Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:12, 27 January 2017 editTryptofish (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,478 edits →Statement by username: statement by me← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:03, 27 January 2017 edit undoSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,256 edits →Kingofaces43: closing commentNext edit →
Line 119:		Line 119:

	== Kingofaces43 ==		== Kingofaces43 ==
			{{hat\|1=Meritless request. Complainant DrChrissy blocked for one week for topic ban violation and warned of possible further sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)}}

	===Request concerning Kingofaces43===		===Request concerning Kingofaces43===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks\|DrChrissy}} 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)		; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks\|DrChrissy}} 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Line 202:		Line 202:
	::*In the cited 3RR complaint, DrChrissy said to Kingofaces43, "''You might like to frame your edits in fallacious terms that you are not intending to goad, but I will state clearly that I feel like I am being goaded''". It looks like DrChrissy insists on interpreting these remarks as an attack on himself by Kingofaces, but I'm not buying it. It's like he is saying, "I insist that you attacked me, and I won't let you deny it." ] (]) 00:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)		::*In the cited 3RR complaint, DrChrissy said to Kingofaces43, "''You might like to frame your edits in fallacious terms that you are not intending to goad, but I will state clearly that I feel like I am being goaded''". It looks like DrChrissy insists on interpreting these remarks as an attack on himself by Kingofaces, but I'm not buying it. It's like he is saying, "I insist that you attacked me, and I won't let you deny it." ] (]) 00:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
	*The various diffs linked by the complainant don't seem particularly bothersome to me. I also think that they are being a trifle disingenuous with ''@Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering'' without mentioning the glaring connection Mr. Trump. I'm not familiar with the back story here (the GMO topic ban) but a block does seem in order. (Though, if I may add, I've seen some good work by DrChrissy recently so if a block can be avoided, I'm happy to support that too.)--] <small>(])</small> 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)		*The various diffs linked by the complainant don't seem particularly bothersome to me. I also think that they are being a trifle disingenuous with ''@Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering'' without mentioning the glaring connection Mr. Trump. I'm not familiar with the back story here (the GMO topic ban) but a block does seem in order. (Though, if I may add, I've seen some good work by DrChrissy recently so if a block can be avoided, I'm happy to support that too.)--] <small>(])</small> 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
			*Taking into consideration the comments above, I'm closing this with a one-week block of DrChrissy and a warning that repeating this behavior can lead to additional sanctions such as an interaction ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
			{{hab}}

Revision as of 08:03, 27 January 2017

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

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

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

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

The Rambling Man

No action is required. Sandstein 19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning The Rambling Man User who is submitting this request for enforcement Jusdafax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1/21/17 Despite recent warnings not to edit in an insulting way, TRM has once again violated the spirit and letter of his sanctions re: WP:ITN with his declaration that those opposed to his views in opposition to a proposed ITN blurb, regarding the current Donald Trump protests, are "obsessive." In my view this statement is gaslighting, in that the goal is to cast doubt on the mental health of those supporting the proposed ITN blurb. Worth noting: the consensus swang against his increasingly strident opposition to the Trump protests news blurb, which is now featured on the Main Page.) 1/21/17 The first edit by TRM to the 'Trump protests' ITN blurb discussion is TRM's oppose. Note the derisive and dismissive editorial tone, "all very nice" and "meaningless," the latter repeated in the edit summary. 1/21/17 As consensus begins to swing against his position, TRM sees fit to deride the position of a supporter, thus violating his sanctions' instructions to disengage. Note the uncivil and mocking disparagement towards a view other than his own, designed to chill discussion. 1/21/17 Three minutes later, another mocking retort, showing unwillingness to walk away as his sanctions require. 1/21/17 Two minutes later, still unwilling to let the matter rest, TRM posts on the back of his last. This example is notable for TRM's unnecessary POV editorializing shown against protests in general. 1/21/17 Again refusing to disengage with the editor, TRM derides their position in violation of his sanctions. Note the needlessly smug superiority in his edit summary, "please." Keep in mind, this is how he acts after resigning his adminship under a cloud, as noted in his sanctions, and which sanctions of October 2016 require civility and for him to disengage, and a subsequent block and further warning 5 weeks ago. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions 10/13/16 As shown in the diff, "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." Yet he now does so, using the perjoritive "obsessive." 10/13/16 Again, as shown in the diff, "If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve." Yet after his initial ITN !vote, TRM edits the 'Trump protests' nomination section, as shown in the diffs above, seven more times, clearly unwilling to disengage as consensus began to swing against his position, and clearly in direct violation of the sanctions directing him to avoid this type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. 12/16/16 The Rambling Man was the subject of an ArbCom enforcement request only five weeks ago, and was again warned, after a three day block at the time of his violations, regarding his previous sanctions. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 10/13/16 by a 12-0 vote of the Arbitration Committee. Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12/16/16. Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12/16/16. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Given the evidence presented, a block is required per the sanctions of 10/13/16 and the final warning given 12/16/16. Taken as a whole, the diffs show that TRM continues to be insulting and combative, creating an unwholesome editing environment at ITN for the discussion of sensitive topics. New editors, and even seasoned ones are discouraged by his ongoing repetitive battling to get his way. TRM has been the subject of countless hours of discussion and remedies that remain ineffective. Enough is enough. @User:Sandstein Please read the above, and the linked case and sanctions carefully. The sanctions are specific and direct, and the violations are outlined in my presented difff. Jus da fax 12:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @User:Sandstein I am requesting The Rambling Man be blocked, per the following ArbCom case, as noted specifically above. You appear to request me to copy and paste the sanctions, which are as follows: 4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. @User:Harrias Given the sanctions TRM is required to observe, he is in repeated violation of failure to disengage, as directed. This is a clear violation. And calling others' positions "obsessive" is uncivil. Jus da fax 12:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @User:Softlavender and User:Black Kite - Eight replies on one blurb proposal by a sanctioned editor required to disengage seems a clear violation, again, in spirit and substance. I have supplied the diffs openly. I stand by my request. Jus da fax 13:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notification Discussion concerning The Rambling Man Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by The Rambling Man Statement by Harrias Sure, TRM can be insulting and belittling, that is without question. But if these diffs are where we draw the line, then we might as well all give up now. In the majority of these diffs, all TRM is doing is offering counter-arguments. Yes, they are perhaps slightly pointed, but in discussions/debates sometimes it is necessary to try and make a point. Saying that he thinks there is an obsession to get something Trump related on the MP is simply not offensive or belittling, it is a statement of opinion. Most of the rest could be construed as belittling, but of the women's march, not of other users, which is a key distinction. This request just seems like a waste of everyone's time. Let's come back and do this all again if TRM does something actually offensive, eh? Harrias 12:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Softlavender I was fully prepared to knot the noose on this one based on Jusdafax's characterization of the affair, but I read the entire thread , and then I also did Control+F to highlight TRM's posts, and I have to say this case in my mind is completely trumped up. In my opinion there is no aggression, insulting, gaslighting, refusal to disengage, or personal attack going on in any of TRM's posts. Jusdafax is deliberately misquoting them, mischaracterizing them, quoting them out of context, and quoting phrases out of context. The worst of them is just TRM's opinion, albeit one that I do not agree with. I don't see that any of the posts violate the sanctions, as they are all mildly stated, no aspersions. In spite of all the disagreement between the various parties in that thread (and TRM's posts are hardly the snarkiest), no one is attacking anyone and no one is out of control, despite the emotions engendered by the subject matter. I don't agree with TRM's position (because having seen the end reports on Twitter I think he greatly underestimated the scope of the Women's Marches, for instance), but I defend his right to have and communicate it as he does there, comparing the protests to other protests or group sizes in order to provide what he believes is some perspective. In no way does he try to bully anyone or dominate the conversation. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @Jusdafax: Again, you're not seeing or reading or reporting this clearly. Let's just ask Martinevans123, the editor who you say TRM "refused to disengage with", if he felt that TRM was "refusing to disengage". It seems fairly clear to me that you don't know Martinevans123 very well, or how he likes to engage in banter with others (especially fellow members of the British Commonwealth), which is what that side conversation is. Plus you haven't noted some of the odder points of Martin's edits and edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Do I reply here? Or do I have to make a formal statement? I was shocked by the utter weakness of TRM's oppose vote and decided to take him to task. His dismissive tone was certainly no worse than usual. Mostly friendly banter, I'd say, although I see how others might misinterpret. I don't even feel the slightest bit belittled, if that helps. I'm a bit baffled by the milk comment, though - perhaps it was a sarcastic pandering to my sense of the ridiculous. I've seen TRM adopt a much more friendly and balanced tone of late and I hope that continues (although I have largely given up at DYK, I must admit). I'm still a bit shocked that you suggest that Suffolk is part of the British Commonwealth! Isn't that where that well-known Churchill-bashing evil sock Harvey Carter hails from? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @Jusdafax: Three times so far (twice here in your OP and again here) you have claimed that TRM used the word "obsessive", when he has clearly done no such thing , nor did he insult or belittle any editor(s). Your other characterizations of the conversation are in error as well. If I were you I would withdraw this filing before it possibly boomerangs on you. Softlavender (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by ~~uninvolved~~ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 'Eight replies on one blurb proposal' should have been disengaged from? They were eight replies to a blurb proposal which had seven alternative proposals... = eight replies to eight proposals, arguably. That sounds like a full and holistic involvement in a discussion as it evolved. O Fortuna! 14:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Masem (Involved only inso much I was involved in that debate). The topic of discussion was very heated and came off a few previous entries where everyone's tempers were slightly raised (effectively disagreements between what might be being widely covered in news, and the purpose of "in the news", including a few related to recent US political issues). That said, TRM's behavior in this specific case was very much tempered to what I would expect in light of the past decisions. Certainly not the level of incivility that he should be tasked for. There's perhaps a hint of passive-aggressiveness, but certainly no condescending mannerisms or apparent personal attacks. No action should be required. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris I haven't followed the TRM saga in much detail but these allegations are far-fetched, to put it mildly. (Yes, I'm struggling to avoid saying "trumped up.") Suggest closure with a firm warning to the initiator that bringing any more frivolous cases will result in sanctions. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Davey2010 Sarcastic somewhat - Yes, Incivil/belittling - No!, Unless I've gone blind I see nothing here that's block worthy nor I do see the need to bring this here, I would suggest speedy closing this with a strong warning to Justdafax. –Davey2010 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning The Rambling Man This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Please specify the remedy or sanction of the case that you think is violated. Sandstein 12:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I would decline to take action because the requesting editor does not indicate which remedy of the case, if any, is to be enforced. Sandstein 12:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC) The remedy has now been provided. You did not need to copy-paste it, just name it: Arbitration cases as such are not enforceable, only the remedies they contain. After looking at the remedy and the diffs, I would take no action here. These diffs are not "insulting and belittling"; they are mostly comments on content, not editors, and in any case are not aimed at any specific editor. The report borders on the frivolous, particularly with the allegation of "gaslighting". Sandstein 13:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Most of these comments are just sarcastic, really. Converting "I think there's some kind of developing (or developed) obsession to get something or anything about Trump onto the main page" into "editors being obsessive" is pushing it a bit, I think. If I say my son is obsessed with his XBox or my daughter is obsessed with having perfect hair and makeup before she'll step outside the front door, I'm not claiming they're mentally ill. In a discussion where we have "Some generation snowflake bed-wetting muesli-munching sandal-wearing tree-huggers don't like the new guy. Wah, wah wah.", I don't think it's particularly bad. Note: I voted in opposition to TRM in the debate. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC) If that is so, I recommend that you move your comment out of the section for uninvolved administrators. Sandstein 13:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Feel free to move it if you think that's correct, but I posted here because I am not recommending action against TRM even though I voted in the opposite way from him. I would have posted in the involved section if I had been on his side in the dispute. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I likewise suggest no sanctions. These allegations are massively (I'm so sorry) Trumped up. If it were any other editor that made these remarks nobody would blink, as it is within the normal bounds of discourse on Misplaced Pages. If you believe that these sorts of statement should not be the norm than I respect that argument, but that is a problem with the larger Misplaced Pages culture and not TRM in specific. The Wordsmith 15:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Given that no administrators here think that action is required, I'm closing this request. Any admin who disagrees is free to reopen it. Sandstein 19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No action is required. Sandstein 19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Request concerning The Rambling Man

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

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

1/21/17 Despite recent warnings not to edit in an insulting way, TRM has once again violated the spirit and letter of his sanctions re: WP:ITN with his declaration that those opposed to his views in opposition to a proposed ITN blurb, regarding the current Donald Trump protests, are "obsessive." In my view this statement is gaslighting, in that the goal is to cast doubt on the mental health of those supporting the proposed ITN blurb. Worth noting: the consensus swang against his increasingly strident opposition to the Trump protests news blurb, which is now featured on the Main Page.)
1/21/17 The first edit by TRM to the 'Trump protests' ITN blurb discussion is TRM's oppose. Note the derisive and dismissive editorial tone, "all very nice" and "meaningless," the latter repeated in the edit summary.
1/21/17 As consensus begins to swing against his position, TRM sees fit to deride the position of a supporter, thus violating his sanctions' instructions to disengage. Note the uncivil and mocking disparagement towards a view other than his own, designed to chill discussion.
1/21/17 Three minutes later, another mocking retort, showing unwillingness to walk away as his sanctions require.
1/21/17 Two minutes later, still unwilling to let the matter rest, TRM posts on the back of his last. This example is notable for TRM's unnecessary POV editorializing shown against protests in general.
1/21/17 Again refusing to disengage with the editor, TRM derides their position in violation of his sanctions. Note the needlessly smug superiority in his edit summary, "please." Keep in mind, this is how he acts after resigning his adminship under a cloud, as noted in his sanctions, and which sanctions of October 2016 require civility and for him to disengage, and a subsequent block and further warning 5 weeks ago.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions

10/13/16 As shown in the diff, "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." Yet he now does so, using the perjoritive "obsessive."
10/13/16 Again, as shown in the diff, "If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve." Yet after his initial ITN !vote, TRM edits the 'Trump protests' nomination section, as shown in the diffs above, seven more times, clearly unwilling to disengage as consensus began to swing against his position, and clearly in direct violation of the sanctions directing him to avoid this type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.
12/16/16 The Rambling Man was the subject of an ArbCom enforcement request only five weeks ago, and was again warned, after a three day block at the time of his violations, regarding his previous sanctions.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 10/13/16 by a 12-0 vote of the Arbitration Committee.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12/16/16.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12/16/16.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

@User:Harrias Given the sanctions TRM is required to observe, he is in repeated violation of failure to disengage, as directed. This is a clear violation. And calling others' positions "obsessive" is uncivil. Jus da fax 12:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@User:Softlavender and User:Black Kite - Eight replies on one blurb proposal by a sanctioned editor required to disengage seems a clear violation, again, in spirit and substance. I have supplied the diffs openly. I stand by my request. Jus da fax 13:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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

Statement by The Rambling Man

Statement by Harrias

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

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

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

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

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

Statement by Masem

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

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

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

Statement by Davey2010

Sarcastic somewhat - Yes, Incivil/belittling - No!, Unless I've gone blind I see nothing here that's block worthy nor I do see the need to bring this here, I would suggest speedy closing this with a strong warning to Justdafax. –Davey2010 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

Please specify the remedy or sanction of the case that you think is violated. Sandstein 12:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I would decline to take action because the requesting editor does not indicate which remedy of the case, if any, is to be enforced. Sandstein 12:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The remedy has now been provided. You did not need to copy-paste it, just name it: Arbitration cases as such are not enforceable, only the remedies they contain. After looking at the remedy and the diffs, I would take no action here. These diffs are not "insulting and belittling"; they are mostly comments on content, not editors, and in any case are not aimed at any specific editor. The report borders on the frivolous, particularly with the allegation of "gaslighting". Sandstein 13:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of these comments are just sarcastic, really. Converting "I think there's some kind of developing (or developed) obsession to get something or anything about Trump onto the main page" into "editors being obsessive" is pushing it a bit, I think. If I say my son is obsessed with his XBox or my daughter is obsessed with having perfect hair and makeup before she'll step outside the front door, I'm not claiming they're mentally ill. In a discussion where we have "Some generation snowflake bed-wetting muesli-munching sandal-wearing tree-huggers don't like the new guy. Wah, wah wah.", I don't think it's particularly bad. Note: I voted in opposition to TRM in the debate. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If that is so, I recommend that you move your comment out of the section for uninvolved administrators. Sandstein 13:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to move it if you think that's correct, but I posted here because I am not recommending action against TRM even though I voted in the opposite way from him. I would have posted in the involved section if I had been on his side in the dispute. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I likewise suggest no sanctions. These allegations are massively (I'm so sorry) Trumped up. If it were any other editor that made these remarks nobody would blink, as it is within the normal bounds of discourse on Misplaced Pages. If you believe that these sorts of statement should not be the norm than I respect that argument, but that is a problem with the larger Misplaced Pages culture and not TRM in specific. The Wordsmith 15:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Given that no administrators here think that action is required, I'm closing this request. Any admin who disagrees is free to reopen it. Sandstein 19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Kingofaces43

Meritless request. Complainant DrChrissy blocked for one week for topic ban violation and warned of possible further sanctions. Sandstein 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Kingofaces43 User who is submitting this request for enforcement DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Kingofaces43 (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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban. A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban. A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) See here Not applicable Additional comments by editor filing complaint Background: Earlier this month at this thread , I read that an editor (@Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering. Kingofaces43 replied within 14 mins, but rather than limiting themselves to addressing the wiki-lawyering content, they first attempted to poison the well by bringing up my ARBCOM-GMO topic and interaction ban. Two further edits discussing my GMO sanction were made by Kingoaces43. This harassing behaviour is totally unacceptable. My sanctions have absolutely nothing to do with American politics or a moth. Kingofaces43 claims my comment was battleground behaviour being continued from the GMO case, yet I have not edited in the GMO area for 12 months because of my ban. Kingofaces43 has brought up my sanctions clearly to attempt to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, and to goad me (I am of course unable to discuss my topic ban to defend myself on the page where Kingofaces43 started their mis-behaviour). Other evidence of recent interaction: Kingofaces43 also states that he and I basically do not interact since my topic ban – again what is the relevance of my topic ban to this thread other than to cast aspersions and as a further attempt to discredit and goad me. Furthermore, Kingofaces43 demonstrates their spectacularly short memory. Less than 30 days ago, I applied at WP:ARCA to have my GMO topic ban lifted. Kingofaces43 made a statement there, which they are entitled to do, but to suggest this is not interaction with me is totally misleading, if not a lie. Why have I brought this to ARBCOM? Kingofaces43 is a very experienced editor and well aware that I am unable to even mention my GMO topic ban on article pages or other noticeboards; bringing this to ARBCOM is the only way I know of seeking action against Kingofaces43 to protect me from this harassment and goading without violating my topic ban. But moreover, ARBCOM have made several strong statements against casting aspersions, including in the GMO case. Kingofaces43’c statements are clearly about the ARBCOM-GMO and arose from that case. I suggest therefore Kingofaces43 comments fall under the same considerations, i.e. they should not be casting aspersions and discretionary sanctions can be imposed. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested ] @Sandstein, @EdJohnston If I can not bring this to ARBCOM where Kingofaces43's comments clearly relate to the ARBCOM GMO case, then where else do I take it? You seem to be suggesting that any editor can mention another editor's topic ban anywhere in the project to poison the well in the knowledge that they are acting with total impunity. Is this what you are suggesting? DrChrissy 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein Your statement is self-contradictory. In one sentence, you state you do not understand what arbitration case I want to have enforced and then a couple of sentences later you are calling for sanctions against me in the ARBGMO case - precisely the case I have made it patently clear I want enforced. DrChrissy 18:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: if you can give me information on how I can protect myself from actions such as those of Kingofaces43, I will gladly go away quietly. At the moment, you seem to be suggesting that any editor can come along and start attacking banned editors contrary to WP: CONDUCTTOBANNED - which is a policy. You seem to be supporting Kingofaces43's violation of this policy. DrChrissy 19:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Discussion concerning Kingofaces43 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Kingofaces43 This started with an incident DrChrissy was not involved in. An insect, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi, was named after Donald Trump's hair. I'm an entomologist, so I went to the page to make sure political issues weren't seeping into what should have been a cut and dry scientific description. Unfortunately for avoiding drama, one of the identifying features of this species is size differences of its genitals compared to the other closely related species. This cued comments on Donald Trump's "small hands" and other appendage jokes. This resulted in the AN3 case with the issue of 3RR being broken and these political justifications interfering with talk page content discussion. Because of the latter, I said in the case intro American Politics 2 DS could apply to the situation with no stretch of the imagination (even though it’s completely silly that politics are entering into an insect species page), but said nothing more on that. Cut back to the GMO ArbCom case. DrChrissy received topic bans prior in part due to battleground behavior and following editors into other topics as part of that. The same thing happened in the justification for their topic ban in GMOs and their interaction ban with Jytdog for the same kind of thing going on towards me here. I also patiently dealt with a lot of this behavior, but I opted not to ask for a one-way interaction ban at ArbCom because I expected the GMO topic ban to prevent such behavior from DrChrissy directed at me. Aside from admin boards discussing their sanctions and appeal, we generally haven’t interacted since ArbCom. Skip forward to the AN3 case. A mere 13 minutes after I posted the report, DrChrissy was there accusing me of wikilawyering for saying that the American Politics DS apply in that intersection of topics. I don’t think a reasonable person would say they don’t apply, but it is extremely pointy to accuse someone of wikilawyering that at best. It's basically a continuation of the battleground behavior from DrChrissy in the GMO topics that was now proxied over to the AN3 board (not skirting a ban, but continued behavior that usually leads to such sanctions expanding), especially considering how they jumped in. Instead of escalating to AE, I just cautioned this, but they instead tried to claim I was goading them while calling for my head as part of their continued battleground behavior. There was no taking advantage or goading per WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED while trying to caution them as I directly pointed out to them previously, but they chose to continue misrepresenting and ignoring those reminders (i.e., WP:ASPERSIONS, a principle even amended at GMO ArbCom). At the end of the day, I think I’m convinced that Sandstein’s one-way interaction ban option is looking like the best option to prevent more of this behavior the way this is escalating. Since I normally don't interact anymore with DrChrissy unless they come into areas I'm working on, and they were pursuing me in this case, this might be a case where it’s viable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by JzG This is an attempt to crowbar a dispute into an area where there are DS active. The comments by Kingofaces are legitimate in context (they address behaviour that led to prior sanctions, not the sanctions themselves, still less the content area covered by the sanctions). DrChrissy is sanctioned in more than one topic area. finds nearly 70 pages of AN/ANI archives mentioning DrChrissy. My personal impression is that DrChrissy abuses process to try to gain advantage in content disputes. Regardless, there is no AE sanction to apply here. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kyohyi Not taking a position one way or another on validity, but this appears to be claiming violations of WP: CONDUCTTOBANNED. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Iazyges I think that as Trump is a well known and very vocal figure, and the moth is explicitly named after him, it does contain a certain amount of political connection. I must agree with JzG that this does appear akin to process abuse. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish I'm tempted to just put a facepalm here, as there clearly is no violation other than the topic ban violation and generally unhelpful complaint by DrChrissy. But per Regentspark, if there is any way to close this with an STFU to DrChrissy instead of a block, perhaps that would be for the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by username Result concerning Kingofaces43 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It seems to me that this request is without merit. The reported diffs do not constitute sanctionable misconduct in any way that I can determine. Moreover, this request does not even indicate which arbitration case it wants to have enforced, so it can't be acted on for this reason alone. The comment by DrChrissy that caused the comments by Kingofaces43 that have been reported here seems to me to be unnecessary at best - admins can very well act on edit warring reports without input from uninvolved bystanders - and needlessly confrontative. Indeed, this very report - not being an instance of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX - is probably a violation of DrChrissy's GMO topic ban. I invite other admins to comment on whether a block and/or a one-way interaction ban of DrChrissy with respect to Kingofaces43 per the WP:ARBGMO discretionary sanctions might be appropriate. Sandstein 18:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC) I agree with User:Sandstein that this complaint is without merit. If Kingofaces43 mentions that someone else is banned from GMO that's within his rights and such a mention does not violate the GMO sanctions. As Sandstein observes, this complaint is not an exercise of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX, and as such it may be a violation of DrChrissy's ban. User:DrChrissy should consider withdrawing the complaint now, before more time is spent on it, and forestall the chance you'll be sanctioned for abusing the process. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC) It seems unlikely that DrChrissy is going to take the hint to withdraw this, so I suggest we proceed with a one-week block for making a complaint at AE that is not permitted by WP:BANEX. (The editor, while topic banned, can't raise any complaints about the behavior of others on grounds of violation of the same case). And per DrC's comment above, they are asking for enforcement of WP:ARBGMO. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC) In the cited 3RR complaint, DrChrissy said to Kingofaces43, "You might like to frame your edits in fallacious terms that you are not intending to goad, but I will state clearly that I feel like I am being goaded". It looks like DrChrissy insists on interpreting these remarks as an attack on himself by Kingofaces, but I'm not buying it. It's like he is saying, "I insist that you attacked me, and I won't let you deny it." EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC) The various diffs linked by the complainant don't seem particularly bothersome to me. I also think that they are being a trifle disingenuous with @Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering without mentioning the glaring connection Mr. Trump. I'm not familiar with the back story here (the GMO topic ban) but a block does seem in order. (Though, if I may add, I've seen some good work by DrChrissy recently so if a block can be avoided, I'm happy to support that too.)--regentspark (comment) 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Taking into consideration the comments above, I'm closing this with a one-week block of DrChrissy and a warning that repeating this behavior can lead to additional sanctions such as an interaction ban. Sandstein 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Meritless request. Complainant DrChrissy blocked for one week for topic ban violation and warned of possible further sanctions. Sandstein 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Kingofaces43

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kingofaces43 (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: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

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

A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.
A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.
A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

]

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Kingofaces43

Statement by Kingofaces43

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

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

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

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

Statement by JzG

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

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

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

Statement by Kyohyi

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

Statement by Iazyges

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

Statement by Tryptofish

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

Statement by username

Result concerning Kingofaces43

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

It seems to me that this request is without merit. The reported diffs do not constitute sanctionable misconduct in any way that I can determine. Moreover, this request does not even indicate which arbitration case it wants to have enforced, so it can't be acted on for this reason alone. The comment by DrChrissy that caused the comments by Kingofaces43 that have been reported here seems to me to be unnecessary at best - admins can very well act on edit warring reports without input from uninvolved bystanders - and needlessly confrontative. Indeed, this very report - not being an instance of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX - is probably a violation of DrChrissy's GMO topic ban. I invite other admins to comment on whether a block and/or a one-way interaction ban of DrChrissy with respect to Kingofaces43 per the WP:ARBGMO discretionary sanctions might be appropriate. Sandstein 18:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Sandstein that this complaint is without merit. If Kingofaces43 mentions that someone else is banned from GMO that's within his rights and such a mention does not violate the GMO sanctions. As Sandstein observes, this complaint is not an exercise of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX, and as such it may be a violation of DrChrissy's ban. User:DrChrissy should consider withdrawing the complaint now, before more time is spent on it, and forestall the chance you'll be sanctioned for abusing the process. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that DrChrissy is going to take the hint to withdraw this, so I suggest we proceed with a one-week block for making a complaint at AE that is not permitted by WP:BANEX. (The editor, while topic banned, can't raise any complaints about the behavior of others on grounds of violation of the same case). And per DrC's comment above, they are asking for enforcement of WP:ARBGMO. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In the cited 3RR complaint, DrChrissy said to Kingofaces43, "You might like to frame your edits in fallacious terms that you are not intending to goad, but I will state clearly that I feel like I am being goaded". It looks like DrChrissy insists on interpreting these remarks as an attack on himself by Kingofaces, but I'm not buying it. It's like he is saying, "I insist that you attacked me, and I won't let you deny it." EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The various diffs linked by the complainant don't seem particularly bothersome to me. I also think that they are being a trifle disingenuous with @Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering without mentioning the glaring connection Mr. Trump. I'm not familiar with the back story here (the GMO topic ban) but a block does seem in order. (Though, if I may add, I've seen some good work by DrChrissy recently so if a block can be avoided, I'm happy to support that too.)--regentspark (comment) 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Taking into consideration the comments above, I'm closing this with a one-week block of DrChrissy and a warning that repeating this behavior can lead to additional sanctions such as an interaction ban. Sandstein 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)