Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

Seraphim System

Closed without action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Seraphim System User who is submitting this request for enforcement Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Seraphim System (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 : Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 21:18, 9 April 2017‎ Restoring reverted version without a consensus. [1] Disruptive PROD [2] Calling other user "genocide denier" [3],[4] Edit warring Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 6 April 2017‎ Blocked recently for the same violation Date Explanation 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 [5] Additional comments by editor filing complaint User:Ryk72 The matter of East Jerusalem is separate matter from the west bank though for example UK did recognized the annexation of the west bank it didn't extend this recognition to East Jerusalem as the international community considers Jerusalem to be Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) exactly for those reason such matters should be discussed on the talk page--Shrike (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [6] Discussion concerning Seraphim System 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 Seraphim System Considering I left polite note on User:Shrike's talk page after they violated the consensus clause instead of proceeding to arbitration, and that I have not violated any of the ARBPIA rules, I must say I am disappointed by this tactic. I am new so some rules like learning when an article has already been reviewed for deletion I am still learning as I go along, but I am committed to maintaining ARBPIA rules. I do not believe in edit warring. I think this action by User:Shrike is motivated by trying to manipulate the consensus process on another page Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy and part of a pattern of disruptive editing and non-engagement on a very narrow range of topics. Seraphim System (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) ADDITION: I did not know that restoring another editors content was a violation. I have only ever restored edits when mine has been reverted. This may seem obvious, but since I don't edit war, I am not familiar with the intricacies of the rules in their applications. If it had been brought to my attention, I would not have repeated it. As a matter of principle, I don't think ARBCOM should sanction new editors for good faith mistakes. I also think User:Shrike should be sanctioned for his violation of the consensus clause, I assumed it was a good faith error notified him on talk and he still has still not corrected it. As for genocide denial, I still consider the content of the page Racism in Palestine to be a form of genocide denial. It was not intended as a personal attack, but I understand it came across that way. I should have been clear that I was speaking of the content, and not the editor. Seraphim System (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @WJBscribe: Is this going to be like the electoral college, where the admins ignore the popular vote? @Kingsindian: I graduated from one of the top-ten social sciences departments in the United States. I am interested in looking into this more - what is the definition of "uninvolved"? Seraphim System (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC) ADDITIONAL I have found out that a very similar issue was discussed and resolved several months ago. It was over the Jordanian Occupation/Annexation issue. There also User:WJBscribe sanctioned Huldra for an unintentional violation of the same Byzantine application of the consensus clause. There was significant objection from other admins. User:WJBscribe continued to push for his interpretation. User:Shrike started a new section to discuss the block on User:WJBScribes talk page with a strange remark about Hulda's gender. The block imposed by User:WJBScribe was overturned by consensus, and that outcome was accepted by User:WJBScribe. I think I may have erred yesterday in filing a complaint at ANI. It was frustrating for me to be accused of making frivolous complaints. It it walks like a duck, and it talks like duck, most likely its a sock. Even the appearance of impropriety can taint impartiality. But maybe there were alternative paths of dispute that I should have preferred. Seraphim System (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72 The edit in question brings a wikilink into alignment with its target article, which was moved on April 6, following a requested move discussion here Consensus for the move, and, presumably, for the change to any wikilinks targeting it, would appear, rightly or wrongly, to be contained within that discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @Shrike: I am confused by your comments. The edit presented in this filing is a simple change of a wikilink from "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" to "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank", reflecting a successful requested move of that article. This does not relate to "East Jerusalem". Is it possible that a different edit was meant? There may well be issues with this editor's edits, but the diff presented, for mine, does not add up to bubkes. It would be better for diffs like this disruptive PROD to be presented. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 The edit can be read as a technical violation, as WJBscribe does, or as an edit for which consensus had already been obtained, as Number 57 does. Most likely Bolter 21 was unaware of the article move, as he was away from Wikipedia during that discussion and played no part in it. In case of doubt, one should find in favor of the accused, not against. Zerotalk 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Actually finding this is a violation would set a dangerous precedent. If a consensus has been obtained in a RM or RfC, then an edit to implement that consensus is made and reverted, is it then necessary to start a new RfC to get consensus again? That would be quite ridiculous. Zerotalk 13:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @WJBscribe: You wrote "I don't agree that a RM discussion is consensus for changing the name of an article and all wikilinks that point to it." You are wrong; it has always been taken as sufficient cause to change links. People who want to argue that the old article name should be retained by changing a direct link into a redirect or pipe can always make that argument, but they have an onus to make a case and just not liking the consensus name change doesn't cut it. The default practice is that when we change the name of an article we also change the links to it. It is a terrible idea to provide editors who disagree with RM outcomes with a mechanism for keeping the old name regardless. This area is becoming a true Theatre of the Absurd. Zerotalk 00:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian What I don't understand is why these things are not discussed like adults before bringing them to AE, or why the admins are going straight to sanctions, or worse, acting unilaterally for no reason. Why did El C block both Seraphim System and Avaya1 for the edits on Ariel Sharon, the former while they were even discussing on the talkpage? This is absurd. For instance, a few days ago on the page: Jewish Voice for Peace, I reverted an edit of E. M. Gregory, who re-reverted me immediately. I did not report them to AE, and they did not revert their own edit. There was a brief discussion on the talkpage. MShabazz reverted the edit while discussion was inconclusive. As of now, the status quo ante remains. Now, if El C were watching the page, EMG would have been blocked because they violated the rule, and perhaps MShabazz would have been blocked for "tag-teaming" or "edit-warring" or whatever thing someone complains about. But I didn't complain about anything, and I don't want anyone blocked. The discussion is already talking place on the talkpage. So why is the admin intervening? Wikipedia has a thousand rules and a million ways to run afoul of them. Thank god we don't file an AE report for every time someone breaks some rule. We don't sue people for every offence in real life either. Admins are not required to act on all reports. This kind of overzealous enforcement is very bad, and will make the area much worse to work in. Please, we are not children, where one has to go running off to mommy every time one's little finger is hurt. This kind of stuff will only breed more resentment and more reports. Already I'm seeing tons of frivolous reports. In real life, there are legal costs involved; but here there is only the cost of filing a report. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @Seraphim System: AE does not work on the basis of voting, popular or otherwise. All you can do is to make arguments to persuade uninvolved admins of your case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC) @Seraphim System: I'll respond on your talkpage so as not to clutter this page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Huldra I am a bit horrified as to what this area has become; from anyone can edit, to everything is chiselled in stone, (unless you discuss on talk.) And all this, when editors haven’t really asked for it. As for this latest spat, I am at least partly responsible for it. When Bolter rv my edit, I made a mistake: instead of pinging him on the articles talk-page (which has 600+ watchers), I went to Bolters talk-page (which has less than 30 watchers), informing him about the RfC, and asked him to revert, knowing he had not taken any part in the RfC. And I would have thought that with the RfC there was consensus for change, here. This was nothing like the [[Danzig]] or [[Gdańsk|Danzig]] example, here we had a straight link to the article. Do we really need to discuss that? How many times do we have to rerun this RfC? Huldra (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC) User:Black Kite, lol, that is exactly it. It is complete madness, IMO, but that is just my 2 cents, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Seraphim System This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Whilst Seraphim System undoubtedly has an anti-Israel bias in their editing, in this case they were merely updating the link to reflect the outcome of an RM at the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank article; this report is frivolous at best. Number 57 12:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure if follows that the link had to be updated after the move, linking to redirects is fine where appropriate. This was a matter upon which editors could legitimate disagree depending on the context of the article in which the link is used. Anyway, the possibility it might (hypothetically) have been straightforward to establish consensus to restore the reverted edit is no excuse for not doing so. I see a clear violation: Huldra changes Jordanian occupation of the West Bank to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank [7] Bolter21 reverts, changing it back to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank [8] Seraphim System repeats Huldra's reverted action, without obtaining prior consensus [9] Seraphim System has been blocked previously for breach of the same sanction, so is aware of it. I would therefore therefore propose a 48 hr block for a second offence. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @Zero0000: I don't agree that a RM discussion is consensus for changing the name of an article and all wikilinks that point to it. We allow linking to redirects or using piped links according to editorial discretion. For example, there is consensus that Gdańsk rather than Danzig should be the name of that article, however it is right that East Pomeranian Offensive should use [[Danzig]] or [[Gdańsk|Danzig]], because that was the name at the relevant time. Updating links after RMs should, once it proves controversial (Huldra's edit was fine), be discussed in the context of the relevant article. WJBscribe (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I agree with WJBScribe. This is a violation and the edit summary accompanying the revert indicates that it is not merely a restoration of a link over a redirect. A short block seems appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Just to be clear here, are we actually suggesting sanctioning an editor for fixing a double redirect, or is there an actual reason why that link should have been piped from the previous name? Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Changing a link is not the same thing as fixing a double redirect. WJBscribe (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Excuse me if I'm being dense here, but the article had been moved to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank on the 6 April. The disputed edit was on the 9 April. Is there any reason why the link should have been piped through the previous name? Because otherwise it is simply fixing a double redirect. I'm not involved in ARBPIA at all, so I may be missing something obvious. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I... think this is not an AE case. The for/against on the particular edits are within reasonable behavior EVEN IN a problem area such as PIA and the editors can all discuss this like adults on the talk pages. This dispute could have gone far enough to rise to disruptive and AE relevant but has not. AE is NOT supposed to be a super-veto venue for content or style disputes on problem areas. We're supposed to deal with individual or group misbehavior on topics Arbcom has had to intervene in previously. I recommend close no action, strongly urge the parties to use talk pages like you're supposed to and AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I don't see why fixing the redirect, even with their edit summary, is enough for a sanction. I don't feel there's a risk of future disruption that can't otherwise be avoided through conversation with the editors involved. I would also close this with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Razzieman

Block endorsed and 3-month topic ban imposed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Razzieman User who is submitting this request for enforcement EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Razzieman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBAP2, specifically discretionary sanctions placed on United States presidential election, 2020 by Ks0stm on 6 December 2016 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 22:40, 10 April 2017‎ User removes info on Anthony Weiner 22:40, 10 April 2017‎ User self reverts 22:41, 10 April 2017‎ User removes same info, but this time reverts IOnlyKnowFiveWords 00:55, 11 April 2017‎ User reverts me, re-removing the Anthony Weiner info Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:58, 10 April 2017 , specifically to the 1RR restriction on the page in quesiton Additional comments by editor filing complaint User was inactive for over a year but returned in February 2017 to engage in a series of reverts. Was dormant until yesterday when they continued the behavior. Last 7 edits (and the only edits since January 2016) have been reverts or removals of material on American politics pages. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Razzieman 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 Razzieman Statement by IP So the comedian Bill Maher makes a comment that Anthony Wiener should run for President in 2020 because "He had balls, and he was an asshole" and, since we're OK with a "pussy grabber" we should have no issues with "a guy who sexts teens with a baby by his dick." This is covered by The Huffington Post and added to the article that Anthony Wiener is a speculative candidate for the 2020 Presidential Electon. Razzieman edit wars to remove that entry (which was probably a BLP violation!), is blocked for a month, and admins are now discussing a topic ban? Question to the admins - did any of you actually READ the facts behind this case or just jump in because technically the revert rule was violated? I'm having a hard time understanding why that material should remain in the article. I see no attempts at discussion with the user, the editor who added the information says on the talk page that Maher was probably joking, and Razzieman is blocked a mere 3 hours after being reminded of the DS? NeilN I think you have made a serious mistake. 2600:1004:B05D:87F8:C827:93B3:7C3B:3BF8 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC) In my opinion the content is the whole point. Yeah this editor should communicate better but users should never be sanctioned if they're improving the encyclopedia. I think there's a essay about that somewhere ;). 2600:1004:B008:8835:E57E:7BB2:6B03:37C6 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC) I continue to have issues with this. User:IKnowOnlyFiveWords and User:EvergreenFir please justify why you feel that Anthony Wiener should be listed as a candidate for the 2020 presidential election based on crude Bill Maher jokes. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Also pinging user:Jim1138 who has also reverted to include this content. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Last comment - it is a clear BLP violation for our article to call Anthony Wiener a speculative candidate for president in 2020 based on a joking invitation made by a comedian. And we blocked the editor who removed it. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Razzieman This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Blocked one month to stop immediate disruption. Open to longer sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 01:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) You're completely right about content, IP, but multiple unexplained reverts without even the most basic edit summary is problematic in this area. Can this editor actually communicate? --NeilN talk to me 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC) I've left a note on their talk page asking for a response. Their past edits are an odd mix of constructive edits, unhelpful edits, and outright vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 14:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Endorse NeilN's block for the edit warring. I think we should give the individual a chance to make a statement (to be copied from their talk page of course), but if they don't indicate a clear understanding of what the problem is and how to correct it going forward, I'd strongly consider a topic ban. The American politics area is difficult enough without unexplained, drive-by reverting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I believe we've at this point left enough time for a response to be made, and the editor doesn't seem to be around. Given that, I'll close this request with a topic ban, unless someone shortly objects. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Agree with NeilN's block. Considering they've only edited in this area since they returned to WP, I also believe a topic ban would be appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) It's been a week and no reply. Agree that reverts were of problematic content, but lack of overall communication is troubling. Endorse block and recommend closing soon. El_C 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC) There are two options for whoever closes this thread: (a) close without further action since the block is already issued and no admin objects to it, or (b) keep the block in place and add a topic ban. I would support whatever topic ban User:Seraphimblade has in mind, but my own suggestion is an indef ban from all of WP:ARBAP2 across all pages of Wikipedia including talk, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Theadjuster

Appeal declined. Additionally, Theadjuster (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from BLP edits for 3 months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Theadjuster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed BLP violations User_talk:Theadjuster#April_2017_2 Administrator imposing the sanction NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator Appeal copied over by me. --NeilN talk to me 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Theadjuster This entire warring scenario began when unidentifiable editors began deleting entire passages of my copy from politician Christy Clark's page under the heading of "controversies" and it so happens that the timing of these deletions aligned with the beginning of said politician's election campaign, toward reelection as Premier of British Columbia. I believe that a careful study of the copy and references will show that the copy is legitimate, and that the copy is situated correctly on the page, under "Controversies", and that the copy does reference a host of legitimate and verifiable issues pertaining to the history and performance of said politician. Wikipedia guidelines are clear that contested copy (around tone, neutrality, etc.) should be taken up piecemeal and altered or improved if necessary but is not to be deleted en masse. Upon seeking higher Wikipedia Admin support to point out these infractions I was met instead with stalwart edit values and "good faith" suppositions, all of which were seemingly irrelevant as I could not "talk" with the original editors who deleted passages, when I visited their talk page I found no sign of activity. Also I am relatively new and did not even know how to find the talk page for CC until further along, despite best efforts to respond....Most recently my wife did chime in on my behalf, but this was out of her own insistence and not my bidding. Seems unfair to be further penalized for this, just trying to clarify a position that seems to be going unrecognized, or overlooked, or ignored... As for my Mediararus account I was up front with this from the beginning, it is connected to my first and forgotten account with Wikipedia, never used, but I logged in unknowingly with this account as I was logged in via gmail and then did not recognize the different User account until after a few edits. Not sock-puppeting! Never used this account before or since, you will see. And the account is linked to me and not to a made up profile. No intention of sabotage or hiding my profile at all. I don't appreciate the suggestions from editors which suggest otherwise--like a pack of wolves jumping on me, to conclusions... For what its worth, I've brought this matter to the attention of other media, taking an interest in this story, as it appears to others and not just me that this is was a case of political interference, ie. there is an agenda to clear the "controversies" section from Christy Clark's Wikipedia page, timely as it is, during her election campaign... I am still hoping that some reasonable Administrator might intervene here and take a good look at the history on the page--see who deleted what and how, when...verify for yourself if the copy is legitimate, well-cited, etc and if there is problem with tone/neutrality then raise in talk and let's discuss but PLEASE can we not see that outright deletion of verifiable content is not okay and suspicious--ie. not in good faith ?? Statement by NeilN See ANI thread. User blocked after reverting an "admin action" edit I made. [10] Given this appeal and further talk page posts I recommend a topic ban from all BLPs of British Columbia politicians, broadly construed. Ideally, I'd recommend a topic ban from British Columbia politics, broadly construed. --NeilN talk to me 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Adding that before the revert that led to the block, I did counsel them on how to proceed and to drop the "vandalism" accusations. [11] --NeilN talk to me 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Boing! said Zebedee I can't really say any more than I agree 100% with NeilN, and that I too would favour a topic ban from British Columbia politics, broadly construed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Theadjuster Result of the appeal by Theadjuster This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Endorse topic ban. Something, intuitively, seems not right. El_C 19:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Decline. The block is obviously justified for ridiculously blatant non-neutral editing, and a topic ban would be as well.  Sandstein  19:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Decline. It doesn't even have to be an admin. If someone removes material on BLP grounds, you need to discuss it and establish a consensus before restoring it. That's not negotiable, and those who do otherwise should expect to be sanctioned for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC) I agree this should be declined and believe a short topic ban would be appropriate as well. Seeing as there's no support for overturning the block, I'll close this accordingly. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JFG

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

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

Appealing user

JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — JFG ^talk 14:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

0RR restriction on ARPAP2/1RR articles, following Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Is there an Admin in the house?

Administrator imposing the sanction

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by JFG

First of all, I admit that a technical 1RR violation occurred as reported, with a 17-hour interval between two unrelated reverts; I simply didn't pay attention. However, I strongly deny the purported pattern of 1RR violations which has been cited to justify the sanction.

This is a wikihounding campaign by SPECIFICO who has repeatedly accused me of violating DS or 1RR simply when she happens to disagree with my editing. She has been making unsupported DS violation claims and vague litigation threats against several other editors, e.g. most recently K.e.coffman here and Darouet there. I have warned this user repeatedly of the chilling effect she is creating, but she keeps trying to corner me on a technicality (and apparently succeeded today). Here are six instances of her direct accusations which turned out to be unfounded:

• 19 February: User Talk:JFG#DS violation (alleged two reverts, when only one edit was a revert)
• 23 February: User Talk:JFG#AE request (AE process opened by Steve Quinn and dismissed as a simple content dispute, but please open the "Unproductive aspersions" hat to see SPECIFICO's statements)
• 26 February: User Talk:JFG#1 RR violation at Russian (unspecified violation, no follow-up)
• 14 March: User Talk:JFG#!RR Violation -- please self-undo (lots of discussion among editors and admins about which edits should be considered reverts, no action)
• 11 April: User Talk:JFG#DS Violation at Russians (unspecified threat)
• 16 April: User Talk:JFG#Another DS violation at Russians (unsubstantiated accusation: one edit is a BOLD cleanup of the article, the other is an exempt revert arguing BLPVIO)

SPECIFICO never managed to find any genuine misconduct on my part. I consider this attitude to be disruptive and borderline harassment, however I refrained from reporting her behaviour and I treated it with as much humour as I could muster.[12] An editor once brought me to AE, and another to ANEW, and in both cases no violation was found; these were misunderstandings about what constitutes a revert. One of the reporting users graciously apologized but SPECIFICO piled on with a kind of "you'll get nailed next time" taunt, yet she never pushed the matter to WP:AE.

Please note also that I voluntarily self-revert when notified of an actual DS violation (for example self-revert + pursuing discussion), whereas SPECIFICO simply ignores warnings when she breaches revert restrictions (for example this thread or that one, ignoring self-revert requests and issuing threats)).

SPECIFICO's hounding behaviour towards me has been so blatant that another editor, Factchecker_atyourservice, whom I didn't know, came to my talk page to joke about it by making a parody of her attacks. This thread is also worth reading, whereby another editor, Objective3000, admittedly sometimes in disagreement with me, considered that SPECIFICO owed me an apology for her aspersions.

Imposing a permanent 0RR restriction on me would be validating the chilling effect intended by one adversarial editor, in practice denying me legitimate editing actions towards article improvements in AP2 topics. Given the fuzzy interpretations of what is and is not a revert, I run the risk of being blocked for simply making a bold edit that somebody will construe as a revert of some content. Sanctions are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and this 0RR restriction looks like punitive treatment for a series of mostly-unfounded DS violation claims.

For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours. Furthermore, I request a strong admonition to SPECIFICO for a pattern of hurling baseless accusations at her fellow editors, thereby wasting everybody's time and energy towards unconstructive discussions.

Finally, I'm sorry for burdening admins with a rather lengthy statement; I felt I had to provide appropriate context to defend myself properly.

Result of the appeal by JFG

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