Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

SW3 5DL

SW3 5DL (talk · contribs) is blocked for one week. Zad68 14:32, 11 August 2014 (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 SW3 5DL

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SW3 5DL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement#Malke 2010 topic-banned

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

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

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

Mentioned by name in ArbCom decision

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning SW3 5DL

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

Statement by SW3 5DL

All Admins, N.B. Please do not base your decision on Collect's comments as it appears others have done. I'm not making any such argument as his. I do not in any way share or support his comment, and find it to be patently unfair to me that he would use this forum to express his views. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would appreciate it if Sandstein, Lord Roem, and EdJohnston, would reconsider their decisions. This was an honest mistake. The topic ban has been in place for a year, and there is no past history of violating the topic ban. Since I now fully understand the terms and conditions of the topic ban (which includes not even being able to mention TPm except to defend myself), there is no danger of future violations. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, they are meant to stop disruptive behaviour in the moment. There is no danger of that. A block now would be punitive.

@EDJohnston: Yes, I would and I would have done it myself but for fear of being accused of continuing to edit despite the AE complaint.

EDJohnston, I'll restore the comments and collapse them. Thanks.

Also, I'd like to point out, I'm not "prone to violating" my topic ban. It's been a year since the ban was imposed and I've not had any problems. There's absolutely no evidence I've violated the ban previously, and certainly I didn't do it here intentionally.

@Collect, I find your comments here entirely disruptive and violate policy because you are refusing to see the obvious violation here. Because the topic ban means I can't even discuss TPm, I can't bring a request at ArbCom to have your TPm topic ban reinstated. But hopefully, others who are not so encumbered will.

@Philbrick, yes, agree and I'm taking 'broadly construed' to mean all political questions/topics are to be avoided lest there be a cryptic reference somewhere.

@MastCell, I certainly don't hate you, and communication is a two-way affair, as I've explained here.

@Bishonen, I'm sorry you feel I'm putting my violaton on MastCell. I'm not. Deleting MastCell's comment when there's been a history of abusive comments from him in the past, does not mean I knew right then that I'd made a violation. It means I thought he was harassing me. It would have been better to not delete his comments, but that is hindsight, and I can't go back and change the past. I'd also like to point out that you are confusing my reply to MastCell on Sandstein's talk page. I read MastCell's comments later, after I'd seen the admins comments here.

In addition, I've never denied that I've violated the topic ban. You seem to believe that because I deleted MastCell's comment without reading it, that's a denial. No, it isn't. It means I've had a lot of experience with MastCell. I've never denied this is a violation of the topic ban. I've admitted, I've stated I can see why it's a violation and I've stated I won't do it again. That's all I can do.

If I'd engaged with MastCell on my talk page and argued with him about it, then I'd say you have a point. You seem to be arguing that I can't ignore someone who has been abusive to me in the past.

@Sandstein, Does it seem right to give me a one week block simply because Bishonen is saying that it means they can't block me for a month "next time?" Have I violated the topic ban in the past year? I violate the topic ban this one time and I have to be blocked for what two admins, including Bishonen, have now called a 'minor violation' because Bishonen wants to block me for a month "next time?" Is there a diff of 'next time?'

earlier comment by SW3 5DL

I received a bot notice to comment on an RfC on Donald Trump. I read the RfC question which concerns whether or not Donald Trump should be included in a category "associated with the TPm." Sources were provided and the question was whether or not they were sufficient to include Trump in this category. It appeared to me that the sources were not sufficient. This isn't a TPm page or a TPm topic. It's a question on a BLP. Donald Trump is not part of the TPm in any capacity. If he were, I would not have commented. I am a good editor, I've made substantial contributions to WP, I've not violated any rules, and don't intend to.

If I'd desired to skirt the topic ban, I could have done it on Dave Brat. Recently, the bot sent me a notice about him. I'd never heard of him. I went to the page and discovered he'd been a 'tea party candidate,' and gave it a miss.

@User:Stephan Schulz, no problem avoiding that whatsoever.

@User:Sandstein, Stephan Schulz asked that I state I won't edit such a page again and I've stated that. My explanation above is meant to show my thinking at the time. It is not stating that I'm right. I'm not making any such argument. I've not stated that I don't see a problem. I've simply stated what my thinking was at the time and why I commented on the page in the first place. Especially in view of the complaint being brought by MastCell who bears no good will towards me. Now, two uninvolved admins have weighed in and said it's a violation. It wasn't intentional, it wasn't an attempt at avoiding a ban. It was an honest mistake. On the face of it, it appeared to be a BLP issue, not a TPm issue, and that's why I commented. Lesson learned on that one. Any mention of TPm is out. There's no need for a block in this case. And certainly as regards my user name, I had to change due to harassment. The name change was not done to avoid the topic ban and I even discussed the name change with an Arb from the case. So everything was above board there.

@Admins: Tryptofish's comment is not representative (nor is MastCell's misleading selective quote from that exchange) and does not at all portray the exchange with her after I posted my comment. I will get diffs now and post them. Also, I didn't deny there was mention of the Tea Party movement, as anyone can see by my comments here and on the Donald Trump talk page.

Here is the actual exchange with Trytopfish: Tryptofish makes a ‘reply’ to my iVote comment here that I didn't understand. It seemed to suggest that I’d somehow challenged her iVote, which I’d not done, which I explained here. And she persisted. I still didn’t get what the point of that was. It’s an RfC. You post your opinion and move on. So I made light of it. Tryptofish's next comment seemed circular, to keep things going without resolution, which is what trolling is. I then explained again my rationale for my ivote, and also stated I'd not intended any offense, and wouldn't be replying to her anymore since I considered her comments to be trolling.

Of course, none of this is germane to the issue of my ivoting on the Donald Trump talk page. I find it confusing that Tryptofish thinks I'm denying that there was any TPm mention on the RfC. I think I've been clear about that, as has everyone else. I certainly do understand the topic ban. At the time, it seemed to me that the category itself was not the issue, it was whether or not the sources could place Donald Trump in that category. I was thinking, 'sourcing a BLP.' Nothing more. No topic ban evasion intended, no name change to facilitate a topic ban evasion, an Arb is well aware of the name change, etc. My old user name was Malke2010. That is not my user name anymore. I've only one account, I've only ever had one account. Now that I'm aware that any mention of the TPm is suffice to cause a problem, I will simply avoid any page with any mention of it.

Also, note the actual question on the RfC was "Are the sources (and there follows a list of sources) sufficient to label Trump in the possibly contentious category 'People associated with the Tea Party movement?'"

@Lord Roem, You seem to be responding to Collect's comments and not mine. I'm not making any of Collect's arguments. I'm presenting what my thinking was at the time. I've clearly stated above that I understand now that it was wrong to take up the RfC request. And I'd like to point out that I only commented on the RfC request and not any where else on that talk page.

Statement by Collect

Note: The Category which is at the heart of this dispute is currently at CfD - with a proposal to tighten the criteria for inclusion. The proposed criteria would almost certainly exclude Trump from the category. Where a category is removed from a BLP, I suggest that the nature of its connection with a specific topic is likely to have been a tad marginal. Collect (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The primary source for the claim of membership in the TPm inth case at hand is a pseudo-quote in a headline in a reliable source. This has been discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Add_something_about_never_using_headlines_as_sources.3F where the discussionabut exactly whether a headline is reliable for claims has the OP here stating that the headline is absolutely as reliable as the article in the newspaper - a position on which I demurred based on numerous sources stating that headlines are written by copyeditors and nt by the journalist writing the article, and that they contain "pseudo-quotes" Where pseudo-quotes are the basis for linking a person to the TPm, I suggest that discussions thereon do not run afoul of the topic bans, just as it was decided that mere mention of the LvM in a BLP did not make those BLPs subject to the topic ban. I would note that Dick Cheney was also one listed as "associated" with the TPm - where the "pseudo-quotes" were not in any way borne out by the RS content, and where assertion that such contentious categorization places a BLP into topic ban category stretches the bungee cord to the breaking point. In fact, I have decategorized a number of BLPs where not a scintilla of mention of the Tea Party movement was found in the BLPs at all, and that the Trump "association" was added [2] on 25 June 2014, which suggests that the Donald Trump article had nothing substantial to do with the Tea Party movement in any way until a person added it as a claim a month ago.

Remaining is commented out by request.

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

Statement by Tryptofish

When SW3 5DL showed up at the RfC discussion, I had no idea who this editor was, not realizing that this was the same person previously topic-banned under another username. After the personal attack on me, quoted above by MastCell, I figured that this was just someone to ignore, and let it pass. However, after realizing now that there is an existing sanction, let me point out some specific diffs to demonstrate that this editor was aware all along that they were commenting about the Tea Party movement. Here: [3], SW3 5DL explicitly states that they examined an analysis by Collect, and in the post that makes unprovoked and bizarre statements about me, there is also a repeat of the statement that this analysis was closely examined: [4] "I examined the sources posted by Collect at the start of the RfC." (near the bottom of the diff). Now, here is that post by Collect: [5]. Look at how prominent the words "Tea Party" are in that analysis. Someone examining the sources posted there cannot help but to notice that the material concerns the Tea Party. And, based on the attitude displayed by this editor during the discussion, I can easily see how this user would have been sanctioned. There is no question in my mind that these edits constitute a conscious topic-ban violation, if "the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" is the topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

collapsing older comments

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

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

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

Is [7] the reply? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seeing what SWS 5DL has said here most recently, I am uncomfortable with the claim that she really does "get it" now. "Since I now fully understand the terms and conditions of the topic ban (which includes not even being able to mention TPm except to defend myself), there is no danger of future violations." [8]. The talk page comments that got her here went well beyond "not even.. mention"ing – into analyzing in some detail sources that were centrally about the role of the TPm in the page subject. There is no indication that she understands that MastCell's warning was anything other than "trolling", or that her interactions with me were disruptive. I think that administrators here are being played. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, "I'd simply gone straight to the RfC discussion section, thinking BLP sourcing." [9], and "It was not obvious to me that it was more than a BLP issue" [10], are contradicted by the first two diffs in my original statement here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@S Philbrick and other admins: If we go with S Philbrick's proposal of no block now, but a one-year block following any re-occurrence, can we also agree to strike SWS 5DL's comments at Talk:Donald Trump? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before this gets closed, I just want to say "thank you" to every one of the administrators who invested the time and effort to respond here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Collect's new post here, saying that the TPm category is being discussed, I started that discussion and am hopeful that it will resolve the content dispute. However, it is obvious that SWS 5DL could not have known that I would do this, when she entered the discussion. Should the decision be that the category does not apply to Trump, that still has zero bearing on the fact that the discussion was about the TPm. And, by the way, Bishonen is right. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins: I'm closely watching the discussion, and let me offer these suggestions. You have to decide whether SWS 5DL "gets it" now or not. If not, a 1-week block would not be particularly effective, so the block would probably need to be 1 month (the maximum possible). The other option is a warning now, that another violation will result in a 1-month block. Those are basically your two options. (In either case, the comments at the Trump talk page need to be stricken.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Johnston: What I said about a 1-week versus 1-month block is based upon S Philbrick's reasoning, with which I agree on that point. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell (filing party)

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

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

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

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

One final request, before this thread is closed. When I raised this obvious topic-ban violation with SW3 5DL, she deleted my warning without so much as reading it, because of her deep personal animosity toward me. In the interest of avoiding future time-wasting exercises like this one, I would ask that SW3 5DL be instructed to not to summarily dismiss concerns about future topic-ban violations, regardless of how much she hates the editor raising them. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by R F

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

A block would achieve precisely nothing.

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SW3 5DL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll agree with Sandstein and Lord Roem that this constituted a violation and disagree with Collect that it qualified as an exception under BLP. The point of a topic ban is a decision that the editor is not trusted to edit in a certain area. While one can imagine BLP violation occurring in the area, we have in essence said, we do not want this editor making that call. The editor knows there are other ways to ensure attention to the issue other than actually making the edit. However, I do not support the one-week block. The editor either (now) gets it, in which case no block is needed (assuming we do not do punitive blocks) or does not get it, in which case a much longer block is warranted. My recommendation is no block now, with the understanding that a subsequent incident will generate a request (from me) for ~~a year long block~~the maximum possible block. Editor should understand that broadly construed should be taken literally, and if there is any question, the right thing to do is point out the incident to someone else to handle.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Sphilbrick's judgment on the violation at Talk:Donald Trump and would allow the complaint against SW3 5DL to be closed with no block. To clean up the violation, all of SW3 5DL's comments that are tea-party-related at Talk:Donald Trump should be struck out. My assumption is that if SW3 5DL shows by their future behavior that they are unable to stay away from TPM issues that the result could be different next time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the approach outlined above. Sandstein 21:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before this is closed it's important to note that we would be unable to block for one year if there is an other violation. Per WP:ARBTPM#Enforcement of decision sanctions we may block initially for up to one month. However I do agree with a warning in this instance with it being made clear that any other violation will be meet with the maximum block we can impose. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick's approach, recommending no block now but a one-year block in case of subsequent violation, won't work, as Callanecc points out. If they're merely warned now, it can't be more than a month next time. Sandstein, Lord Roem and User:EdJohnston may want to indicate if they agree with SPhilbrick's recommendation all the same.

For me that's a minor point, though; regardless of the matter of the length of a subsequent block, I recommend a block now. The topic ban violations (posting to a thread entitled "people associated with the Tea Party movement", which, as MastCell says, shows poor judgement in itself) were not major. But the excuse made for them — not "fully understanding the terms and conditions" of an indefinite topic ban "from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" — is weak. It becomes weaker still when the user ignores MastCell's concerns, which were voiced simultaneously on Talk:Donald Trump and in a civil note on SW3 5DL's own talkpage, with the edit summary "Violation of your topic ban". SW3 5DL removes this with a rudely dismissive edit summary and continues to argue on Talk:Donald Trump. Why? I'm extremely unimpressed by the user's explanation/excuse above: that "communication is a two-way affair" with a link to an edit they've made on Sandstein's page, where they'd explained that they hadn't even read MastCell's note (with its clear edit summary) before removing it. I confess I blinked when I saw that offered as an excuse. But apparently MastCell's "attitude" and "hectoring tone" in a comment on Sandstein's page (here) were part of the reason for the dismissive removal of his concerns, even though that removal took place a couple of days earlier. Trying to put their behavior on MastCell's "attitude" is just… I don't know how to put it. I've already said I'm unimpressed. There was little excuse for violating the ban, and no excuse at all for responding with an attack ("trolling") to civilly expressed concerns about it. A warning seems insufficient to me. The original topic ban was presumably placed because a battleground attitude does waste the time and efforts of other users, and here we go again. If SW3 5DL had responded reasonably to MastCell's reasonable concerns — taken them onboard — there would have been no need to waste further time at this board. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I find this persuasive. Sandstein 02:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bishonen's view. It sounds like we are back to the idea of a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: Sphilbrick's warning recommendation turned out to be impracticable per Bishonen's comments. Both Sandstein and EdJohnston, who were in favor of the warning proposal, switched their !vote based on Bish's observation. Others in favor of the warning proposal were ping'd and they did not respond. So the arguments of those supporting Sphilbrick's warning proposal needed to be discarded. AE discussions are not supposed to drag on for a long time, the very purpose of the AE board is to limit the expenditure of limited admin resources on contentious areas. It had been two days since the last argument was made, and the warning !votes did not receive follow-up counter-arguments, so the result was a clear consensus for a 1-week block. Zad68 15:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wickey-nl

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

Request concerning Wickey-nl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18 June 2014 The user was blocked for violating 1RR per this report at WP:ANEW [11]

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Kingsindian It really doesn't matter who put it in the first place every one is responsible for their own edit and it doesn't matter if it revert or something else.There was more problems with this edit that its cherry-picking the source to present only one piece of information though it discuss the issue at large.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 03:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Wickey-nl

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

Statement by Wickey-nl

I am blocked once by a corrupt admin with a bizar interpretation of the 1RR. He blocked me on dubious ground. Moreover, he blocked me for an excessive period of 48 hours. Exceptional for a first block, on questionable ground.
Both, User Shrike and User Brewcrewer abuse this page to make their points about the article Palestinian land laws, a quite complicated case.
Under argument 5, Shrike comes with a futile complaint about the use of a standard edit summary.
A typical example of impure discussing is in Brewcrewer's reaction below under argument 4, 2nd point, where he falsely accuses me of removing a source. Under the last point, he repeats the same trick.

--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will comment on the untouched issues.

Apart from the fact that I think that it is absurd to regard the citation of a minor part of a source, an alinea, is copyright violation, it is plainly ridiculous to bring in this example, where the same alinea makes clear that is a citation from Al Mezan.
Regarding WP:NPA it is not without reason that the IP-conflict has its own WP rules. There is much manipulation, and the environment is heated. This should be weighted.

There is more to say about the complaints regarding Brewcrewer.

Is the edit “Try to jump over your shadow.” really a PA in this context?
You are a master in pointless comments. Why do you insert that strange link here? was actually a reaction to the linking of my user name with an edit link. The wiki mouse-over applet showed only an anonymous undated section on the talk page, a misunderstanding.

I may give my opinion about an admin here, not? On my talk page I explained why I think EdJohnston is a corrupt admin. About the bizar interpretation: this admin regards the editing of old sections, not disputed ones, as reverts.
While User Sandstein states that "The NPA and NOTFORUM concerns are, in my view, too slight, on their own, to warrant a sanction at this point", he pleads for a topic ban. I wonder what are its real motives.
--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Kingsindian)

As an editor involved in 2 of the 6 diffs above (number 3 and 4) directly, and one indirectly (number 1), perhaps I should say something. The good part: About diff 4, the copyvio was inserted by another editor, in the beginning, User:Shrike reverted it, and as a sort of compromise, I moved the essence of the edit to another section while keeping out the copyvio. User:Wickey-nl reverted me, I explained the edit and he did not revert it again.~~, though he grumbled about it (diff 3)~~. He explained that he thought I removed some reference to the BBC report, which I did not. The discussion afterwards was more or less civil. To be honest, I have a thick skin and did not mind the "you don't know what you're talking about" comment in diff 3. I understood the point he was making (though he was wrong in making the point, in my opinion). I did not find much disruptive editing.

The bad part: Seems that User:Wickey-nl has a habit of accusing others as sock-puppets and other personal attacks, and has a very strong bias in his edits in the I/P area. I do also have my own bias (and rather in his direction), but I try to keep it under control (I hope with some success). With the recent events in I/P, tempers are inflamed everywhere. I do not know what WP policy is regarding these things (this is my first post to Noticeboard), but perhaps these are things to keep in mind. Kingsindian (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a comment on the content part of the dispute. As I mentioned earlier, I do see a strong bias in the Wickey-nl's edits (which, it must be said, seems to be the norm rather than the exception in ARBPIA), many (not all) of Brewcrewer's criticisms at "Palestinian Land Laws" section are somewhat misdirected. There is a fundamental disagreement on the talk page about whether even the title "Palestinian Land Laws" make any sense, because there are few laws passed by Palestinian authority and many of the "land laws" are based on international law and old Jordanian law. This is the context of discussion where Wickey-nl removed some parts based on "not referring to land law" etc. I would not have made the edits he made, and nor left summaries like "replacing rubbish", but it was a content dispute, and not indicative of bad-faith. Kingsindian (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly puzzled by Sandstein's comment. Perhaps this is my own inexperience and the Rashomon effect. The copyright issue is trivial (and as I noted, was not even inserted by Wickey-nl, but by another editor). Since he rejects the WP:NPA and content issues, we are left with a prickly response by Wickey-nl on this page as evidence. Is this grounds for a topic ban? Kingsindian (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle rages every day in ARBPIA; prickly comments and more importantly, Civil POV pushing are the norm. I do not agree that there is any evidence of lack of competence or inability to work collaboratively presented. I agree, though, that the comments by Wickey-nl impugning the integrity of admins, (based on flimsy evidence) should not have been made. Do the sentiments expressed on this page trump all the edits made on actual wikipedia projects? One has to edit in the area to know if some person is capable of editing well and fairly. I have only been editing intensively in this area in the past month (due to the recent events) and I saw the battle plainly within a week. Kingsindian (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brewcrewer

Please review these additional diffs:

1RR violation - 1 & 2 Warning is ignored.[13]
1RR violation (removes sourced information because in his opinion “polls are manipulative”)1 & 2. Ignores warning. [14]
Violates WP:NPA: “Try to jump over your shadow.”
More recently Wickey-n1 exhibited problematic editing at Palestinian land laws, mostly by removing sources and sourced material on spurious grounds. The underlying motive appears to be POV pushing.

Removes category “fatwa” without explanation [15] The article explicitly uses the term in the third paragraph of the Effect section [16] wherein it clearly mentions a fatwa with a source.
In an edit marked as “minor” Wickey-nl removes a source supporting the name of the article [17] with the edit summary “Ref is not specifically about land laws”. This is of course is not a valid reason to remove sourced content.
Removed the statement “The [Palestinian land] law carries a sentence of the death penalty" [18] with the edit summary “Neither source mentions a particular Palestinian land law.” The first source Wickey-nl deleted "<ref name="Weiner" />" refers to this source and on page 22 it explicilty states the following: “In clear violation of these provisions, the Palestinian Land Law prescribes the death penalty to anyone selling land to Jews".
Wickey-nl unilaterally moves the article twice [19] [20] before finally settling on "Land ownership in the State of Palestine."[21] The article was eventually moved back to the prior name after a request for admin intervention.[22] At the talk page, Wickey-n1 stated that page must be moved because the source supporting the name was unsatisfactory.[23] It was twice requested of Wickey-nl for the sources supporting their preferred name (1 & 2) but Wickey-nl failed to respond. This is the problematic POV behavior we have discussed at AE. An edit is make ostensibly on policy grounds, but when the policy does not suit the same editor’s political leanings, this policy is ignored.
[24] makes mass changes to article claiming that the “Replace rubbish about non-existing laws with real source.” The edit replaces multiple reliable secondary sources with one primary source.
[25] removes reliably sourced content (source) with edit summary that includes attack on author in source “Tendentious journalist writing” (the journalist is Khaled Abu Toameh, a BLP) and arguing that the journalist did not provide evidence.

In summation, besides for the 1rr violations and personal attacks (mentioned in other reports), more importantly, Wickey-nl has exhibited a pattern of pov-pushing disguised as proper editing while not holding himself to the same standard he demands of others. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero

This report is unusually weak.

Sandstein identifies this edit as "problematic" and indeed it is. But it is just a commonplace mild copyvio that is easily fixed by some paraphrasing. This should have been done by Shrike instead of removing it wholesale, since it is obviously relevant and well sourced. Identifying this edit alone as sufficient cause for a topic ban seems extraordinary. (Problematic content suppressed instead of struck, Sandstein 03:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)) Zero^talk 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: You wrote that I made "personal attacks" but in fact I made comments on editing behavior. Your words are a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and I invite you to remove them. Zero^talk 04:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed into "Problematic content". Sandstein 16:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon : As an administrator who sometimes blocks people, I expect that some of them will give me lip for it. But I think it is a right to be able to criticise an administrator's actions (within some generous limits) and administrators should be able to take it. Once we start blocking people for being angry when they are blocked, we will look like a bunch of power-freaks and community respect for administrators will plummet. Zero^talk 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRISZOOM

I can't see what makes this a case for sanctions as it looks like to be normal disagreements, except for the copyright issue which easily could have been fixed - even by Shrike instead of making a case of it. Regarding Wickey-nl's response here, I think one word or so is unacceptable but he seems upset over the 48h block mentioned in the same sentence. That wording shouldn't be used but I certainly don't agree that he can't collaborate with others, as I think he has proven it, like being very active in talk pages, and doing many improvements on articles. A topic ban would be very hard to understand. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I've disagreed with Wickey-nl in the past (I thought he could not spot an evident POV for example), but generally find that he is a very good wikipedian. Unlike most editors, he actually goes through pages diligently from top to bottom, expanding them significantly (see Beit HaShalom. Edit warriors can be identified easily. They don’t build pages (too much work) they tend to intervene to revert, or to add some succulent piece of information that tells against one side. They are morbidly interested in AE report: they appear to spend a lot of time watching selected editors’ contribs, and reporting people. I can't see anything, rather than the trivial BBC diff in Shrike's original report. This fits some profiles here: it does not strike me as appropriate to Wickey-nl. Brewcrewer's report is wrong from the outset (dragging up stale diffs, never reported at the time if they were believed to be serous, rather than content disputes):

(diff 1) Wickey-nl’s edit summary does not ‘ignore a warning’: it challenges Brewcrewer’s interpretation of 1R
(diff 2) This is the same diff as diff 1 (i.e. Brewcrewer is using the same diff twice, as if multiple examples of ignoring warnings were at stake).

Brewcrewer is much taken by content disputes with wickey-nl at Palestinian land laws, where he had edited however only once recently, and over the years never, except recently, used the talk page as against 27 edits by the editor he is reporting. His edit was an egregious piece of POV slanting of the lead, ignoring the historical background in order to prioritize an ethnic sense of those laws, which are mirrored in Israeli law, being offensive.

As a glance at the talk page will show, the whole article is a misnomer, the earlier drafts preferred by Brewcrewer showcased the article as evidence that Palestinian land laws are anti-Jewish/Israeli. I think that was one of the purposes of the article. The article gets great attention because of its I/P polemical value: compare the ignored, but parallel article Israeli land and property laws (Background . 93% of the land in Israel is state-owned land originally confiscated from Arabs and held in trust for the Jewish people: of the remaining 7% most is Arab-owned, but even there some is encumbered in a way that only allows the Arab vendor to sell it to Jews). Editors who jump at the Palestinian article to raise a spectre of offensive laws, quietly ignore the other article. NPOV requires we be serenely descriptive of the facts, and not focus on one article of a pair to push a POV. Third point. Yes, Wickey-nl is distressed at this report, you can see that by the unusual intensity of his grammar and spelling errors, which suggests to me he thought, the way things go in here, he's another goner. I don't think fishy reports should function to provoke upset language so that the evidence of being upset substitutes for the original evidence as grounds for conviction. Wickey-nl might well be told to exercise more care, but the original report was both frivolous and instrumental (attempting to remove an editor out of dislike, as is, sadly, often the case recently).Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wickey-nl. You should strike out both attacks on admins. Experienced users or readers of these pages will have memories of very strange judgements made even by admins that have near universal respect. I myself am deeply worried at the huge confusion over 1r and the way editwarriors are using this to hang editors, or rid wikipedia of otherwise excellent contributors (Sean hoyland's advice in your link shows how important his presence was in clarifying to editors like yourself where your judgement failed). In particular, in 8 years, hoping that this will not be read as brownnosing, I've never seen Ed Johnston do anything that could warrant doubts about his integrity or judgement for that matter. corrupt is a totally unacceptable misconstrual of what he does.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'unsuited to a collaborative project?' I have about a 1% agreement on edits with Brewcrewer and Shrike's edits, for example. Not for that do I think they, or myself are thereby 'unsuited' to a collaborative project. A large part of what defines an editor's suitability is related to her ability to actually introduce new material, rework articles, or build them, and usually this is rare, as opposed to the prevalence of kibitzing reverters and contribs daily checkers. Most constructive article building is, unfortunately, not 'collaborative'. It consists of lone editors developing articles by source research and control. The 'collaborative' bit comes when editors review or kibitz on bits and pieces of what you do. Both are needed, but one type of editor should not be unduly punished because his 'social' instincts are not up to his article construction powers.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honestly, I am completely unknown to the further activities of this admin. As pointed out below, the admin remained deafening silent on the subject. Unknown whether because of arrogance, tactic or for another reason. If he made an error, he apparently did not see so or did not want to admit. Until now, he also remained silent here. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Wickey-nl was already advised to strike the reference to a "corrupt admin" and has not done so. Maybe Wickey-nl thinks that the Wikipedia admin system is inherently "corrupt" or otherwise abusive; that does not excuse a very strong personal attack on the integrity of an administrator. If there really is evidence of abuse of the admin privilege, let alone "corruption" in the use of the admin privilege, it should be taken to the ArbCom, rather than being used idly to poison discussion of disruptive editing in WP:ARBPIA. Recommend a block for the personal attack, without prejudice to whether a topic-ban is also in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I raised the question at the Board, the admin remained deafening silent, refraining from any comment. Yet, this is the ultimate test whether or not the system is inherently corrupt. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wickey-nl

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

The NPA and NOTFORUM concerns are, in my view, too slight, on their own, to warrant a sanction at this point. Diff no. 5 seems to be mainly a content issue. I have not evaluated Brewcrewer's diffs because they are undated and many seem to be relatively old. But the BBC copyright issue, Shrike's diff 4, is problematic. And Wickey-nl's response is so incoherent and confrontative that I doubt that they have the temperament and the competence required to edit productively and collaboratively in this topic area. I advise a topic ban. Sandstein 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my view is based mainly on the generally combative attitude exhibited by Wickey-nl here and in their edits, rather than mainly on the copyvio issue, although that does show an unacceptable lack of concern and/or competence in a very important area. The "corrupt admin" nonsense is mainly another indication of the editor's apparent temperamental unsuitedness to a collaborative project; although it is also a personal attack, I tend to agree with Zero in this regard. Sandstein 16:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

goethean

Not actionable. Sandstein 18:13, 10 August 2014 (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 goethean

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: goethean (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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Goethean

[26] revert deletion of trivia on BLP. the candidate has attended/addressed several tea partys. [27] this story is a publication of the same company that was sourced in the revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[28] editor has violated the topic ban before and was warned.

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

[29] of editing topics related to the tea party broadly construed.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

perhaps this is merely a misunderstanding of broadly construed on my part, if so, i withdraw and apologize.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning goethean

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 goethean

Statement by Gaijin42

At first glance this is a borderline case, so it depends on how "broadly construed" the topic ban is IMO. Brauner does not appear to be explicitly a member of the tea party, but he has spoken at the Illinois Tea Party, and was endorsed by them, and the left lumps him in with Koch, etc as their standard boogiemen, and certainly he holds many views that are consistent with tea party goals - but again, it all hinges on the scope of Goethean's ban. As the "right" front runner, its expected that his opponents will throw the sink at him in terms of trying to tarnish him. It seems that "tea party" may just be one more of the bunch of accusations.

If this is a violation, then Goethean's ban is in effect "all conservatives/libretarians"

As this is a borderline case, and the article does not currently mention tea party in article or talk space - if this is determined to be a violation I think a warning rather than harsh sanction may be appropriate. (And I say this as someone who has butted heads significantly with Goethean in the past)Gaijin42 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

This is too far removed from the topic to be considered. There is nothing in the article about the Tea Party, and the edit had nothing to do with it. If Darkstar1st construes it that broadly, then virtually any edit about U.S. politics would be part of the ban, because at some point any prominent politician will be supported by or opposed by the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

I don't see any violation even by the broadest interpretation of the topic ban. How is it that Bruce Rauner is considered a TPM subject when the words "tea party" don't even appear in the article? I assume that we don't require topic banned editors to read every source about a subject from a particular publisher to determine if there might be some obscure link with the topic that they are banned from.- Mr X 15:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

I hope that Admins will make a strong statement admonishing editors, particularly involved editors who may not have clean hands not to be trigger-happy in bringing tenuous and aggressive complaints to this forum. It is a drain on editor and Admin resources. Where there are clear violations and clear damage, there's no shortage of editors who will bring a well-formed complaint here. In the case of user Darstar1st, he made a similar error with respect to me here [31]. I hope he is able to learn from his errors. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning goethean

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

I tend to agree with Gaijin42, this is in the grey area of broadly construed. My reading of the article itself would suggest it probably is not within the scope of the topic ban, but the additional info Gaijin42 points out (not found in the article) is what puts it in that grey area. The edit itself doesn't seem to have generated conflict and was totally unrelated to the TPM, combined with being in the grey area of even broadly construing the topic ban, I say we decline this. However, if there had been more of a conflict at the article, it would have been quite possible to stretch the topic ban to deal with it. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, "broadly construed" is not a Kevin Bacon game. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The complaint does not make clear how exactly the one diff provided as evidence is supposed to violate the topic ban. Per the recommendations above, the enforcement request is closed as not actionable. Sandstein 18:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqeli

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 Jaqeli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaqeli (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:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as per AA2 general sanctions public notice

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

31 July 2014 invalid removal of fact tag against the 430AD date.
6 August 2014 edit warring, invalid removal of fact tag, invalid edit summary (the cited sources do not say 430AD)
7 August 2014 edit warring, invalid removal of clarification required tag, invalid edit summary as before, refusal to address the points made to justify the tag, refusal to engage in talk page discussion.
8 August 2014 edit warring, invalid deletion of clarification required tag, invalid edit summary as before, refusal to address edit summary explanation. Refusal to engage in talk page, ignoring justification given for the tag's insertion.
9 August 2014 edit warring, invalid deletion of clarifiction tag, deletion of referenced content, insertion of content not supported by the references Jaqeli placed beside that content, refusal to engage in talk page discussion, invalid and uncivil edit summary.
7 August 2014 Talk page incivility, refusal to accept good faith, refusal to engage with an editor and address points he raised.
8 August 2014 Talk page incivility, display of battleground attitude, refusal to engage in discussion and address the points raised.
9 August 2014 Talk page incivility, extreme display of battleground attitude, a point-blank refusal to engage in discussion and address the issue raised (that the "dated 430AD" is different from "dates from circa 430AD").

3 July 2014 anon editor deletes content mentioning Mashtots connection to the Georgian alphabet. No edit explanation.
16 July 2014 Jaqeli restarts this edit warring by deleting content in an edit that is identical to the anon edits. Invalid edit summary explanation (the first of many "per Georgian scripts").
18 July 2014 edit warring, removal of referenced content, invalid edit summary, no talk page explanation.
31 July 2014 edit warring, removal of referenced content, no edit explanation, false claim to be reveting to a stable version, refusal to use talk page for explanation.
1 August 2014 edit warring, removal of referenced content, invalid explanation for edit, continued refusal to use talk page for explanation.
2 August 2014 edit warring, removal of referenced content, invalid explanation for edit, continued refusal to use talk page for explanation. Refusal to regard the edit summary of the edit he reverted.
3 August 2014 edit warring, removal of referenced content, invalid explanation for edit, continued refusal to use talk page for explanation, refusal to accept compromise edit.
16 July 2014 Talk page incivility: an aggressive, negative, battleground attitude from the outset, refusal from the outset to accept the good faith of editors who have worked on the article.
20 July 2014 Display of battleground attitude, talks about "sides", advocates a nationalistic approach to editing "I am totally for Georgian-Armenian co-operation on Wikipedia"
2 August 2014 Battleground attitude dismissal of sources that don't agree with his pov.
3 August 2014 Battleground attitude continues - refusal to use talk pages for explanation
4 August 2014 Battleground attitude again - refusal to engage in talk page discussion even when wikipedia guidance pages are cited.
5 August 2014 A point blank refusal to engage with editors in the talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[32] NB: Jaqeli has blanked his talk page so I cannot get the diff for the original sanction notice [33]. This one refers to a later topic ban enforced as a result of the original violation.

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The disruptive editing covers two articles. On Georgian scripts, the content says an inscription "is dated 430AD". The inscription in question is actually undated, and the cited sources actually say "dates from c430AD". I initially added fact tags for the "dated 430AD" claim, hoping for some sources, but Jaqeli repeatedly deleted the tags. He did the same for the clarification tags I then tried as an alternative. He ignored the reasons I gave for placing these tags. Faced with no sources for the "is dated 430AD" claim, I altered the text to read "has been dated to c430AD" as per the cited sources, but Jaqeli simply reverted to the incorrect version. I have repeatedly tried my best to explain to him that "dated 430AD" is quite different from "dates from c430AD" used by the sources. His only response has been reverts and incivility.

On Mesrop Mashtots he has repeatedly deleted referenced content and repeatedly refused to discuss his edits in the article's talk page. All he does is repeatedly state "per Georgian scripts". It has been very carefully explained to him that this "per Georgian scripts" explanation is not valid: editors cannot use talk page content on one article as a reason for not properly justifying content removal on a completely different article. Editors have directed him to the Wikipedia pages giving this advice, but he seems incapable of taking that advice or realising he is in the wrong. Because of his actions and attitudes it is impossible to engage productively with Jaqeli.

Jaqeli has been topic banned before. When the ban was lifted it was on the condition that he would not return to edit warring and assuming bad faith on the part of others.[34] The diffs show he has broken that condition. They show he has also ignored his own assertion that he would, in future, "edit constructively, will not edit war and will discuss it in a calm and respectable manner".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Jaqeli

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 Jaqeli

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jaqeli

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

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