread. Hut 8.5 10:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: no I don't think an indefinite topic ban is too harsh, I absolutely agree that the behaviour extends beyond the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article and that this type of problem will persist and that does suggest a broad indefinite sanction. JohnTopShelf has been blocked four times this year for either disruptive editing in violation of arbitration sanctions or edit warring, so I think the main alternative is a lengthy block. Hut 8.5 15:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hut 8.5's diffs show this editor is not here to write neutrally about US politics. I agree with a topic ban from this topic area. Sandstein 14:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Vanamonde that an indefinite topic ban from American politics, appealable no sooner than after three (or maybe six) months, is the best outcome here. Time-limited topic bans always incur the risk of the user simply sitting them out and then returning to the topic without having learned anything new. I'd really like to see a convincing topic ban appeal from John Top Shelf in three or six months, where he explains what he would do differently going forward. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]