Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive177

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

Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban per the standard GG topic ban, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive175#MarkBernstein and logged at WP:AC/DSL#GamerGate

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Euryalus&diff=prev&oldid=669314339

I am requesting that my topic-ban please be narrowed.

Background

On June 3rd, I saw Gamergate mentioned on another website, Googled it and landed on Gamergate controversy. I thought the lede could be improved and was prepared to make a bold edit. However based on the warnings I saw when I tried to edit, I presumed my edit would be reverted, so I went to the talk page. This was reverted due to the 30/500 rule that I was unaware of (admittedly, I did not actually read the warnings in the screenshot). I then came to A/E requesting that rule be changed, so that I and editors like me could edit the article. Here, Bosstopher suggested that I take part in WikiProject Wikify to meet the required number of edits (18).

I screwed up

I followed Bosstopher's link to WikiProject Wikify and I treated it as a game, looking for a way to make a bunch of edits quickly. I saw that List of awards and nominations received by Aamir Khan and List of Tamil films of 1973 had tons of overlinking and decided to remove internal links one at a time. Zad68 asked why I was doing that. I played dumb (19) but also stopped. I reached the remaining edits normally.

As a result I was "indefinitely topic-banned from making edits related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate" by Euryalus.

Onward

I take full responsibility for gaming the system. I should not have done that.

However, all I was guilty of was being over-anxious to edit one article. I never had any problems editing the article, nor on any related articles, nor on any other articles covered by the topic ban, nor any other articles at all. I am prevented from editing a huge number of articles I've never demonstrated any problems editing. I find such a far reaching top-ban unwarranted.

The ArbCom sanctions did not hand out any topic bans as broad as mine. None of those editors were banned from editing 'any gender-related dispute or controversy' broadly construed nor 'people associated with (A) or (B)' broadly construed. I don't know what all of those people did but I suspect my crime was on the low end of violations, yet my punishment was harsher than all of theirs. I do not think that is appropriate.

During the ANI that led to my topic-ban, I was accused by many editors of being an SPA, a 'Gamergate supporter,' and WP:NOTTHERE. I said then and I maintain now that this is not true. I would like to demonstrate why:

My first edit while using an account was to Nick Young (basketball) on July 20th, 2014 (1).

Between October, 2014 and January, 2015 I edited:

• Gone Girl (film) (2)
• Les Claypool (3)
• Ray Dalio (4)
• Blueberry Hill (restaurant) (5)
• 1994 John Tyler vs. Plano East high school football game (6)
• From Here to Now to You (7)
• John York (8)
• CardRunners (9)
• McDonald Mansion (10)

Then in the first half of 2015 I made many edits to the following articles:

• African American Vernacular English, Ebonics and Ebonics (word) (11, 12, 13, 14) I thought these articles were biased. I dove in and tried to fix them (I met resistance so was only able to make minor changes).
• Spokeo (15) I thought was biased, I fixed it (no resistance).
• Du Pont family (16) I thought was biased and fixed it (little resistance).
• Tom Cruise (17) I thought was biased and tried to fix it (some resistance).

When I think an article is biased, I am motivated to try and fix it. This is precisely what I was doing when I sought to edit Gamergate controversy.

I have continued this pattern since the topic-ban:

• I thought Carlos Slim was overly promotional and fixed it (no resistance)
• I think a slew of poker BLP's are not notable and full of peacock fluff and am in the process of trying to fix that (some resistance)
• I think Betting exchange is biased and written like a blog post and tried to fix it (no resistance) (20)

Thus, I feel that any claims that I am an SPA, WP:NOTTHERE, or a 'Gamergate supporter' -- and that is why I wanted to edit Gamergate controversy -- are a violation of WP:AGF as they are not true and I've done nothing to demonstrate they are true. And I believe the far reaching nature of the topic-ban itself is a violation of WP:AGF. It implicitly assumes that I I am seeking to edit in bad faith.

I am eligible to ask that the topic ban be removed entirely however I'm not asking for that. Honestly, I don't think my editing Gamergate controversy at this time would be productive for me or for Wikipedia. There is too much conflict and I'm bad at dealing with conflict. However -- I do not think it is in Wikipedia's best interest for me to be banned from editing other articles. I asked Euryalus to narrow the topic ban by giving me a defined list of articles I can't edit. Euryalus said "unless a topic ban is extremely narrow (for example just the Gamergate controversy article) the entire thing becomes hard to administer" (21). So I would request that my topic ban be reduced to just Gamergate controversy.

Some articles that I've wanted to edited but have not due to fear they would be covered by the topic ban:

• reddit
• Voat
• Sam Altman (which I edited prior to all of this)
• Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers which I was told is covered by the topic ban, due to two sentences in the article dealing with Ellen Pao gender discrimination lawsuit

'Broadly construed' allows that language to potentially be applied to literally thousands and thousands of articles. Only one of which I've had problems on.

Lastly, if you review the over 375 edits I've made since my topic ban, you'll see I am making productive contributions. I believe those edits demonstrate very clearly the accusations that were made about me previously (that I'm WP:NOTTHERE, an SPA and a 'Gamergate supporter') are not accurate. I realize this topic area attracted and still attracts many people who those labels may apply to -- but I'm not one of them. And I never was.

Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing, thanks for formatting. Perhaps the length of my statement did not make it clear (did you read it?), so I'll try again here: I have no interest in editing Gamergate related articles, nor gender-related articles. But the 'broadly construed' language make the topic-ban potentially apply to thousands of other articles. Also, I did not 'rack up edits' so that I could make this request. Please assume good faith. Lastly, if you cannot provide evidence that I am WP:NOTTHERE, I ask you to retract that allegation -- as I just provided a mountain of evidence it's not accurate. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 09:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: "If you go on from here to insist that you need your topic ban lifted" I'm not insisting that and it doesn't need to be lifted, as my recent edits demonstrate. I just believe the initial topic-ban was far too broad and implicitly assumes bad faith on thousands of other articles, when none was ever demonstrated. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @BMK: It appears you didn't read my statement. I acknowledged all of that that under 'I screwed up.' Also I never said I was not interested in Gamergate controversy, I said I was neutral on the topic (which was and remains true). "I see no compelling reason in his argument above" well since it seems clear you didn't even read my statement, I'm not sure how you can say that. Are you sure I'm the one being deceptive? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gamaliel: "which has been a particular target of GG" I see one questionable edit on that article (which hasn't even been reverted) over the last several months. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. But if you'd like to add that article to the topic ban, I would be fine with that. Any articles, really. Euryalus said that would be hard to administer so I requested what I thought he implied I should request, just Gamergate controversy. Another option would be shifting my ban from articles to content. I would be fine with an indefinite ban on editing any content in any article that had to do with (a) gamergate (b) gender controversies (c) people involved with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Thus, I could edit Kotaku (even though I doubt I ever would), so long as I didn't go anywhere near Gamergate stuff when I did so. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @ForbiddenRocky: it appears you also did not read my statement. We agree that I shouldn't be editing Gamergate controversy because I am bad at dealing with conflict. I'm asking for the topic ban to be narrowed. If you or anybody else has feedback on how I could have handled that situation on the Warriors talk page better, I would be very open to hearing it. I was clearly in the right (he wanted to remove from the lede that they won the Finals, calling it 'irrelevant' 'idiotic' and 'vandalism') -- and he was behaving like a child. I know there must be a better way to handle a situation like that, I just don't know what it is. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ForbiddenRocky: that conflict only exists on a few articles. My topic-ban covers many thousands that are not contentious. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @50.0.136.194: Thanks I should have clarified that. I arrived at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers organically.
  • On June 14th at 10:38 I made a series of edits and cleanup-type improvements to Joe Lacob who is the owner of the Golden State Warriors (who were then in the NBA Finals) but also a partner at that firm (which I did not previously know).
  • One of those edits was to add an internal link to the Kleiner article at 10:41.
  • A little later, I followed that link over, saw a group of cleanup tags and after scanning the article, thought they were not-appropriate and removed them at 11:02.
• As I said, completely organic. And as you said, I edit a lot of loosely similar articles. My interest there had and has nothing to do with Gamergate.Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @T. Canens: Thanks for your input. Did you read my statement? If so, could you address my points and how they are not a compelling reason for me to be able to edit an article like Harvard Law School, Barack Obama or Silicon Valley -- all of which are arguably covered by the 'broadly construed' language in my topic ban? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarkBernstient: two are completely baseless (SPI and ANI) and the third is PeterTheFourth hounding me. He's an admitted Gamergate SPA and that's about poker. The person who filed the baseless SPI stated as fact that I was a sock of another editor across numerous talk and discussion pages -- and I kept reverting him. If that isn't an allowed exception to 3rr, it should be. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the contentious nature of GGC and Handpolk's behavior on the Golden State Warriors talk page, I don't think putting the GGC plus Handpolk together is a good idea at this time. (And before someone brings up hounding, GSW are my local team.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Handpolk:, sorry for being unclear. I meant GGC and its related topics when I wrote GGC. Also, my recommendation for not easing the restriction at this time are largely covered by your statement, "because I am bad at dealing with conflict". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that, at this moment in time. Handpolk is currently the subject of actions at AN/I, AN/3, and SPI, all while his appeal at AE is active. That's pretty impressive. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Handpolk:I've reformatted your appeal as an arbitration enforcement appeal per the instructions at the top of this page. Apologies to all that it took me a few goes to get it right. Sometimes copy-paste is a good thing, I guess.

Handpolk, I'd counsel you to drop this for now. Go do something productive elsewhere in the encyclopedia for a few months. Uninvolved admins may disagree, of course, but IMO this is still waaaaay too fresh to have any chance of succeeding. Racking up edits very quickly and then coming straight back to have your sanction lifted does not exactly inspire confidence that you intend to constructive build quality articles in line with policy. Do something else for a while. The world will not end if you take a break from editing GamerGate- and gender-related articles for a few months, nor will the encyclopedia fall into wrack and ruin. Go and care about the encyclopedia somewhere else for a bit. And, if you're not here because you care about the encyclopedia, then I guess you're not here because you care about the encyclopedia. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Handpolk: I'm not trying to be hostile here. I'm trying to tell you how this looks to an outside observer and give you advice on the best way through this. You are, of course, very free to ignore it.

You've already exhausted the community's good faith to the point that it seemed necessary to impose an indefinite topic ban. If you're going to rebuild that trust, then that's fantastic. I hope it happens. But I'm trying to tell you that it is likely to take months, not days.

I did not mean to imply that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and I apologise if you thought I was making that accusation; my point is that there are lots of ways that you can help build the encyclopedia within the limits placed by your topic ban. If you go on from here to insist that you need your topic ban lifted, well, that looks like someone who cares about gender wars and gamergate, not someone who cares about the encyclopedia. As I say, this is my counsel to you on how best to proceed. Ignore it entirely if you wish. All the best. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early to lift Handpolk's topic ban (those usually run for a few months) but I myself would feel better if there was some kind of clarification from the AE admins that Handpolk's KP edit didn't really breach the topic ban. I've never edited GGC myself (I've avoided even reading the article) but I've made some edits related to Reddit co-founder and departed Wikipedian Aaron Swartz, so seeing Handpolk get blocked over editing Kleiner Perkins because of KP's distant connection with Reddit scares me, even though my edits about Aaronsw long predated Gamergate.

Handpolk: in cases of doubt, I believe you're allowed to approach Euryalus (the admin who placed the topic ban) and ask if it covers some specific article you want to edit. If I'm wrong, I hope someone below will correct me. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handpolk conveniently neglects to mention his deliberate gaming of the 500/30 system by making multiple very small edits to List of Tamil films of 1973 (154 edits of 4 bytes each in less than an hour) and List of awards and nominations received by Aamir Khan (35 edits in 10 minutes, the vast majority of them of 4 bytes) in order to qualify to edit GamerGate topics, all while disclaiming any interest in GamerGate. Of course, as soon as he had "qualified", he started editing GamerGate articles. A number of admins commented at the time that such behavior warranted an indef block, so Handpolk was lucky to get off with a mere topic ban. Such deceptiveness on Handpolk's part should not be rewarded, and I see no compelling reason in his argument above for the removal or lessening of the topic ban. BMK (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Where you write "my punishment was harsher than all of theirs", this is not true. You have received the standard topic ban that has been applied to many other editors. In regards to narrowing the scope of your topic ban, I am open to the idea in principle. I think this is a good way to transition editors to positive behavior. However, I have concerns with the articles that you've chosen as examples of what you would edit, most particularly with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has been a particular target of GG due to the Ellen Pao gender discrimination lawsuit. If you find the topic ban restricts you from editing, say, Gender inequality in India, then that would be worth considering changes, but these articles you want to edit are far too related to Gamergate to consider at this time, in my opinion. I think you should take GoldenRing's advice. Gamaliel (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no reason to disturb the sanction. T. Canens (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't either. We don't need confrontational editors at Gamergate-related articles of all places. I've just blocked them for harassing editors using bad-faith warning templates. I advise them to first try to rebuild community trust, per GoldenRing, in particular by being less quarrelsome. (Does anybody think they should be unblocked for the purpose of taking part here only? I'm not sure what the usual practice is.) Bishonen | talk 13:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm closing this request as declined, so I don't think there's any need to do that. NW (Talk) 16:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

All Rows4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

1. 2 July Violates WP:NPA stating that I falsified sources
2. 2 July Again, after I asked him to strike it. I said I will take him to WP:AE if he does not desist.
3. 2 July Again, refuses to strike it.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I can see.

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

While the last DS notice on the user's talk page is in June 2014, so slightly more than a year ago, his talk page comments indicate that he is familiar with WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since I am accused of source falsification, I have to go a bit into the content. This is just for clarifying the issue: I am not asking you to adjudicate a content issue. I urge you to read the whole section on the talk page.

1. All Rows4 removed a statement 3 June about the role of Sayeret Metkal, an Israeli elite army unit in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, claiming WP:REDFLAG and stating that the sources were not WP:RS. The sources are:
   1. Fawwaz Traboulsi, ("one of Lebanon's leading academics") A History of Modern Lebanon by Pluto Press, distributed by University of Chicago press.
   2. Alain Menargues, Les Secrets de la guerre du Liban by Albin-Michel, "one of France’s foremost literary and educational publishers".

   I found these sources eminently WP:RS and reverted this change 30 June, and immediately opened a talk page section stating that WP:REDFLAG was inappropriately used, and he should use WP:RSN if he finds the sources not WP:RS. I did not verify the claim itself.

2. Shortly after, another editor added a "clarify" tag to the sources. I was the one who hunted down the Traboulsi source and reproduced it on the talk page. Since I cannot read French, I requested Nishidani to see if he could hunt down the Menargues source. There is a long discussion on the talk page about the various issues involved.

   The Traboulsi source actually cites Menargues. It states that Sayeret Metkal entered the camps to "liquidate a selected number of cadres" but does not explicitly state that 63 people were killed. The Menargues source is incompletely verified (I have since opened a request on Resource Exchange), but a second-hand opinion source does state that he makes the "63 people killed" claim.

3. All Rows4 repeatedly violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA stating that I falsified sources, despite the fact that I was the one who hunted down the sources and tried to verify the claim. All Rows4 has simply engaged in removalism, violating WP:PRESERVE.
4. My aim is not to have any sanctions on All Rows4. I am quite willing to believe that he acted in good faith in invoking WP:REDFLAG, as I said on the talk page. I simply want him to strike his personal attacks. If he refuses, the WP:AE admins can decide the proper course of action. And of course, you are welcome to sanction me if you decide that I did indeed falsify sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs) time, 17:28, 2 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think Rhoark might be somewhat right. These are just talkpage comments, about a peripheral matter, doesn't really matter for article content. I will just forget this happened.

I would like to withdraw this request. Of course, WP:AE admins are welcome to check my conduct if they wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this? I have withdrawn this request. If nobody sees any problem with my own actions, there is no reason for this to be open. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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

I stand by the charge that Kingsindian has falsified sources. He added the following statement, into an article covered by WP:ARBPIA: "On 15 September 1982, 63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal.[1][2]".

Immediately after doing so, he explicitly admitted on the talk page that he had not verified either of the sources he used, and in fact, could not do so with regards to at least one of them as he not only has no access to it, but doesn't read French. [2]. For this alone, he should probably be sanctioned, but it is actually worse: In the same edit where he admits to not verifying the 2nd source, he tells us that the first source DOES NOT support the statement that he added: "The other source (Trablousi) mentions Sayeret Matkal going into the camps but not this incident specifically."

Another editor subsequently found and translated the French source that Kingsindian did not read, and it turns out that that source, too, does not support the claim. The claim that "63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed" is nowhere to be found there. As a side note, that 2nd source, which is the sole source for this claim repeated by other sources, is not a reliable source, but as Kingsindian never even read it, and it does not say what the statement he added claims , it does not even matter.

If needed, I will dig up from the archives of WP:AE multiple cases where people have been topic banned from this topic area for source misrepresentation far milder than this case. This sanction should be applied here. As one example , see [3] where 3 admins supported a 3 month topic ban for an editor who wrote that a source spoke of "more than 2,100 dead", when in fact the actual source said "more than 2000", and in another place attributed a statement to "Hamas Ministry of Health"" when the source actually said "Palestinian health officials". Incidentally, Kingsindian participated in that AE procedure, so he is quite aware that his misrepresentation are at least equally bad.

I do not believe that calling things what they are - in this case a misrepresentation of sources- is a personal attack. Indeed, the archives of WP:AE are full of cases where admins and other editors use this exact terminology to describe very similar cases of using lanaguage not found in sources. I am, however, willing to do this: If Kingsindian acknowledges he was wrong to-reinsert the contested claims without checking the sources , and while knowing that at least one of the sources does not support the specific claim, and agrees to not repeat this behavior, I will change the wording of my claims to "added sources that do not support the claim" instead of "falsified sources".

Both parties seem to be making good-faith efforts to follow policy and verify sources. This acrimony is not helping anything. I suggest everyone redirect from editor behavior back to the content. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kingsindian has always, on the rare occasions he comes here, asked for leniency. I think this is more serious than it looks, because All Rows4, after he had read Kingsindian's complaint here where he could not have but noticed the issue of WP:ARBPIA, insisted on repeating his accusation that Kingsindian falsified sources. He didn't. He restored what appear to be 2 reliably published sources removed on dubious grounds by All Rowse. Al Rowse did not indicate whether he had read those sources. His reason in the edit summary was:

• WP:REDFLAG If this happened (63 civilians executed) we'd have many more highly reliable and mainstream sources mentioning this

That is a wholly subjective point of view. There is nothing in itself smacking of an exceptional claim in the idea that Special Forces might have been on the ground after Israel had surrounded and sealed the camp a day before the slaughter. Special forces are always first in, in any combat zone like that. On the face of it Alain Menargues (long time Lebanese correspondent for the French Press) published by Éditions Albin Michel, and Fawwaz Traboulsi (Associate Professor of History and Politics at the Lebanese American University) by Pluto Press are not sources one removes at sight.

• The second removal by Al Rowse, with the utterly silly pretext, 'Kahan commission said no such thing' was also restored by Kingsindian, quite properly, because Al Rowse has no right to remove something because it is not in the document whose conclusions at least he is familiar with (Kahan Commission, which wasn't sourced) but it is in numerous books, as he could have verified by googling for a few seconds (Mark Ensalaco,Middle Eastern Terrorism: From Black September to September 11, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012 p.138 ‘Israel’s complicity in the massacres is beyond reasonable doubt.’), I.e. All Rowse appeared to be removing was something that might not look good for a country's image or good name.

It is particularly absurd of him to accuse Kingsindian of falsifying sources (rather than doing what he himself didn't do, i.e. investigate the matter in depth before jumping to conclusions), when he himself falsifies the source, a source he accepts, by removing most of its content.

Kingsindian did the right thing. He consulted books, asked for collegial research to be done, which is pulling up further details, and using the talk page, which Al Rowse rarely does, and did rather late in the piece (the 63 number which he fusses about is in Ménargues, as any google search would have discovered. I find it offensive that Al Rowse, a consistent removalist, when checked, has accused a very level-headed, even-handed editor of independent judgement of source falsification, then did it himself, then, told of the complaint which asked him only to strike it out, had the hide to proceed, in full awareness of the Arbpia rules mentioned in the complaint, to repeat the infamy and suggest Kingsindian should be sanctioned. This is just for the record. This wear and tear is extremely tedious and leads nowhere, as usual. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GWH. Kingsindian may have been oversensitive to an imputation of being a falsifier of sources (I get that very regularly, by people who don't read them, but me). I only posted here because Kingsindian has in gentlemanly fashion withdrawn, without obtaining minimum justice. He has a long record of disliking punitive measures here even for those who disagree with him. Not so the edit-warrior All Rowse who writes:' stand by the charge that Kingsindian has falsified sources', and suggests Kingsindian be sanctioned. I think that he too should back down, and retract what is not only unproven, but disproven. Kingsindian has shown style in withdrawing the complaint, All Rowse should reciprocate and withdraw his inane accusation which caused the bother in the first place. Kingsindian should not have to continue to work here with the shadow of an insinuation hanging over him. Honour is important to some people, or was, once. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unfortunately, the current wording at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts means that All Rows4 cannot be explicitly determined to know of the DS in this area, as pointed out by the filer; thus, the most I see here is {{Ds/alert}} being given. Any other suggestions? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see enough evidence that this needs AE enforcement; a DS alert seems fine. Both sides should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that we all edit together, and assume good faith, and work to correct errors in a collegial manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I understand your point about implications and honor, but AE, arbcom, Wikipedia policies etc don't act to maintain honor. It's not something we can explicitly preserve. We need civil and constructive editors; we can and should support and to the degree we have to enforce that. But acting to punish on grounds of some honor violation is not going to be supported by the community. We can and should expect assumptions of good faith and not for example asserting intentional fabrications of sources when mistakes in reading them appear to be the worst of it, but that's different than some honor code or enforcing honor. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to close this as no action required. This was not great behavior, but does not rise to the level of AE enforcement. I left a non-official-AE-sanction warning on All Rows4's talk page [4], the warning explains why it was not great behavior. Other than that, and leaving the record of that warning here as part of the closing, I am just going to close the request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Thorrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope_of_standard_topic_ban_.28I.29 :

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

1. July 4, 2015 Created a page for the company owned by brianna wu, violating topic ban
2. 4 July, 2015 Editing the created page which violates the topic ban imposed
3. 4 July, 2015 Editing the created page which violates the topic ban imposed
4. 5 July, 2015 Editing the created page which violates the topic ban imposed

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 12 March, 2015 Topic banned from the gamergate controversy broadly construed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is in clear violation of the block already imposed on them

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neptune%27s_Trident&diff=670135134&oldid=670127448

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.

If I can be totally honest, the reason I got banned from this topic was because I requested out of good will, (Redacted). This was NOT done out of malice or slander. I simply thought Brianna Wu, listening to her in interviews on NPR and other news outlets (Redacted). I didn't have any reliable sources to back that up so I was pretty much given a 48 hour ban from Wikipedia when I was just trying to improve the article, and my guess is some administrators thought I was being (Redacted) or trying to intentionally slander a subject of a Wikipedia article. I got upset and tried to explain this to the person who gave me the 48 hour ban that I was not trying to slander anyone or (Redacted) or put false information on an already locked Wikipedia article, and that was like red to a bull and another administrator gave me a longer ban on top of that. I wasn't going to respond to this since I'm expecting much the same reaction. I hesitated before adding the link to the Giant Spacekat article on the Gamergate article, thinking, I shouldn't do that, but I just wanted to make the one edit and leave it at that. I admit it, I made a mistake, yet the reasons for me being "banned" from the subject matter were totally unfair in my opinion. I said nothing about the ban since I felt it wouldn't do any good, I was clearly outnumbered, But I foolishly pressed the save button and made the edit on the Gamergate controversy article and here we are. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and that's exactly what Strongjam (talk) did to my comments previously when I got the ban, Strongjam redacted the statement, i.e. changed the meaning of what I was trying to say and to make it look like I was saying something I was not to the person who gave me the 48 hour ban, but again, I was outnumbered, so changing the meaning of MY statement so it is palatable to another editor, in this case Strongjam, didn't help the last time when this all began.

You can see how Strongjam changed my statement from before right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neptune%27s_Trident&diff=651082500&oldid=651080468

Maybe Strongjam was trying to help yet it didn't seem that way at the time, I could be wrong though. I'm just hoping I get a fair shake here and not just ganged up on by the same people who gave me, what I felt, was an unwarranted ban on this topic, thanks.

And what good does it do for me to give a statement and some other editor and come along and redacted or re-edited as THEY WANT it? Isn't it supposed to be my statement? Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Gamaliel (talk), I made a statement about this. And it has been re-edited by another editor. Yes, I felt the Gamergate ban was unfair, yet I didn't bother to appeal since I felt no would listen to me when I got the ban. Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know I could not post any of that information, BLP, Biography Living Persons, that I did earlier tonight, even on this page, without a reliable source. I won't be doing it again, I just thought there was no other way to make my case without being truthful about how all this happened and got started. Darwinian Ape let me know this on my talk page. Anyway, I'm done with this. Adios. Neptune's Trident (talk)

• Truth be told, all I've ever wanted to be was a Wikipedia:WikiGnome on Wikipedia and just edit and create random articles. I really wasn't aware of that term until it was mentioned by someone else the other day. It was just a hobby really. For what it's worth, I apologize for any damage I may have done. I still think if you look at my editing history you can see most of my contributions have been positive. I've obviously screwed up and violated rules, some of which I was not aware of, since the technical side of Wikipedia is not my strong point. Anyway, I'll accept whatever decision is made. Neptune's Trident (talk)

Just a note that I've redacted some of Neptune's Trident statement. WP:BLP applies here as well and I don't think repeating the exact details of the edit that brought on the topic ban is needed anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Neptune's Trident: I'm just trying to make sure we stay in line with our WP:BLP policy. I am not trying to change the meaning of your statement, either now or before. The original blocking admin is quite capable of looking at the history and seeing your original statement. Also, note that on this page you should edit your own section and refrain from editing other editor's sections. — Strongjam (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune seems to be a WikiGnome with a strong aversion to talk pages, doing a lot of wikilinks, infoboxes, and company stubs. Most of the links in the section for evidence of awareness are broken, and don't seem to apply to this user. I certainly don't see them mentioned in the ArbCom decision. They were apparently topic banned in March due to a rev del'd edit to Talk:Brianna Wu, which if I had to guess I'd bet was a request to edit the infobox that hit on hot-button MOS:IDENTITY issues. If there's a rhyme or reason to the pages they choose to do their gnome thing, I don't see it. Certainly not any detectable battleground mentality. They may be a field test of IBM Watson, or a Roomba. I suggest a formal admonishment. Rhoark (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they went and did it again, I was wondering if anyone explained to Neptune's Trident over email or something exactly why what they're doing is a BLP violation? Their actions seem to be less out of malice and more out of complete failure to understand BLP policy amongst certain other things. Bosstopher (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is the degree of the BLP violation since it was redacted from Neptune's Trident's statement, but reading other editors' statements, I gather it was not a grave one or that it's probably an honest mistake. At least his repeat of the said BLP violation seems to me purely to inform how he got the topic ban and not to actually repeat it. Bad judgement, not bad faith. This topic has been the demise of so many editors left and right, I fear gamergate gods demand blood once again.:) What I would suggest is given that there is evidence this person may be acting in good faith and just ignorant of the law, we should excuse this breach and give him a formal admonishment. I would further suggest his ban to be lifted, if Neptune can agree to stay away from the topic itself and be very very careful not to violate BLP policies any further, so that small and noncontroversial edits of his would not end up in AE. Either way, a block to me seems like punitive rather than preventative. Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune just posted the BLP violation again! I removed it, I don't know what he is trying to do, I just wanted to note that I retract my above suggestion, he is clearly not listening. Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NT seems to understand the issue now. Darwinian Ape ^talk 16:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall the BLP violation that I came across and reported to Oversight -- and there have been so many of these that I may be confused – it was the sort of thing that has, in other cases, led some people to suicide, and in other cases incited massive lawsuits. Let’s not get carried away with how minor and harmless the violation was; BLP is a fairly bright line. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Neptune's Trident: I'd really like to hear your response to this request. It appears that you have committed a clear-cut violation of your topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It can't have escaped this editor's notice that he is banned from Gamergate. The last block was for one month, and I suggest that a new one-month block is indicated. He states above that his ban is unfair, but if so, the right thing to do is appeal the ban, not violate it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit torn here. The topic ban itself is clearly needed, as this editor has proven with his statement here, which required redacting. Their motives are likely innocent and not malicious, but he has demonstrated he needs to exhibit more thoughtfulness and caution when dealing with BLP issues. The ban violation was pretty harmless, but this editor does not understand that the appropriate response to a a topic ban is not to do nothing to challenge it and then violate it when they think no one is looking. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor can't hold himself back from repeated BLP violations, he probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Note that some of what he presented in his statement here at AE has been oversighted. My guess is that he must have been repeating the same assertions that got him blocked back on March 12. (The March edits are only revdelled). EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ed, and in fact would be fine with following the usual escalating block sequence to three months. T. Canens (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in two minds. On the one hand, it's a pretty clear-cut violation of the topic ban, and the comments here show that NT hasn't learnt that he can't just keep repeating things. On the other, it doesn't appear that he intends malice and it's possible that he doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation from a policy perspective. Had this come to my talk page, I probably would have contented myself with a stern warning and words of advice, probably followed by an indefinite block if the advice wasn't heeded. I don't object to a definite-duration block along the lines of a month (three is a little on the harsh side, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it), but I wonder if the softly softly approach might yield a better result in the long term? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This needs to be closed one way or the other. I think we are roughly split between a one-month block (Ed & I) and something more lenient (Gamaliel & HJ). Unless an uninvolved admin objects in the next 24 hours, I'm going to go with a one-month block, with the caveat that the duration may be shortened if Neptune's Trident agrees to avoid BLP and topic ban violations in the future. Pinging @EdJohnston, Gamaliel, and HJ Mitchell:. T. Canens (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Neptune Trident's reposting of the BLP violation here, I now support a block. Gamaliel (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, albeit reluctantly. NT clearly doesn't understand what the problem is with his edits, but at some point the burden shifts from "us" (be it admins or others trying to explain the problem) and shifts to NT to try to understand why he's got admins lining up to tell him he can't do that, or at the very least to stop doing it and engage in a discussion aimed at understanding the problem. I think we're well past the point of the burden shifting to NT. I would be fine with a lengthy block of a definite duration, but frankly indefinite (ie, until he realises what the problem is or at least agrees to avoid it while people explain it to him) might be better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With NT's repetition of the BLP violation here today and their apparent incomprehension of why it's a problem, a a lengthy block and a BLP ban are required. I have no confidence that they understand the issue. Honestly, if this wasn't under discussion here I would have blocked indefinitely for this last event. Three strikes is enough. Acroterion (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we've arrived at a WP:CIR situation here. I don't think NT is maliciously violating BLP, rather they just completely fail to understand at least one of the BLP policy, why BLP is important, and/or why his posts are contrary to BLP. They have been given plenty of opportunity to understand all of these, but has failed to do so. For all the good intentions someone may have, a basic competence is required to edit Wikipedia and at this point in time I'm not sufficiently convinced that NT has that competence. We could topic ban them from all edits and all pages regarding living and recently deceased people (and it would have to be phrased that way, rather than with reference to where BLP applies), but reluctantly I think I prefer an indefinite block until such time as they can demonstrate they understand BLP. I don't mind whether that understanding comes in a week or in a year. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given NT's latest statement, I'm hoping that a block is no longer necessary. He appears to be understanding the problem, or at least understanding that he can't just keep repeating the BLP violations. I think a reprimand and words of advice is the most appropriate response for now, with the understanding that a lengthy or indefinite block would be the almost inevitable result of any further problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fyddlestix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others#Collect topic-banned (option 2) :

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

1. 10 July 2015 Accusing the user who brought the Arbcom case against him (MrX) of being a "partisan campaign worker," linking political content on his talk page.
2. 10 July 2015 Linking and commenting about the content of the article Koch family on his talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Collect has been blocked 8 times for edit warring.
2. He was topic-banned from articles relating to the Tea Party Movement in the Tea Party Movement case, where the Arbcom found that he "has been dismissive of other users' views and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants"
3. In the more recent "Collect and others" Arbcom case, Arbcom found that since the 2013 Tea Party case, Collect had:

• Been involved in battleground conduct
• Repeatedly edit warred
• Engaged in disruptive conduct of various types
• Made edits that were "indicative of incorporating a non-neutral point of view.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Collect was banned by arbcom from "any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." I believe the above edits violate both the spirit and the letter of that ban. The links making accusations against MrX, in particular, seem to demonstrate Collect's determination to continue his battleground behavior in relation to US politics, in violation of his topic ban.

I will say, in all fairness to Collect, that he was pointing out a serious BLP violation on the Koch family article, which has since (quite rightly) been removed. The first diff, however, seems (to me) to be completely out of line, and likely worthy of sanction even if it wasn't a violation of his topic ban.

Update: In case this is unclear, I'll offer a more detailed explanation of the context for Diff number 1, above: In that diff, Collect links this facebook post, on the page of a Democratic Party organization. Note that the image credit on that page is given to "wikipedia user MrX." The image appears to be a modification of this one, which MrX uploaded to wikimedia commons under a creative common license in 2011. The license allows free use but requires that "User:MrX" be given credit. Apparently Collect thinks this is evidence of MrX being a worker for the democratic party.

Responses to others:

@NewYorkBrad, with respect, I don't think a simple reminder is going to affect Collect's behavior here. He has been warned and asked to stop his battleground behavior repeatedly over the past several years, both formally and informally. Yet he ignored those warnings and requests and continued to edit disruptively. His inability to heed "reminders" and warnings is how/why he ended up topic banned.

@Floquenbeam, you're right about the Koch link. As I told Collect directly earlier, it was the MrX accusation that drove me to make this post, and I obviously would not have requested AE for just the Koch link. I only included it out of a suspicion that - as Tony suggests - Collect might be "testing the boundaries" of his topic ban here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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

I suggest that if my talk page is not usable by me to point out a case where a person tried connecting living persons to a Nazi War Criminal (asserting that Ilse Koch (a Koch by marriage in Germany) was a direct relative of the US Koch family) - an assertion unrelated to "US Politics" per se - that the topic ban area is too damn broad by half. I have made no political edits at all, no reverts at all, and still I am harassed by the very same folks who harassed me in the past (including an absurd SPI when I was blocked from even replying to the charge!) - and about whom I gave evidence by email to ArbCom members. I suggest the OP be politely told to ignore me, rather than harass me at every opportunity. I note that I was OVERSEAS during a period when I asked for additional time to answer the "charges" and was denied any delay. For what it is worth, my wife had a malignant melanoma operation two weeks ago (her second in six months) where about 800cc of her arm was removed. I am sure someone will snidely comment that this was "convenient" for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note the OP admits the first item was not even worthy of a complaint - but he still raised it.

The second issue is one of possible COI for one of the complainants in the ArbCom case - and was again not political per se, but addresses a possible and likely all too real problem for Wikipedia. I specifically stated "Note: the fact that a campaign distributes an image from a specific wikipedian may not mean they are aware of that usage, of course." At least I did not mention that one of the prime complainants basically told ArbCom "Too slow, fuck off" in his Diva-quit. Further Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the harasser is ascribing statements to me which I did not make (i.e. a claim that I wrote about MrX specifically) -- in fact I specifically stated that the person might not even be aware that his image is being used. If this is not pushing the hounding beyond the pale, I do not know what would count. I never posted the editor's name at all. Period. Collect (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX - read my posts. I made no claims about you at all. I did not even post your name. Period. Collect (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Note I have added the specific statement that you were not aware of the usage of your photo - I trust that clears the air. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StS: The Nazi War Criminal post was on the article talk page for 3 months. No one noted it. And it was not about "US Politics" AFAICT. I am glad to note that you find three months for a clear BLP violation is quite acceptable - your comment that "anyone else could have noted it" fails when clearly no one else did note it. Collect (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC) BTW, StS is an "involved administrator" as we have had a significant number of editorial disputes in the past. Collect (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban is explicitly "in any userspace". Collect is obviously not disengaging from US politics but is instead exploring the boundaries of his topic ban.

Note also that the arbitration case that ended in May was the second case in recent years in which he was sanctioned. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement, September 2013. --TS 20:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand that I have been accused by innuendo of being a partisan campaign worker because a Facebook group used one of my Commons photos and attributed it to me, as they are legally obligated to do? This is a new low.

For the record, I don't associate in any way with any political organization whatsoever, nor am I a member of any political party, not that it's anyone's business but my own.- MrX 17:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I read it correctly the first time. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Collect apparently searched for the intersection of my username and politics on the web.
2. Collect created a section on his user page titled: Campaign material provided by a Wikipedia user (per its caption) which plainly accuses the user listed in the photo caption (me) of providing campaign material.
3. Collect posts externally links to two derivative uses of my CC licensed photos.
4. Collect immediately follows those links with the statement "IMHO, people who are specifically partisan campaign workers should self-identify on Wikipedia."
5. Eleven minutes later, Collect realizes that he better give himself an out, so he adds the comment "Note: the fact that a campaign distributes an image from a specific wikipedian may not mean they are aware of that usage, of course."
6. After I comment in this AE request, Collect acknowledges that I stated that I "had no connection at all with the use of his picture"
7. Collect further denies any intention of connecting me with the use of my photo, blanks the material from his user talk page, and takes an absence.

@Newyorkbrad: Yeah, let's just excuse this mild indiscretion because gentle reminders have worked so well in the past. No chance that this was an action calculated to be noticed by the me and clearly suggestive of targeting me, where no direct communication takes place.- MrX 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This propensity to game the system is the same type of behavior we saw at ArbCom where Collect spent two weeks stating repeatedly he would not participate in the Arbitration case then on the last day asks for a multi week extension then on return complains he was "overseas and could not participate" ignoring the two weeks he spent taking a 'principled stand'. It is past time for lengthy blocks to be imposed. Jbh^Talk 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out two things: 1) Collect is still making false claims of "harassment" against many different editors, while engaging in harassment against users like MrX, and 2) Collect seems to invariably disappear whenever he is brought before the community, either for a medical procedure of some kind or a vacation to a remote part of the world. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven minutes seems like a relatively short space of time to either retract/clarify an indirect statement. Had Collect had a suitable "Gooogle mail recall" set up for Wikipeidia edits we would not even be aware of it. I suggest that everyone assume good faith on that part of the story. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I note support for Collect from two users with whom he’s quite cosy already.

@ Rich Farmbrough in particular: the suggestion of assuming good faith re. Collect’s story would be more persuasive if the storyteller were a user with a different history (yes, context is significant); and also if it weren’t for the question-mark of possible quid pro quo hanging over support for a beleaguered user who himself very recently and very strongly supported RF’s RfA. The views of Viriditas, Schultz, Floquenbeam, GWH et al. are altogether more persuasive.

All that said, rather than tightening the screws this time I think it would suffice to (1) tell Collect he’s a Very Naughty Boy (just to underline what he already knows—I mean, he may make stupid comments but surely he isn’t actually stupid?), and (2) let him go unsanctioned. This merciful response also allows him to save face. As we’ve seen from his past reactions to humiliating sanctions, saving face is super important to him. And anyway, whether or not one buys the stories of ill-health and travel, he’s very obviously stressed. Give him a break this time and he might no longer feel the need to be naughty—which is surely all that anyone here wants. I believe in second chances; lots of them. Writegeist (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• To me, both look like clear violations. It might be possible to excuse the chronologically first ("Koch") per "BLP beats everything", but that gets a bit tired. Collect is not actually the only user capable of recognising and addressing these problems. The other ("MrX") is clearly on violation of the topic ban. I'd say Collect's misinterpretation of the situation is almost comical, and a clear illustration of the battleground mentality ArbCom tried to curb. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not perceive the Koch reference, in this context, as a violation. I agree that the comments about MrX were unwarranted, especially since they turned out to be based on a complete misinterpretation. I believe a reminder to Collect to avoid the latter sort of thing is sufficient here. (I also note that Collect will be away for a week, just to anticipate a lack of further responses from him here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no interest in criticising the second diff, although I take Jbhunley's point.

I'd say the first is worth sanctioning, since it is clearly about US politics, and encompasses several problematic behaviors that were specifically identified in the ArbCom case:

• Battleground behavior against another editor
• Making insinuations without basis in fact
• When confronted about it, wikilawyering that everyone is misinterpreting what he said

I see he's removed the post, which is good. But that doesn't make it unsaid. I can't recall if the usual sanction for a first AE offense is a warning that anything like that again will start resulting in escalating blocks, or an actual block. So I suggest we do whatever we usually do for a first offense. But this is clearly a violation, and is bad-faith enough that it shouldn't be ignored. Indeed, the more I think about it, bad-faith enough that I'd personally choose the block rather over the warning, unless that is almost never done at AE on a first offense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Certainly we do issue blocks for first offences, at least sometimes (as long as the required alert/awareness is present). I don't intend to take part in discussing this sanction, but felt it was worth clarifying this point for Floq. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that the "Oh, he may not even be aware" was 11 minutes after posting what looks to me to have been a nameless but identifiable accusation [37]. Collect, you need to explain that a bit better. Your explanation above seems to imply you always communicated it as "oh he might not even know" versus going back to correct the record in what looks suspiciously like covering your posterior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with NYB and find a reminder insufficient, and agree with Floquenbeam's assessment of the first diff. The standard enforcement provides that the initial block may be for up to one month; I'm personally inclined towards something between 72 hours and one week. T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, now. There is no way a Wikipedian of nine years does not know that images created by Wikipedians are widely reused elsewhere, and are intended to be used as such. In any case users should not be use their user talk space to make bad faith accusations against other users. This is troubling behavior deserving intervention in any user; in a user with a long history of blocks and sanctions, enough is enough. I concur that with Stephan Schulz that it is "a clear illustration of the battleground mentality ArbCom tried to curb". A sanction is certainly warranted, perhaps a one-way interaction ban is in order as well. Gamaliel (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm planning to close this in a few hours, unless somebody else does first, by giving Collect a one-week block + a one-way interaction ban with MrX for his breaching experiment. Another admin is of course welcome to close first, I don't mean to squat on this thread. But I'd like to say now that Writegeist's crass speculations about Rich Farmbrough's motives for partly supporting Collect are quite unacceptable and should be struck. For shame. Bishonen | talk 07:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC). Added: Thank you for striking, Writegeist. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Roscelese_restricted :

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

1. July 15, 2015 Roscelese "is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." This is a content reversion, and Roscelese did not post any discussion to the article talk page. Roscelese "prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert." She used Twinkle to undo a content edit with an edit summary whose only substantive content was "?"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Sept 18 2014 Less than one year ago, but before the arbitration ruling, Roscelese was blocked for edit warring on the same article.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This filing deals with Roscelese's failure to comply with the process requirements of their sanction, not the substance of the edit. The content removal she reverted may well be seen as somewhat WP:POINTY, but it is not unambiguous vandalism. Even if it were outright vandalism, the terms of her sanction would require her to provide an appropriate explanation, which need not be detailed. The discussion of the relevant proposed decision indicates that using Twinkle in this fashion would be treated as a "rollback-type edit".

@Black Kite:, @MrX:, @EvergreenFir:, while reverting vandalism is an exemption from provision 1a (1RR) of the sanctions imposed on Roscolese by Arbcom, it is not, so far as I am aware, an exemption to either provision (requiring a talk page explanation for content reverts) or provision 2 (prohibiting rollback-type edits, including the use of Twinkle, without an adequate edit summary or the equivalent). This is not merely a "technical violation", but doing exactly what ArbCom directed Roscelese not to do. It also appears that, by using Twinkle to accomplish no more than a simple undo, Roscolese may have been conducting a breaching experiment here. (Whether Lanbooi's edit was simple vandalism or a WP:POINTY application of BLP standards to the long-dead is a more substantive question than some of the comments would have it; note the use of such language as "contemporaries considered" an individual to be LGBT, or, even worse "several contemporaries strongly suggested he was homosexual (although chaste)" are debatable -- quite likely a reason why the experienced editor who reverted Lanbooi's initial edit did not issue a vandalism warning.

I'd also note that Roscolese's comments about me below plainly violate provision 1.3. prohibiting "conduct [which] casts aspersions, or personalises disputes", as well as being inaccurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

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.

• Since even the filer notes that there's nothing wrong with my edit (reverting an uncommented removal of several chunks of cited text by a throwaway account), this looks more like a "gotcha" by HW, who made a bunch of spurious claims during the case about my behavior which none of the arbs supported, than anything else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to put this in this section, as I've recently used my tools in a dispute on another page involving Roscelese. Simply, this is reversion of vandalism (per WP:VAND, "Removing all or significant parts of a page content without any reason"), it's not a content dispute. No sanction that I am aware of prevents an editor reverting vandalism. No violation here. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some strict literal interpretation that would allow for this to be viewed as a technical breach of the restrictions placed on Roscelese, but I fail to believe that Arbcom intended to prevent clear vandalism from simply being reverted without an accompanying explanation of the obvious. If they did, then it is inconsistent with the findings of fact which specifically show examples of unexplained reverts being used in the context of a content dispute.

This is not the first time that Lanbooi has blanked the same content. They have ignored a warning placed on their talk page in March and, from what I can tell, have not made any other constructive edits. - MrX 21:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like clear vandalism by Lanbooi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to me. Blanking sections is a type of vandalism. To quote: Blanking, illegitimate - Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then arbs need to clarify if the exceptions are for the entire restriction or just the one. It would seem silly to need to use the talk page to revert vandalism. Also, your comments like Roscolese may have been conducting a breaching experiment here make me think RC is correct... you are looking for a reason to report her. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just stroll over to the talk page and write "reverted some obvious vandalism". This is a useless "gotcha" filing, but we don't need any wrangling about how to define justifiable exceptions to the restriction; its dead simple to just comply with it. Rhoark (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Rhoark on both the ease of compliance, and outcome of this filing. It is easy to include a reason in the edit summary, and to add a note to the Talk page; both of which should have been done. The breach, however, does not seem to warrant further sanction beyond a reminder & instruction on better compliance.

As a side matter, I am not certain that the reverted edit is entirely vandalism. Some of the material removed appears to relate to persons who, while notably homosexual, are only coincidentally Catholic. A review by uninvolved editors may be advised.

Support closing with a reminder to comply with the restrictions.

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

• The wording of the restriction does say that all reversions must be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page, and there is no exception to that restriction. However the intent of the restriction is not as clear and the edit reverted does appear to be vandalism, so I would not support a block on this occasion but would in future. Reading the discussions around on the PD (I wasn't active at the time it was passed) I'm not sure whether an amendment request to extend the exemption for vandalism reversion to explanations would or would not pass. An ARCA request to clarify the issue would not be inappropriate. I am not going to offer an opinion about whether there was or was not a breach of point 3. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Roscelese: please make sure you add a reason (even if it's just "vandalism" as that clears you of the "content reversion" issue, I'll file an ARCA request in a sec) any time you revert. Other than that I think we're done here, except Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: did this really need to come here...?Never mind, it was fair enough. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As Rhoark says, a useless "gotcha" filing. De minimis non curat lex. Bishonen | talk 17:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• It would have been better for the edit summary to have been "restored content removed without explanation" instead of "?" (and that would be true even for editors not under any sanction). However, I'm not sure that a talkpage thread whose entire contents were "I just restored some content that had been removed without explanation" would have added much. Other than reminding Roscelese of this point, I don't think action is needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_prohibited :

• [Eric's civility probation]

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

1. Diff1 - 18 July 2015 - in this diff, Eric describes @Ryan Kaldari: as a disgusting individual.
2. Diff 2 - 19 July 2015 - in this diff, among others, Eric describes Ryan as "reptilian lowlife"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Eric has been sanctioned under these and other relevant sanctions a ton. The most apparent way to link to previous sanctions for him really, would just be to link whis whole block log. Since GGTF specified increasing block lengths for civility violations on his part, I'm not sure what an appropriate block length offhand is but request it be in line with the letter of the GGTF decision.

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

• Eric is mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above in numerous locations
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above: Eric previously sanctioned for conduct in the area
• There is currently an active arbcom case that heavily involves Eric.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• There's no question that Eric is aware he is violating his arbcom sanctions intentionally, even when he has an arbcom case open against him. Eric has the behavior to behave well and become a beneficial content contributor. He's choosing to repeatedly test the boundaries, hoping that his special nature as Eric will let him evade sanctions. No reasonable interepretation of Eric's comment here has it as anything but a blatant violation of not only an explicit arb ruling, but one where they felt specified block lenths were necessary.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

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.

• Given that the the comment "disgusting individual" was in relation to an editor who was exposed as the owner of the "Snuffster" website and caught red-handed using sockpuppets to harass Eric, I would say "disgusting individual" falls squarely under justification. – iridescent 21:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing arbitration case is not against Eric. The case is about the actions other people took in response to Eric's comment, not about Eric's comment. The case therefore should be ignored when determining what, if any, action Eric's comment deserves. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think, at this point, Kevin Gorman should be blocked for harassment. It's clear cut, it's getting to be tiresome, it's getting to be disruptive, and his targeted campaign against Eric, which has been clearly discussed by others at the Arbitration Enforcement Arbitration case circus suggests I'm far from the only one who has issues with Kevin's behaviour. I think, if I see Kevin lodge one more arbitration enforcement request against Eric, I'm going to indefinitely block Kevin and to hell with the consequences and resulting arbitration case - this is the most blatant and disgusting targeting of one individual by an administrator I've seen in 10 years here. Nick (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]