Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Wikipedia

21 people in discussion

Article Images

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Important information

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Arzel cautioned `Zad68` 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
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 Arzel User who is submitting this request for enforcement I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply User against whom enforcement is requested Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Motion:_Arzel_topic_banned_.28February_2015.29 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 18 April 2015 Refuses to acknowledge the connection of climate change denial to American politics. 18 April 2015 Ongoing argumentativeness in climate change politics. 7 April 2015 Clearly edit-warring in an area that is related to US politics (broadly construed). 22 March 2015 Clear involvement with US politics Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 18 February 2015 Clearly made aware of his topic ban. 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. Additional comments by editor filing complaint It's pretty clear this user has no intention of complying with his topic ban. jps (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Zero0000: Arzel's topic ban extends "across all namespaces". That is normally interpreted to include talkpages. jps (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @EdJohnston: Clearly global warming is an American political issue. So can you provide an example of a kind of edit on global warming which would cross the boundary of a topic ban on American politics broadly construed? Are these three edits provided by Ubikwit below more illustrative perhaps? [1][2][3] jps (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified. Discussion concerning Arzel 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 Arzel It is this kind of crap that makes people stop editing on WP. 1. Anthony Watts is in the categories (1958 births, American television meteorologists, Climate change skeptics, Environmental bloggers, Heartland Institute, Living people, People from Chico California). I view it as a BLP issue. I don't see American Politics in that list, I don't see politics in general in that list. He is not a politician and this issue has not been about politics. 2. JPS Canvasses to try and get some same thinking people to edit on his behalf and he calls my noting of it "Ongoing argumentativeness? He should be getting at minimum a warning for that kind of behavior. 3. I made one revert to the Anthony Watts article. Under no circumstance can that be called edit warring. JPS has made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 edits, if my one edit "Clearly edit-warring" then his definitely edit warring. 4. Hands up, don't shoot has as its categories (2014 introductions, Gestures, Phrases, Race and crime in the United States). @Future Perfect at Sunrise: how in the world is that clearly an American Politics article? I made one talk page edit almost one month ago on that article (March 22). Since I made that one edit, not a single editor has made a single remark about it being American Politics until now. And that is only because JPS is really struggling to find something to pin against me. I have been very careful to stay away from any article in the American Politics categories. If you are going to topic ban someone from a topic then it needs to be clear how to determine what is included in that topic. If you think an article is related to American Politics then that category should be added to the article. I won't repeat everything that AQFK or Peter have stated about JPS as it was stated quite well by them. But I will say that JPS's resorts to WP:HARASSMENT to try and force those that disagree with him off those articles by intimidation and a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. His attempt to change the MOS so that WP:LABEL would not apply to his attempt to call Watt's a "Denier" really takes the cake though, or maybe his edit warring over it is even worse. Arzel (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Regarding "Hands Up, Don't Shoot". I still don't see the connection to American Politics. The saying didn't originate as a political saying, it is a race/police issue outside of politics. That some people tried to use it for some political gain is not relevant. Politicians co-opt stuff ALL THE TIME. By this logic there is nothing that is not related to politics in some way. Additionally, if it was so clear than why is that not a category for American Politics? Please state why it is clearly American Politics. Personally I don't care about that article, I was simply making a note that there was no discussion regarding a known fact which was being edit warred. I made one edit and haven't edited it since and reiterate that if it was a big deal why didn't Mr. X report me those many weeks ago? He got me American Politics TBAN'ed in the first place and I made my comment ON THE SAME DAY. Regarding Watts. Please state the Clear American Politics angle on that article. There is no mention of politics that I have seen, he is not a politician and Climate Change is a scientific and global issue. By the logic stated there is nothing that does not have some abstract political angle. Jobs, Healthcare, Farming, Manufacturing, Small Businesses, Churches, Sports, Military, Economics, Astronomy, Space Exploration, Hospitals, Whales, Entertainment, etc. All of these article have some connection to American Politics in some abstract way either through specific legislation or lobbying or regulation or political talking points. One has to ask if the goal is to uphold a TBAN or silence someone. Arzel (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Could I please have all the editors calling me a climate change denier to stop. I find it continually insulting. I am an Operations Researcher specializing in Optimization, Simulation and Predictive Analysis with a strong background in Statistics. I am skeptical of the models of the AR3 which predict future warming and find it insulting from a scientific point of view that so many claim that it is settled. The models have to this point been unable to accurately predict temperatures within the margin of error which means possibly a couple of things. Either CO2 has a lower effect than predicted and/or there are some other factors which are mitigating the effect of CO2. Arzel (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by A Quest for Knowledge Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), none of the diffs presented show Arzel discussing anything political, American or otherwise. This seems like a frivolous request. However, this brings into question the filer's own conduct. Let me plainly state that the filer has been banned and sanctioned more times that I can possibly count for their repeated disruptive and battleground mentality. (I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has used numerous account names, including ScienceApologist, Joshua P. Schroder and Vanished User 314159. Look up their record.) Their pattern of battleground conduct goes back years and has not ceased. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has shown repeated and recent misconduct including threats, harassment, BLP violations and other battleground conduct: "I am happy to take you down." - Threatening me on my talk page. [4] Unsourced WP:BLP violation which I correctly removed. Bizarrely, rather than apologizing for inserting unsourced negative content about a living person, or seeking clarification on my talk page if they honestly didn't understand that unsourced contentious content about living persons is a BLP violation, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc immediately launched into battleground mode by filing this AN/I report[5] which was so ridiculous, it went nowhere without me even responding. "asshole move" Self-evident. How many second, third, forth, fifth, sixth, etc. chances do we give this same problematic editor? They are clearly not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Enough is enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I stand corrected regarding the fourth diff, which appears to be a clear a violation of Arzel's topic ban. Sorry, I missed that reading thru the OP's post. But given that was two months ago, I would think that violation is now stale. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I hate to be the voice of reason but: a) Guy has expressed a strong opinion on the subject during the course of this AE request at another venue, "It is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise"[6] b) Guy has done so in a very uncivil matter, resorting to an ad hominem attack, "Only an idiot* would state otherwise".[7] It's difficult to tell whether Guy's accusation of being an "idiot" applies to reliable sources or their fellow editors. But either way, calling other people "idiots" is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Have the standards of conduct at Wikipedia devolved so badly that it's now acceptable to resort to ad hominem attacks? Guy clearly has a strong opinion on the matter and by expressing their opinion on the content dispute, they should no longer to be considered WP:UNINVOLVED. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply It gets even worse. Guy is now editing the very article that they're supposed to be uninvolved with.[8][9][10][11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Peter Gulutzan The filer also threatened me about WP:AE (here and here), and I agree that it is the filer, not Arzel, whose conduct deserves attention. Recall that I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps ScienceApologist etc.) filed this after Arzel understandably questioned whether jps was canvassing (here), and that jps's conduct after Arzel mentioned WP:LABEL on an earlier occasion was questioned by a MoS-talk-page editor. I'd also plead that the Anthony Watts (blogger) article mentions no politician or party or election issue outside Chico California -- it's a BLP of Anthony Watts (blogger), and Arzel seemed to me to be sticking to points about that, with respect to guidelines. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Cardamon Climate change, and acceptance or denial of it is definitely an issue in US politics. Since many administrators are not from North America, I will provide a couple of external links to illustrate this. Here, Paul Waldman in the Washington Post discussed the fact that most of the likely republican candidates for president in 2016 deny that man-made global warming is happening. Here, in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik discusses how journalists should treat politicians who deny climate change, and mentions the difference between the two main American parties on this subject. Since climate change is currently an issue in American politics, and since Arzel has been editing the climate change articles, Arzel has definitely been violating the remedy that says he may not make edits related to American politics, broadly construed. Cardamon (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by DHeyward This particular article is a BLP who is not political and whose politics are unknown. He disagrees with the scientific conclusions regarding climate change. This puts him at odds with a number of people including politicians. But unless we are willing to say everyone that opines about climate science is political, this claim is without merit. We don't know the political leanings of Watts. His personal choices of solar power and other indicators would make him a green party candidate. Does the same apply to Lindzen and Curry and Mann and Hansen? They all have views. Participating in a democratic society doesn't define a person as political. Nor is a stance regarding science a political one. Anti-vaxers are numerous and cover a broad spectrum of politics but it would be incorrect to imply that every bio of an anti-vaxer is political just because it's also a political issue. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by jps Arzel makes a good point that topic bans are difficult to understand here on Wikipedia. Many mistakenly believe that topic bans are only subject to narrow designations, and some even wrongly believe that we have implemented software controls that would enable a topic ban. As I understand it, "broadly construed" is intentionally wide-ranging and is used to prevent gaming of the system. I am keenly aware that it is precedent that it is not simply articles that are in a particular category which determine the topic. WP:TBAN tries to explain this, but using a single example "weather" which doesn't really give a hard-and-fast rule that is easy to follow is perhaps not ideal. DHeyward's example of anti-vaxxers shows how confused people get. "Broadly construed" is a heavy burden and, indeed, I think that someone who jumped from a topic ban on American politics immediately into editing a page on anti-vaccination movement or someone who advocated for such would be treading in the subject of American politics, broadly construed. I think it's not hard to determine that basically every instance of article or talkpage involvement that Arzel has had since his topic ban has been related to American politics. That said, I do not even think the protestations of Arzel and his supporters are particularly honest in their claimed disbelief that American politics is related to article about a prominent person in the broader popular-level discussions over climate change. Instead, I see wagon-circling on the part of climate change denial supporters and their allies. This is part of the ongoing climate change issues we have at Wikipedia, and it is a shame that these ideologically driven editors which seem determined to slant Wikipedia into claiming that there is some sort of controversy over reality of human-caused climate change. The hope for AQFK, Peter Gulutzman, DHeyward, and Arzel is that we adopt the talking points of the climate change denialists. E.g. they hope to refer to them as "skeptics" in spite of many sources which show that this is an inexact and inappropriate euphemism for denial. They don't want sources that are written by accomplished climate scientists used in the article. They insist that the claimed "controversy" over human-caused global warming be highlighted as a battle between equals rather than a political battle between a vast consensus of scientists and a devoted group of activists who are convinced that they can muddy the waters enough to provoke doubt in the settled science of human-caused global warming. Finally, with respect to the attempted WP:BOOMERANG by AQFK, I do acknowledge that I find his (perhaps sometimes only tacit) support of climate change denial to be difficult with which to deal and I do think it may eventually lead to a reinstatement of his topic ban on climate change. Together with Peter Gulutzan and DHeyward, there are many issues with article ownership and BLP zealotry that will likely require further dispute resolution (not to mention a lot of instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). If administrators want a more thorough account of this dispute, I'm happy to provide it. But things are certainly not being helped by a topic-banned editor engaging in the tag team. I'm trying to work out these issues one at a time, and this seems to me to be the most unambiguous problem. jps (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by TheBlueCanoe (uninvolved) It seems plausible that Arzel was not deliberately breaching the topic ban, at least with respect to the climate change article. After all, very few contemporary social, political, environmental, or security issues are completely unrelated to American politics. I wonder if the administrators in this case would be willing to clarify the parameters of the topic ban, or offer some additional criteria for determining whether the editor is running afoul of his sanctions. TheBlueCanoe* 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Some like to over use the terms denialist, denier, etc. all too often in BLPs. It equates to Holocaust Denial and is oftentimes used in a partisan fashion when many of those subjects have never said anything other than they are skeptical...while others are.merely opposed to alarmist responses to climate change mitigation and merely want a cautious measured response. With that said, an edit dated two.months hence is past sell by date and me thinks this is best left as a caution for Arzel to tread lightly in such issues so he doesn't upset the snake oil salesmen.--MONGO 20:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris The "climate change" edits were not concerned with the 3.3 micron infrared absorption band of methane, or whether changes to heavy precipitation follow Clausius-Clapeyron scaling, or anything else of a scientific nature. The edits instead were within the context of the U.S. political debate over the issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Addendum: The argument here seems to be that U.S. politics edits are acceptable as long as they also are relevant to some other topic. A request for clarification to the arbitrators would be helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Tony Sidaway Irrespective of any involvement by parties, it's kinda weird to see how ruthlessly all significant information has been removed from the article. We are severely harming Wikipedia when we permit this kind of deletion to prevail. --TS 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Ubikwit Per Cardamon and others, the material is related to American politics, with the attempt to dismiss the peer-reviewed academic-press book by Mann regarding his statements on the Watts and his "Watts up with that" blog being an illustrative example.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Zero0000: These edits are not about science[12][13][14] --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Casprings @Zero0000: I find it interesting the swift juctice the process seems to at least want to give out to some, while the amazing amount of evidence needed to get any sanctions on an editor that has been pushing a conservative POV for years. I know this may sound crazy. But it almost seems that Wikipedia not only has systematic bias, but also favors a certain POV in its punishments. I mean, its not like wikipedia has a disproportionate number of white males from the US who tend to hold a conservative POV... or anything....Casprings (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Zero0000: To ignore his opinion is to ignore the context for the case. With the context, it is clear that he is editing with American Politics in mind. Climate change denial is an important WP:Fringe of the American right and very connected to American politics. He has a long history of editing with a conservative POV (see last post). So with that context, how is it not a reasonable conclusion that his edits are within the scope of American Politics, "broadly construed"? Yes, if you ignore all the context one could make the argument that it is not connected to American Politics. However, you are ignoring the history and the context.Casprings (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Zero0000 and EdJohnston: I find your logic difficult to accept as the original rational of the Arbitration committee. I must agree with Mastcast. I would also note, many of the differences in the original finding of fact do not meet this very tight connection to American Politics. I plan on asking the committee for clarification.Casprings (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply The request for clarification can be found here. Casprings (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I believe this. [15] . I really don't think he thought those edits were a violation. Whatever the clarification, I think he should not be sanctioned . One has to assume good faith given that this is an issue that needs clarification with others too. I still think the punishment system is biased against certain POVs. Casprings (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian I agree with Zero0000 here. These edits are about a climate change denier/skeptic, not US politics. The guy is not really a climate scientist, and of course politics has to do a fair bit with his popularity, but that does not automatically make edits to his page related to US politics. I also see no evidence of edit-warring. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by MastCell Commenting as an editor, not as an admin. This is obviously a topic ban violation. Watts is heavily involved in the political dispute in the U.S. about the reality of climate change. His work is financially supported by the Heartland Institute ([16]), a partisan conservative think tank which lobbies politically against climate-change legislation. Likewise, the edit to hands up, don't shoot is a topic-ban violation, as the shooting of unarmed African-American men by the police has, for whatever reason, become a deeply partisan issue in the US. In fact, every article or talk-page edit that Arzel has made since his topic ban deals directly with American politics, and thus violates his topic ban. I'll go a bit further: virtually every edit that Arzel has ever made on Wikipedia is closely linked to partisan political talking points. This is the sum total of his editing, both before and after his topic ban. Find me some non-trivial edits by Arzel that aren't directly derived from hot-button issues in U.S. partisan politics (race relations, climate change, environmental legislation, various right-wing media personalities, etc). He doesn't edit anything else besides American politics. So either the topic ban should be applied here, or we should just pretend it doesn't exist. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply As a point of information about Anthony Watts being or not being a politician, Watts's Wikipedia biography mentions that he held elective office (Chico, California school board) a couple times, and he was briefly a candidate for the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Butte County is where Chico is). The cited news article[17] doesn't list a party affiliation, but it describes him as a "conservative candidate" and says he recruited another conservative candidate when he withdrew from the race. School board might not be "political" but Board of Supervisors probably is (its members draw salaries[18] for doing what I'd say is politics, so I'd call them politicians). On the other hand, Watts didn't actually serve as a Supervisor. A web search also finds a (rather biased against Watts) sourcewatch.org page mentioning that Watts for a while ran the web site for the Butte County Republicans([19] entry of Sept 27, 2008; Wayback link since the sourcewatch link is dead), and the "Welcome" post (Sept 25, 2008, same url) on that site, saying "We need to get Republicans elected to office... We elect Republicans by turning out voters on November 4th." were posted by "Wattsupwiththat" which was presumably Anthony Watts, who made other posts from to that site as well. Plus he supplied a webcast to the site (Oct 6 entry). So while calling Watts an actual politician is at most borderline, he was clearly a Republican party activist and briefly a conservative-labelled candidate for elected political office. Plus there are the political overtones of the climate change thing. I'm not going to yell about AE sanctions for the past edits but in the context of the TBAN, I think it would be better if Arzel avoided the Watts article going forward. Anyway, DHeyward's take[20] that Watts' politics look aligned with the Green Party might have been a nice guess but it doesn't hold up to a little research. My main issue with Arzel's (or anyone else's) editing is not about the narrow question of whether the article subject is a politician, but about whether the editor is contributing using a neutral point of view or a biased one. We all have our biases but I think we should recognize them and adjust for them in our editing, so that we always make an effort to edit neutrally, following the overall spectrum of existing published sources rather than emphasizing just the ones we agree with. I hope Arzel (and everyone!) can make good effort to edit in that spirit regardless of the specific articles being edited. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Result concerning Arzel This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I see merit in this request. The argument raised by AQFK, that the climate change topic is a scientific and not a specifically American political topic, appears specious to me: the debate between "climate change proponents" and "climate change deniers/skeptics" is clearly a central issue of American political life, and an article about an American blogger who focusses on this debate seems to me to be well inside the bounds of "American politics, broadly construed". With the fourth link, regarding the "Hands Up" article, there can be no doubt at all that it is within the area of the topic ban. On both counts, a sanction will be in order. I haven't looked yet at the allegations made against the filing party. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Climate change is clearly part of American politics. So is the "Hands Up" article. This is a good moment for Arzel to reconsider his position and withdraw from such disputes. If he won't do so a block appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind, see below. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Arzel is also commenting on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) (Watts is a prominent climate change denier). I would say that Arzel is pushing the boundaries and needs a firm reminder to step back. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Zero0000 It is hard to think of a topic more closely identified with American politics, than climate change. The "debate", such as it is, exists solely because of political activism from the right in US politics. America is pretty much the only country where the fact of climate change is controversial, everywhere else the debate is what to do about it, not whether it exists, because the fact that ti exists has been established beyond reasonable doubt, as our articles show. Arzel is active on the article on Anthony Watts, the claim that he is not a political figure evaporates under any kind of scrutiny: he operates a climate denial blog funded in part by the Heartland Institute and has been used as a source of climate denial materials by climate deniers in the US political arena. That article is a US political article. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Zero0000 I get your point, but climate change is politics and Watts is American, and the Heartland Institute is an American political body and Watts is cited by Republican climate deniers. It's political, and it's American, and it's notable only because of American politics. I'm not arguing for a sanction, but I am saying this is a case for Arzel backing off because it's virtually impossible to decouple that article form American politics, especially right now as the climate deniers are rallying for one last hurrah (while, no doubt, buying hilltop property as a hedge). Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I ask my fellow admins to note that Arzel's topic ban does not ban him from articles related to US politics, but rather from making edits related to US politics. I think the "hands up" edit fails this test (though I don't understand it), but I'm not convinced that the climate change edits do. As someone noted above, just about every issue of public debate is somehow related to US politics. That doesn't make every such issue included in the topic ban; more relevantly it does not make every edit related to climate change automatically related to US politics. I also note that the list of examples given by arbcom are almost all much more clearly of a US-political nature. At the very least, Arzel's argument that the edits were not US-politics related is plausible and does not prove bad faith. If we want to include climate change in the topic ban (for what reason?) we can do so, but I don't think Arzel should be sanctioned now for a judgement that many reasonable people could make. Zero^talk 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply To I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: the topic ban certain does apply to talk pages, and I didn't say otherwise. To Casprings: I deliberately did not attempt to figure out Arzel's position on climate change; it is irrelevant to the current process. Zero^talk 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @JzG Climate change denial is a very serious problem in my own country, which is not the USA, and I know of other non-US countries where that is true too. So I believe your statement to be factually incorrect. Also, I'll repeat that it is not relevant if the article is related to US politics, but only whether the edits Arzel made were related to US politics. That's what the topic ban says. The argument that they were about the climate change "debate" and therefore about US politics is not a valid argument, imho. As for "active on the article on Anthony Watts", he/she only ever made one edit to article space, definitely not the usual m.o. for an activist, and his/her edits on the talk page specifically focus on the science and not the politics. I disagree with practically every word he/she wrote there, but I don't see a topic ban violation. Zero^talk 13:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @JzG, you say "climate change is politics" and of course there is a sense in which you are right. But the same can be said of almost every issue which is the subject of public debate. Debate about health care, mining, public transport, drug trafficking, education, sexual discrimination, etc, is also "politics" in the same way. What I question is whether arbcom intended the topic ban as widely as that, rather than more tightly. My interpretation is that "US politics" refers to workings of US governments and interactions with those governments. One option we have is to ask arbcom for a clarification. Zero^talk 07:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I now agree with User:Zero0000's position on this. The entire article on Anthony Watts (blogger) doesn't fall under a US politics ban, but any edits to add or remove mention of US politics would be covered. So I don't see the diffs submitted above by jps to show any ban violation. If you think that User:Arzel's editing on climate change generally is inappropriate, you could ask for a separate topic ban under WP:ARBCC. But I'm not aware of evidence for such a ban. It would be unusual to define a ban on US politics so widely that anything which a politician could potentially have an opinion on would be covered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @jps: Looking at the diffs submitted in this report, #3 comes the closest, but I don't see any actual mention of politics there. It looks like yet another round of the denialism vs skepticism debate, which is a familiar dispute within our global warming articles. No Republican politicians are mentioned in that revert. To the extent that Arzel is not paying attention to the edges of his US politics ban he may unexpectedly cross the line and then a sanction will indeed be appropriate. #3 is a large change to the article and I doubt he is watching the issue carefully enough. We hope he is aware now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply NOTE to uninvolved administrators (and others), there is an active clarification request relevant to this AE request: ArbCom clerk note: This request is the subject of a current ArbCom clarification request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply (I had read through this discussion looking to close it and was working through the question "Are the edits in the area of the topic ban?" before noticing this small note. So, I removed the small tags.) `Zad68` 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply RESULT: Consensus of ArbCom was that Watts edits were not in the area of the topic ban, but the Hands up edit was. At this point though the Hands up is stale and further editing in that area doesn't appear likely, so no action is needed prevent disruption. Regarding the Watts edits, Arzel is cautioned that editing in areas adjacent to the topic ban increases the chances of an inadvertent topic-ban breach, to respect the topic ban and to be careful to avoid editing in the area of the ban. `Zad68` 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Arzel cautioned Zad68 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

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 Arzel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Motion:_Arzel_topic_banned_.28February_2015.29 :

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

18 April 2015 Refuses to acknowledge the connection of climate change denial to American politics.
18 April 2015 Ongoing argumentativeness in climate change politics.
7 April 2015 Clearly edit-warring in an area that is related to US politics (broadly construed).
22 March 2015 Clear involvement with US politics

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18 February 2015 Clearly made aware of his topic ban.

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's pretty clear this user has no intention of complying with his topic ban. jps (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zero0000: Arzel's topic ban extends "across all namespaces". That is normally interpreted to include talkpages. jps (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@EdJohnston: Clearly global warming is an American political issue. So can you provide an example of a kind of edit on global warming which would cross the boundary of a topic ban on American politics broadly construed? Are these three edits provided by Ubikwit below more illustrative perhaps? [1][2][3] jps (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Arzel

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 Arzel

It is this kind of crap that makes people stop editing on WP.

1. Anthony Watts is in the categories (1958 births, American television meteorologists, Climate change skeptics, Environmental bloggers, Heartland Institute, Living people, People from Chico California). I view it as a BLP issue. I don't see American Politics in that list, I don't see politics in general in that list. He is not a politician and this issue has not been about politics.

2. JPS Canvasses to try and get some same thinking people to edit on his behalf and he calls my noting of it "Ongoing argumentativeness? He should be getting at minimum a warning for that kind of behavior.

3. I made one revert to the Anthony Watts article. Under no circumstance can that be called edit warring. JPS has made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 edits, if my one edit "Clearly edit-warring" then his definitely edit warring.

4. Hands up, don't shoot has as its categories (2014 introductions, Gestures, Phrases, Race and crime in the United States). @Future Perfect at Sunrise: how in the world is that clearly an American Politics article? I made one talk page edit almost one month ago on that article (March 22). Since I made that one edit, not a single editor has made a single remark about it being American Politics until now. And that is only because JPS is really struggling to find something to pin against me.

I have been very careful to stay away from any article in the American Politics categories. If you are going to topic ban someone from a topic then it needs to be clear how to determine what is included in that topic. If you think an article is related to American Politics then that category should be added to the article.

I won't repeat everything that AQFK or Peter have stated about JPS as it was stated quite well by them. But I will say that JPS's resorts to WP:HARASSMENT to try and force those that disagree with him off those articles by intimidation and a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. His attempt to change the MOS so that WP:LABEL would not apply to his attempt to call Watt's a "Denier" really takes the cake though, or maybe his edit warring over it is even worse. Arzel (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "Hands Up, Don't Shoot". I still don't see the connection to American Politics. The saying didn't originate as a political saying, it is a race/police issue outside of politics. That some people tried to use it for some political gain is not relevant. Politicians co-opt stuff ALL THE TIME. By this logic there is nothing that is not related to politics in some way. Additionally, if it was so clear than why is that not a category for American Politics? Please state why it is clearly American Politics. Personally I don't care about that article, I was simply making a note that there was no discussion regarding a known fact which was being edit warred. I made one edit and haven't edited it since and reiterate that if it was a big deal why didn't Mr. X report me those many weeks ago? He got me American Politics TBAN'ed in the first place and I made my comment ON THE SAME DAY.

Regarding Watts. Please state the Clear American Politics angle on that article. There is no mention of politics that I have seen, he is not a politician and Climate Change is a scientific and global issue. By the logic stated there is nothing that does not have some abstract political angle. Jobs, Healthcare, Farming, Manufacturing, Small Businesses, Churches, Sports, Military, Economics, Astronomy, Space Exploration, Hospitals, Whales, Entertainment, etc. All of these article have some connection to American Politics in some abstract way either through specific legislation or lobbying or regulation or political talking points. One has to ask if the goal is to uphold a TBAN or silence someone. Arzel (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could I please have all the editors calling me a climate change denier to stop. I find it continually insulting. I am an Operations Researcher specializing in Optimization, Simulation and Predictive Analysis with a strong background in Statistics. I am skeptical of the models of the AR3 which predict future warming and find it insulting from a scientific point of view that so many claim that it is settled. The models have to this point been unable to accurately predict temperatures within the margin of error which means possibly a couple of things. Either CO2 has a lower effect than predicted and/or there are some other factors which are mitigating the effect of CO2. Arzel (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), none of the diffs presented show Arzel discussing anything political, American or otherwise. This seems like a frivolous request.

However, this brings into question the filer's own conduct. Let me plainly state that the filer has been banned and sanctioned more times that I can possibly count for their repeated disruptive and battleground mentality. (I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has used numerous account names, including ScienceApologist, Joshua P. Schroder and Vanished User 314159. Look up their record.)

Their pattern of battleground conduct goes back years and has not ceased. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has shown repeated and recent misconduct including threats, harassment, BLP violations and other battleground conduct:

"I am happy to take you down." - Threatening me on my talk page.
[4] Unsourced WP:BLP violation which I correctly removed.
Bizarrely, rather than apologizing for inserting unsourced negative content about a living person, or seeking clarification on my talk page if they honestly didn't understand that unsourced contentious content about living persons is a BLP violation, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc immediately launched into battleground mode by filing this AN/I report[5] which was so ridiculous, it went nowhere without me even responding.
"asshole move" Self-evident.

How many second, third, forth, fifth, sixth, etc. chances do we give this same problematic editor? They are clearly not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Enough is enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected regarding the fourth diff, which appears to be a clear a violation of Arzel's topic ban. Sorry, I missed that reading thru the OP's post. But given that was two months ago, I would think that violation is now stale. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I hate to be the voice of reason but:

a) Guy has expressed a strong opinion on the subject during the course of this AE request at another venue, "It is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise"[6]

b) Guy has done so in a very uncivil matter, resorting to an ad hominem attack, "Only an idiot would state otherwise".[7]

It's difficult to tell whether Guy's accusation of being an "idiot" applies to reliable sources or their fellow editors. But either way, calling other people "idiots" is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Have the standards of conduct at Wikipedia devolved so badly that it's now acceptable to resort to ad hominem attacks? Guy clearly has a strong opinion on the matter and by expressing their opinion on the content dispute, they should no longer to be considered WP:UNINVOLVED.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It gets even worse. Guy is now editing the very article that they're supposed to be uninvolved with.[8][9][10][11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

The filer also threatened me about WP:AE (here and here), and I agree that it is the filer, not Arzel, whose conduct deserves attention. Recall that I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps ScienceApologist etc.) filed this after Arzel understandably questioned whether jps was canvassing (here), and that jps's conduct after Arzel mentioned WP:LABEL on an earlier occasion was questioned by a MoS-talk-page editor. I'd also plead that the Anthony Watts (blogger) article mentions no politician or party or election issue outside Chico California -- it's a BLP of Anthony Watts (blogger), and Arzel seemed to me to be sticking to points about that, with respect to guidelines. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Cardamon

Climate change, and acceptance or denial of it is definitely an issue in US politics. Since many administrators are not from North America, I will provide a couple of external links to illustrate this. Here, Paul Waldman in the Washington Post discussed the fact that most of the likely republican candidates for president in 2016 deny that man-made global warming is happening. Here, in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik discusses how journalists should treat politicians who deny climate change, and mentions the difference between the two main American parties on this subject.

Since climate change is currently an issue in American politics, and since Arzel has been editing the climate change articles, Arzel has definitely been violating the remedy that says he may not make edits related to American politics, broadly construed. Cardamon (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by DHeyward

This particular article is a BLP who is not political and whose politics are unknown. He disagrees with the scientific conclusions regarding climate change. This puts him at odds with a number of people including politicians. But unless we are willing to say everyone that opines about climate science is political, this claim is without merit. We don't know the political leanings of Watts. His personal choices of solar power and other indicators would make him a green party candidate. Does the same apply to Lindzen and Curry and Mann and Hansen? They all have views. Participating in a democratic society doesn't define a person as political. Nor is a stance regarding science a political one. Anti-vaxers are numerous and cover a broad spectrum of politics but it would be incorrect to imply that every bio of an anti-vaxer is political just because it's also a political issue. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by jps

Arzel makes a good point that topic bans are difficult to understand here on Wikipedia. Many mistakenly believe that topic bans are only subject to narrow designations, and some even wrongly believe that we have implemented software controls that would enable a topic ban. As I understand it, "broadly construed" is intentionally wide-ranging and is used to prevent gaming of the system. I am keenly aware that it is precedent that it is not simply articles that are in a particular category which determine the topic. WP:TBAN tries to explain this, but using a single example "weather" which doesn't really give a hard-and-fast rule that is easy to follow is perhaps not ideal. DHeyward's example of anti-vaxxers shows how confused people get. "Broadly construed" is a heavy burden and, indeed, I think that someone who jumped from a topic ban on American politics immediately into editing a page on anti-vaccination movement or someone who advocated for such would be treading in the subject of American politics, broadly construed.

I think it's not hard to determine that basically every instance of article or talkpage involvement that Arzel has had since his topic ban has been related to American politics.

That said, I do not even think the protestations of Arzel and his supporters are particularly honest in their claimed disbelief that American politics is related to article about a prominent person in the broader popular-level discussions over climate change. Instead, I see wagon-circling on the part of climate change denial supporters and their allies. This is part of the ongoing climate change issues we have at Wikipedia, and it is a shame that these ideologically driven editors which seem determined to slant Wikipedia into claiming that there is some sort of controversy over reality of human-caused climate change. The hope for AQFK, Peter Gulutzman, DHeyward, and Arzel is that we adopt the talking points of the climate change denialists. E.g. they hope to refer to them as "skeptics" in spite of many sources which show that this is an inexact and inappropriate euphemism for denial. They don't want sources that are written by accomplished climate scientists used in the article. They insist that the claimed "controversy" over human-caused global warming be highlighted as a battle between equals rather than a political battle between a vast consensus of scientists and a devoted group of activists who are convinced that they can muddy the waters enough to provoke doubt in the settled science of human-caused global warming.

Finally, with respect to the attempted WP:BOOMERANG by AQFK, I do acknowledge that I find his (perhaps sometimes only tacit) support of climate change denial to be difficult with which to deal and I do think it may eventually lead to a reinstatement of his topic ban on climate change. Together with Peter Gulutzan and DHeyward, there are many issues with article ownership and BLP zealotry that will likely require further dispute resolution (not to mention a lot of instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). If administrators want a more thorough account of this dispute, I'm happy to provide it. But things are certainly not being helped by a topic-banned editor engaging in the tag team. I'm trying to work out these issues one at a time, and this seems to me to be the most unambiguous problem.

jps (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by TheBlueCanoe (uninvolved)

It seems plausible that Arzel was not deliberately breaching the topic ban, at least with respect to the climate change article. After all, very few contemporary social, political, environmental, or security issues are completely unrelated to American politics. I wonder if the administrators in this case would be willing to clarify the parameters of the topic ban, or offer some additional criteria for determining whether the editor is running afoul of his sanctions. TheBlueCanoe 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some like to over use the terms denialist, denier, etc. all too often in BLPs. It equates to Holocaust Denial and is oftentimes used in a partisan fashion when many of those subjects have never said anything other than they are skeptical...while others are.merely opposed to alarmist responses to climate change mitigation and merely want a cautious measured response. With that said, an edit dated two.months hence is past sell by date and me thinks this is best left as a caution for Arzel to tread lightly in such issues so he doesn't upset the snake oil salesmen.--MONGO 20:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The "climate change" edits were not concerned with the 3.3 micron infrared absorption band of methane, or whether changes to heavy precipitation follow Clausius-Clapeyron scaling, or anything else of a scientific nature. The edits instead were within the context of the U.S. political debate over the issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: The argument here seems to be that U.S. politics edits are acceptable as long as they also are relevant to some other topic. A request for clarification to the arbitrators would be helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Irrespective of any involvement by parties, it's kinda weird to see how ruthlessly all significant information has been removed from the article. We are severely harming Wikipedia when we permit this kind of deletion to prevail. --TS 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Ubikwit

Per Cardamon and others, the material is related to American politics, with the attempt to dismiss the peer-reviewed academic-press book by Mann regarding his statements on the Watts and his "Watts up with that" blog being an illustrative example.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zero0000: These edits are not about science[12][13][14]

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Casprings

@Zero0000: I find it interesting the swift juctice the process seems to at least want to give out to some, while the amazing amount of evidence needed to get any sanctions on an editor that has been pushing a conservative POV for years. I know this may sound crazy. But it almost seems that Wikipedia not only has systematic bias, but also favors a certain POV in its punishments. I mean, its not like wikipedia has a disproportionate number of white males from the US who tend to hold a conservative POV... or anything....Casprings (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zero0000: To ignore his opinion is to ignore the context for the case. With the context, it is clear that he is editing with American Politics in mind. Climate change denial is an important WP:Fringe of the American right and very connected to American politics. He has a long history of editing with a conservative POV (see last post). So with that context, how is it not a reasonable conclusion that his edits are within the scope of American Politics, "broadly construed"? Yes, if you ignore all the context one could make the argument that it is not connected to American Politics. However, you are ignoring the history and the context.Casprings (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zero0000 and EdJohnston: I find your logic difficult to accept as the original rational of the Arbitration committee. I must agree with Mastcast. I would also note, many of the differences in the original finding of fact do not meet this very tight connection to American Politics. I plan on asking the committee for clarification.Casprings (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The request for clarification can be found here. Casprings (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe this. [15] . I really don't think he thought those edits were a violation. Whatever the clarification, I think he should not be sanctioned . One has to assume good faith given that this is an issue that needs clarification with others too. I still think the punishment system is biased against certain POVs. Casprings (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian

I agree with Zero0000 here. These edits are about a climate change denier/skeptic, not US politics. The guy is not really a climate scientist, and of course politics has to do a fair bit with his popularity, but that does not automatically make edits to his page related to US politics. I also see no evidence of edit-warring. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by MastCell

Commenting as an editor, not as an admin. This is obviously a topic ban violation. Watts is heavily involved in the political dispute in the U.S. about the reality of climate change. His work is financially supported by the Heartland Institute ([16]), a partisan conservative think tank which lobbies politically against climate-change legislation. Likewise, the edit to hands up, don't shoot is a topic-ban violation, as the shooting of unarmed African-American men by the police has, for whatever reason, become a deeply partisan issue in the US.

In fact, every article or talk-page edit that Arzel has made since his topic ban deals directly with American politics, and thus violates his topic ban. I'll go a bit further: virtually every edit that Arzel has ever made on Wikipedia is closely linked to partisan political talking points. This is the sum total of his editing, both before and after his topic ban. Find me some non-trivial edits by Arzel that aren't directly derived from hot-button issues in U.S. partisan politics (race relations, climate change, environmental legislation, various right-wing media personalities, etc). He doesn't edit anything else besides American politics. So either the topic ban should be applied here, or we should just pretend it doesn't exist. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

As a point of information about Anthony Watts being or not being a politician, Watts's Wikipedia biography mentions that he held elective office (Chico, California school board) a couple times, and he was briefly a candidate for the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Butte County is where Chico is). The cited news article[17] doesn't list a party affiliation, but it describes him as a "conservative candidate" and says he recruited another conservative candidate when he withdrew from the race. School board might not be "political" but Board of Supervisors probably is (its members draw salaries[18] for doing what I'd say is politics, so I'd call them politicians). On the other hand, Watts didn't actually serve as a Supervisor.

A web search also finds a (rather biased against Watts) sourcewatch.org page mentioning that Watts for a while ran the web site for the Butte County Republicans([19] entry of Sept 27, 2008; Wayback link since the sourcewatch link is dead), and the "Welcome" post (Sept 25, 2008, same url) on that site, saying "We need to get Republicans elected to office... We elect Republicans by turning out voters on November 4th." were posted by "Wattsupwiththat" which was presumably Anthony Watts, who made other posts from to that site as well. Plus he supplied a webcast to the site (Oct 6 entry). So while calling Watts an actual politician is at most borderline, he was clearly a Republican party activist and briefly a conservative-labelled candidate for elected political office. Plus there are the political overtones of the climate change thing. I'm not going to yell about AE sanctions for the past edits but in the context of the TBAN, I think it would be better if Arzel avoided the Watts article going forward.

Anyway, DHeyward's take[20] that Watts' politics look aligned with the Green Party might have been a nice guess but it doesn't hold up to a little research. My main issue with Arzel's (or anyone else's) editing is not about the narrow question of whether the article subject is a politician, but about whether the editor is contributing using a neutral point of view or a biased one. We all have our biases but I think we should recognize them and adjust for them in our editing, so that we always make an effort to edit neutrally, following the overall spectrum of existing published sources rather than emphasizing just the ones we agree with. I hope Arzel (and everyone!) can make good effort to edit in that spirit regardless of the specific articles being edited. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Arzel

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

I see merit in this request. The argument raised by AQFK, that the climate change topic is a scientific and not a specifically American political topic, appears specious to me: the debate between "climate change proponents" and "climate change deniers/skeptics" is clearly a central issue of American political life, and an article about an American blogger who focusses on this debate seems to me to be well inside the bounds of "American politics, broadly construed". With the fourth link, regarding the "Hands Up" article, there can be no doubt at all that it is within the area of the topic ban. On both counts, a sanction will be in order. I haven't looked yet at the allegations made against the filing party. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Climate change is clearly part of American politics. So is the "Hands Up" article. This is a good moment for Arzel to reconsider his position and withdraw from such disputes. If he won't do so a block appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind, see below. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Arzel is also commenting on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) (Watts is a prominent climate change denier). I would say that Arzel is pushing the boundaries and needs a firm reminder to step back. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zero0000 It is hard to think of a topic more closely identified with American politics, than climate change. The "debate", such as it is, exists solely because of political activism from the right in US politics. America is pretty much the only country where the fact of climate change is controversial, everywhere else the debate is what to do about it, not whether it exists, because the fact that ti exists has been established beyond reasonable doubt, as our articles show. Arzel is active on the article on Anthony Watts, the claim that he is not a political figure evaporates under any kind of scrutiny: he operates a climate denial blog funded in part by the Heartland Institute and has been used as a source of climate denial materials by climate deniers in the US political arena. That article is a US political article. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zero0000 I get your point, but climate change is politics and Watts is American, and the Heartland Institute is an American political body and Watts is cited by Republican climate deniers. It's political, and it's American, and it's notable only because of American politics. I'm not arguing for a sanction, but I am saying this is a case for Arzel backing off because it's virtually impossible to decouple that article form American politics, especially right now as the climate deniers are rallying for one last hurrah (while, no doubt, buying hilltop property as a hedge). Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I ask my fellow admins to note that Arzel's topic ban does not ban him from articles related to US politics, but rather from making edits related to US politics. I think the "hands up" edit fails this test (though I don't understand it), but I'm not convinced that the climate change edits do. As someone noted above, just about every issue of public debate is somehow related to US politics. That doesn't make every such issue included in the topic ban; more relevantly it does not make every edit related to climate change automatically related to US politics. I also note that the list of examples given by arbcom are almost all much more clearly of a US-political nature. At the very least, Arzel's argument that the edits were not US-politics related is plausible and does not prove bad faith. If we want to include climate change in the topic ban (for what reason?) we can do so, but I don't think Arzel should be sanctioned now for a judgement that many reasonable people could make. Zero^talk 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

To I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: the topic ban certain does apply to talk pages, and I didn't say otherwise. To Casprings: I deliberately did not attempt to figure out Arzel's position on climate change; it is irrelevant to the current process. Zero^talk 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JzG Climate change denial is a very serious problem in my own country, which is not the USA, and I know of other non-US countries where that is true too. So I believe your statement to be factually incorrect. Also, I'll repeat that it is not relevant if the article is related to US politics, but only whether the edits Arzel made were related to US politics. That's what the topic ban says. The argument that they were about the climate change "debate" and therefore about US politics is not a valid argument, imho. As for "active on the article on Anthony Watts", he/she only ever made one edit to article space, definitely not the usual m.o. for an activist, and his/her edits on the talk page specifically focus on the science and not the politics. I disagree with practically every word he/she wrote there, but I don't see a topic ban violation. Zero^talk 13:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JzG, you say "climate change is politics" and of course there is a sense in which you are right. But the same can be said of almost every issue which is the subject of public debate. Debate about health care, mining, public transport, drug trafficking, education, sexual discrimination, etc, is also "politics" in the same way. What I question is whether arbcom intended the topic ban as widely as that, rather than more tightly. My interpretation is that "US politics" refers to workings of US governments and interactions with those governments. One option we have is to ask arbcom for a clarification. Zero^talk 07:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I now agree with User:Zero0000's position on this. The entire article on Anthony Watts (blogger) doesn't fall under a US politics ban, but any edits to add or remove mention of US politics would be covered. So I don't see the diffs submitted above by jps to show any ban violation. If you think that User:Arzel's editing on climate change generally is inappropriate, you could ask for a separate topic ban under WP:ARBCC. But I'm not aware of evidence for such a ban. It would be unusual to define a ban on US politics so widely that anything which a politician could potentially have an opinion on would be covered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@jps: Looking at the diffs submitted in this report, #3 comes the closest, but I don't see any actual mention of politics there. It looks like yet another round of the denialism vs skepticism debate, which is a familiar dispute within our global warming articles. No Republican politicians are mentioned in that revert. To the extent that Arzel is not paying attention to the edges of his US politics ban he may unexpectedly cross the line and then a sanction will indeed be appropriate. #3 is a large change to the article and I doubt he is watching the issue carefully enough. We hope he is aware now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

NOTE to uninvolved administrators (and others), there is an active clarification request relevant to this AE request:

ArbCom clerk note: This request is the subject of a current ArbCom clarification request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

(I had read through this discussion looking to close it and was working through the question "Are the edits in the area of the topic ban?" before noticing this small note. So, I removed the small tags.) Zad68 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

RESULT: Consensus of ArbCom was that Watts edits were not in the area of the topic ban, but the Hands up edit was. At this point though the Hands up is stale and further editing in that area doesn't appear likely, so no action is needed prevent disruption. Regarding the Watts edits, Arzel is cautioned that editing in areas adjacent to the topic ban increases the chances of an inadvertent topic-ban breach, to respect the topic ban and to be careful to avoid editing in the area of the ban. Zad68 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Request concerning Ranze

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ranze (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#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

26th April 2015 Editing article for A Voice For Men, a Men's Rights website.
26th April 2015 Editing Calgary Expo article to include information about Gamergate.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

4th April 2015 Standard Gamergate topic ban administered by Gamaliel

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 4th April 2015 by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think editing the article for a Men's Rights website violates this editor's topic ban from "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy" broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

Discussion concerning Ranze

Statement by Ranze

"All pages related to people associated with gender-related controversy" could arguably pertain to 100% of articles about people on Wikipedia. If you dig deep enough, there would inevitably be a gender-related controversy in any person's life, even if it is something as simple as "which parent do you favour" or "which sex are you attracted to".

I have contacted Gamaliel about my concerns about this broadness. It was undue, and it effectively operates as a 1-year block altogether (not a topic block) since:

it's too vague and applies to everything except discussion of basic concepts like chemistry or math
I am told "demonstrate an ability to deal with sensitive issues regarding living individuals in other areas of the encyclopedia" yet there is no way to demonstrate such an ability if I am banned from discussing living individuals altogether

As best I've been informed, this has been based upon

citing tweets by person Z on the talk page of the article about person Z
linking to a page on appropriate disambiguation pages

The reasoning has been spurious. The tweets and their data were not libelous or inaccurate, because they came from the person they were about, we use the same Twitter account to support the birth year in the article.

I also do not find them 'unflattering', I have a great respect for the career in question. This is like saying "Chris Jericho loves hockey" and an admin who hates hockey thinking it unflattering, not taking into account that this is not the viewpoint others take of the hobby.

I made efforts to demonstrate ability-to-deal by talking and was not being given due consideration, and it was unjustified to put it up to begin with. Ranze (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it would be against the rules to reply to the below commentators in their own sections so I will do so here:

@A Quest For Knowledge: Anything but discussing carbon can be twisted into being called that. I'm not discussing gender issues at all, for AVFM I was fact-checking what our article said and what the references said. I think if you had an issue with the accuracy of the edits themselves you'd bring it up, their neutrality speaks for me staying within bounds of not injecting my opinion into topics. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Bilby: The focus here does not appear to be on making valid edits, because anyone else could add that as a reference to establish game notability. I avoided doing so because I'm trying to stay within bounds. Simply mentioning GP covered it is not me making GG commentary, I avoided doing so and left the decision as to whether to do so to others. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Heimstern: my perception is that the edits did not expressedly concern GG because the actual text I added to the article did not mention it. I do not understand a topic ban to extend to me having to make sure that references make no mention of it either. I was willing to modify the titles to omit references to it if necessary. Could you please inform me of how to go through an appeals process? Gamaliel did not do so, so I was trying to negotiate it directly with the admin who put it there. I think it is unfair to put in a sanction and then leave the sanctioned person in the dark as to how to appeal it. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
@HJ Mitchell: I agree it is not covered, but I don't understand why such a broad "gender-related dispute" thing needs to be applied. The conflict here was not even about GG it was about ZQ and discussing tweets on a talk page. This is like outlawing editing articles about math because of a conflict on a biology article because it's all 'science' or something. You mention "covered by the GamerGate sanctions" but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions says "The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded" so I thought there was nothing standard anymore and that sanctions should be based on what is relevant to behavior. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

~~I'm not sure how the first diff is a violation (perhaps I missed something?),~~ but the second diff certainly appears to be a clear-cut violation of the topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Upon closer inspection, the discretionary sanctions include "any gender-related dispute or controversy", so both appear to be pretty clear-cut violations of the topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Bilby

I'd add to the two edits noted by PeterTheFourth a third - creating the article Afterlife Empire. Although the stub Ranze created doesn't specifically mention GamerGate, the game was noted for having been heavily funded by GamerGate supporters, and includes the GamerGate mascot as a character. Although a direct reference wasn't added, Ranze made mention of GamePolitics.com reporting on the game. The article concerned, [22], is focused entirely on the relationship between Afterlife Empire and GamerGate. I can't see this as a coincidence, and Ranze's reference to the GamePolitics article makes this clear. - Bilby (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ranze, the problem is that you've been making edits regarding the topic of GamerGate, in spite of the topic ban - creating an article about game sponsored by GamerGate, and adding content about a booth evicted from an expo when they were selling GamerGate material. That in both cases you attempted (with limited success) to avoid using the term "GamerGate" doesn't mean that they aren't violations of the topic ban. The issue is editing the general topic of GamerGate, not whether or not you mention the specific term. - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ranze

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

Given that one of these edits expressly concerned GamerGate, and the other concerned Men's Rights and allegations of misogyny, I can't see how this could be anything but a violation of the topic ban issued by Gamaliel. Ranze, your argument seems to be that your ban was unjustified. If that is the case, you need to follow the appeals process to have it lifted. Until such a time as it is, you are bound by it and may be blocked if you make edits that violate it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
- @Ranze: you're right that you should be informed of how to appeal your topic ban. You can do that at this page by creating a new section and using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If you do appeal, you should make the strongest case you can that the sanction itself is in error. In the meantime, understand that you must abide by the ban and not edit in this topic area, even if your edits seem innocuous.
- As for this thread, I agree with HJ Mitchell to close with a warning only. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
I agree this is a clear-cut violation of the topic ban (consensus is, I believe, that the Men's Rights Movement is not in itself covered by the GamerGate sanctions, but there is clearly an overlap between MRM and "gender-related dispute or controversy"). I suggest a warning and provision of a Mesn's Rights article probation notice, assuming this is a first topic-ban violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Eric Corbett and Lightbreather are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed, per WP:IBAN.
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 Gobonobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 26 April 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 Eric Corbett topic banned indefinitely from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. Eric Corbett prohibited ... from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 15:18, April 5, 2015 Eric Corbett notes his topic ban then violates it by referring disparagingly to GGTF. He also makes a personal attack against another editor, referring to User:Sue Gardner as "terminally dim". Eric started the 'Forbidden topics' section on his talk page stating that "The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything." 13:30, April 26, 2015 Eric Corbett writes that GGTF supporters "have blocked up their ears and closed their eyes to the reality" 13:57, April 26, 2015 When asked why he made the comment that started the section, Eric references the WMF's attempt to rectify the gender gap writing that "millions of dollars thrown away to address a problem that nobody really has any evidence is a problem at all". 19:53, April 26, 2015 Eric Corbett follows me to Giano's talk page and replies to my post, "One has to wonder which hallucinogenics are at work here." Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 25 January 2015 Block by Sandstein for violating the GGTF topic ban 27 February 2015 Block by Coffee for violating the topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint Since the GGTF arbitration, Eric has received two short blocks for violations of the topic ban. Per the Arb Com remedy, a third violation should result in a week-long block. I recommend fully protecting Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of any block because it is where this latest violation took place. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [23] 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 This is all very tiresome. Callanecc clearly wants to issue a 72-hour block for something or other, so I suggest that he just gets on with it and stops wasting everbody else's time. Eric Corbett 01:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Newyorkbrad: Is it too much to expect a little bit of parity? In just one fairly small section of Lightbreather's talk page I am mentioned no less that 26 times today, and not much of it in a complimentary way. Eric Corbett 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Dr. Blofeld By the looks of this it happened over three weeks ago and this editor is simply trying to dig up dirt on Eric and cause trouble. I would hope that this is swiftly closed and thrown out and Gobonobo given a warning. This sort of thing wastes everybody's time, including the arb clerks who surely have better things to be sorting out. I don't see any gross violation here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Callanecc Do you not think a 72 hour block three weeks after something was said would be a little pointy though? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by MONGO A warning to the filing party is in order for digging up mud that is already past its sell by date.--MONGO 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Sitush So Lightbreather (talk · contribs) resurrects a dead thread on Eric's talk page, gets blocked for something else and within an hour or so gobonobo decides now is the time to raise the dead thread at AE? What a coincidence. Where have these people been for the last three weeks? Eric has plenty of watchers. Any report should have been made at the time. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Gobonobo: your diff of 26 April in clearly in response to Lightbreather's obvious baiting. The question is, why did she reignite that thread? - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Black Kite: it isn't merely "pretty mild" - see ^ ^ Is AE intended to police to the letter or to the spirit? - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Floquenbeam and Callanecc: I don't usually look at LB's talk page and haven't done so for a long time, but she has pinged me there and produced a house of cards to cast aspersions (one of her favourite phrases, IIRC) about motives etc. All this does is make her look even more combative/less collaborative. Eg: in this first bit she jumps from drawing one suspect conclusion to another, where the only connection is in her head, eg: I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him is simply not capable of substantiation because we're not mind-readers, not supported in fact in this or many other instances and seems to be an attempt to blame me for drawing Eric into this palaver - all cleverly strung together with a "might" to avoid direct accusation. Among the other insinuations is I've mostly been working in my preferred subject areas, which you have started to get involved in. I think I'm involved in one article that LB frequents, which is the one mentioned in the AN thread and which I joined because of an open RfC and because I happened to know one of the central characters who was being used as a source (the late Hugh Trevor-Roper). That isn't the multiple involvement that LB implies, nor is it unreasonable for me to be there, although I'm trying to keep some distance because her steamrollering, edit warring, trying to chill with vague accusations of sockpuppetry etc is only going to end badly somewhere down the line. This sort of spreading of poison needs to stop and if the only way to do it is to apply some version of BOOMERANG even though she is not a named party here then so be it. So, whether you decide to transpose her comments to this request or not, please do examine them carefully: they are not quite what they seem and I'll put money on her using them again in the future as part of an even bigger shaky construction when she inevitably ends up in another drama-fest and people have forgotten the backstory. - Sitush (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris The original gag order was utterly daft, especially in light of its extraordinarily broad nature. Enforcing it would be even dafter (if that's a word). If there are problems with the nature of comments then deal with those on their own terms rather than banning someone from commenting on a particular topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Andy Dingley This complaint seems to be a sheer search for More Dramah, much as described above. I see no merit to it, and no advantage to pursuing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Beyond My Ken Does AE issue trouts? Anyway, a trout, or the AE equivalent of a trout, to the filing party. Corbett's hardly an angel, but that's not carte blanche to go around deliberately looking for problems.Just a note re: SHBH's comment: if the incident was recent, and was truly in breach of the ban, then by all means it should be enforced, regardless of who the violator was, and regardless of SBHB's opinion about the ban. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Cas Liber The conversation has died anyway, so there is nothing preventative about action here, only punitive, which blocks are not meant to be. I can't understand why the nominator is dredging up old incidents now and appears counterintuitive to harmonious editing and a contravention of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Ddstretch The reporting user should be at least warned about this dirt-digging of old threads. Furthermore, a stern warning might be considered by the committee about attempts to harass Eric Corbett by game-playing AE enforcement in this way. A more suitable solution might be to completely revise and amend the restrictions placed on Eric Corbett, given the extent to which various editors are continuing to attempt to harass him by using AE and the committee in this manner. DDStretch (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I suggest that using the "later evidence" in isolation from the events that led to it is ignoring the dynamics at work here. The original report was stale and it seemed to me and others that it was a case of harassing Eric Corbett. The tactic didn't work at a naive level. But in reality, it did work, because it provoked a series of responses from Eric Corbett that were immediately seized upon and submitted by the original reporter to strengthen a case for a block. I suggest that we should not let this tactic of gaming the system work towards blocking Eric. The original poster should be warned severely about posting old threads that have certainly caused disruption, I suggest. Whether just a severe warning is sufficient is another issue, but I am getting fed up of these series of reports that all seem to be a "let's try to get Eric Corbett blocked" action by certain editors. In terms of an IBAN between Eric Corbett and Lightbreather, I would say that this might have potential, but we need to be aware of another kind of gaming the system, whereby an IBAN is used to prevent one editor contributing to an article just by virtue of the other editor jumping in to make a pre-emptive edit to it. Given tactics I suggest we see here, I wouldn't put this past some editors to try to do, which is definitely against all that wikipedia claims to be. DDStretch (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Zad68: I really think some comment is needed about he advisability of posting complaints based on old,stale comments. This is how this AE report started, and I suggest that it should never have been started in this way. (Whether the later "evidence" should have been the way to begin a different AE report is a different matter.) DDStretch (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Ched (edit conflict) Just for the sake of non-argument, I'll put my comment here rather than below. Suffice to say that I strongly endorse the views of Bishonen, and DDStretch. It's the people who provoke discord who should be admonished, NOT those who respond to the provocation. That's not to say that I think "2 wrongs make a right", but I DO think people have every right to defend themselves. Going "By the book" may have it's place, but as said above, if it's only to support the "letter" rather than the "spirit" - then it becomes part of the problem. — Ched : ? 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by EChastain Lightbreather made seven baiting comments on Eric Corbett's talk page in the hour before she was blocked (apparently for other misdeeds) and one hour before this ds was filed. [24] (edit summary: Do you people never tire of self-congratulation?) [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Isn't this baiting? Is it really true that Eric Corbett is forbidden to use letters of the alphabet? G, T, F? Prohibiting this is just shutting up the opinions of dissidents on their own talk pages regarding political matters, I think. EChastain (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Ritchie333 Oh not this again .... I have recently had two good GA reviews from Eric, where he (as ever) goes beyond the call of duty and fixes issues himself and has been collegial, polite and helpful. I've said it before but my view is now thoroughly cemented - if you want to work on articles with Eric and do the job well, he's brilliant. If he tells you to fuck off, there's probably a good underlying reason for it. Now can we go back to article work or do we need some more dramah first? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Callanecc: Can you explain to me exactly how blocking Eric for 3 days will help improve the encyclopedia and reduce disruption? Because past experience shows it does the precise opposite as Eric doesn't care, blocking him for three weeks won't change a thing, but "Eric Corbett" the soap opera (not to be confused with Eric Corbett the editor) will take traction and editors will get giddy with all the drama. Seriously, why is hitting the banhammer on Eric so important to you? PS: An interaction ban between Eric and Lightbreather sounds like a possible alternative - I don't think Eric will care much about being stung with that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Karanacs I can't be considered an uninvolved admin, as I've worked closely with Eric many times and consider him a friend. That aside, I think this is a tad ridiculous. Eric made a comment on his own talk page 3 weeks ago and then didn't comment again...until he was baited repeatedly by Lightbreather, who came specifically to do so. If she weren't blocked already, I would have taken her to ANI for baiting after I saw that. Eric is not going around the encyclopedia trying to break his sanctions - he made a single venting statement on his own talk page and then let it go until LB posted a lot of text about the subject of his sanctions - with a note that she knew he couldn't respond there or he'd get in trouble. That seems like taunting. Please close this. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Callanecc, I would support a mutual interaction ban between Eric and Lightbreather. Although I will note that Eric has been leaving Lightbreather alone and has not discussed her (to my knowledge) since his last AE block. The diffs presented here came only after she arrived at his talk page and left a series of baiting messages. On the other hand, Lightbreather has been collecting interaction bans - is there a list anywhere of how many editors she is now barred from speaking to/about? I'm not sure how many are actually in effect and how many she proposed that didn't gain consensus. Is there a point at which we become concerned about the number of IBans a single user has gathers and/or requested? Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Ekips39, I think the first diff, Sitush's comment, was baiting Lightbreather. The second diff, Eric's comment, was in direct response to a comment that Lightbreather had made about her injury and the lack of sympathy for it. Sitush's baiting of LB, while inappropriate, has nothing to do with her baiting of Eric. Basically, she inserted herself into a stale conversation on the talk page of someone with whom she did not agree in order to defend an initiative (that wasn't being attacked) that she knew Eric wasn't allowed to talk about. When she didn't get an immediate response, she posted again - this time a direct question related to the topic that he shouldn't be allowed to talk about. That led to diff 2 in the evidence above - which, although worded poorly, did convey the fact that he didn't intend to discuss the matter. Lightbreather acknowledged that he couldn't respond but continued to post on his talk page. That led to diff 3 in the evidence above. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by GregJackP I've worked with Eric on a couple of articles I was trying to get to Featured Status and he was friendly and brilliant. Instead of censoring content creators like Eric, more users should strive to emulate him. Besides, if he told someone to piss off, bugger off, or whatever, they probably deserved it. The filing party should be trouted or warned, as keel-hauling is no longer in fashion. GregJackP Boomer! 23:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Hell in a Bucket EC's behavior and language has not been problematic. I think we have clear cases of baiting here and on his page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply User:Callanec as you seem to be the only one lobbying for a block what words can EC say and can he not? Why twist it so that EC can only talk about fluffy clouds? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Montanabw I heartily endorse a speedy close per WP:BAIT. I also think that Lightbreather needs to be banned from posting to Eric's talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Carrite More tag-team baiting of Public Enemy No. 1. Note my lack of surprise that Lightbreather is involved. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Ekips39 Am I the only one who looks at EChastain's diffs and sees Lightbreather being baited? [31] [32] Maybe that's not what it is, but those comments don't seem much better than what LB said. (I'm uninvolved, if that matters.) ekips39❦talk 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by Rich Farmbrough Strongly support Zad68's proposed close. Would also advise said parties to avoid reading or discussing each other's talk pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC). Statement by GoodDay Regardless of the outcome of this Enforcement report, the GGTF Arbcom case may require amending. A clarification on broadly construed & additional I-Bans, would be wise. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Statement by (username) Result concerning Eric Corbett This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This edit is three weeks old. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply In the second diff, the editor was responding to a comment on his own talk page, directly on the subject of the GGTF. It is unrealistic to expect him not to respond, in that context. I support taking no action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I don't necessarily agree, the banning policy makes it quite clear that you cannot talk about it anywhere and at AE in the past we have expected that users would say that they can't comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply That is a formally defensible view and has the advantage of reflecting a clear, bright-line, readily enforced standard. Nonetheless, in this context, I continue to disagree, because the purpose of remedies is to prevent disruption of encyclopedia-building and community harmony, and seeking out this sort of violations on the user's own talkpage does not really serve that goal. (In the words of Benjamin Cardozo, relevant by analogy here, "Jurisdiction exists that rights may be maintained. Rights are not maintained that jurisdiction may exist.") However, I take a harsher view of Eric's post on Lightbreather's talkpage, and while I will not support a block for that so long as it is not repeated, I instruct him to stay off that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I disagree that the various comments in question don't disrupt community harmony, I don't see how insulting and/or belittling, no matter the context, doesn't do that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply The filer has added a diff from 26 April which seems to breach both of the sanctions cited so it looks to me like a block is appropriate. Given that we've had the first 72 hour block (c.f. Eric Corbett prohibited) it seems appropriate that the second 72 hour block is imposed this time as enforcing both sanctions. Regarding the filer, a reminder probably to include recent evidence is appropriate, not a warning as I haven't seen any history which indicates that they have a record of inappropriate filings. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Um ... which of the first sanctions does that break? (I can see how it might be taken as breaking the second, though it's pretty mild). Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply (Discussing this diff since there are more now) It's about gender gap task force which is a violation of the topic ban, and (while I do agree it's mild) it's also "insulting and/or belittling" so a violation of the prohibition. Regarding the two new diffs, I'm not too concerned about this one though it was probably ill advised. This one could be considered insulting and/or belittling but I'm not too concerned with it either. What does concern me though is that this is ongoing, even after this AE request was submitted Eric continued skirt the boundaries (if not breach) the restriction/s. If this were (almost) any other editor they'd be blocked, but I'm not going to do it just yet as I want to see what others have to say about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply If the sanction is as written above, simply mentioning the GGTF doesn't appear to be a breach (especially in reply to an editor talking about it). I'm not convinced that this is enough to issue a block. And I'd say that about any editor, not just Eric. I think AE blocks have to be really clear-cut. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Ah I see, the one quoted above is incorrect. The scope of the topic ban was amended (in Feb 2015) to ...editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply OK, that's a little more understandable now. I'm still unconvinced though, given the situation and the clear baiting involved. Call me neutral now. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply This AE request seems of a piece with the equally frivolous civility warning to Giano that Gobonobo posted three hours later.[33] That too was for a post on Eric Corbett's page. Note that taking Giano's words out of context, as Gobonobo did in the warning, they might seem offensive and/or sexist (similar to the second diff Gobonobo offers here). The context is provided a little further down in the thread on Giano's page. I propose no action against Eric Corbett and some strongly worded advice to the filer to not go round looking for trouble. Bishonen \| talk 11:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC).Reply I propose to ~~speedy~~ close as no action.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Misread Callanecc's comment, unless they change their mind speedy would not be approppriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I don't have much of an opinion on the result of this request - if Eric doesn't care, why should I? But I do want to know why a blocked editor is being invited to submit a statement against Eric on their talk page, by the admin who most wants to issue a block? I don't care what LB says in her own defense on her talk page, but I object to it being transfered here, and I cannot fathom why this is being enabled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply That's pretty standard procedure when someone is being discussed (ie some of the diffs concern Lightbreather and they've been accused of baiting) who can't reply for an unrelated reason (ie block isn't due to behaviour in this AE request). And it wasn't an invitation, they asked to address some of the things which have been raised about them and I told them how it's done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I've seen statements transfered when the blocked editor is the subject of an AC/AE/AN/ANI thread. I haven't seen it in cases like this, and I think this is a bad precedent (or, if it really has been done before, I think those were bad precedents). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I agree it's especially important when they're the subject of the report but AE sometimes (was going to say tendency but not sure it's that often) to hand out sanctions to more than just the subject and filer when supported allegations are made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply @Dr. Blofeld: I agree, I'm not suggesting we block for that diff, but for the other three recent ones which have been reported plus the ones to Lightbreather's talk page NYB refers to. As well as the pattern which is developing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I'm also considering an IBAN between Lightbreather and Eric given that this (including the statement on Lightbreather's talk page) is another instance of disruption between the two of them. Thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply This might be a good idea, including prohibition of posting on each other talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Responding to Ddstretch's comment above that "some comment is needed about he advisability of posting complaints based on old, stale comments": AE has no stated limit on how old a diff can be. Generally diffs considered "stale" aren't actionable, but there's no hard definition of "stale." I see no evidence that Gonobono has ever been involved in an AE request before so there's certainly no history of them misusing this process, and Gonobono went to NYB's User Talk page here to ask about it after Brad's comment. So my evaluation is that Gonobono's filing of this report was done in good faith, and NYB's comments should be enough. `Zad68` 17:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Proposed closure (Eric Corbett) I see a solid consensus among uninvolved AE admins and commenters alike for no block for Eric, generally based on feelings of "No clear violation" and "Would be counterproductive", with Callanecc dissenting and leaning toward action. There is support for some remedy to reduce interaction between Eric and Lightbreather. Proposed closure, which I support, is: Eric and LB are ~~prohibited from posting on each other's User Talk pages, except for necessary templated notifications~~ banned from interacting with each other. Upgraded to IBAN after Rich's comment with no other action. `Zad68` 16:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply This strikes me as a reasonable outcome. In any event, I would like to come to a conclusion soon rather than have this request stay open and generate more ill-will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I would close now with the Iban except Eric might conceivably think I was biased, so I will just strongly urge someone else to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply I have closed this with a two-way IBAN but I do not see that administrators have the ability to issue that kind of remedy under the particular Arbitration case cited in this request. As this sanction is the result of a community discussion, this IBAN is to be considered a Community Sanction with any appeals to be made at WP:AN. Striking to replace with below `Zad68` 00:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply Closure has now been changed to be an Arbitration Enforcement action under The GGTF case closure as amended February 2015. `Zad68`

Eric Corbett and Lightbreather are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed, per WP:IBAN.

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

Request concerning Eric Corbett

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gobonobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 26 April 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

Eric Corbett topic banned indefinitely from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics.
Eric Corbett prohibited ... from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors.

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

15:18, April 5, 2015 Eric Corbett notes his topic ban then violates it by referring disparagingly to GGTF. He also makes a personal attack against another editor, referring to User:Sue Gardner as "terminally dim". Eric started the 'Forbidden topics' section on his talk page stating that "The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything."
13:30, April 26, 2015 Eric Corbett writes that GGTF supporters "have blocked up their ears and closed their eyes to the reality"
13:57, April 26, 2015 When asked why he made the comment that started the section, Eric references the WMF's attempt to rectify the gender gap writing that "millions of dollars thrown away to address a problem that nobody really has any evidence is a problem at all".
19:53, April 26, 2015 Eric Corbett follows me to Giano's talk page and replies to my post, "One has to wonder which hallucinogenics are at work here."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

25 January 2015 Block by Sandstein for violating the GGTF topic ban
27 February 2015 Block by Coffee for violating the topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since the GGTF arbitration, Eric has received two short blocks for violations of the topic ban. Per the Arb Com remedy, a third violation should result in a week-long block. I recommend fully protecting Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of any block because it is where this latest violation took place.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

Discussion concerning Eric Corbett

Statement by Eric Corbett

This is all very tiresome. Callanecc clearly wants to issue a 72-hour block for something or other, so I suggest that he just gets on with it and stops wasting everbody else's time. Eric Corbett 01:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Newyorkbrad: Is it too much to expect a little bit of parity? In just one fairly small section of Lightbreather's talk page I am mentioned no less that 26 times today, and not much of it in a complimentary way. Eric Corbett 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

By the looks of this it happened over three weeks ago and this editor is simply trying to dig up dirt on Eric and cause trouble. I would hope that this is swiftly closed and thrown out and Gobonobo given a warning. This sort of thing wastes everybody's time, including the arb clerks who surely have better things to be sorting out. I don't see any gross violation here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Callanecc Do you not think a 72 hour block three weeks after something was said would be a little pointy though? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by MONGO

A warning to the filing party is in order for digging up mud that is already past its sell by date.--MONGO 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Sitush

So Lightbreather (talk · contribs) resurrects a dead thread on Eric's talk page, gets blocked for something else and within an hour or so gobonobo decides now is the time to raise the dead thread at AE? What a coincidence. Where have these people been for the last three weeks?

Eric has plenty of watchers. Any report should have been made at the time. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Gobonobo: your diff of 26 April in clearly in response to Lightbreather's obvious baiting. The question is, why did she reignite that thread? - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Black Kite: it isn't merely "pretty mild" - see ^ ^ Is AE intended to police to the letter or to the spirit? - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Floquenbeam and Callanecc: I don't usually look at LB's talk page and haven't done so for a long time, but she has pinged me there and produced a house of cards to cast aspersions (one of her favourite phrases, IIRC) about motives etc. All this does is make her look even more combative/less collaborative. Eg: in this first bit she jumps from drawing one suspect conclusion to another, where the only connection is in her head, eg: I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him is simply not capable of substantiation because we're not mind-readers, not supported in fact in this or many other instances and seems to be an attempt to blame me for drawing Eric into this palaver - all cleverly strung together with a "might" to avoid direct accusation. Among the other insinuations is I've mostly been working in my preferred subject areas, which you have started to get involved in. I think I'm involved in one article that LB frequents, which is the one mentioned in the AN thread and which I joined because of an open RfC and because I happened to know one of the central characters who was being used as a source (the late Hugh Trevor-Roper). That isn't the multiple involvement that LB implies, nor is it unreasonable for me to be there, although I'm trying to keep some distance because her steamrollering, edit warring, trying to chill with vague accusations of sockpuppetry etc is only going to end badly somewhere down the line.

This sort of spreading of poison needs to stop and if the only way to do it is to apply some version of BOOMERANG even though she is not a named party here then so be it. So, whether you decide to transpose her comments to this request or not, please do examine them carefully: they are not quite what they seem and I'll put money on her using them again in the future as part of an even bigger shaky construction when she inevitably ends up in another drama-fest and people have forgotten the backstory. - Sitush (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The original gag order was utterly daft, especially in light of its extraordinarily broad nature. Enforcing it would be even dafter (if that's a word). If there are problems with the nature of comments then deal with those on their own terms rather than banning someone from commenting on a particular topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Andy Dingley

This complaint seems to be a sheer search for More Dramah, much as described above. I see no merit to it, and no advantage to pursuing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Does AE issue trouts? Anyway, a trout, or the AE equivalent of a trout, to the filing party. Corbett's hardly an angel, but that's not carte blanche to go around deliberately looking for problems.Just a note re: SHBH's comment: if the incident was recent, and was truly in breach of the ban, then by all means it should be enforced, regardless of who the violator was, and regardless of SBHB's opinion about the ban. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Cas Liber

The conversation has died anyway, so there is nothing preventative about action here, only punitive, which blocks are not meant to be. I can't understand why the nominator is dredging up old incidents now and appears counterintuitive to harmonious editing and a contravention of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Ddstretch

The reporting user should be at least warned about this dirt-digging of old threads. Furthermore, a stern warning might be considered by the committee about attempts to harass Eric Corbett by game-playing AE enforcement in this way. A more suitable solution might be to completely revise and amend the restrictions placed on Eric Corbett, given the extent to which various editors are continuing to attempt to harass him by using AE and the committee in this manner. DDStretch (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that using the "later evidence" in isolation from the events that led to it is ignoring the dynamics at work here. The original report was stale and it seemed to me and others that it was a case of harassing Eric Corbett. The tactic didn't work at a naive level. But in reality, it did work, because it provoked a series of responses from Eric Corbett that were immediately seized upon and submitted by the original reporter to strengthen a case for a block. I suggest that we should not let this tactic of gaming the system work towards blocking Eric. The original poster should be warned severely about posting old threads that have certainly caused disruption, I suggest. Whether just a severe warning is sufficient is another issue, but I am getting fed up of these series of reports that all seem to be a "let's try to get Eric Corbett blocked" action by certain editors. In terms of an IBAN between Eric Corbett and Lightbreather, I would say that this might have potential, but we need to be aware of another kind of gaming the system, whereby an IBAN is used to prevent one editor contributing to an article just by virtue of the other editor jumping in to make a pre-emptive edit to it. Given tactics I suggest we see here, I wouldn't put this past some editors to try to do, which is definitely against all that wikipedia claims to be. DDStretch (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zad68: I really think some comment is needed about he advisability of posting complaints based on old,stale comments. This is how this AE report started, and I suggest that it should never have been started in this way. (Whether the later "evidence" should have been the way to begin a different AE report is a different matter.) DDStretch (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Ched

(edit conflict) Just for the sake of non-argument, I'll put my comment here rather than below. Suffice to say that I strongly endorse the views of Bishonen, and DDStretch. It's the people who provoke discord who should be admonished, NOT those who respond to the provocation. That's not to say that I think "2 wrongs make a right", but I DO think people have every right to defend themselves. Going "By the book" may have it's place, but as said above, if it's only to support the "letter" rather than the "spirit" - then it becomes part of the problem. — Ched : ? 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by EChastain

Lightbreather made seven baiting comments on Eric Corbett's talk page in the hour before she was blocked (apparently for other misdeeds) and one hour before this ds was filed.

[24] (edit summary: Do you people never tire of self-congratulation?)
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]

Isn't this baiting? Is it really true that Eric Corbett is forbidden to use letters of the alphabet? G, T, F? Prohibiting this is just shutting up the opinions of dissidents on their own talk pages regarding political matters, I think. EChastain (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Ritchie333

Oh not this again .... I have recently had two good GA reviews from Eric, where he (as ever) goes beyond the call of duty and fixes issues himself and has been collegial, polite and helpful. I've said it before but my view is now thoroughly cemented - if you want to work on articles with Eric and do the job well, he's brilliant. If he tells you to fuck off, there's probably a good underlying reason for it. Now can we go back to article work or do we need some more dramah first? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Callanecc: Can you explain to me exactly how blocking Eric for 3 days will help improve the encyclopedia and reduce disruption? Because past experience shows it does the precise opposite as Eric doesn't care, blocking him for three weeks won't change a thing, but "Eric Corbett" the soap opera (not to be confused with Eric Corbett the editor) will take traction and editors will get giddy with all the drama. Seriously, why is hitting the banhammer on Eric so important to you? PS: An interaction ban between Eric and Lightbreather sounds like a possible alternative - I don't think Eric will care much about being stung with that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Karanacs

I can't be considered an uninvolved admin, as I've worked closely with Eric many times and consider him a friend. That aside, I think this is a tad ridiculous. Eric made a comment on his own talk page 3 weeks ago and then didn't comment again...until he was baited repeatedly by Lightbreather, who came specifically to do so. If she weren't blocked already, I would have taken her to ANI for baiting after I saw that. Eric is not going around the encyclopedia trying to break his sanctions - he made a single venting statement on his own talk page and then let it go until LB posted a lot of text about the subject of his sanctions - with a note that she knew he couldn't respond there or he'd get in trouble. That seems like taunting. Please close this. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Callanecc, I would support a mutual interaction ban between Eric and Lightbreather. Although I will note that Eric has been leaving Lightbreather alone and has not discussed her (to my knowledge) since his last AE block. The diffs presented here came only after she arrived at his talk page and left a series of baiting messages. On the other hand, Lightbreather has been collecting interaction bans - is there a list anywhere of how many editors she is now barred from speaking to/about? I'm not sure how many are actually in effect and how many she proposed that didn't gain consensus. Is there a point at which we become concerned about the number of IBans a single user has gathers and/or requested? Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ekips39, I think the first diff, Sitush's comment, was baiting Lightbreather. The second diff, Eric's comment, was in direct response to a comment that Lightbreather had made about her injury and the lack of sympathy for it. Sitush's baiting of LB, while inappropriate, has nothing to do with her baiting of Eric. Basically, she inserted herself into a stale conversation on the talk page of someone with whom she did not agree in order to defend an initiative (that wasn't being attacked) that she knew Eric wasn't allowed to talk about. When she didn't get an immediate response, she posted again - this time a direct question related to the topic that he shouldn't be allowed to talk about. That led to diff 2 in the evidence above - which, although worded poorly, did convey the fact that he didn't intend to discuss the matter. Lightbreather acknowledged that he couldn't respond but continued to post on his talk page. That led to diff 3 in the evidence above. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by GregJackP

I've worked with Eric on a couple of articles I was trying to get to Featured Status and he was friendly and brilliant. Instead of censoring content creators like Eric, more users should strive to emulate him. Besides, if he told someone to piss off, bugger off, or whatever, they probably deserved it.

The filing party should be trouted or warned, as keel-hauling is no longer in fashion. GregJackP Boomer! 23:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

EC's behavior and language has not been problematic. I think we have clear cases of baiting here and on his page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Callanec as you seem to be the only one lobbying for a block what words can EC say and can he not? Why twist it so that EC can only talk about fluffy clouds? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Montanabw

I heartily endorse a speedy close per WP:BAIT. I also think that Lightbreather needs to be banned from posting to Eric's talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Carrite

More tag-team baiting of Public Enemy No. 1. Note my lack of surprise that Lightbreather is involved. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Ekips39

Am I the only one who looks at EChastain's diffs and sees Lightbreather being baited? [31] [32] Maybe that's not what it is, but those comments don't seem much better than what LB said. (I'm uninvolved, if that matters.) ekips39❦talk 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Strongly support Zad68's proposed close. Would also advise said parties to avoid reading or discussing each other's talk pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Statement by GoodDay

Regardless of the outcome of this Enforcement report, the GGTF Arbcom case may require amending. A clarification on broadly construed & additional I-Bans, would be wise. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eric Corbett

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

This edit is three weeks old. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
- In the second diff, the editor was responding to a comment on his own talk page, directly on the subject of the GGTF. It is unrealistic to expect him not to respond, in that context. I support taking no action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  - I don't necessarily agree, the banning policy makes it quite clear that you cannot talk about it anywhere and at AE in the past we have expected that users would say that they can't comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
    - That is a formally defensible view and has the advantage of reflecting a clear, bright-line, readily enforced standard. Nonetheless, in this context, I continue to disagree, because the purpose of remedies is to prevent disruption of encyclopedia-building and community harmony, and seeking out this sort of violations on the user's own talkpage does not really serve that goal. (In the words of Benjamin Cardozo, relevant by analogy here, "Jurisdiction exists that rights may be maintained. Rights are not maintained that jurisdiction may exist.") However, I take a harsher view of Eric's post on Lightbreather's talkpage, and while I will not support a block for that so long as it is not repeated, I instruct him to stay off that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
      - I disagree that the various comments in question don't disrupt community harmony, I don't see how insulting and/or belittling, no matter the context, doesn't do that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
The filer has added a diff from 26 April which seems to breach both of the sanctions cited so it looks to me like a block is appropriate. Given that we've had the first 72 hour block (c.f. Eric Corbett prohibited) it seems appropriate that the second 72 hour block is imposed this time as enforcing both sanctions. Regarding the filer, a reminder probably to include recent evidence is appropriate, not a warning as I haven't seen any history which indicates that they have a record of inappropriate filings. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Um ... which of the first sanctions does that break? (I can see how it might be taken as breaking the second, though it's pretty mild). Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

(Discussing this diff since there are more now) It's about gender gap task force which is a violation of the topic ban, and (while I do agree it's mild) it's also "insulting and/or belittling" so a violation of the prohibition.

Regarding the two new diffs, I'm not too concerned about this one though it was probably ill advised. This one could be considered insulting and/or belittling but I'm not too concerned with it either. What does concern me though is that this is ongoing, even after this AE request was submitted Eric continued skirt the boundaries (if not breach) the restriction/s. If this were (almost) any other editor they'd be blocked, but I'm not going to do it just yet as I want to see what others have to say about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the sanction is as written above, simply mentioning the GGTF doesn't appear to be a breach (especially in reply to an editor talking about it). I'm not convinced that this is enough to issue a block. And I'd say that about any editor, not just Eric. I think AE blocks have to be really clear-cut. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah I see, the one quoted above is incorrect. The scope of the topic ban was amended (in Feb 2015) to ...editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's a little more understandable now. I'm still unconvinced though, given the situation and the clear baiting involved. Call me neutral now. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This AE request seems of a piece with the equally frivolous civility warning to Giano that Gobonobo posted three hours later.[33] That too was for a post on Eric Corbett's page. Note that taking Giano's words out of context, as Gobonobo did in the warning, they might seem offensive and/or sexist (similar to the second diff Gobonobo offers here). The context is provided a little further down in the thread on Giano's page. I propose no action against Eric Corbett and some strongly worded advice to the filer to not go round looking for trouble. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC).Reply
I propose to ~~speedy~~ close as no action.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Misread Callanecc's comment, unless they change their mind speedy would not be approppriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't have much of an opinion on the result of this request - if Eric doesn't care, why should I? But I do want to know why a blocked editor is being invited to submit a statement against Eric on their talk page, by the admin who most wants to issue a block? I don't care what LB says in her own defense on her talk page, but I object to it being transfered here, and I cannot fathom why this is being enabled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
- That's pretty standard procedure when someone is being discussed (ie some of the diffs concern Lightbreather and they've been accused of baiting) who can't reply for an unrelated reason (ie block isn't due to behaviour in this AE request). And it wasn't an invitation, they asked to address some of the things which have been raised about them and I told them how it's done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've seen statements transfered when the blocked editor is the subject of an AC/AE/AN/ANI thread. I haven't seen it in cases like this, and I think this is a bad precedent (or, if it really has been done before, I think those were bad precedents). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree it's especially important when they're the subject of the report but AE sometimes (was going to say tendency but not sure it's that often) to hand out sanctions to more than just the subject and filer when supported allegations are made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Dr. Blofeld: I agree, I'm not suggesting we block for that diff, but for the other three recent ones which have been reported plus the ones to Lightbreather's talk page NYB refers to. As well as the pattern which is developing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm also considering an IBAN between Lightbreather and Eric given that this (including the statement on Lightbreather's talk page) is another instance of disruption between the two of them. Thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
This might be a good idea, including prohibition of posting on each other talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Responding to Ddstretch's comment above that "some comment is needed about he advisability of posting complaints based on old, stale comments": AE has no stated limit on how old a diff can be. Generally diffs considered "stale" aren't actionable, but there's no hard definition of "stale." I see no evidence that Gonobono has ever been involved in an AE request before so there's certainly no history of them misusing this process, and Gonobono went to NYB's User Talk page here to ask about it after Brad's comment. So my evaluation is that Gonobono's filing of this report was done in good faith, and NYB's comments should be enough. Zad68 17:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Proposed closure (Eric Corbett)

I see a solid consensus among uninvolved AE admins and commenters alike for no block for Eric, generally based on feelings of "No clear violation" and "Would be counterproductive", with Callanecc dissenting and leaning toward action. There is support for some remedy to reduce interaction between Eric and Lightbreather. Proposed closure, which I support, is:

Eric and LB are ~~prohibited from posting on each other's User Talk pages, except for necessary templated notifications~~ banned from interacting with each other. Upgraded to IBAN after Rich's comment

with no other action. Zad68 16:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This strikes me as a reasonable outcome. In any event, I would like to come to a conclusion soon rather than have this request stay open and generate more ill-will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
- I would close now with the Iban except Eric might conceivably think I was biased, so I will just strongly urge someone else to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have closed this with a two-way IBAN but I do not see that administrators have the ability to issue that kind of remedy under the particular Arbitration case cited in this request. As this sanction is the result of a community discussion, this IBAN is to be considered a Community Sanction with any appeals to be made at WP:AN. Striking to replace with below Zad68 00:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Closure has now been changed to be an Arbitration Enforcement action under The GGTF case closure as amended February 2015. Zad68