Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callanecc (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 30 January 2015 (→Inthefastlane: Closing - Inthefastlane blocked for 72 hours by HJ Mitchell. This is only the second edit warring related block so let's see what happens next.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:59, 30 January 2015 by Callanecc (talk | contribs) (→Inthefastlane: Closing - Inthefastlane blocked for 72 hours by HJ Mitchell. This is only the second edit warring related block so let's see what happens next.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    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:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit見学/迷惑 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed

    Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.

    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

    Statement by Ubikwit

    The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled and not knowing how to handle it by disengaging, instead of engaging. I would like the ban overturned. The counterparty of the concurrently imposed interaction ban was a self-avowed activist that has subsequently been topic banned from all topics related to Judaism and appears to no longer be active on Misplaced Pages.
    @NuclearWarfare: I've been in a couple of disputes, three or four that I can recall. One was related to sourcing used in relation to the Ukraine crisis; more specifically, a blanket rejection of sources from Russia. That ended up with my starting a thread on the Identifying RS Talk page, which was inconclusive but productive. Another related to a promotional article about "Jews in Nepal", which was eventual resolved satisfactorily thanks to the participation of Nishidani and Ravpapa, who found some reliable sources and almost single-handedly created an encyclopedic article from scratch. Finally, there is a current dispute I've been involved in for some time now related to the Soka Gakkai, which also involves huge amounts of promotional bloat and sourcing questions. I recently notified one editor of the ADVOCACY policy, due to repeated attempts to find a work around in a content dispute and insert content against consensus, which resulted in this AN/I thread. That seemed to be heading toward a BOOMERANG, but looks like it will be inconclusive, though a couple of editors have voluntarily withdrawn from editing the article itself. There is a series of related articles around that NRM that probably need discretionary sanctions to prevent such long-term disputes from consuming peoples time. The dispute addressed in that thread started back in August, approximately.
    It has just dawned on me that I forgot to list the Arbcom Teaparty case, during which you were serving on the Committee, and which occurred after the sanction being appealed.
    @Deskana: I do understand that it was disruptive to edit war, regardless of the status of the content dispute. I've since learned a significant amount about policy and dispute resolution and have done my best to adapt my approach accordingly.
    @HJ Mitchell: That would be fine. I don't even have any specific articles I want to edit in the area at present, so a random selection or the like would suffice.

    Statement by Deskana

    I've not been very involved in this for a while now so I don't have any strong opinion about this appeal. That said, I would note that a good part of the reason why the sanction was imposed was because Ubikwit failed to realise that he was edit warring and instead tended to blame it on other people (see this example). The fact that the first sentence in his statement in this appeal is "The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled" would seem to indicate that he still hasn't really understood that his behaviour was disruptive. This, to me, would seem to indicate that the ban is still necessary. That said, I defer to those more active in this area to make a decision around this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit

    Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:

      • Ubikwit reinserted a meandering discussion of (Jewish philosopher) Leo Strauss, despite Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)'s warnings about WP:BLP (, again despite , despite ) although finally he did respect the BLP-based consensus I am happy to report.
      • Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling . Related edits on the talk page of Kagan follow:
      • On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" and linking to this anti-semitic website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek . A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) , who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."
    • Today Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a rightwing militarist .

    This is just one page, but the pattern of edits suggests that the problematic editing is not just limited to edit-warring violation, which was Ubikwit's removal of Israeli Jews from a list of indigenous populations. Examination of Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons should be done before making a decision about Ubikwit.

    Second, Robert Kagan has had severe violations of WP:BLP since at least 2008. For example, the 128.95.217.149 (talk · contribs) with only vandalism edits targetting Kagan has never been blocked. The history of this article horrifies me. Somehow Kagan's article needs to be protected from further WP:BLP violations, particularly edits that may appear to have anti-semitism.

    Thank you. is a 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

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

    Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    • I'd like to hear from the sanctioning admin, but this looks reasonably promising. The sanction was imposed a long time ago, Ubikwit recognises the error of their ways and states that they've changed their approach, they've been active in other topic areas, and they haven't been sanctioned recently. Certainly on the surface this ticks all the boxes that we look at when deciding appeals, but I haven't yet done a deeper review of their recent contributions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • @Ubikwit: How would you feel about having a relatively narrow range of articles to edit in the ARBPIA topic area for a few months, after which we could re-evaluate with a view to lifting the topic ban if you don't get in to trouble during that time? I'm keen to give some leeway because I don't like the idea that topic bans are forever, especially if the sanctioned editor abides by the ban and edits productively elsewhere, but I have to agree with Deskana that your opening statement doesn't fill me with hope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not. Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes. I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Despite continuing to edit in contentious areas, Ubikwit seems to have avoided trouble over the last year, and appears to have gotten better at staying cool in heated debates. Since I don't see any barrier to re-imposing it should things to awry, I'm in favour of lifting the topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd still be happier if Ubikwit started off with a few articles or a relatively narrow subtopic so that we could evaluate how they get on there for a few weeks and then lift the ban completely if there were no issues, but in a choice between absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of the appeal, I'm more incline towards acceptance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

    Eric Corbett (2)

    Consensus is clearly that this request be declined. Any further issues arising from this request should be taken to the appropriate venue, which is clearly not here. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (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 Eric Corbett

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Rationalobserver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision#Eric Corbett prohibited :

    Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. January 27 Here Eric Corbett calls another editor "filth", he edited the comment moments later to read "they are filth", which violates the sanction prohibiting him from "insulting and/or belittling other editors".
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. January 25 Eric Corbett was recently blocked for violating his related topic ban. He made the insult soon after his block had expired.
    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 Date by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Well, moments later EC clarified by changing "it is" to "they are". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    It wasn't canvassing, I didn't know what to do so I brought it there because that admin has dealt with the previous violation. On what grounds do you assert that I "lost" an argument with EC before reporting this? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    That's irrelevant, but if you think I am wrong in that thread I would to hear why. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    I admit that this was a mistake, but an admin advised me to bring this here instead of their talk page, where I originally broached the topic, and I assumed that such an obviously bad idea would have been discouraged. I'm not trying to throw Sandstein under the bus, but as a user not familiar with these processes I looked to them for guidance. Perhaps my thinking was overly simplistic, but saying that an editor is "filth" is an insult in my book. How was I to understand that the ArbCom restrictions are not to be strictly enforced? I would also assume that an editor who had only moments early gotten off a block for related violations might be scrutinized more closely when breaking the sanctions for a second time in three days. I see now that I was wrong, and that sympathy for EC outweighs the abuse he heaps on others. If it didn't, he would already be banned as 99.99% of any other editors who acted like he does would be.

    As far as the meatpuppet/sockpuppet accusations, I call bullshit and lying. Folks here are too quick to accuse others of impropriety when they ought to be making a strong argument against the actual topic at hand. I see this as a lazy way to discredit anyone who rocks the boat, and I think Misplaced Pages has lost many editors to this tactic. These accusations are personal attacks. Sitush is lying, because I don't edit any message boards, nor do I know anything about the "mailing list". If I was in a secret cabal I'd have my goons review articles I've written, not help me "trick EC into making an attack", and the idea that EC needs goading to make attacks is spurious at best; he has a long history of unprovoked attacks on unsuspecting editors. Nevertheless, I won't be confronting him ever again, which is what I assume is the response of the vast majority of editors who do. They get ganged up on and realize that the anarchy of this place is aggressive and hostile, and each insult is open to debate. I've never filed here before, and I won't ever file here again, but there was no need whatsoever to personally disparage me for making an honest mistake. An obvious insult is obvious, but I had no way of understanding that the ArbCom sanctions are subject to Wikilawering; I thought it was much more absolute, but that was my mistake, and it won't happen again. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Sitush, you claim to have evidence, which might be moot "due to naming issues", so I call that a lie, because there can be no evidence of something I didn't do, and to imply that you have evidence you can't use because it might "out" me is a bold-face lie. This is a bullshit effort to discredit me as a person, that is obvious. You could have easily said that this report should have been closed without action without personally attacking me, but that wouldn't serve the long-term goal of silencing my dissent. You're so close to EC your comments should be disregarded anyway for lack of objectivity. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    EChastain, is it at all possible that EC was reported twice in three days because he violated his sanctions twice in three days? And is it really necessary to have a behind-the-scenes conspiracy to goad him? Per Occam's Razor, that's a complicated and unlikely scenario, but if you accuse everyone who stands up to him of conspiracy, people will eventually stop standing up to him, which is suspiciously the exact result you apparently want. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Karanacs, why would I report Cassianto here? He is not under any ArbCom restrictions against insulting editors, at least none that I am aware of. And FTR, EC explicitly edited his comment to clarify that he meant to say, "they are indeed filth", so regardless of what this report finds that is an insult and a personal atack, which he is supposedly prohibited from making. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Eric Corbett

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

    Statement by Eric Corbett

    Statement by DeCausa

    It's a pity that WP:BOOMERANG doesn't seem to apply to this Board as a block for Rationalobserver for this request, which is at the same time frivolous and vexatious, would be richly deserved. EC was merely "seconding" a widely held view. He followed an admin who had agreed with the view. It wasn't a breach of the spirit of the DS; moreover it wasn't a breach of the letter either: "it was 'filth'" (i.e. using the word it) can only be in reference to the edit not the editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    Comment by MONGO

    Eric does not appear to be calling any editor filth...only that he is agreeing that a comment is filth. What is this kindergarten? This needs to be shut down...I would say this complaint is harassment.--MONGO 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    This looks like some kind of vendetta. Eric just came off a block...you cannot expect him to be in a cheery mood after all. This was not in article space nor was it disruptive to article improvements. Great latitudes should be permitted on talkpages...and there is always room on usertalks to vent ones frustrations.--MONGO 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by No such user

    And how do we sanction editors who inject themselves into disputes that don't concern them in the least, for the apparent reason to only stir trouble and increase the drama? At some point, one of these needs to be sanctioned for a future reference. And this really seems like a fine occasion to exercise a WP:BOOMERANG. Latest actions by Rationalobserver present a WP:CIVILPOV at its lowest. No such user (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Cas Liber

    My understanding is that gangbanger is as much an American term as it is for other English speakers, which is why I can't accept this comment in good faith. At all. In fact it has a such a startling similarity to this comment by another user (where a user pleads ignorance to a very common idiom), which makes me think there is meatpuppetting or possibly sockpuppeting going on. I think we are all being played. Alot of editors are being goaded and baited I feel.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    Sandstein, can you honestly believe that anyone with any familiarity with English could have interpreted these words ("fucking" literally rather than idiomatically, and "gangbanger") as such? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    NE Ent ..aaaand gangbanger would be one who engages in gangbanging? Hmmm? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    NE Ent

    I'm proud to be an American where least I know I'm free: Gangbang would generally refer to group sex, not necessarily non-consensual. Gangbanger would refer to a member of a gang, not necessarily having to do with rape and/or intercourse. NE Ent 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Sitush

    It seems possible that there is a concerted campaign going on here. Given the present environment, it would be unwise for me to link to evidence that might support that but it does exist on WMF-hosted mailing lists. If any reviewing admin can't see the obvious, they are welcome to email me for an off-wiki diff that is particularly disconcerting because it involves another admin, although whether it involves the complainant is moot due to naming issues. Regardless, this complaint has no merit and is effectively yet another example of the piling-on that has been occurring. Sandstein made a poor decision with the last block, so please don't make things worse and please try harder to see the elephant in the room. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    @Rationalobserver: rather than outright accuse me of being a liar, why not read what I actually said above? Possible ... although whether it involves the complainant is moot. Regardless, ...' - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

    Cas, related to the G term above, I always hear it used in the street/criminal gangs sense and never related to the sexual activity.
    It's subtle but "gangbang" is the multi-partner sex and "gangbanger" is the criminal gang and they're not ever connected in use.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Two kinds of pork

    I'm going to 2nd Cas Liber and Situshs' opinion there is some sort of puppetry involved, most likely off-en-wiki MEAT collaboration. Dollars to doughnuts banned editor Neotarf is involved. This frivolous (and weak) filing is just the sort of thing she would do. I doubt Carolmooredc is involved. Whatever else anyone can say about her, she's not a coward and will have someone do her dirty work for her. There is no evidence that Lightbreather is involved in this, though she has come after Eric logged out of her account to avoid scrutiny before.Two kinds of porkBacon 04:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Montanabw

    This is patently ridiculous. Seems to me we have a concerted effort to run EC off WP altogether and that sort of baiting needs to stop. Now. Montanabw 07:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Giano

    For Heaven's Sake! We all know perfectly well what a 'Gangbang(er)' is, just as we all know perfectly well what a vexatious stalker is. And as for the "fucking victim" - I recently, following storm damage, referred to my house as 'my fucking house' - does anyone seriously believe that I'm now running a brothel? Has the Arbcom really nothing better to do with its time than waste it discussing this? Giano (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Ritchie333

    Is there anything at all here that relates in any way, shape or form to improving an encyclopedia, or is it just a bunch of grumpy editors wanting to gain their pound of flesh over an editor they don't like? Well, in the real world we have people we don't like too, but we can't simply wish them away with a ban hammer. This should be tossed out and the filing parties warned not to do it again. Ritchie333 11:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by EChastain

    Even if Rationalobserver was not directly influenced by comments made on WMF-hosted mailing lists, I've seen comments there specifically naming Eric Corbett. One links to EC's comments on WER that resulted in his last block, so it's is not "lying" to suggest the possibility of coordinated attacks. The two requests here in as many days regarding him and utilising the same ds sanction may be coincidental. EChastain (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Hafspajen

    Yes, it is as Montanabw said. Can't notice much good faith here. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Comment by GoodDay

    People, would a trip to WP:ARCA? help things out? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Knowledgekid87

    Rational made a mistake here and she acknowledged it . I think this should just be closed and we all move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Davey2010

    No good faith here whatsoever. With all respect there's far more important things on the 'pedia than this pointless report, Close it down and move on. –Davey2010 18:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Lightbreather

    The series of events, condensed:

    1. 14:10, 26 January 2015 Cassianto said on Sandstein's talk page: is behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget that it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose.
    2. 15:02, 26 January 2015 OrangesRyellow replied: LB is a woman. To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA. You are the one who is baiting.
    3. 19:46, 26 January 2015 Cassianto said of OrangesRyellow at ANI: While we're on the subject of incivility, how about throwing this into the mix? This piece of filth needs to be locked up.
    4. 23:45, 26 January 2015 Viriditas advised Cassianto, on Cassianto's talk page: FWIW, the rape analogy was a misinterpretation, and I've pointed it out on the talk page of the user who made it. Please come back when you feel calm and relaxed.
    5. 04:50, 27 January 2015 Cassianto told Viriditas: go fuck yourself
    6. 18:45, 27 January 2015 NE Ent advised Cassianto: don't call others filth no matter how aggravated you are.
    7. 18:47, 27 January 2015 Cassianto replied: They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor.
    8. 18:55, 27 January 2015 Eric Corbett agreed: Seconded, they are indeed "filth".
    9. 19:01, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver reported Eric Corbett's comments (3 - 2 of which (about Lightbreather and Sandstein) preceded the "filth" comment) to Sandstein:
    10. 19:37, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver asked Cassianto, on Cassianto's talk page: Why not just accept that they misinterpreted your comments and consequently misrepresented you (I'm not saying they did that, but it appears to be your perception, which is valid.)
    11. 22:06, 27 January 2015 After other editors started arguing with Rationalobserver on Sandstein's talk page, he asked them to move along.
    12. 22:11, 27 January 2015 Sandstein advised Rationalobserver: If you think that this is actionable, WP:AE is the venue in which to make any request.
    13. 22:39, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver opened this enforcement request (only mentions "filth" comment):

    Cassianto got angry that Eric was blocked and said some pretty nasty things. OrangesRyellow misinterpreted, Cassianto got angrier and called OrangesRyellow "filth." At least two editors ask Cassianto to calm down. Cassianto re-asserted his angry insult; Eric seconded it. Rationalobserver, having already seen two insults by Eric since his block was enacted, reported them plus the "filth" comment to the blocking admin, Sandstein. She also asked Cassianto, on his talk page, to accept that OrangesRyellow had screwed up. Sandstein shut down the argument on his page about Eric's possible violation of his sanctions; Sandstein advised Rationalobserver to take it to AE if she thought it was actionable.

    The evidence shows that 1) Cassianto was out of control and doing the baiting. 2) OrangesRyellow took the bait, but it was agreed that he misunderstood what Cassianto had said. 3) Rationalobserver also took the bait. Her only sin was not ignoring Cassianto's continued rampage against Lightbreather, OrangesRyellow, and Sandstein. She tried first to get help from Sandstein, and then she tried to reason with Cassianto. Coming to AE was not her first choice, but others want this to boomerang on her because she came here anyway. Looking at the evidence, yes, Eric did violate sanctions against him, and probably Cassianto ought to have some action taken against him, too, IMO. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Result concerning Eric Corbett

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

    Reply to OP: Because I am able to read. I've also just read Talk:Enid_Blyton#Oxford_commas, which is equally unedifying. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Second reply to OP: I don't think it's in any way irrelevant. As Dr.Blofeld points out, you comment whilst EC is blocked, and when he does disengage from you - probably because he is worried about breaching his terms - you claim he's only doing it because he's wrong. Meanwhile, on Cassianto's talkpage, numerous editors tell you why you're wrong about a number of things, and then - brilliantly - you say about a different editor "but what good would come from giving a stale block now?". And then you go and report EC here. As I say, I am deeply unimpressed with this, and it looks like others are too. Anyway, I will see what other uninvolved admins think. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I am strongly in agreement with what Black Kite has written, above. I further consider that the implications of this are that the original reporter of this "violation" be themselves placed under some restriction (if possible) and any suspected meatpuppetry be quickly investigated. If it is proven, the severest sanctions should be placed on those who, at first sight, seem to be possibly gaming the system to try to run Eric Corbett off wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    "They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor. What would you call them, misunderstood? CassiantoTalk 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I have to agree with Cass on that. It's worse then trying to play the race card with no basis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Seconded, they are indeed "filth". Eric Corbett 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Thirded. It's hard to imagine a filthier lie. Writegeist (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"

    Note the if in Cassianto's original statement, which is implied, if not stated outright, in the agreements that follow. Rationalobserver didn't report Cassianto or the other two who agreed - just Eric. I don't see anything worth sanctioning over. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Honestly people, be less opaque with your statements. There are lots of statements that I read one way (say, critical of EC) which, based on the response it receives or the person it's aimed at, I can only assume is actually the opposite of how I read it. (For what it's worth, I don't see this as in any way worth the 2700 words that have been dedicated to it. Close this an move on.) Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


    Could someone fix this so that when you click on Eric Corbett (2) in the "Contents" you come to this discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

    Loganmac

    Request is premature given timing with respect to case close and that a normal admin block was applied promptly anyways. Repeat behavior will be appropriate for AE action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (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 Loganmac

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Loganmac (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/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 13:18, 28 January 2015 Loganmac, on the eve of the decision being posted banning Ryulong goes to a little-trafficked page that had previously been the subject of harassing edit warring by anonymous individuals (, , ) to revert with the linked demeaning, aggressive edit summary.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    Mentioned in final decision - Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Loganmac

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User was blocked for 24 hours for this behavior as a standard administrative action. This is not enough (it is, however, the most that could be done as a standard administrative action). User should be unilaterally and indefinitely prohibited from interacting with anyone mentioned in the Gamergate Case, if not just shown the door.

    AE was given authority over this action which took place just before the closing of the case per .

    GoodDay Arbiters specifically permitted AE action per my above link. Hipocrite (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Gamaliel 1 day is not sufficient because spitting in someones face as they are hopefully trying to exit gracefully really makes the whole departure process harder for everyone. Loganmac won. He got Ryulong kicked off Misplaced Pages for at least a year (and we all know those 1 year bans always last longer). Nothing is worse than a winner who kicks an opponent when they are down - nothing. Those of us trying to get Ryulong to walk away gracefully are tremendously harmed by the gamergate sleepers and partisans showing up on Japanese toy articles. Nip this in the bud. Hipocrite (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Loganmac

    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 Loganmac

    Statement by DHeyward

    This seems moot considering the remedy imposed on Ryulong and the block imposed on Loganmac. The block prevented interaction until the case was settled and the site ban on Ryulong prevents interaction for at least a year. Disruption through interaction appears impossible at this point. If I'm not mistaken, the letter of the rules would allow a revert of Ryulong to Loganmacs version though I wouldn't recommend it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    An ex-post-facto reading of enforcement would also allow ex-post-facto reading of the site ban. Banned users are subject to being reverted with regard to any other provision. Let's just drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. The Arbcom case is finished. Interaction between the two editors has been solved presently. Loganmac is also unable to comment here. --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    @TRPoD, blocking people on the basis of an essay is weak sauce and the edit wasn't under GamerGate sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Per Gamaliel, this seems to be a request to increase a block under the auspices of GG. It's clear that Loganmac was baiting Ryulong, but it was outside GamerGate. The reality today is that increasing the block will do nothing to further limit the baiting. Ryulong is banned. Extending Loganmac's block does nothing productive. He can no longer bother a banned editor. Maybe ban him from Ryulong's talk page but there is no reason to believe an extension of a block is anything but punitive. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Ries42

    Two notes.

    First, how can LoganMac know about discretionary sanctions that hadn't officially taken effect yet, as by your evidence they were informed of them 1/29/15 @ 00:38, when he made that edit @ 1/28/15 @ 13:18. Seems you're jumping the gun.

    Second, Hipocrite has a history of being uncivil and battleground mentality in this subject area. He makes mountains out of mole hills. In this case, moving toward getting another editor punished twice (as it appears he was already blocked for this occurrence), despite not procedurally being the best place to take this. That place already ruled. At best this is forum shopping. Bounce this. WP:BOOMERRANG it. Ries42 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    You're reading a lot into the arbitrator's comment. Yes, he said to take it to AE and it'll be looked at, but that doesn't mean your intended remedy is appropriate or that action by AE is appropriate. This particular issue has already been acted on. Ries42 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    IPUser: The situations are very different because of the relative WP experience between Mr Auerbach and the filer here. Ries42 (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

    If Loganmac did not know their edits were deliberately provocative and disruptive, then they obviously lack the WP:COMPETENCE to work in the collaborative environment. Either way the 24 hour block is inappropriately short. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    The Gamergate community sanctions were fully in effect and the user had been notified of the same. The committee has officially converted the GG community sanctions and so only Wikilawyering would say that is any basis for not acting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    People are blocked for lack of competence all the time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    While it does fall out of the technical scope of the sanctions, this would be a clear case of WP:IAR for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Purposeful WP:DICKish disruption in expanding the area of conflict should be addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    The Arbcoms own rationale for the vague broad inclusion of "gender" in the topic ban description was cited by them as specifically intentional to prevent the spread of disruption (their crystal balls were just ineffective in determining where the disruption would be spreading). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Comment by GoodDay

    I'm not certain that any Enforcement action can be taken, when remedy wasn't in effect at the time of the reported situation's occurance. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Comment by GoldenRing

    Let's be clear, this was not clever editing by LoganMac. It's hard to think of a clearer example of tendentious editing. However, I don't see what AE can do about it; the scope of the sanction this request is made under is "all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. It's hard to see how an obscure Japanese cartoon series falls under GamerGate, gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with either of them. Do the sanctions extend to every article ever edited by any editor who's ever been involved with GamerGate now?

    All in all, a very unattractive piece of grave-dancing, but outside the scope of the quoted sanction. GoldenRing (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by coldacid

    Are we saying that pages for which Ryulong acted as owner for are considered covered as per "all broadly construed"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to hinge on 1.1(c) encompassing not just articles on persons involved in GG or gender-related controversies, but also editors involved in those articles, and from there the articles that they camp as well. I'm not sure if that's a valid interpretation. That said, Loganmac really made a bone-headed move with that edit, and perhaps if there was an I-ban put in place between him and Ryulong via GS/GG it could be something actionable here, especially given how baiting that was. That alone is probably cause for further warning him, even if Ryulong is gone. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    @Gamaliel: I believe so. He also stated, though, that it's not an AE or community sanctions block. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    @Ries42: WP:BOOMERANG is a bit far considering that one of the arbs even said that Hipocrite should bring this here. The AE request isn't actionable, but it's not worthy of boomeranging either. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 12:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by <IP user>-Discussion_concerning_Loganmac-2015-01-29T04:52:00.000Z">

    @Coldacid: Agreed. If we construe the scope of the topic ban in that way, then Arbcom would be forced to endorse the finding of WP:OWN regarding a page/topic that didn't come up in the proceedings until the later stages of bickering over the PD, and certainly had no real evidence presented concerning it. I also rather doubt that there's precedent for this kind of tying-together of topics - certainly not without a finding (which I would have to oppose on principle) that Ryulong is himself a notable figure in the Gamergate controversy.

    @Ries42: While the Arb's statement is certainly no guarantee that the case is actionable, it seems to me to be unreasonable to WP:BOOMERANG an action that was explicitly proposed by Arbcom. Reminds me of the nonsense AuerbachKeller (talk · contribs) was subjected to, being redirected various places to voice his complaint only to be accused of forum-shopping.

    76.69.75.41 (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)"> ">

    Statement by starship.paint

    It's just one (or two immediate) edits and Loganmac has already been punished. Think no further action is needed without further provocation from Loganmac upon return. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Loganmac

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

    • It's a difficult case in that it seems to be a continuation of a dispute that originated with the Gamergate issue, but doesn't actually fall within the scope of the case. Behaviour like this during the case is likely to have resulted in a site ban. On the other hand, this earned a quick block from HJ Mitchell, and if Loganmac were to return to the same sort of editing post-block, they're likely to be re-blocked. That said, Loganmac isn't the only editor who went from editing Gamergate articles to editing articles that Ryulong had been the primary contributor to. Again, grave-dancing and expanding the conflict to other articles are both looked upon poorly, arbcomm sanctions or not. Guettarda (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As I've said elsewhere, if this is a sign of things to come from Loganmac, he won't last much longer. If it was a one-off lapse of judgement, I think the 24-hour block is sufficient. I don't object to another admin imposing further sanctions if they think it's likely to help in preventing disruption, but the snow is is so fresh on he ground that "wait and see" might be the best approach. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As an entirely personal view: I believe Arbcom sanctions should only apply from the moment the case is closed, unless the Committee specifically authorises retrospective or interim action. This conduct precedes the case close. So what we have is a common or garden disruptive editing with a routine admin action in imposing a 24-hour block. The block seems a bit short, but that's at the discretion of the blocking admin, as it always is. Should the same edit be repeated now, it would need to also be viewed with the subsequent Arbcom findings in mind. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    67.163.88.57

    Section hatted and archived, IP blocked as an open proxy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 29 January 2015 (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 67.163.88.57

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Johnuniq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    67.163.88.57 (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/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits relevant to request
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I have named the IP as a formality but this is a request for "other administrative measures...with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions". There is no reason to sanction the named IP.

    I do not recall editing or commenting in this area, but I recently noticed a related WP:AE case and commented there (see WP:AE archive).

    A few hours ago I responded to a request for editor assistance (diff). The issue concerned a section at Talk:Gun show loophole which can be seen at this permalink.

    The issues of desirable talk page usage and whether WP:TPO allows removal of comments are contentious, but particularly given that the topic is under discretionary sanctions, my judgment was that the talk-page section violates WP:TPG which tells us that "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Accordingly, I removed the section (00:40, 29 January 2015), and removed it a second time after the revert by the IP above.

    I ask for an administrator to remove the section from the talk page and follow up if it is restored. It would obviously be fine for someone to write a new section with a paraphrase from the original in order to record any desired on-topic content (although I don't see an actionable proposal for improving the article in the commentary). However, it is not acceptable in this contentious area for a section to address a particular editor whether or not the editor's name appears in the title. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Notification of users mentioned here or in the talk page section

    Discussion concerning 67.163.88.57

    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 67.163.88.57

    Statement by Darknipples

    • Comment: As the editor that is directly impacted as a result of this incident, I wish to state that IP 67.163.88.57 did not bother to respond until their "section", from months ago, was removed. This "section" seem to be in conflict with WP:FORUM policies, and IP editor has not made any attempt to resolve the issue, until now (that their comment was removed). See -- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AGun_show_loophole&diff=644652445&oldid=644652185 -- This section and it's content (being on the talk page I use regularly these days to help improve it's article) makes it more difficult for me to feel like I am a welcomed part of the Misplaced Pages community. I feel it is intended to make me look foolish, even though I have tried to act in good faith with respect for all its other editors. I have made many inquiries, at the Teahouse and elsewhere, to avoid WP:ARBCOM, but I am still somewhat inexperienced and need guidance. I am grateful for @Johnuniq:'s actions in this matter. Darknipples (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    I am fine with that, just keep in mind, I am still a novice. Thank you. Darknipples (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning 67.163.88.57

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

    • I've hatted the section, given that there was discussion from a number of users I'd rather not remove it outright, but I agree that it's not helpful. I've also blocked the IP for a month as it's an open proxy. I'll leave open for now for discussion in case someone thinks it should be removed completely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Actually I'be quite happy to move it into the archive manually. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, I'll close this in a minute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Previous comment moved to my personal TP. Darknipples (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DarknessSavior

    Out of scope for AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    DarknessSavior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Zeus Kabob (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Indefinite block
    = Site ban logged at ]
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

    Statement by DarknessSavior

    DarknessSavior was making edits to Kamen Rider improve the translation, then got banned by Guerillero with the stated reason "Looking over your edit history, you appeared after 2 years to edit a gamergate ANI thread and then you proceeded to mess with Ruylong. Ya, no." This seems a clear violation of WP:OWN, with Guerillero enforcing Ryulong's ownership of the Kamen Rider page.

    Statement by Guerillero

    Neither courcelles nor my blocks were done using discretionary sanctions. Any admin can reverse me if they want to; I do suggest that the cowboy admins watching this think before reversing and maybe even consider starting a discussion on AN. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor Protonk)

    No. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DarknessSavior

    Result of the appeal by DarknessSavior

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

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk

    We only need one of these. Please see discussion on The Administrator's Noticeboard. I've chosen that one to keep open as the oldest one. Courcelles 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Protonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    24 hour block and 3 month topic ban pursuant to GG sanctions, logged here
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

    Statement by Protonk

    Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction.

    I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) "advocat ignoring policy" and "repeat an egregious BLP violation" (diff) while doing so.

    The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain context--you just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy.

    We have on Misplaced Pages an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state "The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy." We recognize that the embedded statement "...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..." is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP.

    Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Snipping out the meandering clauses we get "...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post......Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh.

    As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that. The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by HJ Mitchell

    Statement by Strongjam

    Way out of my depth here I know, but I do want to highlight that HJ Mitchell has been very active in patrolling the page I personally do appreciate it. I think the block here was over-zealous, but no matter what the outcome I hope HJ Mitchell continues to help out in the topic area, and that more admins would join him in doing so. — Strongjam (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Question from Beyond My Ken

    Which is the operative appeal, this one, or the one at AN? BMK (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

    • shrug*, but there clearly shouldn't be two. Delete the one there or here. Your choice. AN is listed as an alternate to AE for appeals. Whatevs. jps (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Protonk

    Result of the appeal by Protonk

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

    Inthefastlane

    Inthefastlane blocked for 72 hours by HJ Mitchell. This is only the second edit warring related block and they aren't an SPA so let's see what happens next. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:59, 30 January 2015 (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 Inthefastlane

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Inthefastlane (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:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 21:19, 29 January 2015‎ Editor reverts another editor to make a controversial claim
    2. 23:26, 29 January 2015‎ Reverts another editor to make the same claim
    3. 04:49, 30 January 2015‎ Repeats the same edit
    4. 19:48, 30 January 2015‎ Further reversion, making the same claim in different words
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 11:47, 29 November 2014 Blocked for 3RR (in another article)
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.10:02, 29 July 2014
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I am one of the editors who has reverted this editor on the article covered by restrictions. The editor has followed me to another article in which they have previously shown no interest, in a completely different topic area, and has started to edit-war to keep a poor edit by a spamming IP.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Inthefastlane

    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 Inthefastlane

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Inthefastlane

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

    • Inthefastlane was notified of the discretionary sanctions last July and has previously been blocked for edit-warring in the same topic area, so is clearly aware of the standards of conduct. This is a pretty clear breach of the 1RR and possibly even a breach of the standard 3RR and is certainly the sort aggressive reverting that the restriction is intended to deal with, so I've blocked Inthefastlane for 72 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)