Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case opened on 08:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Case closed on 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 19:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 13:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 06:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 09:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

• Banedon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• George Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Multiple ANI cases have been filed in the past, e.g. [1] [2]. More examples in statement below.

Statement by Banedon[edit]

Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]

Statement by George Ho[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Notified TRM. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple unrequired notifications removed and please would everyone remember no canvassing. Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Statement names formatted to the agreed useage - if you wish to state your non-involvement please do so in the body of your statement. Amortias (T)(C) 21:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hammersoft: Thanks for voicing your concerns. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Statement_and_evidence_management; Amortias's action was completely correct under procedure. To clarify, the "Statement by {Non-party}" could be clarified to be "Statement by {Username}"; I suspect the original authors of the template knew parties' statements would be listed above everyone else's. That being said, sometimes enforcement of procedure isn't the best thing to do, such as when it causes more drama than it's worth. That was what happened the last four requests, as you pointed out. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hammersoft: No. Editors have bickered over it in the past, and to quote an arb via email, it can get out of hand when it becomes "Statement by kind of uninvolved except the one time last year...". Absolute waste of time for something that can be clarified with two words in a statement, "I'm uninvolved". It has always been procedure, if not codified, that clerks may standardize the headers; that procedural subsection doesn't mandate us to standardize, it only describes our discretion to and outlines guidelines we may consider ("when the deviation is disruptive, disputed, egregious, or break links"). Not only am I personally not inclined to change it back, I couldn't if I wanted to. That was not a unilateral policy change, it was debated on clerks-l with arbs in favor. If you have further remarks on this, they should not be submitted in this case request. WT:AC/C would be a more permissible venue. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• George Ho has been added as a party by direction of a member of the Committee. I have also standardized statement headers. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Since George Ho is now a listed party and we've had a recent dispute (see link in my statement above), I must recuse myself. Miniapolis 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Notified users of overlength statements. Amortias (T)(C) 12:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Heads up everyone – we have been directed to open the case at 00:00, 28 August 2016. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/1/1/0)[edit]

• I should probably recuse on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment no opinion on the substance as yet, but Banedon, your second diff after "antagonized countless users" appears to be the wrong link, or you've cut off the oldid - it currently links to a 2006 IP edit to ankylosing spondylitis (which is indeed a pain in the neck, but nothing like arbitration... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few comments:
    • To echo Amortias' post above, please let's stop with the user talk notifications, everyone. Canvassing has a different dynamic here, where the final decision is made by a predetermined, fixed group, but we still need to hear from a balanced cross-section of the community.
    • Please leave the clerking - adding links, formatting, etc. - to the clerks. That's why they get paid the big bucks ;)
    • Don't take this as a statement of scope for a case should one be accepted - we haven't discussed it - but it would be helpful to decide whether a case is needed if those commenting would highlight recent matters, especially those that arose after the January 2016 declined case request involving TRM. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still considering - The Rambling Man, I know you said elsewhere that you don't plan to comment, but it would be useful if you did. I'm not convinced we need a "TRM" case, but I could certainly be convinced we need an "Interactions at DYK and ITN" case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning toward accepting a broad case, but first, Casliber, what do you mean by "doubling up"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, accept for a broad case about interactions at ITN and DYK, not a narrow one focused on TRM alone. Agree with those who recommended that scope related to TRM and "incivility" should be matters after the January 2016 motion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment waiting for statements, but any acceptance comes with the caveat of expanding the number of parties beyond TRM. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 12:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself agreeing with OR here. The issues seem to run fairly deep here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Traditionally, before voting whether to accept a case, I like to wait for all involved parties to make a statement; The Rambling Man, however, has said he plans to ignore this case, for the moment being. So, we may as well vote and my vote is in favour of accepting this case request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept there seem to be unresolved problems. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I also agree with Opabinia regalis that we need to consider the case scope, both in terms of whose conduct we examine, and whether we should limit the time range. Conduct in more distant history is of course helpful in terms of background knowledge, but I don't want anyone doing double jeopardy for incidents they've already been taken to task over. This might be complicated if we are considering the conduct of multiple people, or conduct at an entire venue, but we can put some thought into the best solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  To those of you suggesting the case scope be broadened to include entire areas such as ITN/RD/DYK, can you elaborate briefly on some of the broader problems you've been seeing there that you feel the Arbitration Committee can address (and that can't be addressed in other venues), if you haven't already? I have submitted a few DYKs (though none terribly recently), but am unfamiliar with RD and ITN, and their associated problems. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guy Macon: Agreed. It doesn't make sense to open the case without defining the scope, so I've asked the clerks to hold off on closing this page for another two days. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The two days are up (plus a bit). I've emailed the arb list so that we can nail down the scope; after that's figured out I'll ask the clerks to open the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept with the understanding that the case will not be limited to TRM and George Ho. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, I suppose--we're dealing with Michael Hardy, we should deal with this. Let me note though that this case may include interactions at DYK and ITN, but this should not be about DYK and ITN. Generating a list of poor writers/reviewers, for instance, is a great idea, but don't bring that list to us: bring it to the DYK talk page or to AN. (I've spent enough time at DYK to know that quality control is difficult.) Drmies (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept with the caveat that any scope related to TRM should be after January 2016. Per the ever-so-wise Hammersoft, it was stated by the committee that "future similar conduct [incivility] may result in sanctions". This is enough evidence that there has been a problem in the past, we do not need to dig through 10+ years and 150,000 edits to prove this. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline TRM, and refile for DYK, ITN, and RD without prejudice of declining that case also. Having it mixed with TRM at the moment is giving us a murky picture at best of what's going on. I'm aware that something is going on at DYK/ITN, but i'm not clear enough on what is going on to accept a case on it. As for RD...unless i'm missing something, it's only been mentioned here, not the subject of many diffs. I would recommend on it's exclusion at this point.

For TRM, the reason for my decline is double jeopardy, as GW noted above. I frankly don't see enough to warrant another case from the start of this year. I object to the claim that "we're dealing with Michael Hardy, we should deal with this" as Michael Hardy had unreviewed allegations of administrator misconduct and conduct issues. That's why I voted to accept that case. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor conduct[edit]

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Administrator conduct[edit]

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption[edit]

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

5) Editors will sometimes make mistakes or suffer occasional lapses of judgement. Editors are neither required nor expected to be perfect. However, repeated disruption to process, and failure to heed sound advice when given may become disruptive even when done in good faith.

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

On DYK and ITN[edit]

1) The "Did you know" and "In the news" sections of the main page have issues in the area of quality control, nomination, evaluation, and vetting of content. Determining how the content of the main page is selected is outside the mandate of the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Main page[edit]

2) The main page of Wikipedia is subject to higher scrutiny than many other Wikipedia pages because it is the face of the project, and receives considerably more traffic than other pages.([26]) Discussions about changes to the main page are often more heated than those on the rest of the project due to concerns about inaccuracies on such a heavily-trafficked page, as well as time-sensitivity concerns surrounding portions of the page such as In the news and Did you know.

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Background I[edit]

3) In January 2016 the Arbitration Committee noted that that "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has used uncivil and inflammatory language and made personal attacks during the course of this [Future Perfect at Sunrise Arbitration Case Request] dispute". Additionally, he was "advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions".

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Background II[edit]

4) In the 2009 Date delinking arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee found that "The Rambling Man has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates on the tennis articles"[27] and admonished him for "not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.".[28]

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has been uncivil[edit]

5) Since January 2016, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has continued to engage in uncivil and inflammatory behavior and make personal attacks towards other editors (such as [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]).

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

George Ho and The Rambling Man[edit]

6) George Ho (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) have a hostile relationship. (December 2015, April 2016, May 2016, June 2016, June 2016, July 2016)

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

George Ho is not a new editor[edit]

7) George Ho (talk · contribs) has been an active editor since 2005, and has amassed approximately 80,000 live edits.([34])

Passed 12 to 1 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

George Ho has been disruptive[edit]

8) George Ho (talk · contribs) has been disruptive by repeatedly beginning discussions on trivial changes even after consensus has been decided, and escalating issues much more quickly than is appropriate.

1. George Ho began a discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors about his concerns that In the news items were being ordered by date, but not necessarily by time of day. After the concern was determined not to be an issue and the discussion was removed, George Ho immediately revisited it at WT:ITN, where it was again determined not to be an issue. A month later, George Ho initiated an RfC at WT:ITN (which confirmed the previous decisions).
2. George Ho began three separate discussions at WT:ITN over whether ITN nominations should use level 3 or 4 headers. (July 2015, December 2015, June 2016)
3. An ANI report filed by George Ho is closed as not needing administrative attention, with another administrator criticizing George Ho "for being so quick to bring this to the 'drama board'". [35]
4. Multiple participants criticize George Ho for bringing concerns about a user's removal of commas to ANI, describing George Ho as "disruptive" and misusing ANI.[36]
5. George Ho has said himself that he has intentionally created issues out of minor topics: "Nominations on events are treated as huge issues, but... I guess I feel indifferent to such issue. Therefore, I resorted to making a big deal out of whatever it is considered minor instead."[37]

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

George Ho canvassed users to this case[edit]

9) George Ho (talk · contribs) canvassed no fewer than twelve people to this case ([38] [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]). When told to stop he failed to see the issue with what he was doing [50], and sought out other users who could do it on his behalf [51].

Passed 13 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man resigned adminship[edit]

10) After remedy 1 in this case (reading "For conduct unbecoming an administrator, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is desysopped.") was passing, but before this case closed, The Rambling Man resigned the administrator tools.([52])

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The Rambling Man's resignation is under controversial circumstances[edit]

2) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man prohibited[edit]

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Amended 7 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 19:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Vacated by motion at 06:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned[edit]

5) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

George Ho restricted (option 3)[edit]

7.2) George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:

1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.

He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Community encouraged[edit]

8) The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man topic banned[edit]

Adopted by motion at 19:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 13:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Lifted with probationary period lasting 6 months by motion at 09:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Adopted by motion (December 2018)[edit]

Motion (September 2017)[edit]

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Motion (December 2018)[edit]

In remedy 4, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

and the third paragraph is amended to read:

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA.

A note will be added at the top of the Enforcement section highlighting the special enforcement requirements of remedy 4.

The following is added as a remedy to the case:

9) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).

The following provisions are added in the Enforcement section of the case:

1) Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

2) Appeals of any arbitration enforcement sanctions imposed on The Rambling Man that enforce a remedy in this case may only be directed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Rambling Man may appeal by email to the Committee if he prefers. This provision overrides the appeals procedure in the standard provision above.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 19:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Motion (August 2019)[edit]

In remedy 9, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:

9) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. As an exception, he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator, but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).

Passed 6 to 3 by motion at 13:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Motion (January 2020)[edit]

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of The Rambling Man arbitration case is vacated, together with the associated special enforcement provisions.

Passed 7 to 3 with 3 abstentions by motion at 06:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Motion (December 2020)[edit]

The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

Passed 6 to 0 with 3 abstentions by motion at 09:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

• On December 1, 2016 George Ho and The Rambling Man were both warned about violations of their interaction ban and advised that further instances would result in a block. Mike V • Talk 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Further investigation shows that Mike V misinterpreted TRM's questions; he was not referring to George Ho. It is also very likely George Ho misinterpreted them too, and so violated his i-ban in unwise retaliation. I won't strike the log entry above, to preserve the record, and because I'm sure there's some rule somewhere that says I can't, but it's best to ignore this entry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Striking through original warning as per the convention with log entries of overturned actions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On December 14, 2016 The Rambling Man was blocked for 3 days for breaching his civility restriction. Mike V • Talk 03:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Following an appeal of this arbitration enforcement block on WP:AN, consensus was found to overturn said block as "hasty" and WP:INVOLVED(1), specifically to allow the ongoing AE (2) to reach its conclusion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Warning issued as a result of consensus at WP:AE [53]. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) blocked for a month for violating their conduct prohibition per AE request.  Sandstein  21:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk page fully protected for the block duration at 22:09, 5 March 2017, for these reasons.  Sandstein  11:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Block validity upheld and length reduced to one week on appeal.[54] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) blocked for two weeks (beginning 23:11, 25 September 2017) for violation of their prohibition. User talk page fully protected for the duration of the block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For complete transparency, please can you supply the diff that lead to the block? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: - please can you supply the diff? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[55],[56],[57] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]