Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:06, 6 August 2014

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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, 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.

Faustian and COD T 3

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 Faustian and COD T 3

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and COD T 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

] :

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

Faustian adds claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619508449&oldid=619465761

COD T 3 subtracts it: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619528264&oldid=619508449

COD T 3 changes a tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619531439&oldid=619528264

Faustian adds a tag and a statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619550326&oldid=619540106

COD T 3 removes a statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619550713&oldid=619550326

Faustian adds a tag and a statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619583862&oldid=619550713

COD T 3 reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619649061&oldid=619583862

COD T 3 removes long-standing text: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619654410&oldid=619651298

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

Faustian alerted: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFaustian&diff=600491951&oldid=600491301

COD T 3 alerted: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACOD_T_3&diff=619568287&oldid=619556214

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Subject article is Blue Army (Poland). My only involvement with this case is that there were two content RFCs, which I closed. One of the two edit warriors, COD T 3, then requested that I change the wording of a close. On review, I declined to change the wording of the close, suggesting that if he or she was dissatisfied, a closure review could be requested. The two edit warriors then began edit warring. I see the COD T 3 has been blocked. I request that the two edit warriors be placed under WP:1RR with respect to this article (COD T 3 after coming off block). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

On reviewing the contributions of the two edit warriors, it appears that COD T 3 is a single-purpose account who edits nothing but Blue Army (Poland), WP pages that are applicable to Blue Army discussions, and talk pages of other editors. A topic ban would be a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Faustian notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFaustian&diff=619748761&oldid=619648748

COD T 3 notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACOD_T_3&diff=619749235&oldid=619744329

Statement by Faustian

While I think that applying 1RR restrictions to COD T 3 on this particular topic is appropriate, I question why he and I are to be treated equally. I am adding referenced info to the article, he is removing it. In actively trying to resolve this situation, I created two RfCs (diffs: and ), waited until they were completed and resolved in "my" favor (diff: ) before adding the info (diff: ), and he reverted it again anyways: . I've worked on a lot of articles, have created many articles, and don't have a history of edit warring, yet that is all he does. Before his efforts here, he edited as an IP, with a history of blocks for just such behavior: . He may also be writing as an IP : where he just removed a bunch of info: and may have had another identity as (if so - a sockpuppet?). I will note that whenever third parties did contribute they tended to support my edits but backed off in the face of COD T 3's reversions. For example here, an admin (User:Alex Bakharev) added the same statement that he was removing: , which of course was reverted by COD T 3: .

Yes, I have reverted also, but my reverts were re-adding referenced info he had removed. Building an encyclopedia. What can be done when one editor decides to sit on an article and basically just removes info he doesn't like? Just back off like other editors, and let the article be free of any information COD T 3 finds offensive? Is it wrong to stubbornly fight to keep information (reliably sourced) I took time to find, within the article? Or to add to the article? Why am I to be punished equally as the guy who removed the info?Faustian (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Further note Much of what COD T 3 wrote below involves false statements or cherrypicking of others' quotes. I'm not going to flood this page with all the rebuttals to his accusation, unless someone asks me to in which case I will be happy to address each of his claims. His accusing User:Alex Bakharev of being my "associate" seems particularly bizarre example though, and his demand that nobody adds any more negative information to the article after it has been purged of reliably sourced info he doesn't like speaks to his sole purpose on wikipedia, which is not to build an encyclopedia but in his words: "I don't edit Misplaced Pages. But, when I came up on this non-sense in the BA article I'm not gonna let someone just demonize the BA. Atrocities happened agains the Jews, but that needs to be properly noted, not have the article written as if the BA's sole purpose was pogroming".Faustian (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional note

Here is User:COD T 3 on his talk page, being abusive: .Faustian (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by COD T 3

I would like to address each charge leveled against me:

Every time user Faustian levels an accusation against me he discredits himself. Now, Faustian is suggesting that I'm a "sockpuppet" and uses a account that last made an entry back in 2011 (01:42, 5 October 2011 (diff | hist) . . (+569)‎ . . Blatnice pod Svatým Antonínkem) as purported evidence! Are we even trying to have an honest discussion here, or just throwing every false accusation at me? If I understand correctly, a sockpuppet charge would result if an individual creates two simultaneous accounts and uses them to support each other in ongoing discussions or edits.

Example:

• user: Somename_01: This is a good statement. (5 May, 2019)
• user: Someothername_02: Yes, this is a great statement, I agree. (6 May, 2019)

This is not the case here. This accusation is completely baseless, and is intended as a Red Herring, to draw attention away form Faustian's own inappropriate behavior. Also, I want to note that just because my COD T 3 account is now being perceived as a "single-purpose account", the creation of the account should not be interpreted as a malicious act. I am not a seasoned Misplaced Pages editor, and apart from making some minor edits here and there, I did not get too involved in WP. But, in this case I wanted to make my edits official and show continuity of my arguments when editing the Blue Army page, and so I created an account instead of editing as an IP.

Also, I would like to point to user Faustian's own inappropriate behavior, when he continues to insert disputed statements. The 3 edit rule also applies to Faustian when he continually adds disputed material. Also, as noted before Faustian has exhibited bias and offensive behavior when engaging in discussions regarding the BA. As one example he titled a discussion about the highly disputed rape charge "Blue Army Rapists" (this title was changed by another user on 15:26, 10 July 2014‎ who also considered it inappropriate). Also, in another discussion on a users talk page Faustian accused me of reverting the disputed material because it came from a "Jewish" source, thus in the process trying to demonize me and omitting the fact that my argument was based on technical merits not prejudice. Finally, one of Faustian's supporters accused me of jew-baiting on the BA talk page, and only changed his tone when another contributor entered the discussion.

Statement:

• No User:COD T 3 is engaging in original research and Jew-baiting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Finally, I would again like to point to the multiple statements made by other editors who also questioned or had general reservations about Faustain's approach to editing the disputed Controversies section, and the editorial style, tone and choice of sources he was using when inserting the highly controversial statements.

• Due to highly controversial nature of this material, you need to limit yourself to the real subject: which is who said what and why. Stop stating everything like some kind of final court verdict. Poeticbent talk 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• You're right, Poeticbent. The controversies section should probably focus more on "who said what" rather than trying to state things as facts in Misplaced Pages's editorial voice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• And here you have a tertiary source - an encyclopedia - which while not exactly prohibited, should be avoided, especially for controversial claims. Volunteer Marek 04:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Are there other sources confirming both rapes and scrolls? It looks like the entire very controversial statement is based on a single source. Faustian, if you feel that this statement is that important for the integrity of the article, you should be able to provide more sources. Personally, I do not see why it is so important, as most armies commit similar crimes.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Truther2012 that "most armies commit similar crimes", and thus insisting on levying a mass rape charge against the Blue Army is not really pertinent, as well as not actually feasible under WP:SYNTH with this particular sourcing. Please see also my how-to, WP:How to mine a source for a tutorial on how to get more information out of source material in a step-wise fashion. Regardless, you're going to need more of it than this very short, confusing partial quotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem agreeing to leave the article as it stands now, and not involve myself in any further editing of the disputed section if user Faustian agrees to do the same, and that some kind of a protection process is set in place to prevent a possible "associate" to enter or delete more of the disputed text, as was the case with this edit: (09:01, 3 August 2014‎ Alex Bakharev . . (32,723 bytes) (+428‎) . . checked and restored the Encyclopedia Judaica reference, added weblink), when another contributor re-added the exact text that was being disputed, without making any statements on the Talk Page discussion that was taking place at the time and in the process forcing me to revert the text. --COD T 3 (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

+++++++REBUTTAL STATEMENT+++++++

I'd like to make a last statement before I get banned, please see my rebuttles to the bias and unfair accusations:

• By Misplaced Pages standards Encyclopedia Judaica is considered a legitimate source, but not a neutral source. So, my objection was against Faustian using a claim made by EJ and writing it in the Misplaced Pages Editorial Voice, as if the Jewish interpretation of the events was the only definitive view of the events in question. User Faustian was reminded by other users on 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC) that due to the highly controversial and conflicting accounts of the events in question this kind of editing style is inappropriate. Also, please see the offensive statements directed at me:
• 'No User:COD T 3 is engaging in original research and Jew-baiting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)'

Please note that the date of this statement is 14 June 2014 nearly two months prior to the statement I'm potentially being banned for 2 August 2014.

• User Faustian titles a talk page discussion "Blue Army Rapists" on 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet no admin questions his neutrality or intentions, maybe Faustain holds a potential Anti-Polish bias? I don't think that by WIkipedia standards this was a neutral statement. Ladies and Gentelman admins, Thank you for your unbiased honesty in overseeing the Misplaced Pages project! It's been a very informative experience to learn just how the process is being administered, and what kind of material is being allowed to flood a page with no admin noticing even if a Undue Weight tag is present. But, for the moment it's me that will get blamed for being disruptive to the Misplaced Pages process. --COD T 3 Last Statement (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by

Result concerning Faustian and COD T 3

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

• A few thoughts. First, just a note for the future, requests for enforcement are much easier to review when it pertains to a single editor, rather than the hodgepodge this is. Second, while both editors have high-running tension between them, I don't see evidence of any significant desire to cause disruption in the topic area. I think the block on COD T 3 for edit warring resolves whatever immediate issue there was. I think closing this with a warning to discuss content disputes on the talk page rather than reverting each other would be preferable to a sanction. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• CODT T 3's mainspace contribution history shows that they are a single purpose account dedicated only to editing the article Blue Army (Poland) from a point of view that seeks to minimize the acts of violence against Jews allegedly committed by the Blue Army. This is inherently problematic, see WP:SPA. I am also concerned about COD T 3's edit summary at 08:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC): "This article is not Encyclopedia Judaica, and will not be written from a Jewish perspective." This can be read as expressing antisemitic bias. Overall, this mode of editing Misplaced Pages is not conducive to writing encyclopedia articles in the light of WP:NPOV. COD T 3 should therefore be banned from the topic of the Blue Army. I agree with the warning to Faustian.  Sandstein  11:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• That slipped my review of the statements above. I'd a support a topic ban as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• I also support a ban of User:COD T 3 from the topic of the Blue Army (Poland) on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk, with the ability to appeal in six months. I have some concerns about User:Faustian's edits but I don't think the problem is severe enough for anything more than a warning at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • • Both User:COD T 3 and User:COD T 3 Last Statement have been indeffed for sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above, and I'll close this in the next 24 hours. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL

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 SW3 5DL

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

SW3 5DL (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/Tea Party movement#Malke 2010 topic-banned

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

• SW3 5DL (talk · contribs), formerly known as Malke 2010, was topic-banned from "all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed".
• Recently, she has been posting at Talk:Donald Trump, in a thread specifically dealing with Trump's relationship to the Tea Party movement. (Whether or not one considers Trump covered in general terms, it clearly violates the topic ban to focus specifically on the Tea-Party aspect of his biography).
• When I mentioned this obvious topic-ban violation on Malke's talkpage, she responded with "rmv trolling".

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 ArbCom decision

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SW3 5DL (Malke 2010) was topic-banned from Tea-Party-related content because of battleground behavior and incivility. Those tendencies are on display in the topic-ban-violating posts, where she responds to reasonable, good-faith commentary from Tryptofish (talk · contribs) by saying: "If you are easily offended, especially where no offense was intended, then you'd best find another project... You appear to be trolling. It's just an RfC. Take a wikibreak." MastCell  04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning SW3 5DL

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 SW3 5DL

Let me make this very clear. I understand why my edits to Donald Trump talk RfC violate the TPm topic ban. They violate the ban because the issue is the Tea Party movement and not a BLP sourcing issue which I believed it was at the time I made the edits. I realized that was the problem when Stephen Schulz said it was a violation. And also when Sandstein pointed out that the discussion on the talk page was about the Tea Party movement. That also made it very clear to me. I was looking at it all wrong. Let me also state, again, that I will never go near another talk page/article that even remotely mentions the Tea Party movement. And the reason is because to do so would violate the topic ban imposed by ArbCom in fall, 2013.

• @EDJohnston: Yes, I would and I would have done it myself but for fear of being accused of continuing to edit despite the AE complaint.
• EDJohnston, I'll restore the comments and collapse them. Thanks.
• Responding to MastCell's newest comments, I've already explained how the RfC appeared to me. And not taking his comments seriously on my talk page is down to the fact that he's made personal attacks and harassed me in the past. And go back and read his comments on my talk page. His tone is not friendly, to say the least. My comments on the Trump talk page did not derail any discussion, and now it's been clarified that Collect's comments are not my comments, MastCell has come along with new complaints, new demands. I've already told EdJohnston it's fine with me to strike my comments at the talk page, and I'd have done so before now, but for fear of fresh complaints after the AE was filed.
• Also, I'd like to point out, I'm not "prone to violating" my topic ban. It's been a year since the ban was imposed and I've not had any problems. There's absolutely no evidence I've violated the ban previously, and certainly I didn't do it here intentionally.

Statement by Collect

The following are observations by Collect, and are not in any way to be interpreted otherwise.

IMHO, the infraction is of a minor nature as the Trump BLP was not connected in any way whatsoever with the TPm until 25 Jun 2014 when edits were made trying to connect Trump with the TPm. Again, IMHO, the sources did not and do not support the claims being made - AFAICT, if we assert anyone speaking before any audience which contains TPm members is therefore "associated" with the TPm, we are using the old McCarthyite system of "associating" people with groups with which the "association" is incidental at best. To that extent, I regard this as a BLP issue and not a TPm issue. The editor avers they will not edit on any future issues which even mention the TPm en passant, which is the case at hand, and so the "capital offense" position is, IMHO, unwarranted. Collect (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Those who seem to attribute my comments to the person who is the subject of this action are errant.

This case is akin to cases about LvM etc. The issue devolves on whether Donald Trump is actually "associated with the Tea Party movement" or not - which is a WP:BLP issue. The material is found in a single sentence in the BLP and in a category attached to the person.

I consider the categorization of a person with a contentious group to be a contentious claim under WP:BLP.

The primary source for the claim of membership in the TPm inth case at hand is a pseudo-quote in a headline in a reliable source. This has been discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Add_something_about_never_using_headlines_as_sources.3F where the discussionabut exactly whether a headline is reliable for claims has the OP here stating that the headline is absolutely as reliable as the article in the newspaper - a position on which I demurred based on numerous sources stating that headlines are written by copyeditors and nt by the journalist writing the article, and that they contain "pseudo-quotes" Where pseudo-quotes are the basis for linking a person to the TPm, I suggest that discussions thereon do not run afoul of the topic bans, just as it was decided that mere mention of the LvM in a BLP did not make those BLPs subject to the topic ban. I would note that Dick Cheney was also one listed as "associated" with the TPm - where the "pseudo-quotes" were not in any way borne out by the RS content, and where assertion that such contentious categorization places a BLP into topic ban category stretches the bungee cord to the breaking point. In fact, I have decategorized a number of BLPs where not a scintilla of mention of the Tea Party movement was found in the BLPs at all, and that the Trump "association" was added on 25 June 2014, which suggests that the Donald Trump article had nothing substantial to do with the Tea Party movement in any way until a person added it as a claim a month ago.

Remaining is commented out by request.

@StSch - yeppers -- calling a post made in good faith by another editor "nitpicking nonsense" sure shows WP:AGF in action. Collect (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

When SW3 5DL showed up at the RfC discussion, I had no idea who this editor was, not realizing that this was the same person previously topic-banned under another username. After the personal attack on me, quoted above by MastCell, I figured that this was just someone to ignore, and let it pass. However, after realizing now that there is an existing sanction, let me point out some specific diffs to demonstrate that this editor was aware all along that they were commenting about the Tea Party movement. Here: , SW3 5DL explicitly states that they examined an analysis by Collect, and in the post that makes unprovoked and bizarre statements about me, there is also a repeat of the statement that this analysis was closely examined: "I examined the sources posted by Collect at the start of the RfC." (near the bottom of the diff). Now, here is that post by Collect: . Look at how prominent the words "Tea Party" are in that analysis. Someone examining the sources posted there cannot help but to notice that the material concerns the Tea Party. And, based on the attitude displayed by this editor during the discussion, I can easily see how this user would have been sanctioned. There is no question in my mind that these edits constitute a conscious topic-ban violation, if "the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" is the topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I see now that SWS 5DL is planning to provide diffs about our interaction. No, I was not, and am not, a troll, but that has nothing to do with the terms of the topic ban. But it may well have a lot to do with whether or not the user understands that topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Following up on what I said, aside from not understanding what a troll is, or, more importantly, how discussions on Misplaced Pages involve editors discussing their positions with one another, I think the administrators here need to evaluate this question: Is it credible to argue that, if the answer to the question "should Donald Trump be described as associated with the Tea Party movement?" is "no", then answering that question has nothing to do with "the Tea Party movement, broadly construed"? It is obvious that it does, and the incredible claim to the contrary raises doubts about the credibility of promises to stay away from any mention in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are now evaluating SWS 5DL's promises to abide by the terms of the topic ban, then I think it appropriate to ask whether they might want to reconsider anything that they said here: (bottom part), and any of their commentary about it in the now-collapsed statement here at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@MastCell: You are being neither selfish nor cranky nor incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell (filing party)

A couple of follow-up comments: first, if SW3 5DL doesn't have the judgement to recognize that her topic ban forbids posting to a thread entitled "people associated with the Tea Party movement", then what value can be attached to her promise not to violate her topic ban in the future?

Secondly, when I raised this obvious violation on SW3 5DL's talkapge, she deleted my post with an edit summary reading "rmv trolling", and kept right on posting to the Tea Party thread. In other words, SW3 5DL's response to a valid concern was not to honestly consider whether she'd violated her topic ban, but rather to respond combatively based on her personal animosity toward me. In this context, why should we expect the self-awareness necessary to avoid future violations?

Third, the link between SW3 5DL and Malke 2010 is nowhere mentioned on her userpage that I can see. I think it's inappropriate for an editor under an active ArbCom sanction to be editing under a new username without some clear link to her previous username. It places other editors at a huge disadvantage; had I not made the connection, she'd still be violating her topic ban as we speak. I'd ask that Malke/SW3 place a note on her current userpage mentioning her previous username, particularly since she seems prone to violating her topic ban.

Finally, I realize I'm being selfish and cranky here, but I'm getting old in wiki-years and I'm tired of having my time wasted. A number of editors (including myself and Tryptofish) have had to waste a lot of time dealing with this blatant topic-ban violation, which SW3 5DL refused to even acknowledge until compelled to. Likewise, she's managed to derail an otherwise potentially productive talkpage thread. Presumably the entire point of the topic ban was to prevent SW3 5DL from wasting other editors' time and derailing talkpage threads. What reason does anyone have to believe that this sort of time-wasting won't happen again, promises to the contrary notwithstanding? MastCell  04:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by R F

I think that there is no need to strive officiously to enforce this by a block, given that the behaviour is an edge case, and the editor states that they understand this type of action can fall within "broadly construed".

A block would achieve precisely nothing.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SW3 5DL

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

The request template asks for diffs, but there aren't any in this request. Without dated diffs of the specific edits thought to violate the topic ban, there's nothing to do here.  Sandstein  10:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is this diff, this diff, and this link that shows several edits by the user. So the technicalities have been fulfilled (quite apart from WP:BURO). I agree that this is a technical violation. It also is a minor violation - I'd be happy with a statement by User: SW3 5DL that (s)he understands the issue and will refrain from commenting in such situations in the future. I'm a bit baffled why Collect thinks it is useful or appropriate to reiterate his position on the content issue here - that is not even under discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Sorry, but that argument is nitpicking nonsense. Trump may or may not be connected to the TPM. But the discussion if he is connected or not certainly is related, especially if "broadly construed". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The diff provided by Stephan Schulz shows that SW3 5DL has made edits to a discussion about whether or not Donald Trump should be categorized as "People associated with the Tea Party movement". SW3 5DL does not contest that they are Malke 2010, who has been "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed". The talk page was a page relating to the Tea Party movement because it contains the discussion mentioned above. SW3 5DL has therefore violated their topic ban. SW3 5DL's response indicates that they do not acknowledge this. Their brief response to Stephan Schulz does not persuade me that they really understand the meaning of the ban and that they would behave differently in the future. A block therefore appears to be necessary to prevent SW3 5DL from violating the topic ban further. I recommend imposing a one-week block.  Sandstein  14:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Small correction: The diffs I listed above were from MastCell's original request. I just reiterated them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Sandstein here. I think Collect's argument about the scope of the restriction is overly formalistic. The point of the sanction is to remove the editor's involvement with an area where they have been disruptive. To say that the article didn't fall under the category, despite the discussion on the talk page clearly being about the Tea Party, removes the teeth from the restriction completely. This isn't the case of an editor commenting on a completely benign issue that tangentially relates to the restricted topic (e.g., a restriction on Scientology articles for an editor who then discusses some other issue on the talk page of a completely un-related religion article that mentions Scientology briefly). Instead, we have a discussion precisely within the scope of the restriction, that the editor participated in, who then refused to accept the connection. I support a one-week block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:Sandstein and User:Lord Roem that a one-week block is needed. The topic ban obviously applies. This is not even a grey area. In my view SW3 5DL could have avoided a sanction if they made clear that they understood the problem and wouldn't do it again, but it seems that they don't understand why their edits violate the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL has pointed out that I might have been confusing his statements with those of Collect. He says that he has agreed not to repeat this. SW3 5DL, are you OK with having your own comments struck out from Talk:Donald Trump? I would also appreciate it if you would restore your own edit to AE because others may have already responded to what you said. You can put it in a collapse box if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wickey-nl

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 Wickey-nl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wickey-nl (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:ARBPIA :

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

1. 6 August 2014 Accusing other member of being sock-puppet clearly breach of WP:NPA
2. 1 August 2014 Referring to Israel as "Jewish Ethnocracy" and violation of WP:NOTFORUM
3. 24 July 2014 Violation of WP:NPA by saying that other user "don't understand" what he is writing about
4. 24 July 2014 Restoring WP:COPYVIO from BBC source
5. 18 July 2014‎ While describing his edit as " Copyedit (major)". He inserted a new information e.g he sourced this fact "The ruling also did not oblige the Government to register the settler’s rights." to advocacy organisation Peace Now without properly attributing it.
6. 16 July Another violation of WP:NPA.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 June 2014 The user was blocked for violating 1RR per this report at WP:ANEW

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13 August 2013

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Its clear that user violations of WP:NPA, bad edits like restoration of WP:COPYVIO, false edit summaries and not properly attributing advocacy organisations clearly shows that user came here not to edit in neutral way.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Wickey-nl

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 Wickey-nl

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wickey-nl

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