Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:00, 4 December 2017

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

Anythingyouwant

Since Sandstein has asked that I handle this, and there does seem to be agreement that this was not BLP exempt and that Anythingyouwant knew what they were doing, I'll go ahead and resolve this: Anythingyouwant is placed on 0RR for 1 month on Roy Moore and any topic related to the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017, broadly construed. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2017 (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 Anythingyouwant

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 : [1]. Discretionary sanctions, including a 1RR restriction and the "consensus required" provision added to the article on 0:31 November 11 2017 [2] by User:TonyBallioni. Note that below Tony indicates that the addition of the "consensus required" provision was very much intentional.

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

[3] 22:20 November 26 2017
[4] 1:03 November 26 November. Restoring text challenged by reversion [5]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[6] Previously banned from post 1935 American politics

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 10:46, 27 October 2016 by Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not sure if this is a 1RR violation, but it is obviously a violation of the "consensus required" provision which is in effect on the page and which it seems admins have decided needs enforcing. The edit was obviously challenged by reversion. The claim that this was a BLP issue is spurious. See also the edit summaries by User:MrX [7] and User:MelanieN [8]. See also discussion on talk page. In particular see comments by MrX, MelanieN and User:Artw in that discussion. Also this comment claims the text says something it doesn't actually say. Also [9]. Also see this comment which brings up WP:TRUTH and WP:GREATWRONGS. Volunteer Marek 04:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor (me) does what two other editors request - I did not request for you to make that edit and afaict, neither did MrX. I think that was pretty clear from both our comments. Volunteer Marek 09:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:: " VM says this is "spurious" but other editors here agree with Anythingyouwant" - no, they don't. What page are you reading??? Your comment was made at 16:30. At the time you wrote this FOUR editors (in addition to myself), including TWO administrators said that this clearly is NOT a BLP violation. Those would be Specifico, MelanieN and MrX. TWO editors, Atsme and DHeyward said it was a BLP violation. Two or three didn't address the BLP issue. Since you made your comment TWO additional editors have said it wasn't a BLP violation. If you're gonna participate at WP:AE in an administrative capacity can you please at least read the statements before "summarizing" them? Volunteer Marek 18:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to the question of whether it's a BLP violation - it's not. The info is well sourced. The text is straight from the source. Anythingyouwant is pretending on the talk page that the text is something other than what it really is as a pretext for removing it. This is not a BLP vio, this is WP:GAMEing, like User:MrX points out. Just like Anythingyouwant falsely claiming that either I or MrX "requested" he make the edit is WP:GAMEing. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this comment " The second is that MrX reverted the removal of material that was clearly challenged on good-faith BLP grounds" - is completely ass backwards. Anythingyouwant is edit warring, repeatedly inserting challenged content in violation of the discretionary sanction which just recently YOU insisted MUST be enforced, yet here for some reason you want to... sanction the editor making the challenge rather than the one violating DS. What gives? Volunteer Marek 18:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC) either @Anythingyouwant: - regarding this claim (quote: "You might also take a look at the adjectives used to describe me at this page, and personally I prefer to be called lots of nasty adjectives than to be..."), can you point out any of these "nasty adjectives" which are being "used to describe" you, "at this page"? Cuz I just read the whole thing again and I don't see a single adjective being used to describe you, nasty or otherwise (I skipped Atsme and DHayward's statements for obvious reasons). Volunteer Marek 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: - " I'd rather not get bogged down making such a list for you." - in other words, nobody called you any adjectives, nasty or otherwise, and you just made that up. Here, I'll make this list for you: {empty set}. Volunteer Marek 06:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: - yes, the diff does contain the adjective "nasty" but it is not being used to describe you, but rather to describe something else. You claimed, quote: "You might also take a look at the adjectives used to describe me at this page, and personally I prefer to be called lots of nasty adjectives than to be...". This isn't difficult. Why do you insist on completely misrepresenting something which is easy to check? This is very similar to your insistence on the false claim that either I or MrX "requested" you make the edit. Volunteer Marek 06:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: That first edit is indeed a revert, of this edit. Anythingyouwant just waited a few days to sneak that revert in. Don't let him bamboozle you. Closely verify every claim he makes. Volunteer Marek 06:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it you might want to look at this statement by Anythingyouwant right here at WP:AE for another example of WP:WEASELLY misrepresentation of other editors and sources: " I am glad that MrX has finally today agreed that this BLP lead ought to mention Moore has denied dating underage females.[38]. So my statement above about being dishonest is happily no longer applicable". Note how he tries to pretend that it was another user who was at fault, not him, and acts as if he's graciously "forgiving" the other user their error. Which is baloney. Keep in mind that this is after Anythingyouwant was criticized below by an administrator for falsely accusing MrX of dishonesty - so he comes back and tries to make it seem like the other person's fault. @MrX:, have you "finally" agreed to anything? Was there actually disagreement on this in the first place or was the dispute over something else (inserting the "age of consent" stuff in there)? This is actually a straight up false misrepresentation of MrX's position, and a fairly obnoxious way to rewrite the nature of the dispute in a "I'm glad you finally stopped beating your wife" kind of way. Honestly, sketchy tactics like these merit a sanction all on their own. Volunteer Marek 07:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: - Re [10]. I didn't misread anything. Perhaps you miswrote. Your comment about "others disagree" was clearly meant to insinuate, falsely, that the majority of opinion was against me, when actually the opposite was the case. If you wanted to say "some editors disagreed, others agreed" then that's what you should have written. And frankly, you can always count on ideological supporters - on both sides - to show up and back the editor who matches with their POV. That's why more experienced AE admins usually ignore "the peanut gallery". The difference here is that even editors who can't be accused of being on one side or the other (MelanieN, EvergreenFir, Vanamonde - two admins in there) disagreed with you and Anythingyouwant. Anythingyouwant DID NOT get support or agreement from anyone who's political views are not immediately obvious.

And you're trying to twist the situation up on its head again: "the principle that edits done to address good-faith BLP objections shouldn't be reverted without consensus is a good one". Again, it was Anythingyouwant who was violating the DS sanction, not the person who challenged their edits. Why do you keep trying to make this out to be something it's not? Just a few days ago you were adamant that the "consensus required" provision needs to be enforced. Yet here you're flippin' 180 degrees. Volunteer Marek 09:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: added dates, remedy, edt. Volunteer Marek 14:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant

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 Anythingyouwant

I was indeed banned from post-1932 politics; it was for less than two weeks, from 27 October 2016 to 9 November 2016. The present article is controversial, and my effort here was simply to conform it to reliable sources like any article should be. There is no allegation of a 1RR violation here, and I didn't violate 1RR. The issue here is whether I reinstated an edit that was challenged by User:MrX. I did not.

My edit #1, at 22:20 on 25 November 2017 (with my added language in bold) said that the BLP subject:

did not deny approaching or dating teenagers above the age of consent.^[1]

References

^ Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.”

The edit summary of User:MrX at 22:59 on 25 November 2017 said, “The source does not say that, and this would be too much detail for the lead anyway.” To address his primary objection, I more closely tracked the language of the source (which is quoted in the footnote), so there would be no way anyone could dispute that I was adhering closely to the source.

So, my edit #2 at 01:03 on 26 November 2017(with my added language in bold) said that the BLP subject:

did not deny approaching or dating teenagers who were not underage.^[1]

References

^ Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.”

I did not reinstate any edit of mine, but rather the second edit of mine used not a single word that my first edit used, and the second edit much more closely tracked the source using verbatim language ("underage") from the source, to meet MrX's previous objection that "the source does not say that", as well as to meet User:Volunteer Marek's apparent preference for explicitly saying "underage". See VM's edit at 00:56, 26 November 2017. When an editor (me) does what two other editors request, it kind of seems like a game of gotcha for one of them to file a complaint about it. Incidentally, my second edit used 20% fewer words (four instead of five), given that MrX had said the first edit was too long.

I will add a paragraph below in reply to Melanie. If this thing turns into a typical Wikipedia pile-on, so be it, but I am not inclined to participate much more. I feel that the complaint is frivolous, and shouldn't be used as a back door for all kinds of separate old complaints about separate old matters. Anyway, feel free to visit my user talk to request or advise further participation or response from me. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, I did not visit the user talk page of User:MrX about this matter and haven't visited his user talk in many months (if not years) despite frequent disagreements with him. None of the diffs or edits discussed above were by MelanieN, but she is correct that I visited her user talk today, because I did not think that what I had to say would be appropriate for article talk (if you want to read what we discussed, see the last section). The lead of this BLP presently says the BLP subject "did not deny approaching or dating teenagers." However, in the reference I already quoted above, the BLP subject partly denied that exact thing. So I was trying to make the lead conform better to the sources, and it had nothing to do with righting great wrongs, unless perhaps you consider violating Wikipedia policy a "great wrong". I choose not to rely upon WP:BLP at this time, in responding to the present complaint, because I do not want to be seen as using the BLP policy as some kind of habitual excuse, though I think such a view would be mistaken. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vanamonde93, I also would not support a sentence of the form "[hypothetical person X was accused of sexually assaulting (but not of raping) women aged sixteen and above (who were legally able to give consent)". I said at ~~user~~ article talk that "I haven’t advocated for any particular change to that part of the lead yet", and am not sure that I will advocate any change in the language regarding sexual assault, so it's all hypothetical. If we're talking about something like a butt grab in (e.g.) 1985, and the sources characterize the butt grab as sexual assault, then I am happy for this BLP to say that the BLP subject committed sexual assault in 1985, so long as we are clear that the sexual assault was a butt grab rather than rape. Okay? If you want to give me 0RR for that, I will accept it very proudly. If we don't use our language carefully, then readers will be more likely to interpret "sexual assaul" as something either more serious or less serious than the offense discussed by the source. “While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." See also Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed. (”sexual assault. 1. Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent. 2. Offensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape.") But all this is unrelated to the present complaint, no? And unrelated to any edit I have made or proposed? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vanamonde93, you write "So your insistence on including 'but not rape' troubles me." I have insisted upon no such thing. Those words you attribute to me ("but not rape") were never said by me, so please don't attribute them to me anymore, thanks. They were words of User:MelanieN, not me, and I have insisted upon no such language at the Roy Moore article.[12] I have not tried to change the language in that BLP regarding "sexual assault" one iota, either by proposing a specific change at the article's talk page, or by making an actual edit. Let me tell you why. One of the accusations is that the BLP subject shoved the head of an underage girl toward his crotch, and I have no problem characterizing that as an allegation of sexual assault without elaboration, because it's attempted rape. But if we were instead talking about a butt grab being characterized as "sexual assault" by a reliable source, then we absolutely would need to say in the BLP that it's an allegation of sexual assault while also saying what kind of sexual assault. Don't you think people often construe the term "sexual assault" to be something more heinous than a butt grab? Again, this is all hypothetical, because I have not so far objected to the language in the BLP about "sexual assault", it's not part of the present complaint, and you're quoting someone while incorrectly attributing it to me. In the case of the butt grab, I would never (ever, ever) say "but it wasn't rape" and instead might say something like "committed sexual assault by grabbing a woman's posterior" without mentioning rape at all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vanamonde93, you say “Anything's claim that 1RR was not violated because the two edits he made had different texts is specious”. I never said that. What I said is that the first edit wasn’t a revert, because I was not undoing any previous edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vanamonde93, thanks for amending your comment. It would be really, really appreciated if you or another uninvolved admin would please answer a fairly straightforward question: assuming arguendo that the second of my two edits was a good faith attempt to change the first edit to meet objections to it, was it “reinstating an edit”? It seems like a reasonable question that I’m asking, and I thought the answer was “no”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EvergreenFir, since 1RR was not part of the complaint, I did not explain above why there was no 1RR violation. The reason is that the first of my two edits was not a revert, even if you consider the second one to be. The second edit did not have one word in common with the first edit, unless you count the footnote, which I guess makes the second one a revert, but still the first one isn't. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EvergreenFir, regarding the first of my two edits at issue here, and whether that first edit of mine was a revert, it did not mention 16 or being older than 16, but rather referred to the age of consent as numerous reliable sources do. I did not recall the edit three days earlier that deleted "16" when I made my first edit, and my first edit was sourced by including a footnote. Anyway, as for me using the word “dishonest” to describe how this BLP lead is right this second, I have just now struck through that word below because you think it might be sanctionable, but I continue to believe the lead right now is a blatant BLP violation because it inaccurately says the BLP subject did not deny something that he very very very clearly did partly deny. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrX, you say that the first of my two edits that are the basis of this complaint was a revert. That’s incorrect. It’s true that the sentence in the lead was previously edited three days earlier to modify “but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers 16 or older.“ The first of my two edits did not mention 16 or being older than 16, but rather referred to the age of consent as numerous reliable sources do (incidentally, I did not recall the edit three days earlier when I made my edit, and my edit was sourced by including a footnote). Anyway, it continues to amaze me that you apparently continue this effort to make readers think Moore never denied dating teenagers under the age of consent, which would have been illegal. ~~You are deliberately attempting to make our lead be dishonest.~~ I don’t believe your rationalizations one bit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrX, credit where credit is due, I am glad that MrX has finally today agreed that this BLP lead ought to mention Moore has denied dating underage females.[13]. So my statement above about being dishonest is happily no longer applicable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrX, I have given you credit where credit is due, but that does not change the fact that you have been fighting tooth and nail for quite a long while that this BLP lead should not give any readers any clue that there is an age of consent in Alabama separating legal from illegal actions. You now say, "'above the age of consent' appears nowhere in the source that you cited". I don't know what edit by me you're referring to, but I have been citing plenty of reliable sources, as I did in the two edits that VM is exercised about. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sources re. "age of consent"

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

Walsh, Deidre. “Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne says he'll vote for Roy Moore”, CNN (November 16, 2017): “Alabama's legal age of consent, then and now, is 16.”

Brown, Melissa. “Roy Moore accuser says he groped her in law office; 2 more women accuse him of unwanted advances”, Montgomery Advertiser via USA Today (November 15, 2017): “The age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16.”

Blake, Aaron. “The GOP’s Problematic Decision to Believe Roy Moore’s Accusers but not Trump’s”, Washington Post (November 15, 2017): “the legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16”.

Bethea, Charles. “Locals Were Troubled by Roy Moore’s Interactions with Teen Girls at the Gadsden Mall”, The New Yorker (November 13, 2017): “The legal age of consent in Alabama is sixteen, so it would not be illegal there for a man in his early thirties to date a girl who was, say, a senior in high school.”

Gore, Leada. “Roy Moore: Could Alabama Senate candidate face criminal charges?”, The Birmingham News (November 14, 2017): “As it was in 1979, the legal age of consent in Alabama is 16. “

Shabad, Rebecca. “GOP Senate candidate accused of sexual encounter with minor”, CBS News (November 9, 2017): “The legal age of consent in Alabama is 16 years of age, and sexual contact between someone who is 19 years of age or older and a person who is 12 to 16 years of age is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year.”

Miller, Hayley. “Advertisers Ditch Sean Hannity Over His Coverage Of Roy Moore’s Alleged Pursuit of Teens”, Huffington Post (November 12, 2017): “the age of consent in Alabama is 16”

@User:GoldenRing, you’re correct that both of the two edits of mine cited by VM mentioned WP:BLP in the edit summaries. But I do not need to rely on WP:BLP to defend myself here. The second of my two edits did not “reinstate” the first, but rather was a good faith attempt to change the first edit to meet objections to it. I understand the word “reinstate” the same way as it’s commonly used at Wikipedia, for example at WP:Reverting which says “if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.” Reinstating is not the same as trying an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor, IMHO. But I think you’re right that WP:BLP is applicable too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:My very best wishes, at the sub-article you are referring to, I self-reverted the edit you are objecting to. It was my mistake. The reason I got confused is because the warning template at that article's talk page is BLP-based and therefore much smaller and insignificant-looking than the politics-based template at Talk:Roy Moore, even though they involve the exact same level of sanctions. That sort of mistake by me won't happen again, and I also plan on requesting a redesign so that the two templates do not look so different from each other. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:My very best wishes, the objection to the term "age of consent" that MrX gave in his edit summary was "The source does not say that". So, I switched to the term "underage" which the source does explicitly use (i.e. the source says "did not date underage girls", emphasis added). I believe MrX's edit summary was frivolous, but I (valiantly) tried in good faith to include his feedback in my second edit, by more closely tracking the cited source as he requested. Anyway, saying in a BLP lead that a BLP subject did not deny something that he did partly deny is a gross BLP violation if there ever was one. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:My very best wishes, my first of two edits was reverted, with an edit summary claiming the edit was not supported by the cited source. Have you looked to see whether you think my first edit was supported by the cited source? I assume the edit summary meant that the cited source did not specifically use the term “age of consent”. So in my second edit I switched to the term that the cited source did use, which was “underage”. Do you think the second edit was supported by the cited source? You have addressed none of this, and instead make accusations about gaming. ~~Do you ever edit articles? Have I done something offensive to you that causes you to make these accusations?~~ Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bishonen, you think it’s fine and dandy for a BLP lead to say the BLP subject has not denied something, even though uncontradicted reliable sources say he has partly denied it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Neutrality, I commented previously at this page: “my statement above about being dishonest is happily no longer applicable.” If you have been aware of that comment by me, but have chosen to ignore and omit it, then I very sharply disagree with your tactics. You might also take a look at the adjectives used to describe me at this page, and personally I prefer to be called lots of nasty adjectives than to be subjected to such a flawed proceeding as this one. I’ve said many times that Wikipedia needs a jury system to apply clear rules applicable to everyone equally rather than adhoc centralized proceedings that are deeply colored by political beliefs. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC) supplemented23:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, you write above "can you point out any of these 'nasty adjectives' which are being 'used to describe' you, 'at this page'?" I'd rather not get bogged down making such a list for you. But I will say that the word "nasty" qualifies as a nasty adjective.[14] Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)amended23:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, see the diff I just provided to you for the word “nasty”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek you’re mistaken, and anyone who’s interested can look at the diffs themselves. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dennis Brown, yes I could try to be more patient, do RFCs, stuff like that. But honestly, I am not relying upon BLP policy here, because I haven’t seen a need to. Are you folks really saying that it’s “reinstating an edit” to make a similar edit that attempts in good faith to meet the objections to the initial edit? If that’s really the rule, then IMHO you ought to just slap 0RR on the article and be done with it. Anyway, if you folks think I was really reinstating an edit, then I will stop doing it and be more patient. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC) expanded00:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Drmies, your statement “this was no BLP violation--this was just POV edit warring which deserves a sanction” is conclusory. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Drmies writes about DHeyward: "It seems to me you want me to support the notion...that since the judge allegedly didn't rape any of the women it was OK, or more OK--and so your colleague is off the hook...." I'm no more a colleague of DHeyward than I am of you Drmies, which you ought to acknowledge instead of balkanizing this dispute, so please don't try to connect me as a "colleague" with your notion or DHeyward's notion that "the judge allegedly didn't rape any of the women it was OK". Personally, I think that is a horrible notion, almost as horrible as the notion that we should feel free to exaggerate and fabricate flaws and transgressions of extremely obnoxious people in their BLP leads prior to elections. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

At the time of Anythingyouwant's previous short-term TBAN from American Politics (specified to end after the election) I was skeptical that the behavior would get any better after the election. Sure enough it has not. If anything it's gotten worse. As I said at the time we discussed that 2016 complaint, this behavior appears to be an extension of this editor's disruptive behavior relating to Abortion, for which Arbcom imposed a permanent TBAN.[15] As is widely reported, there are many diehard supporters of the Trump Administration and the Republican congressional majority who are motivated largely or entirely by the expectation that Trump and the Republican senate will appoint judges and pursue policies to promote "pro-life" policies and judicial rulings. Anythingyouwant is banned from pages having to do with "Abortion, broadly construed" and given Anythingyouwant's demonstrably extreme and egregious POV editing in that topic, I think that this should have been interpreted to include any aspect of American Politics that relates to POV-pushing that might favor limiting womens' health care. This would include anything related to the Trump Admininstration, the Congress, the Judiciary, or US elections. Also note that, per ARBAP2, repeated violations are to be met with escalating remedies. A mere warning here would mean the escalator is going down. SPECIFICO talk 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Updated, clarified. 15:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant has a long history of disruption, POV-pushing, and personal attacks at American Politics articles. I also find the BLP thing really disingenuous, because one of Anythingyouwant's most egregious battles this year was to insist on a nasty political-POV BLP smear at Murder of Seth Rich long after this narrative was debunked and demonstrated to be fake news promoted by various political operatives and Fox News. Also long after the victim's family had pleaded with the promoters of these predatory conspiracy theories to cease and desist. See [16] and Anything's appeal, in which the Admin affirms Anything's bad behavior, is full of promises to behave better. Not much sign of that. There are more recent examples, but not in such a compact, easily presented form. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the Arbcom cases, two of them, and the DS regime, is that these politics articles are full of difficult issues that require particularly careful and extensive collaboration among the editors. When POV editors push these things to or beyond the limit, it's very disheartening to see Admins at AE bending over backwards to find reasons not to enforce DS. Meanwhile the topic area is bleeding good editors, and the ones who are left there are largely self-selected warriors or political activists or editors who deny WP's core sourcing policy to reflect the weight of mainstream sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved MelanieN

Regarding these edits, I chided Anythingyouwant in two places - the article talk page and my own talk page - for unilaterally inserting new language into a disputed section of the article without proposing it first at the talk page, where that very issue is under active discussion. I considered this to be against Wikipedia's tradition of consensus. I reverted his addition and told him to get agreement on the talk page first. I did not consider this action of his to be a technical AE violation, but I am WP:INVOLVED at that article so this should not be regarded as administrator opinion. I note that he displayed here two longstanding habits of his: claiming that his edits are necessary to correct "blatant BLP violations", and going to the other person's user talk page to continue the argument privately. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I reviewed the edits, and Anything's first edit was an add-on not a revert. He probably should've reverted it from the lede, and moved it into the body after rewriting it to make it compliant with BLP and NPOV. I'm dismayed and somewhat surprised that Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO are even here after recently being warned in another AE case "to edit collegially and assume good faith." It doesn't appear either have AGF in this situation. The problem I see at the article is a rather serious BLP coatrack issue which justifies what Anything attempted to do. Allegations involving such a serious matter certainly do not belong in the lede of a BLP, and cannot be viewed as anything but BLP coatrack and POV considering the political aspects and upcoming elections. WP:LABEL states that value laden labels may, and in this case did express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The 1st cited source doesn't fully support what was written in the article, and in fact, it appears WP:SYNTH was used because 3 different sources were used and statements cherrypicked to create the allegation that is written in the lede. That is noncompliance with NPOV; therefore, it is also a violation of BLP - you cannot separate the two because BLP requires strict adherence to NPOV. We're also dealing with WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and analytical speculation by journalists. WP:BLP policy requires that we take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and strict adherence to Wikipedia's three core content policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR, all of which are inseparable from BLP policy; therefore, in instances when material is challenged as noncompliant as what Anything did here, it was the right thing to do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does prove to be ~~a WP:POVFORK or WP:ATTACKPAGE which makes it~~ noncompliant with BLP, focusing on Anything's two edits seems rather trivial. The article section is nothing but allegation after allegation, and since none of the allegations can be/have been proven, this situation gives off the smell of a politician being tried in the court of public opinion while WP is laying down the scaffolding. The man has denied the allegations, yet weight was given to a single comment he made in an exclusive interview on Hannity (primary source) - and the pundits went wild with their analytical speculation - hardly what I consider fact-based material. The timing of these allegations comes at a time just prior to an important election in that state - there are articles on WP about Trump that attempt to make the entire focus about the timing - so where is our "editorial discretion" now? Where is the "high degree of sensitivity" we're supposed to apply when it comes to such issues? The article section even includes the names of alleged victims (see WP:BLPNAME) who purportedly were under age at the time. How is that not a BLP vio? The way the story is being handled by MSM smells a lot like a newsy political hit piece that focuses on alleged incidents purportedly that took place decades ago. Oh, and ~~since there is no such article about Al Franken considering he admitted to the conduct,~~ how can we deny political motivation behind any of the Moore activity? Based on my understanding of NPOV and BLP, this case should be about restoring the BLP issues after they were challenged. I am truly disappointed over the way this case is being handled. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)^{strikes and underline additions made at 17:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

MrX - who do you think determines whether there's a BLP violation or not? Anything did attempt to "address concerns" after challenging the material as a BLP vio. We are discussing allegations in the lead that disparage a living person and imply Child molestation using weasel words such as "claims surfaced" without in-text attribution, and then part of the statement, pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them was linked (per my example here) to another WP article that is unambiguously a POVFORK that was recently nominated for deletion and resulted in a non-admin close and the following closing statement: No prejudice against re-nomination after the election is done. What?!! Perhaps GoldenRing can advise as to the acceptability of such a close, and the link at the BLP to a highly controversial POVFORK closed under questionable circumstances. The material chosen and the way it was presented fails the BLP requirements of a high degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to NPOV. The onus is on the editor(s) restoring challenged material without obtaining consensus first, and based on the edit history there were 3 editors involved in restoring challenged material after the BLP concerns were addressed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MrX, I'm not surprised by your response. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - In the diffs VM provided, the first diff is Anythingyouwant adding content. That edit was reverted by MrX Nov 25 16:59 with a summary of The source does not say that, and this would be too much detail for the lead anyway. Then A. modified the phrase and joined in the TP discussion. All totaled in that sequence of edits, he made 2 edits total, only 1 of which was a revert. It's my understanding the sanction is 1RR. So why is MrX allowed to make 4 reverts in one day: Nov 24 12:18, Nov 24 12:23, Nov 24, 12:28, and Nov 24, 15:17 and nothing is said about it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

This is a specious filing. This edit [17], offered as a "violation" is arguably a necessary edit to avoid the implication of criminal activity. Having a relationship with a nineteen-year-old is legally much different than having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old. The edit clearly clarified that "teen" isn't the boundary for consent. Opposing that edit should be a BLP violation and the editor reverting that edit should be sanctioned for a BLP violation. That edit was not a politically motivated or biased edit. The original text was "but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers." and the text added was "but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers above the age of consent." Teenagers that are 18 or 19 are not "girls" and the distinction is necessary and proper given that the construct is around "girls." It did not defend Moore against any impropriety that may have occurred or put any other living person in a negative light. The person reverting or opposing that edit should at least be warned and Anythingyouwant commended for clarifying a comment that implied criminal activity. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde your statement is confusing. Are you making a nuanced distinction between "sexual assault" and "rape" of underage girls? Under what context would you make that distinction and how does it not have BLP implications? I am not aware of the distinctions you and your peers seem to be making. There are distinctions regarding consent however. A teenage girl cannot consent to sexual contact and all such contact is sexual assault. A teenage woman can consent to sexual contact and consensual contact is not sexual assault. Isn't "teenager" too vague a term to use given that it broadly encompasses acts that can interpreted as statutorily illegal if the impression is that "teenager" is being used to describe both women and girls? --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Vanamonde93 please change your signature to match your username. Admins in particular should not be difficult to ping because there is a mismatch in what is displayed. What's the point? --DHeyward (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you start of as if you at least viscerally understand the problem, but then fall short. From our article, of the 4 woman mentioned, how many allege improper or illegal sexual contact while dating? How many allege sexual contact while dating? (hint: WaPo[18]Of the four women, the youngest at the time was Corfman (14 y/o at the time), who is the only one who says she had sexual contact with Moore that went beyond kissing. She says they did not have intercourse. Would you think it is NPOV and in the spirit of BLP to mix a sexual assault of an underage 14 y/o teenager in with consensual, non-sexual dating of 17-18 y/o? Would you not balk at language that lumps those together as "pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them?" I think both of the things he is accused of are repulsive but there's a bright line difference between consensual dinner/movie dating 17 y/o and sexually assaulting a 14 y/o. --DHeyward (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies This isn't a distinction of whether sexual contact with a 15 y/o is bad while sexual contact with a 17 y/o is okay. It is a distinction between lumping accusations of sexual assault of a 15 y/o with non-sexual, consensual dating of a 17 y/o. There is a bright line difference as the other teenagers denied there was sexual contact. You seem to be implying sexual activity that the 17y/o and 18 y/o teens said never happened. I have no idea where your "body development" comment has any relevance. There is nothing remotely similar between the allegations of sexual assault and the "we dated but there was no sexual contact." Put yourself in the position: imagine you met a college freshman for lunch she says \ "it was a lunch date but nothing sexual occurred." Would you be happy if your boss reported it as sexual misconduct or even lumped it in with reports of sexual misconduct with students? Or would you be hedging on the meaning of "lunch date" and pointing out that no one said there was sexual contact at all? --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Drmies, lets start from beginning. When Moore talks about dating, he means "dating" not "fucking" or "trying to fuck" which apparently how society views "dating." When he talks about consent, he's talkihg about dating, not fucking. These are not just his comments, they are the 17 and 18 y/o that have come forward and say that he didn't try to coerce them or touch them against their will and it was "dating" with consent even if its creepy. This is starkly different from the two 15 and 16 year olds that did accuse him of sexual assault. Those two accounts are surely enough to disqualify him and it's not a nuanced view of consensual sex as you imply, it's the statements by the other woman that there was no sexual contact at all. It's overreach to lump them together as if they were all under the same umbrella. The fact that you were viscerally angry at lumping a lunch date in with sexual assault highlights the BLP problem with doing the same to Moore. --DHeyward (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved EvergreenFir

Saw this in my watchlist and thought I'd comment while trying to fall asleep.

This appears to be a 1RR violation to me. Anythinguyouwant suggests that because the material was not restored verbatim it does not constitute restoration/reversion. However, from WP:EW, "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" (emphasis added). The meaning of the material remained the same and the same reference was used. The third edit further violates the "consensus required" part of the active remedy.

Unless someone can demonstrate this is a persistent problem (an incident a year ago doesn't make this persistent but does show this an issue in this topic), I'm inclined to think a formal warning would be best. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AYW, VM brings up 1RR in the first sentence of this report. MrX's diffs below make it clear to me that this was both a 1RR violation and a failure to establish consensus. That so many attempts were made to insert the same material, as well as the comments about MrX, perhaps a warning alone is insufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment to say I appreciate the strikethrough. Like others, I personally am torn regarding any sanction (CRYBLP vs actual BLP concerns; other borderline behavior regarding the active remedies). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dervorguilla

@Vanamonde93: Yes, it may be true that a neutral sentence would not be "[hypothetical person X was accused of sexually assaulting (but not of raping) women aged sixteen and above (who were legally able to give consent)". But it may also be an example of strawpersoning. Also, <wit>your friends may not be pleased that you've cited them as persons no better than average in literacy...</wit> To put an authoritative end to this terminology dispute, though, here’s what Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.) has to say: "sexual assault. 1. See assault. 2. See rape." --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I have no comment on the complaint, but a comment about TonyBallioni's statement that the "consensus required" provision is a tool to enforce WP:ONUS and WP:BLP, a claim which does not make any sense. WP:ONUS is a much older and well-established policy and is applicable site-wide. One does not need any further rules to "enforce" it. And most areas on Wikipedia seem to work fine without this extra rule.

The main problem with the "consensus required" provision is that most of the time on Wikipedia, consensus is, by explicit policy, silent and implicit, and is not always a bright line. For instance, someone WP:BOLDly adds content to the page, someone else objects, the first person rephrases, and so on. Sometimes this is hashed out on the talk page and someone else tries a phrasing which is acceptable to all. This is normal and desirable. The effect of this provision will be more of these kinds of complaints, nothing more. And, from my experience in ARBPIA, when one "side" gets sanctioned, there will be retaliatory complaints from the "other side".

The version of 1RR used in ARBPIA is a clear, bright line: if an edit is reverted, the editor shouldn't reinstate the material within 24 hours. That is all that is required. The extra bureaucracy is needless and harmful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate but not surprising that TonyBallioni does not see, or indeed even acknowledge any of the issues I raised. By all means, proceed to burn your fingers before learning to fear the flame. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an ARCA request here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

On the talk page, I said that Anythingyouwant has repeatedly inserted the age of consent material (into the lead) without obtaining consensus. I want to back that up with evidence:

This should clear up any doubt that his first edit yesterday was a reversion, of this edit by Nick845 made three days earlier. Obviously, the last four of these are also reinstating challenged edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page.

A couple of editors seem intent on whitewashing the allegations against Moore. I'm particularly unimpressed with DHeyward's first ever edit to the article here.- Mr X 14:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Something has to actually be a BLP violation before restoring it becomes a problem. That is unambiguously not the case here, and your statement serves only to perpetuates the myth that if any editor removes content while claiming a BLP violation, it's automatically true. In fact, this type of WP:GAMING of our policies was a major factor in the American Politics Arbcom case that resulted in an editor being topic banned.- MrX 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: You're way out of line attacking my integrity with spurious accusations like "You are deliberately attempting to make our lead be dishonest." It's particularly troublesome given that I specifically removed content that you added to a BLP that appeared nowhere in the cited source. "above the age of consent" appears nowhere in the source that you cited [19] for your edit. I'm the one who should be crying BLP. I removed unsourced content from a BLP per WP:BLPSOURCE.

As far the diffs above are concerned, they speak for themselves.-MrX 18:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Atsme. Just no. All the wikibabble in the world isn't going to convince me that you actually understand WP:BLP.- MrX 19:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: To answer your question: @MrX:, have you "finally" agreed to anything? Was there actually disagreement on this in the first place or was the dispute over something else (inserting the "age of consent" stuff in there)? No, of course I have agreed to no such thing. I assume that most admins reviewing this are smart enough to see through such revisionism. Your assessment that Anythingyouwant's blatantly misrepresented of my position is exactly correct.

This is not the first time he has used personal attacks as a defense. Here he called Volunteer Marek a liar ("VM only confirms here that he is a liar"), then here tries to justify it with a pseudo-retraction ("I retract "liar" now that you've been caught at it..."). Then he throws me squarely under the bus:[20] Does anyone see a pattern here?

I decided to disregard most of Anythingyouwant's personal attacks after this gem: "What kind of drugs are you taking? Are you "Debbie Wasserman Schultz"?]"[21] I assume at some point he will end up at Arbcom.- MrX 15:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Your view that any reversion on BLP grounds should stand, as long as its done in good faith, is overly simplistic and contrary to the spirit of the policy. I doubt this what Arbcom intended and I know it's not what the community expects, having participated in many BLP/N discussions. I also note that you have not acknowledged the evidence (now highlighted in red) that I provided 5 paragraphs above that shows that Anythingyouwant's edit violated WP:BLPSOURCE.- MrX 15:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

The proposition that the invocation of BLP was is “in good faith” is preposterous and insupportable. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

First of all, there were several obvious violations of the "consensus required" restriction. One of them was demonstrated in diffs initially brought by VM. Another one was this edit by A. where he reinserted yet another content challenged through reversion here [22]. This is not related to BLP, and this is something A. agreed about [23].

@Anythingyouwant. Yes, I see [24] - you self-reverted 6 minutes after my comment on your talk page. Acknowledged. But honestly, your argument that "above the age of consent" and "who were not underage" (both linked to the same page, Age of consent) are different does not look convincing to me. Perhaps it looks convincing for admins? I do not know. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant. I think that changing a couple of words (but leaving exactly the same meaning and linking to the same wikipage), only to claim this is not reinsertion of the same content, is a typical example of gaming the rules. My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I think admins should determine if the edits by A. were actually fixing any obvious BLP violation. I think the content which existed prior to the edits by A. was already well sourced and discussed numerous times by other contributors. That was only a slight rewording by A. If it was not fixing an obvious BLP violation by A., then it only makes things worse. Claiming non-existent BLP violation to POV-push is a common "strategy" that should not be endorsed by admins.

As before, my suggestion would be to never use this complex editing restriction and remove it from all pages. However, if admins want to be consistent, there is probably no any other logical approach, but to enforce the editing restriction. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the worst possible decision would be to keep these sanctions on pages and selectively sanction some contributors, but do not sanction others on the basis of obviously bogus BLP claims, as in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutrality

I have edited the Moore pages in the past, but am not part of the specific dispute at issue. Leaving aside the revert issue: I want to express alarm at Anythingyouwant's remarks about MrX ("You are deliberately attempting to make our lead be dishonest."). I find this remark untrue, uncivil, and reflective of a battleground approach to editing that is unproductive. Neutrality^talk 22:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

Due to the extremely contentious nature of this topic and the many editors/disputes involved, I regretfully suggest that full-protection may be necessary at Roy Moore (and possibly other closely-related topics) until after the election. It's probably less time consuming overall than adjudicating this mess. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anythingyouwant

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

Took a look at this since I was pinged. Had I just seen that revert, I might have excused it; but I have to say I'm not impressed by some of the commentary on the talk page. In particular, a neutral sentence on Wikipedia might be "[hypothetical person X was accused of sexually assaulting women aged sixteen and above". A neutral sentence would not be "[hypothetical person X was accused of sexually assaulting (but not of raping) women aged sixteen and above (who were legally able to give consent)". The first is an accurate representation of the sources; the second is coatracking with POV intent, and I am rather unhappy that Anything is not able to see the problem with it. I have recently been dealing with similar tunnel-vision issues in Indian politics, and such behavior ultimately just undermines our ability to present a biography compliant with WP:DUE. I'm not keen on a block, because I do not think edit-warring is a problem here. I would be willing to consider a 0-revert restriction, or a article-ban (allowing discussion on the talk, but not edits to the article). Vanamonde (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything, to be clear, I'm not terribly happy with the apparent attempts to use "teenagers" (which includes underage people) rather than a more precise category. But I do not see how that excuses what you have been trying to do. I am far from convinced that the general public sees rape and sexual assault to mean the same thing (I personally cannot think of any conversation I have had among my peers where somebody has had that misconception). So your insistence on including "but not rape" troubles me. To expand on what I have said above: a common pattern on articles about controversial political figures is that when a statement along the lines of "person X did this bad thing" is inserted, it is followed by "but they didn't do this other thing, which is worse". That, by its very nature, is coatracking, and not neutral. Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tl;DR The BLP exemption does not apply in this situation, because the the edits in question were not removing BLP violating content, but were adding commentary to a statement which was certainly not a clear-cut BLP vio. Also, Anything's claim that 1RR was not violated because the two edits he made had different texts is specious: the revert restrictions very clearly apply to all reverts, not to a specific edit, and the two additions were not fundamentally different in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC) I misread. 1RR may not have been violated; the issue with not obtaining consensus remains. Vanamonde (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the merits of the case, but confirming before I get asked by the regulars here that I did intentionally place the article under consensus required restrictions, and that should it be determined that they were violated, I think sanctions would be appropriate. Consensus required is simply giving admins the tools to enforce WP:ONUS, which is especially important on American politics and BLP articles. This is both, so enforcing that policy is especially important. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingsindian: consensus required is a bright line to enforce ONUS and prevent edit warring just as 1RR is a bright line to enforce the edit warring policy. Having a policy predate a specific sanctions regime does not somehow mean that the sanctions aren’t a way of enforcing the policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishonen, to our shame ONUS is one of the most frequently ignored policies on this website (which I get isn't always a huge deal, per IAR), but in cases involving living people or involving highly visible pages where the public might be using us as their first source of information on a person or topic, it becomes probably the single most important policy we have. 1RR without a consensus required requirement sets up gaming reverts even more than the complaints of gaming consensus required: take this scenario: Editor X inserts a controversial passage that is sourced. Editor Y reverts him. Editor X has not reverted yet so it is restored as his one revert and he threatens to take anyone who removes it again to ANI or AE for edit warring. Cases like this do happen, and the consensus required provision prevents it and protects both living people and the public who are reading our articles. Discretionary sanctions, like every policy on this site first and foremost exist to serve the reader: in the case of the consensus required restriction by making sure any information presented is agreed upon. In this case there was a BLP argument, but I do not think that the article at the time was a BLP violation that required ignoring page level sanctions. I still don't have an opinion on the specifics of this case, but I think as Coffee pointed out at the last case, there has never been a consensus to remove that restriction, even if there are vocal opponents of it. It is a restriction that works and helps our readers. I stand behind it, but think that others should decide if it was violated here, as I would for any page I applied restrictions to. (Also, I courtesy pinged since he is always discussed when these come here). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - TL;DR without the philosophy: 1RR doesn't work on contentious topics without consensus required and is subject to gaming. That is bad for our readers and the living subjects of our articles. I don't do much AE or discretionary sanctions intentionally, but I stand behind these page level restrictions. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues I can see here: Anythingyouwant appears to have violated the consensus required provision in force on this page but claimed the BLP exemption. VM says this is "spurious" but other editors here agree with Anythingyouwant. I'm generally reluctant to sanction editors for complying with the BLP policy in good faith, even if consensus turns out to be against them. Anythingyouwant would have been well advised to report this to BLPN, perhaps, but I'm reluctant to sanction for this. The second is that MrX reverted the removal of material that was clearly challenged on good-faith BLP grounds. This would ordinarily be sanctionable under the DS in force for BLPs. I'm still undecided whether either of these warrants sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Volunteer Marek: And a month before that I was here arguing that the same restriction shouldn't be enforced against you, remember? I'm not here arguing that this restriction should never be enforced, merely that it is not the only rule to consider when deciding whether sanctions are appropriate (and, in your case, I argued for leniency anyway, and you got it). As for what I insinuated, I suppose if you are determined to read it that way then you'll read it that way; my point, as I've reiterated, is that edits made to address BLP concerns should not be reverted without consensus; since other editors in good standing agree that there is a BLP concern - alright, some other editors, since you insist on it - the concern should not be dismissed as CRYBLP but should be discussed and a consensus reached. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrX: Are you reading the same web page I am? The page you link in your red-text quote - [25] - includes the quote Note that Moore says he did not date “underage” girls – meaning under the age of consent in Alabama, which is 16. He does not say that he did not date teenage girls. In fact, he suggested in a radio interview with Hannity on Friday that he might have done so. The sentence this was used to support is Moore denied the initial allegations of sexual assault, but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers above the age of consent. I don't see a problem with that use of that source - but feel free to explain it to me. GoldenRing (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy about sanctioning anybody for technical "consensus required" violations. For some time now, there has been little appetite among admins for doing so, even though placing the restriction and enforcing it still has a supporter in Tony, and even though the creator of it, Coffee, made a parachuting-in appearance in another recent AE discussion (here's a link to the discussion just before GoldenRing closed it), sensationally stating that the provision "is to stay" [sic], and that ArbCom has said so (not in my world they haven't). Am I missing something, Tony? Because you obviously feel strongly about it — you made a similar comment in the earlier discussion — whereas I for my part tend to agree with Kingsindian, above, that WP:ONUS stands on its own feet as well-established policy, and can be enforced well enough without any special provision. That said, I disagree with GoldenRing that Anything "clearly" challenged the material he removed "on good-faith BLP grounds"; IMO Anything cried BLP unreasonably. That's just my opinion (but then your belief that he did it out of BLP concerns is just your opinion, GoldenRing). GoldenRing's statement that "other editors here agree with Anythingyouwant" about the BLP concerns is misleading, however, and not mere opinion, as most editors here have not agreed with Anythingyouwant. Compare Volunteer Marek's timeline for agreement and disagreement. I'm not sure about any sanctions here. But if anybody's to be sanctioned, it's Anythingyouwant, and I wouldn't object or oppose if he was. Sanctioning MrX for reverting Anything's removals, which GoldenRing offers as "ordinarily.. sanctionable under the DS in force for BLPs", would just be wild, and I'd object strongly. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to Anythingyouwant's question: Yes, I do disagree that the current wording, "Moore denied the initial allegations of sexual assault, but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers", which Melanie restored after you amplified it into "but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers who were not underage", is a BLP violation. Details go in the article; the lead shouldn't be so awkwardly double-negatived nor so hard to understand, and that's why the wording is being discussed on talk. I thought I was done here, but since you've called me back, I'll mention that I'm unimpressed by your recent post stating that "I did not recall the edit three days earlier that deleted '16' when I made my first edit", and altogether by the way you elect to speak only of the two of your own edits you call "at issue", or "edits that VM is exercised about." This after Mr X has posted diffs for your five edits concerning age of consent in the lead, from 12 October onwards (what you refer to as your first edit is n:o 4 of those). Those edits show both the edits VM lists to be reverts IMO, whether or not you happened to recollect the specific removal of your material that somebody else made three days ago. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I thought Volunteer Marek's misreading of my comments was so outrageous that it didn't need commenting on, but since you seem to be picking up on it, I'll state the obvious: that there are "other editors who agree with" Anythingyouwant is not inconsistent with VM's ability to list those other editors and my remarks mean exactly what they say; they are certainly not intended to be misleading. My point is that this is not Anythingyouwant pleading BLP against the whole world; there are other editors in good standing who agree with him and so we should AGF and not dismiss the BLP claim out of hand. I said that the removal was clearly on BLP grounds because the edit summary said "per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP" - it doesn't get a lot clearer. And while the BLP policy speaks specifically about material deleted to address BLP concerns not being restored without consensus, the principle that edits done to address good-faith BLP objections shouldn't be reverted without consensus is a good one that we shouldn't attempt to weaken here.
My personal opinion of the BLP claim chimes with that of Dennis Brown and I won't reiterate what he has said; but we should not be in the business of sanctioning editors for clarifying that someone has not confessed to a crime. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it might be a technical violation, but there were some BLP consideration. Honestly, this straddles the fence between WP:CRYBLP and genuine BLP concerns, but if it erred, it erred on the side of protecting the individual, the lesser of the two available evils here. Anythingyouwant, it would probably be good if you didn't push these borderline cases so hard and used a little patience instead. While I personally do not recommend anything stronger than an admonishment, I don't expect to protest if stronger sanctions are given. This was avoidable on your part, and my gut says you knew the risk when you made the edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely with Dennis Brown, but our guts seem to agree: I also think that Anythingyouwant knew what they were doing. I have defended the BLP in Judge Moore-related articles a few times, and I wish that the "accusations" article didn't exist, but this was no BLP violation--this was just POV edit warring which deserves a sanction. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DHeyward, I'm not sure what you want. It seems to me you want me to support the notion that between 14 and 16 something fundamentally changes in young women, that biological or calendar age works exactly the same way for every body, that since the judge allegedly didn't rape any of the women it was OK, or more OK--and so your colleague is off the hook. So your leading/rhetorical questions fall on deaf ears, I'm afraid, viscerally and otherwise. Besides, we are not here to find the appropriate semantic excuses for the behavior of a grown man (or to judge as if we were a court of law, and legal language was the only language that mattered); we're here to judge of someone's edit warring was done for the proper reasons. Drmies (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DHeyward, keep me and my lunch dates out of this: that's revolting, and you are well outside of normal, collegiate norms here. Maybe you should ask yourself how much "consent" a 17-yr old can give when a local celebrity, a white man at least fifteen years older and with great power in a position where he is close to law enforcement, starts hitting on her. But all of that is neither here nor there. The question is whether there was a BLP violation that was correctly identified, or at least in good faith, and more than a few of us deny the former, while some of us deny the latter. This isn't a court of law; I see nothing in the BLP that requires a. that Moore should be given the space for a claim of legal retaliation in the lead or b. that "above the age of consent" is somehow mandated here. It seems to me that some want this case to be about legal minutia: it is not. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would take no action here on formal grounds. The complaint does not identify a specific Arbitration Committee decision, in the form of a remedy, or a specific discretionary sanction, in the form of the diff by an admin imposing the sanction, that is to be enforced. Moreover, the complaint does not date its diffs, contrary to what is suggested in the submission form, and it does not explain what is supposed to be wrong with the first diff. I've not read all the rest of this drama, but I expect complaints to be submitted such that they contain all information required for action. Sandstein 13:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, thanks for amending the complaint. Because this concerns a sanction made by TonyBallioni, I think that he should decide what to do. Sandstein 17:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Anythingyouwant did properly identify that this was definitely in the realm of possibly being a BLP violation (more specifically, the lack of mention of "of age" in Moore's statement changes its meaning and context greatly in a very negative way), and thus the initial insertion is absolutely fine - but that then should have followed up with discussion under the terms that article was under to actually discuss if it was a BLP violation and if/how to fix it once it was removed/reverted. We encourage editors to be bold to make one change to eliminate things they believe are contentious BLP violations though then encourage them to discuss that further before reverting again. Anythingyouwant seems to be aware they know they should not be edit warring and I fully agree the second change that inserted new text but essentially the same language violated the 1RR principle here. But given the number of other editors that are involved that seem to dismiss that there's any possible BLP violation to talk about is further troubling. This is a case of trouts all around, warning to Anythingyouwant to know what constitutes an 1RR, and a reminder to the other involved editors that we do side with being very cautious with BLP concerns. (eg in line with Dennis Brown's statement) --MASEM (t) 15:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To comment on the red point MrX highlighted, the source (Moore's letter) has the language "did not date underage girls", which clearly implies "age of consent" in context. There was probably a better way to phrase that sentence added, and perhaps use the direct quote instead, but the material was validly sourced. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NadirAli

Closing with no action. NadirAli is warned to focus on content, not nationality. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:30, 30 November 2017 (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 NadirAli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NadirAli (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/India-Pakistan: ARBIPA

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

19 November 2017 and 19 November: Cutting-and-pasting indicating proxy editing
19 November and 19 November: More of the same
19 November: "Misshaps" having occurred in cutting-and-pasting

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

4 March 2007 ARBCOM sanction (blocked for a year)
December 2015 ARBCOM cautiously lifting sanction

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 April 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

[My apologies for the length of this complaint, but it is an unusual one.]

NadirAli is an old hand of the ARBIPA sanctions. After multiple blocks and topic bans, the ARBCOM has very cautiously lifted his topic ban in December 2015. Unfortunately, NadirAli's conduct was rarely above board since then, with frequent edit-warring and POV-pushing reported. This ANI complaint and my input there represented the situation as of mid-summer 2017.

Things have changed quite dramatically since then. In contrast to mindless POV pushing and incoherent talk page argumentation that used to be his hallmark, NadirAli has taken to editing sophisticated content on difficult topics like Kashmir conflict and 1971 Bangladesh Genocide (full list below) and also engage in sophisticated discussion with high-sounding words in talk page discussions. But all this apparent quality seems fake because he also drops back to his traditional low-quality debates where he speaks in his own voice, with curious phrases like

"Yes there is under WP:COMMONNAME", "it states the Persian word for India", "I'll even quote the Persian term" (On Talk:Hindustan), or
"but from my understanding is that numerous edits have been revoked" (on Talk:Persecution of Hindus).

Compare that to the language like:

"even though nationalities do not matter on Wikipedia", "Nor can we use Lerner's hesitancy" and "we have explicit statements to the contrary" (On Talk:Radcliffe Line), or
"on Nehru's urging", "would not have gained access", "Shiren Ilahi does not counter this" (on Talk:Kashmir conflict)

There is a strong indication that the words of different individuals are being presented to us under the umbrella of one user account.

An analysis reveals a strong correlation with the interests of Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was topic-banned from India-Pakistan conflicts on 15 May 2016 and from all ARBIPA pages by this board on 18 January 2017. Subsequently, he created several socks such as Losthistory9, Problematics, Sicilianbro2, ChakDeHind, etc. All these accounts have been blocked and are now tagged as socks of Faizan (who was determined to be the master account). After these blocks, there is evidence that Towns Hill has taken to getting other editors to do proxy edits for him. I have argued here that he used Owais Khursheed to install Rape in Kashmir conflict. Several IPs edit-warred at Standstill agreement (India) and Indian annexation of Hyderabad, and launched RfCs, with possible guidance from Towns Hill. One of the IPs, 47.31.9.34, cut-and-pasted bits of email messages (now revdeled), which indicated proxy editing.

NadirAli has now picked up many of the topics that Towns Hill used to be active in, and is doing the kind of edits that Towns Hill would have done, using the kind of sources Towns Hill would have used, and arguing like Towns Hill. This makes me believe that NadirAli is doing proxy editing for Towns Hill.

Evidence

Towns Hill got topic banned and blocked for failure to follow WP:NPOV, and using mediocre or corner place sources (such as Sarmila Bose here) and giving them UNDUE prominence. We see NadirAli doing the same now. Here, for example, he is pushing for "tertiary sources like Schofield", referring to Victoria Schofield, who is a ~~writer without any academic credentials~~ non-academic writer on Kashmir conflict and is probably unsuitable for settling issues about contentious content.
Between 4:05AM and 4:51AM on 19 November 2017, he added some fifteen thousand bytes of text to essentially settled sections of Kashmir conflict, most of which is of dubious merit. These edits show evidence of cutting and pasting from somewhere, possibly email messages or files (because section titles got duplicated and "misshaps" have occurred in the process).
Almost all the edits to the Towns Hill interest pages (listed below) were made between 22:00 and 08:00 UTC, when Towns Hill is known to be active. In his own edits, NadirAli made edits outside this frame, e.g., [26].
He added citations with embedded quotes, e.g., on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, like Towns Hill used to do. The embedded quotation is funnily different from the information in the blockquote (15 to 1 vs. five-to-one). He seems to have no idea of the difference. Struggles to get the citation inside the blockquote [27], and gives up. Why did he add a citation with a quote for a blockquote? It says something different too? (Repeated this at Bangladesh Liberation War.)
In one instance, he added a citation produced by the Visual editor even though he himself never used the Visual editor. In his own editing NadirAli often uses only bare urls and gets reFill to expand them.
On two pages, he cited numerous book reviews published in journals. No indication of how he obtained these reviews. No DOIs or URLs have been given. In his own editing, NadirAli rarely cited any journals.

To make sure that I wasn't totally wrong about all this, I went through all his edits over the last 12 months that added 400 bytes or more. There were 112 such edits. Other than the Towns Hill interests listed below, only five of those edits cited (possibly) scholarly sources: [28], [29], [30], [31]. This is the sum total of NadirAli's scholarly contribution to Wikipedia in a whole year. Yet we are expected to believe that he is able to add 15,000 bytes of scholarly content in an hour at Kashmir conflict. He is brow-beating us.

I am requesting input from the admins familiar with the Towns Hill case: EdJohnston, Bishonen, Vanamonde93, Bbb23, RegentsPark

Towns Hill pages picked up by NadirAli

Bangladesh Liberation War (Towns Hill: 30 edits, NadirAli: 5 edits afterwards, starting 24 September)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (Towns Hill: 16 edits, NadirAli: 3 edits afterwards, starting 14 September)
1971 Bangladesh Genocide (Towns Hill: 55 edits , NadirAli: 7 edits afterwards, starting 4 September)
Kashmiris (Towns Hill: 188 edits, NadirAli: 25 edits, since 14 August)
Gilgit-Baltistan (Towns Hill: 5 edits, NadirAli: 7 edits, starting 16 September)
Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Towns Hill: 7 edits, NadirAli: 32 edits afterwards, starting 28 June)
Kashmir conflict (Towns Hill: 38 edits, NadirAli: 40 edits afterwards, starting 26 May)
Talk:Kashmir Conflict (Towns Hill: 39 edits, NadirAli: 24 edits afterwards, starting 3 June)
Sectarian violence in Pakistan (formerly called Sectarianism in Pakistan) (Towns Hill: 4 edits, NadirAli: 6 edits afterwards, starting 30 March 2017, with a long break since 11 July 2016).
Partition of India (Towns Hill: 46 edits, NadirAli: 33 edits, NadirAli was mildly active on this page till October 2016, but most of his edits were after 3 April 2017)

New pages with similar or related content

Victoria Schofield (2 edits, since 25 November)
Howard Bruner Schaffer (page created by NadirAli; 7 edits, since 23 November)
Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (3 edits, since 19 October)
Radcliffe Line (6 edits, since 29 June); Talk:Radcliffe Line (10 edits, since 26 October)
1946 Cabinet Mission to India (3 edits since 10 November)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

28 November 2017

In response to Black Kite and Mar4d, I certainly did not bring this complaint to discuss content issues or quality of sources. Mechanisms like DRN and RfC serve perfectly fine. The key issue for this complaint is: is NadirAli doing proxy edits for a blocked user? I am afraid the issue is a weighty one. If we let banned or blocked users continue to edit by proxy via registered users, our whole conduct management process becomes meaningless. Moreover, is Mar4d suggesting that all the users that got sanctioned in the past (my "foes") did so merely because I complained?

Sandstein, I would have thought that SPI would be right venue. But my complaint about Owais Khursheed's proxy editing was ignored as well as another one for Samm19. So I have had to escalate. Ignoring these complaints is only serving to embolden the blocked user. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, The complaint of proxy editing by Owais Khursheed and Samm19 was not investigated, as far as I can tell. The CU said they were "unrelated" (which I presume meant, they were not sockpuppets), and the cases were closed. Owais Khrusheed has not been sanctioned. Samm19 was topic-banned by Bishonen for independent reasons. In any case, if the consensus seems to be that WP:SPI is where this complaint needs to go, I will be happy to take it there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning NadirAli

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 NadirAli

Statement by Black Kite

As soon as I got to the first bullet point I thought "really?" To wit, "Here, for example, he is pushing for "tertiary sources like Schofield", referring to Victoria Schofield, who is a writer without any academic credentials".

According to her article, Schofield has a Masters in Modern History from Oxford University. You don't get much more credentialed than that. I didn't bother reading past that point. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

The significant issue is that I had filed an ARE months ago[32] and NadirAli was warned not to edit war, but he has continued. First removing content[33] without summary or explanation, then edit warring.[34][35] NadirAli also attempted to canvass[36][37] during this dispute.

Edit warring on Kashmir conflict has been detailed as well. Reverting to his version without getting consensus. 3 editors agreed to remove NadirAli's long POV edits,[38] yet he reverted to his preferred version.[39] Capitals00 (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NadirAli makes his claims without giving diffs. Starting with his claim that last ARE only concerned an incident where he was "edit warring against Faizan" but that's deceptive of NadirAli because he was engaged in multiple edit wars, and also a page move war, the same day when ARE was filed. Misrepresenting me here as "who's been on Wikipedia hardly two years"[40] despite I am editing since December 2012, over 5 years now. Also nonsensical is his claim about an unknown IP [41] because no IP has canvassed me against NadirAli.

@Sandstein and Dennis Brown: In addition to his evident deception, long term edit warring which could be seen on Hindustan, Kashmir conflict, while knowing that he has no consensus as per the diffs I provided, this new comment by NadirAli[42] shows that a topic ban on his account is warranted. It shows his long term WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that already resulted in siteban from Wikipedia before. Capitals00 (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mar4d

IMO, this report seems to be in bad faith. I just don't see any substance. It appears to be a half-baked attempt to grind an axe against NadirAli, whom Kautilya3 is involved in a major content "war" with at Kashmir conflict. Half of that dispute mainly revolves around the correct use and interpretation of sources, which I personally observed. And to add to the frustration I presume, Kautilya3's unsuccessful attempts to get an WP:UNDUE source cited into the article (see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Scholarly_article_labelled_FRINGE), which as correctly pointed out and verified by uninvolved editors, was sourced to a barely-cited scholar. Yet I am still seeing Kautilya3 and his friends claiming the source is not undue, exactly after what came about from the fringe noticeboard. I'm sorry to say, but these users are orchestrating a blatant WP:POV campaign and wreaking havoc across Wikipedia articles - and it's only a matter of time before someone called their bluff. Unfortunately, this time it's NadirAli who's been caught in the crossfire. I certainly cannot draw any connection solely on the basis of editing Kashmir and Bangladesh articles; because both these are highly edited topics amongst WikiProject Pakistan editors, have always been and always will be. Any contributions across these contentious areas that aim to balance the POVs are inevitable - it's a matter of fact and there's just no other way about it.

And I am not buying the nonsensical argument that a user who's been editing since 2006 would have no idea about identifying and quoting his sources. After all, Kautilya3 has only been an editor for 3 years. And I am surprised at the frequency with which these arbitrations are filed back and forth, nearly every time by Kautilya3 against some new foe that he's picked up. Each time with new diversionary tactics, or "evidence" conjured out of thin air purporting to link to a grand conspiracy, to the point that it now seems too good to be true. What it tells me instead is a desperate attempt to get rid of any opposing editor, and go to any lengths possible, whilst constantly disregarding WP:CON and WP:GAMING the editing process repetitively. I would strongly argue for WP:BOOMERANG with such reports. Mar4d (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NadirAli (response)

I was just made aware of this issue. I would have to say first, that Kautilya's allegations regarding Hindustan are ridiculous. He has persistently supported removing of supporting sources with unreliable content and original research and I wasn't alone in this concern while accusing me of edit warring when I restored it. I'll respond to some of the other allegations shortly.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, there is an allegation being made against me that I'm somehow connected to the banned user TownsHill. In the last ARE filed against me, I was accused by Capitals00 (who's been active on Wikipedia hardly two years) of edit warring against Faizan, who violated the Three revert rule, but turned out to be the same as TownsHill. This was revealed before the last report was filed against me. I hope the paradox of these allegations are being noticed by neutral observers.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the WP:UNDUE allegation laughable and ridiculous, since the Indian editors insert undue content all the time (commonly poorly sourced) and violate it as they please, but cite it when it involves something not desirable to them.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing argument is rich coming from one who responded to an IPs canvassing calls and filed an ARE. I also think the idea I only use Refill every time is a blatant lie. Looking through my editing history, I have manually fixed and produced both website and book citations. I can now connect with Mar4d statements.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The blatant deception above can be disproven easily and constitutes WP:POT, but I'd rather not waste my time with this and don't think it is necessary to respond.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor RegentsPark:, my apologies. I was referring to cultural bias and not seeking to generalize Indian users on Wikipedia as a whole, rather that the Indian users in question and their behavior. I mean to take care to be more specific in the future. I also hope that the paradox of these allegations that I pointed out above have been taken into note. I have nothing further to state.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MPS1992

@Black Kite: the comment "a writer without any academic credentials" is indeed incorrect and a BLP violation if the person concerned has a Master's degree from Oxford. However, "You don't get much more credentialed than that" is also incorrect: this is normally just an undergraduate degree. MPS1992 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning NadirAli

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

Waiting for a response by NadirAli. Also, to Kautilya3: this is essentially an allegation of meatpuppetry. Wouldn't it be better to first start a WP:SPI investigation, where there are experts in such matters, before requesting action based on whatever result the SPI may yield? Sandstein 17:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, you mention that you applied to SPI. Please link to that investigation. Sandstein 20:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would take no action here and refer the matter to WP:SPI, which is the dedicated forum for investigating sock- or meatpuppetry. Kautilya3 now links to two previous SPIs, but these seem to concern different users and were successful insofar as they resulted in blocks. I therefore don't understand why Kautilya3 describes their SPI requests as being "ignored". Sandstein 22:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Please reduce the length of your complaint as much as possible. Complaints are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs except with approval by a reviewing administrator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This does look more like an SPI case than an WP:AE case, and would suggest it be taken there, as per Sandstein. Admin at AE lack the tools to deal with the issue presented. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: NadirAli and Faizan are Unrelated. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, it is very very difficult to prove meatpuppetry (I assume you don't think there is any sock puppetry here) so my suggestion is that you address the content on the talk page and see where that goes. As a general rule, the best way to deal with content issues is to try to establish clear consensus on each issue, mark it on the talk page, and then refer back to that consensus when new editors arrive. @NadirAli:, do note that statements of this sort the Indian editors insert undue content all the time (commonly poorly sourced) and violate it as they please are unacceptable and would have lead to an immediate block had you made that on any of the Kashmir conflict pages. Focus on content, not on your perceptions of the national origins of editors. --regentspark (comment) 15:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Kingsindian

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: Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Template for post 1932 American politics. I am proposing an amendment.

Administrator imposing the sanction: The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Diff of notification.

Statement by Kingsindian

[To clarify, I have described The Wordsmith as the admin imposing the sanction because they have in the past acted as a steward for Coffee's administrative actions.]

I am here seeking a relatively narrow amendment.

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
- Rescinded. The provision can be applied for individual pages at admin discretion, but is not part of the template.
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
- Replaced by: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. The normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The situation is as follows:

In May 2016, Coffee created a template (linked above) which is used on more than 100 pages dealing with American politics. The template includes a "consensus required" provision: challenged material should not be restored unless it has consensus.

The template has been used in the past as a "default" template for American politics topics. For instance, Ks0stm says here: FWIW, I only placed the article under 1RR/consensus required because that was what came packaged in 2016 US Election AE [template]; it wasn't so much an explicit decision to make it consensus required.
Some admins do indeed explicitly want to enforce the "consensus required" provision. See the AE request here, and the comment by TonyBallioni.
The value of the provision is, let's say, contested. I can give my own view here, to make it clear where I'm coming from: it's a very bad idea.

I propose that the template to be used as the "default" for post-1932 American elections contain the amendment I proposed. The amendment is modeled on the solution used in ARBPIA, and takes care of a very common justification for the "consensus required" provision (see TonyBallioni's comment linked above, for instance). This is a much more lightweight, well-tested and clearer sanction. To be clear: individual pages may still have the "consensus required" provision placed on them. In this way, collateral damage from what I consider a bad provision will be minimized. If ArbCom wishes to make an explicit statement either way (either rescinding the consensus required provision altogether, or to affirm it to be the "default"), they can also do so.

See also this AE request, in which the solution I propose comes pretty close to being accepted, but somehow it never got closed one way or another.

The above text is self-sufficient. In the following, I make a case for the badness of the "consensus required" provision. People can skip it if they want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus required" is bad (optional)

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

My argument hinges on two points. First, consensus on Wikipedia is mostly silent and implicit; indeed this is explicitly enshrined in policy. Second, any bureaucratic provision must prove its worth if it is to be imposed. I will now expand on each of the points.

How do people typically handle disputes on Wikipedia? Some person writes something, someone else objects, the first person rephrases, the second person is still unhappy, a third person rephrases it etc. Talk page discussions are also commonly made concrete (and sometimes productively cut short) by someone using an explicit phrasing on the article which all sides can live by. To be sure, this outcome can be achieved by a schematic discussion on the talk page: people writing out explicit phrasings on the talk page, opening RfCs, polling people, incorporating suggestions and so on. Indeed, I have done plenty of this sort of thing myself. But this requires a fair bit of work and co-ordination, and a degree of good faith which is often missing among participants in political areas. All I am saying here is that mandating such a work-intensive and time-intensive procedure is counterproductive. Existing rules are adequate to deal with long-term edit warring: indeed WP:ONUS is well-established policy.
The provision has never proved its worth, nor have its proponents given any measure by which its worth could be measured. Regardless of the claims of its proponents: of the provision being a "bright line" akin to 1RR, consensus in Wikipedia is often not a bright line. Besides, consensus can always change, based on new information. In practice, the provision has led to interminable and bad-tempered arguments (including, but not limited to, admins enforcing the provision), and essentially nothing else. For instance, in a recent AE complaint, even the person who brought the complaint under the provision thought that the provision is bad but, they said, since it exists they'll use it. Then come the retaliatory AE requests, making a reasonable argument: a dumb provision should at least be applied uniformly. This situation is, to put it mildly, not ideal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni: Your suggestion seems workable (though see my comments below). It might be a good idea to look over all the pages (there are about 120 or so) to see who added the template -- if it's by Coffee or TonyBallioni, the "consensus required" provision can be kept. For instance, on Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States and Talk:Donna Brazile, the template seems to have been just added because it is the "default" template, and not because the page required special measures. I agree with NeilN that the template should be substituted, and not transcluded.

In general, my view is that the circumstances in May 2016 were very different from the circumstances now, so it would make sense to add the "consensus required" provision reactively, rather than proactively; that is: start with a minimum set and add pages to it as disruption or edit-warring occurs. These templates are "sticky": it's easy to slap it on, but hard to get rid of it. But I leave such considerations to the admins here; after all, they are the ones who have to enforce it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather puzzled by various comments in the admin section. In particular, I am not sure what the extent of the disagreement is: it does not seem to me that the solution proposed by GoldenRing or TonyBallioni is all that different from the one proposed by Sandstein. The proposal I made explicitly differentiates between pages where the template was used as the "default" (I gave three examples already), and ones where the admins explicitly wanted the restriction there because they felt it necessary. The latter category, I aver, is likely to be a small(er) set. All I am asking for is to change the default template; admins are free to use their judgement to impose this restriction on individual pages. Kingsindian ♝ ♚

Looking at the DS log, I see less than 40 pages which were explicitly placed under "consensus required" provision. It is absurd that more than 120 articles have the tag: this means that the vast majority of them were placed because the template was the "default" one. I already gave 3 explicit examples of the latter case. Besides, I simply don't understand Thryduulf and NeilN comments when they say that "This would affect the many articles where the admin has purposely added the "consensus required" restriction."; I explicitly address this point in my amendment. There is absolutely nothing stopping admins from adding the provision if they want it to. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I agree with you that your statement: There is absolutely nothing stopping the DS-levying admin from removing the provision if they want to. is about as logical as my statement. However, in practice, your version doesn't work. Why?

Most of the explicit DS log entries were made by Coffee, who is mostly inactive. His replacement, The Wordsmith, considers himself involved in the US politics area, so mostly doesn't get involved. The template is "sticky": it's easy to impose it, but very hard to get rid of it.
I gave explicit evidence that most of the templates were added by people thinking that it was the "default" template. Sure, you can fault the admins adding the template, but may I remind you that one of them is an Arbitrator? If people like that get confused, maybe that is a sign that the bureaucracy has become too intricate for its own good.
Here's the supreme irony: read Coffee's justification for why they wanted the restriction. the idea for prohibiting "potentially contentious content without firm consensus" was to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit...I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, I come up with an amendment (a tried and tested one) to handle exactly the situation which is being described here, and for some reason, people find it unacceptable. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

This is in uncharted territory, given that I don't admin in Election 2016/Trump/far-right related articles and that one admin acting as a steward for another is also with little precedent. However, my own opinion, and one that I believe would accurately reflect Coffee's opinion, is that this Page-level sanction was never intended to be the default for APDS or one that could be accidentally applied. I do support vacating the provision from articles where it appears to have been accidentally applied, and forking the template so that the provision is an option, but the default template does not list it. I do not support vacating the CR sanction from pages where it has been deliberately applied, as that would be effectively overturning an Arbitration Enforcement action without a specific consensus about that particular sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

This is a good proposal for any articles that are currently under, or will be placed under, editing restrictions requiring consensus for reinstating new material. It would prevent some of the usual WP:GAMING that allows users with throwaway accounts to gain undue advantage in content disputes.

I generally agree with Sandstein's comments, and add that the DS talk page templates and especially the in-your-face edit notices are very important for notifying editors that articles are subject to DS restrictions. Admins can use Template:Ds/editnotice and add language specific to a situation, rather than simply using the Coffee version without modification. - MrX 11:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging admins who have to placed American Politics articles under DS editing restrictions: Coffee, Doug Weller, BU Rob13, Ks0stm, Laser brain, DeltaQuad, Bishonen, and TonyBallioni.- MrX 11:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: NeilN, Darkwind, and Seraphimblade.- MrX 12:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

@TonyBallioni: " I strongly object to their removal from the Roy Moore article " - Tony, my understanding is that you can still have that sanction on the article, you just have to add it separately rather than as "bundled" with the other sanctions (1RR etc). As Kingsindian says above: "The provision can be applied for individual pages at admin discretion, but is not part of the template." This isn't a proposal to get rid of the sanction. It's (very much) more limited than that. Volunteer Marek 15:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony - it's not a bad suggestion, it's just that Coffee sorta spammed that template to lots of articles and it was never clear if he really meant to add that restriction or was just slapping on the template. Also Sandstein is right - a GENERIC restriction template used to impose DISCRETIONARY sanctions is sort of an oxymoron. At the very least it violates the spirit and intent of how DS is suppose to work. Volunteer Marek 16:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this is like observing "institutional inertia" inert itself. "We shouldn't change it because then we'd have to change it". Volunteer Marek 16:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Can there be clarification on if the templates are authorized by an Arbcom ruling or they are just placed there because an admin wants it? If it's the former, then shouldn't this be a discussion for Arbcom, via an amendment process? I filed an amendment request a while back, they voted on it, and I changed the template to match the new ruling from Arbcom. If the templates are not backed by an Arbcom ruling, then that should be spelled out in the template. Right now the template points to Arbcom ruling to give them enforcement ability so the templates should match ruling of Arbcom and Arbcom is where and DS rules should go for change, not AE which is an executive action, not legislative. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I agree with Sandstein, Bishonen and Dennis Brown. According to template, All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This brings a number of difficult questions, even for experienced contributors. Was this particular edit a "revert"? Should someone count only an "exact" revert to a recent previous version, or one should also count edits that only partially undo something? And what does it mean "recent"? What if something "has been challenged by reversion" six months ago? And it is prone to gaming. Does this include reinstating content that was slightly different from the content challenged by reversion (two words were changed as during a recent AE case)?

This restriction led to countless conflicts, unnecessary discussions and divisive complaints on WP:AE. Does this restriction help to establish good relationships between users? No, exactly the opposite. Surprisingly, it does not help to establish any WP:Consensus because people start discussing procedures (was something a violation) instead of discussing the content. Personally, I think that was the worst editing restriction ever made in the project. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that creating any general templates for new types of restrictions (to be placed on a number of pages) is something very serious. This can and should be discussed on WP:AE to obtain WP:Consensus of uninvolved admins , as it actually happens during this discussion. Of course if the template will be approved by WP:Consensus here, then it will be used by individual admins for any pages of their choosing. But once again, this should be a discussion if the template would be helpful in general, not about any technical procedures or something else. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Most important, all editing restrictions must be very simple and understandable, and not only to admins, but to all other participants (they are generally issued not for admins, but for other participants). This is not the case here because even admins happened to disagree about the interpretation and applications of this restriction, and not only during this AE discussion, but also during a number of previous AE discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN tells below: Admins can choose whatever template/text to add when applying editing restrictions. I am not sure that creating or modifying DS templates by individual admins to enforce discretionary sanctions has been authorized by Arbcom. Making new template is not just an ordinary sanction to be applied to an individual contributor or a page. This is something a lot more significant. Template:Ds (linked to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) only lists templates authorized by Arbcom. I think every new template for DS (or any significan modification of such template) should be either approved by Arbcom or by consensus of WP:AE admins. That one was not, and everyone can see what had happen. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling that DS templates are not just ordinary templates where common rules should apply, i.e. anyone can create or modify the template, and the template can be fixed later by consensus of all contributors (not necessarily admins). If this was just an ordinary template, then it could be simply nominated for deletion, and the votes of all contributors would be counted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Kingsindian

I oppose the amendment, the consensus required provision is good its enforce WP:ONUS and nullify edit wars.I think that consensus required should be a standard in every discretionary sanctions area--Shrike (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Kingsindian

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

I would grant the appeal, delete the template (and any corresponding editnotices), and thereby vacate all sanctions made in application of the template.

Technically, the template as such is not an appealable sanction, because it's just, well, a template for a sanction. The template's application to a specific article by an administrator is the actual sanction that can be appealed. But we can treat this request as a class action appeal, as it were, of all such sanctions. I would appreciate it if editors who have followed this issue would ping, insofar as possible, all administrators who have used this template so that they can comment.

In my view, templated article-level sanctions are problematic because they do not take into specific circumstances of the editing environment of the article at issue. WP:AC/DS expects sanctioning admins to

"use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum."

This requirement to apply discretion is not compatible with a one-size-fits-all approach to sanctions, which a template embodies. In some cases, the editing environment may be so toxic that a restriction such as the "consensus required" provision may be needed, but in many cases individual blocks, bans or protections may be a more proportionate response. The widespread use of a template containing complicated rules such as a "consensus required" rules will cause many technical violations of discretionary sanctions to occur in the course of ordinary and, in and of itself, probably not sanction-worthy content disputes.

It is best, therefore, to remove the template and leave admins free to individually (re-)apply appropriate sanctions to such articles as may (still) warrant it. Sandstein 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reject the template is not how discretionary sanctions are applied. It is a courtesy placed on the talk page. The actual sanctions are logged at the arbitration enforcement log. Additionally, users are alerted to them not by the talk page template, but by page notices. As the arbitration enforcement log shows, many administrators are willing to not impose these sanctions on articles if they don’t want to, so the complaint is really with the overwhelming majority of the articles sanctioned by Coffee. People like to bitch about these sanctions, but they work, and they are the main reason that the American politics field isn’t an even bigger mess than it is today. Sandstein, your suggested course of action ignores the fact that any validly applied sanctions were placed by an individual administrator on his own discretion (Coffee) and he has recently spoken out in favour of keeping the sanctions. If we vacate the “template sanctions”, I would personally go through the now sanctionless articles and likely apply the exact same sanctions to most of them myself immediately after the appeal was over because of how volitile this topic area is. There is no reason to waste time and increase the disruption on American politics articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I will note, again, that consensus required is already policy through WP:ONUS. The fact that what it takes to get people to actually follow that policy is a discretionary sanction is ridiculous but it is the case. Speaking to the sanctions I have placed, I strongly object to their removal from the Roy Moore article given that they weren’t placed mindlessly and that I think I typically have decent “discretion”. Finally, I’ll note that what we are being asked to do here is give people license to multi-party edit war on some of the most controversial and significant articles to the public. I cannot support that, and it is what this amendment would do.TonyBallioni (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I could get behind the Wordsmith’s suggestion. This should be based upon the actual sanction listed at the arbitration enforcement log. If it doesn’t list 1RR/Consensus required, remove the template. Keep in place, however, the sanctions if they were intentionally applied by an admin, and make it clear any admin can still choose to apply this set of sanctions in individual cases if they wish. Basically, all of Coffee’s page level sanctions should be kept as should any others where this was the intent. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Volunteer Marek and Kingsindian: it is unclear to me whether this would affect pages already tagged with the template (most of them by Coffee, who did place it intentionally), or just be a change going forward, which is why I am concerned. If the concern is that this standard template is not what most administrators intend to impose, may I offer what I consider a simpler suggestion: we substitute the template on the pages where we know it was the intent of the admin to impose it (so basically anything imposed by Coffee or myself, and those where the AE log specifically notes "consensus required"). We then take the template to TfD, delete it, and instruct admins to use the standard discretionary sanctions talk page notice rather than this bundled one. I think this addresses some of @Sandstein and Bishonen:'s valid concerns while respecting that some administrators did use this template intentionally because they liked the bundle. If we are going to move away from this template, we might as well move away from any specific US politics DS template and require admins to think about what thye are imposing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Volunteer Marek: I was referencing templates like the one I placed on Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, which requires admins to type out the sanction they want to place, when I said "standard". I'm fine with not having a default template here, but I'm opposed to changing the current restrictions (criticism of Coffee being valid and all, but they do work well on a lot of these pages.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoldenRing: your solution is much more complex than simply substituting the existing template. I'd also be opposed to editing the existing template because it might bias people who would otherwise be placing the sanctions intentionally against placing them not knowing it had been changed. The best "split the baby" result here is to get rid of the current template and make admins apply sanctions by hand with Template:Ds/talk notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is swapping one template for another more complex than substituting the template that's there? Especially when the time comes to remove it... GoldenRing (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it leaves in place the sanctions that were intentionally placed by an administrator and keeps the same format that people are used to seeing on the article, making confusion less likely. Also, you are operating under the assumption that the template will be removed, which is unclear here. Substitution also deals with NeilN's concerns that another admin can come along and edit the template and make it look like the sanctions were changed. I very strongly oppose your solution here because I think it complicates needlessly a situation that doesn't need anymore complication. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support amendment. I seem to keep saying this, but I just don't like to find myself on a list that seems to imply (?) that I have placed articles under the "consensus required" provision (MrX's list above). I did do that, once, then came to think the restriction was too difficult to understand, and too much of an invitation to "gotcha" filings, and removed it from the page where I had placed it. I won't place it again, in the form that it has now, and I agree with Kingsindian's amendment. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
As before, I don't have much opinion on this either way in terms of whether we use "consensus required" going forward. I do oppose deleting the template, since that just makes a lot of busy-work replacing it with appropriate talk page notices. If consensus required is removed, I'll replace it with the following sanction on all pages it's currently in place on: "Editors cannot restore edits which they have introduced within 24 hours if the edits have been reverted." ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changing template if it means modifying existing restrictions. This would affect the many articles where the admin has purposely added the "consensus required" restriction. Admins did not have to use this template if they didn't want to impose all the restrictions it listed. Also, any templates like this really should be substituted rather than transcluded to prevent one admin making undiscussed changes that would affect hundreds of articles they had no interest in. Finally Sandstein's proposal of vacating all sanctions is a non-starter. He assumes admins take a "one-size-fits-all approach" when applying sanctions with no evidence to back it up. A list of cases where neutral parties would agree that an editor was unfairly sanctioned because of the restriction is needed at a minimum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kingsindian: There are a few places on Wikipedia which warn editors that they are responsible for tool/template usage. That is, you can't blame the tool/template if you're misusing it. Admins can choose whatever template/text to add when applying editing restrictions. The fact that some of them may not have read the template text as carefully as they should have does not mean extra work needs to be done by the admins that did. It's more appropriate to say in this case, "There is absolutely nothing stopping the DS-levying admin from removing the provision if they want to." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grant appeal per Sandstein. He said it best, so I won't parrot him, but the "consensus" clause has caused problems and should not be automatically applied to all articles falling under this Arb ruling, if any at all. I'm not as big into repealing all previous sanctions, but I won't labor it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make the rare move of disagreeing with Dennis Brown here, and Sandstein in the process. It is clear that some admins have applied the "consensus required" restriction deliberately and oppose overturning it; and it is clear that many admins oppose overturning the restriction without putting something else similar in place (see the discussion here). Contra Sandstein, deleting the template does not vacate the restriction on all articles where it has been used; AE sanctions are valid when and only when logged at WP:DSLOG. There appear to be a largish number of articles where the template has been applied but the relevant sanction not logged; we should not construe the restriction as valid in those cases.
Therefore, I think the right way forward is to edit the the current template to remove the consensus required restriction; to create a new and more obscure template that includes the consensus required restriction; and to apply that new template wherever the "consensus required" restriction has been validly logged. It'd be an hour or so of fairly dull work, I'm afraid, but that's what we have the mop for. I'm willing to do it. As far as I can see, doing so doesn't really require a formal consensus here, either, since it's not modifying any valid AE sanctions (though I'm not going to run off and do it now without further discussion). GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sir Joseph: The arbitration committee have authorised standard discretionary sanctions, not any specific 'consensus required' sanction. Individual admins have placed pages under a combination of 1RR and 'consensus required'. These restrictions are authorised by the committee's DS authorisation, but are only put in place by individual admins. They are only valid when logged at WP:DSLOG. A number of admins also seem to have imposed 1RR on pages and placed {{Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions}}, not realising that it also mentions the 'consensus required' restriction. I would not construe this as imposing the restriction; sanctions must be logged at WP:DSLOG or they are not valid and the template is only a courtesy note (in this case an inaccurate one for many articles). GoldenRing (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why the template should be changed, so there isn't a template stating there is a restriction when one is not in place, as that causes problem. This is separate from the idea that the sanction should or shouldn't be used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I agree with Dennis 100% here, which is why I think if any changes are made, it should be in the direction of getting rid of the area-specific-notice templates, and making admins write out by hand what their actual intent is so we aren't confused when it comes here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline appeal. I agree with GoldenRing, there appear to be instances where the "consensus required" provision was deliberately and intentionally applied and instances where it wasn't. Once the two versions are in place, I would be open to hearing appeals regarding the "consensus required" provision in individual cases where someone feels it isn't working, but not mass removal. I would also not object to an alternative being proposed to be introduced as a third option, and if that happens discussion of individually converting individual applications between "consensus required" and the new provision would be fine, but again not indiscriminately. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kingsindian: There are roughly four options here: (1) remove the "consensus required" provision completely, (2) remove the "consensus required" provision but allow it to be (re-)added to articles where it is desired (as an option, not as the default), (3) change the "consensus required" provision from the default to the option for future applications and allow it to be removed from existing articles where it is not desired. (4) Leave the "consensus required" provision as the default or only option. I favour option 3, my understanding is that you prefer option 2. Creating an alternative provision has also been suggested but this is possible whichever of the above options is chosen. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I agree with the options, and could live with 3, although I also prefer 2. The primary point is removing it from the template so it isn't automatically stated that the article is under "consensus required", and allow the admin to add that for the instances where it is needed, or better yet, don't add it initially but only after the article proves that is required. I think the sanction is problematic under the best of circumstances, and should be used sparingly and intentionally, not automatically, if at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I favour option 4 personally, 1RR is meaningless without "consensus required", and if I place 1RR on any article in the future it will come with it. That being said, I don't strongly oppose option 3 on a case by case basis. The reason I think we should go ahead and close this appeal is that what we're essentially talking about here are changes to the template, and not to the sanctions themselves, which can be appealed on an individual basis. Template changes can be discussed on the template talk page, and are not actually an arbitration enforcement action since the actual sanctions are noted at the log. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that the next passing admin close this as no consensus to grant the appeal unless anyone has any objections. I don't think there is any chance of existing sanctions being altered here, and everything else can be discussed on the template's talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a solution no-one has proposed yet, which is to add parameters to the template allowing an admin to include/exclude certain sanctions. For instance, if an admin sets |consensus-required=no, then the template doesn't include consensus required. We could then have a real discussion on what should be the defaults (noting that it would take some bot work to fix existing notices if we want to change the default from what it currently is). This is probably the conversation we should be having, given that there's no apparent consensus to reverse existing sanctions en masse. I'm not sure whether AE or another venue would be best for that discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable idea. I would suggest that "no" be the default answer for all options, so admin must intentionally pick which to add. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Lambden

Blocked 48 hours for TBAN violation. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2017 (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 James J. Lambden

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: James J. Lambden (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

One-month topic ban from "all articles and edits related to Donald Trump, broadly construed," under WP:ARBAP2 to run from 15 November, imposed by User:GoldenRing after a WP:AE discussion.

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

30 November - Edit to Talk:Patriot Prayer, an article about a group explicitly known for organizing rallies in support of Donald Trump; it's right there in the lede of the article: The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and other protests in predominantly liberal areas..

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

Not applicable; relates to existing topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I noted the violation and asked the user to self-revert the violation; they responded by reverting my notification and calling it "bullying". Given that they won't self-revert, this is the unfortunately necessary option. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Discussion concerning James J. Lambden

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 James J. Lambden

It is waste of time to file a complaint for a talk page edit which I suggested be discussed with the administrator who imposed the topic ban. My comment had nothing to do with Trump and the subject's association with Trump is disputed. According to our article "mentions of Trump have mostly been scrubbed from [the group's] rhetoric." If I am to interpret this topic ban as applying to every article that mentions Trump it is effectively a ban on most AP2 articles. As that was not the ban imposed it is not reasonable to assume it was the intention.

Had a non-partisan editor or administrator suggested I remove the comment I would have. In fact earlier today I unintentionally violated the topic ban, which I caught and reverted, asking the administrator who imposed the ban for clarification precisely to avoid these issues. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: It is disputed. Again from our article "mentions of Trump have mostly been scrubbed from [the group's] rhetoric." My interest is because they are a pro-speech group. For the same reason I have edited The Evergreen State College, 2017 Berkeley protests, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber, BAMN and Gab (social network).

@BMK: Re: "if the edit were a violation" If I say "no" someone else says "yes" who is right? If the "yes" came from an admin or even a disinterested editor I would have accepted it. The question is whether it was reasonable for me to assume the scope includes this article given the specificity of the ban (Trump) and the insignificant difference in effect between that ban and an AP2 ban if it is interpreted this broadly.

@Masem: I do not see how in a sanction here would be preventative rather than punitive. I attempted to clarify the scope of the topic ban with GoldenRing hours before that edit to determine whether the scope should be interpreted so broadly. Whatever the decision I would have respected it. A simple clarification from GoldenRing will be 100% "preventative." James J. Lambden (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

Three (obvious) points:

Topic bans pertain to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages;
The ban against editing about Trump is to be "broadly construed" and since "mentions of Trump have mostly been scrubbed from [the group's] rhetoric" it most have once been in their rhetoric, which makes them connected to Trunp as far as the "broadly construed" standard is concerned;
That JJL would have reverted the edit if a "non-partisan" editor had asked, but would not do so for someone he considers to be partisan simply indicates that he does not understand the nature of the topic ban: if the edit was a violation, it was a violation period, no matter who brought it to his attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Just as a note, the group's association with Trump is not disputed. Just looking at the discussion that Lambden linked above makes that obvious; the dispute was not over whether the group's primary activity was pro-Trump rallies (all versions described their pro-Trump position prominently within the first or second sentence) - the dispute was over whether they stood for anything else at all. But organizing pro-Trump rallies is their primary activity (and this has been prominent in every stable version of the lead, as well as detailed in the article itself); James J. Lambden knows this, having edited the article for a while. I think, given the fact that James J. Lambden's user page consists (as of this writing) solely of a giant picture of Trump, it is reasonable to conclude that the fact that the group primarily organizes pro-Trump rallies is his main reason for editing the page. --Aquillion (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning James J. Lambden

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

Taking the usual meaning for "broadly construed", I cannot see how Patriot Prayer can be consider outside the "broadly construed" topic area around Trump, given the group was formed in response to reactions to pro-Trump activists. "Broadly construed" in nearly every Arbcom case has been taken that one should be using extreme caution and keep a far distance from what could be considered close to the warned off topic area to avoid potential admin/AE action. Yes, this might mean that most pages on post-2015 topics that would fall under AP2 are offlimits at this point to JJL under these terms. Support appropriate action here. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because this concerns an alleged violation of a sanction made by GoldenRing (talk · contribs), I suggest that they determine what to do here. Sandstein 07:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward

DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2017 (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 DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 : [43]. Discretionary sanctions, including a 1RR restriction and the "consensus required" provision added to the article on 2:25 November 16 2017 [44] by User:TonyBallioni.

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

The article is under a 1RR restriction. DHeyward made FOUR reverts in less than 24 hours.

10:20 November 30 1st revert. At the time the revert was made consensus for inclusion, backed by numerous reliable sources was already established on talk as pointed out by User:MrX [45] [46]
1:18 December 1 2nd revert which removes pertinent info. In the process, the edit also introduces false information into the article (J.T.P never claimed she was raped and the source does not state that). Also 1:22 December 1 constitutes another revert, although the 1:18 and the 1:22 edits are sequential, hence should count as one revert.
4:14 December 1 3rd revert, unilaterally restoring his own preferred version, restores misleading section heading (see description below)
4:20 4th revert, same as above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[47] Previous block for violation by User:HJ Mitchell

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

[48] Commenting in recent AE case
[49] Notification by User:HJ Mitchell
[50] Previous block for violation by User:HJ Mitchell

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. Note that initially I thought DHeyward only violated 1RR because he just popped up on my watchlist twice in quick succession. Feeling nice and assuming good faith I asked him to self-revert [51]. Only then did I actually look at the history and realized that he's pretty much started a full out edit war by reverting FOUR times on a ONE revert restricted article. In response to my courtesy request for self-revert (which was not required on my part) Dheyward decided to get cute. He did revert but... to his initial preferred version [52]. Basically he repeated his very first revert [53], completely removing the pertinent info in the article. Note that even if there was some doubt about consensus for the material on Nov 30 10:20 (time of first revert), there was no such doubt by Dec 1, 4:52, with User:MelanieN and User:Objective3000 who were initially hesitant to include, changing their minds by this point. This phony self-revert looks like an attempt at WP:GAMEing. I repeated my request pointing out nature of his fake self-revert [54] but he has ignored it.

2. The nature of the reverts itself raises serious concerns. First, there's the removal of well sourced information. Worse however, is the fact that when DHeyward realized consensus was against him and he couldn't remove the pertinent paragraph he purposefully rewrote the text to misrepresent both sources and the nature of the situation overall. In particular the text is about the fact that a woman, most likely associated with the organization Project Veritas, came to the Washington Post with a phony story about how Roy Moore got her pregnant. But the whole thing was a setup and an attempt to trick WaPo into publishing something false. Of course WaPo smelled something fishy, investigated, and exposed the scheme. This is what happened and what reliable sources happened. So how did DHeyward write it up? Well as can be seen he wrote it to make it seem like this was "just another false allegation against Roy Moore". He did this by removing or minimizing the pertinent context of the whole thing being a set up. He basically portrayed it as something opposite of what actually happened. This is a clear case of WP:AGENDA editing and done pretty deceptively at that. This isn't an isolated instance of such behavior; the same was noted just few days ago in the WP:AE request above concerning User:Anythingyouwant, by User:Drmies - [55], [56]

Since the nature of the violation is quite egregious (4 reverts on 1RR article, sneaky manipulation) a broad topic ban is in order.

@Masem - the "agenda" charge isn't really about Roy Moore though. It's about how DHeyward rewrote "Project Veritas tried to trick Washington Post into publishing a false story" as "a woman made false accusations against Roy Moore". I mean, yeah, she did. But she didn't do it to hurt Moore, she did it to try and discredit the women who have come out with their stories. Since these women are also "living people" in this instance the BLP (aside from the AGENDA misrepresentation) would apply the other way. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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 DHeyward

I apologize for edit warring. That was not necessary.

I will raise some issues though. First, Volunteer Marek I believe is under a topic ban for articles related to Donald Trump. Trump is listed in the lead of the article in question. Trump has also stated that he believes Moore and not the women who have made complaints. This article is certainly within the broadly construed meaning of his topic ban and had he adhered to his topic ban, the collegial atmosphere of continuous editing editing would have continued just like this edit shows[58].

Second, there are not four reverts as Volunter Marek has exagerated. The links listed show the original rewrite (1:18 December 1) which is not a revert. The third on his list ([59]) was removing the "raped" allegation that VM pointed out in his edit. There are 2 reverts which is a violation of 1RR. The last revert was to a condition prior the version VM prefers. There was no way to satisfy both 1RR and CONSENSUS. VM pretends his version has consensus when in fact the only discussion is about the event.

MrX who commented below has also violated 1RR with these edits.

For a statement that he says has strong consensus to add, no other editors seemed compelled to do it and he had to violate 1RR to get it.

Volunteer Marek provides a random collection of links implying there are related blocks that are relevant. None of those links are related to AP2. It was very deceitful to list any of those links as relevant here. He is mud slinging in an attempt at overreach.

As for AGENDA, just review my edit. I described the false accusation as it relates to Roy Moore and sexual abuse allegations. That is essentially the topic of the article (see article Title). I did not remove any any relevant material and also argued that its nature makes it a poor fit here. Volunteer Mareks edit comment is very telling. [60]. WM states it makes it seem like some woman falsely accused Moore of something. The actual story is that (Project Veritas) and this woman purposefully tried to trick WaPo. If VM believes that the event was not an accusation of sexual abuse against Roy Moore and instead was between Project Veritas and WaPo, why is he pushing his personal narrative in an article that is not about Washington Post or Project Veritas? It is certainly not necessary to try to implicate Roy Moore in the deception played on WaPo which is a clear BLP violation and COATRACK violation. There are no sources that state the woman's intent was to deceive or discredit anyone other than the Washington Post.

I apologize for edit warring. I'm don't believe a block is necessary and certainly not any AE sanction.

If a sanction is deemed necessary then VM should be sanctioned for violating his Trump Topic ban levied only a few weeks ago and violating the consensus requirement as well as pushing unrelated an unsubstantiated claims into an article with sensitive BLP concerns. MrX also violated 1RR as shown above. I'd prefer just not to have any action against anyone. --DHeyward (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni My initial thoughts are between 0RR on all living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed, and a topic ban on living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed. Under what evidence are you basing the "all living American politicians" sanction? This article and the edits were not about a living politician. I have no history that intersects with AP2 and if an AE sanction were levied here, it would be my first. For a 1RR violation. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek states: It's about how DHeyward rewrote "Project Veritas tried to trick Washington Post into publishing a false story" as "a woman made false accusations against Roy Moore". Of course! The article is ABOUT sexual abuse allegations against Roy Moore. It's not a COATRACK for anything else. It's your AGENDA that you are pushing that makes it seem to you that other stuff should be added. There is certainly no consensus to decorate the article with information not relevant to it's scope. I mentioned PV and WP in the paragraph but for this article it's a sidelight. The PV article is a better place. --DHeyward (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

I concur with Volunteer Marek's comments. The first diff is an attempt by DHeyward to defy firm consensus, and the first revert of this edit made two days earlier. This edit is an unambiguous and brazen violation of the 1RR restriction, in addition to being a second violation of WP:CONSENSUS. The other edits are arguably reverts and POV pushing. At the very least, they are aggravating actions by this editor indicating that he is not suited to edit these types of articles.- MrX 15:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... if MONGO can't see the obvious talk page consensus that everyone else sees, I guess that's his shortfall. If he thinks that material is possibly(?) a BLP violation, then he's possibly not up to speed on the subject. Perhaps he doesn't realize that casting aspersions sans evidence doesn't have much sway here.- MrX 19:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: You're making things up now. The two diffs that you claim show me violating 1RR are more than 29 hours apart. Also, there is no restriction on restoring contested material when there is firm consensus on the talk page.- MrX 00:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Meh...I see no talk page consensus for the addition and possible BLP violation restored by MrX here after DHeyward was seemingly boxed in. There is a complete lack of dispassionate editing here by MrX and others....but when one spends all their time working on politically charged topics, how can we ever believe that their goals are a neutral treatise? I find the plausibility of such to be completely unrealistic and therefore find condemnations of others they disagree with to be laughable.--MONGO 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

This is an obvious 1RR violation, documented by diffs, with no relevant exemptions. It should be dealt with expeditiously. The idea behind discretionary sanctions is to make it easier and more efficient to deal with disruptive editing, so it's ironic and counterproductive when these sorts of obvious, straightforward cases become needlessly complicated as a result of the WP:AE mechanism. If an admin saw this case at WP:ANEW, they'd block and move on. I'm not clear why we allow AE to hinder the speedy resolution of basic conduct issues on the articles that need it most.

The 1RR violation is compounded by the "self-revert", which was nothing of the sort; it was dishonest gamesmanship, as pointed out above. I think a standard block for edit-warring would be appropriate, and would personally advocate a topic ban (at least a time-limited one) given the bad faith described above.

(I'm commenting here as an editor, not as an admin, because I have recently been involved in a discussion with DHeyward on WP:RS/N about sourcing questions on the Moore article. While I'm not convinced that noticeboard input necessarily creates "involvement", I'm commenting here, rather than below, to avoid sidetracking this clear-cut case any further). MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DHeyward

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

Because this concerns an alleged violation of a sanction made by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs), I suggest that they determine what to do here. Sandstein 09:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem a pretty blatant violation. The 'self-revert' which actually removes all the material DHeyward objected to in the first place is not impressive. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: just as a note, this is under BLP discretionary sanctions not the American politics ones so as to avoid WikiLawyering as to whether a split from the main article is "highly visible", and after with consulting with other admins as to which would be the best case here. I do consider DHeyward aware, however, for the purposes of the enforcement procedures, as the previous case was so closely related to this topic area. I'd like to hear their comments before taking any action. My initial thoughts are between 0RR on all living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed, and a topic ban on living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed. I'd like to hear others thoughts (both admins and non-admins), before taking any action, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While in light of a standalone article, I agree that the edits by DHeyward are seemingly improper given the various restrictions. That said, with VM bringing up WP:AGENDA, the fact we have a spin off from a BLP, with this much depth of very recent accusations (yet proven out in court) so close to the event is very much against the spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:BLP and others. I know the article had been through AFD and kept despite these points, so since we have it now, we need to recognize that because this article is going to focus principally on negative aspects related to the allegations made towards Moore that are still being evaluated in primary sources, claiming editors having an AGENDA on this specific article is a bit of a bullshit statement since the article already is established to have an agenda from external sources. We need people to be watchdogs to make sure it stays in the bounds of BLP, NPOV, and the like - enforcing those is not agenda-driven. I don't think DHeyward's edits are all appropriate given broader issues of AP2, but I think that there's several other issues at play here that DHeyward's intentions are perfectly in line with how we should be treating this article (just not the editing pattern). I agree with the statement that trying to coatrack complaints towards Project Veritas here that DHeyward was trying to remove is inappropriate. Calling out DHeyward's actions as WP:AGENDA is completely out of line, but they did cross the line in terms of edit warring and that does need to be dealt with. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Marek, when I read though the WaPost source, and the edits on that section between DHeyward and others, I see DHeyward's attempting to write the situation in a more cautious voice with respect to BLP given the nature of how the WaPost report makes numerous connections (possibly true, but not yet established as such), as well as the revelancy to Moore's own character. Nothing that I can find says this woman was trying to discredit the other victims, that seems to be reading between the lines, which frequently happens when there is a agenda being pushed by the media with a view that an editor might share themselves. DHeyward was trying properly to tone down that section.
  That said, how much of a BLP problem was it? Not to the level that the edit-warring exceptions would allow for, and the fact there was ongoing talk page discussions that DHeyward was participating in at the same time makes the edit warring a bit more obvious, so I would support a short term block. However, I cannot at all agree it was agenda pushing, if anything, it was pushing back against a source that is clearly dependent here and has an agenda, as to keep BLP issues to a minimum. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archwayh

Archwayh is blocked for a month for violating their topic ban. Sandstein 19:25, 1 December 2017 (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 Archwayh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Politrukki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement : WP:ARBAPDS

Topic banned from "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people".

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

All diffs (or links to talk pages) listed below demonstrate that Archwayh has violated their topic ban.

29 June 2017 Eight edits (two comments) to user talk page, edits about US politics or closely related people
2–3 August 2017 Three edits to talk page, edits about US politics or closely related people
10 October 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people, note the edit summary
27–29 October 2017 Eight edits (five comments) to talk page, edits about US politics or closely related people
29 October 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people, note the edit summary
30 October 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people
9 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people
9 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people
9 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people
14 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people, attempt to use another editor as a proxy
16 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people, using another editor as a proxy

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

25 May 2017 Topic banned from "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, for one month"
2 June 2017 Blocked for violating topic ban
2 June 2017 Topic ban extended to six months

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.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 June 2017 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On May 25, 2017, Archwayh was topic banned for one month. On June 2, 2017, the topic ban was extended to six months. Archwayh has said that they didn't know they were topic banned as they hadn't read their user talk page.[61] I actually find the explanation plausible: this explains why Archwayh continued to mark all their edits as minor even after they were told to stop it.

On June 16, 2017, Archwayh asks Lord Roem whether talk pages fall within the topic ban.[62] Inbetween those edits Archwayh edits Talk:Donald Trump (example). Lord Roem explains that talk pages are included in the topic ban.[63]

On June 29, 2017, Archwayh opens a discussion related to American politics with JFG.[64] When JFG informs Archwayh that they may be violating their topic ban, they claim that the topic ban "has nothing to do w/ page talk".[65]

On October 10 and October 26 they make edits which to me appear to be perfectly fine, except that the edit summary refers to American politics.

Rest of the evidence should speak for itself (edits about post-1932 politics of the United States, edits to pages about US politics, or closely related people).

It seems obvious that Archwayh doesn't understand what they were topic banned from (and why), and I'm not convinced they will. Politrukki (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archwayh, many thanks for you for statement. Just one correction/request: would you kindly stop gendering me? Politrukki (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Archwayh&diff=813082793&oldid=803507767

Discussion concerning Archwayh

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 Archwayh

I have not made any edit directly related to politics, or thous as such that could be debated as political-oriented & then be removed. And re: Bloomberg, that was a FIX to an error that should be applauded. That wasn't a political-motivated change or ad, but a FIX. The minor edit on Bush was related to small grimmer fix -- not some controversial or political-oriented one. If I didn't understand these term, then I obviously apologize. But, inn essence, this is a complete lie by a user who is conducting a political witch hunt against me, bc he doesn't like my views (and for COL, I am a moderate centrist & not some ideologue who pushed agenda in Wiki. All of these attacks against me were * being perused by this obsessed user, who's fixated on me for some reason. To contrast, he he is a right-wing ideologue who supports Ted Cruz, from what I know). If he won't stop, I plan to peruse other options to stop him from smearing me. I am planning to file a complaint about his alleged corrupt behavior later on. Edits that have been on some figures that may be political aren't related directly to politics, and they were commonly agreed or small fixes. Further, most edits were on user PAGES, and didn't even influenced Wikipedia. This user, that continues this obsessive witch hint, will hear from me. If I edited something that doesn't directly relates to politics, but could be perceived as such -- then I am obviously sorry. But I didn't violate anything at least knowingly, & my small number of edits were small, non-political & commonly agreed. That's my statement Archway (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

I would tend to be lenient about occasional chit-chat about politics on a user talk page, as happened on mine a few months ago. However we cannot accept blatant requests for other people to edit by proxy on behalf of the TBANned editor. Either this is bad faith or gross incompetence. In both cases, a harsher sanction is warranted, perhaps a 6-month block with the usual avenues to get unblocked and return to collegial editing within the project's rules. — JFG ^talk 18:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Arch's statement above, they add WP:PAs and WP:ASPERSIONS on a fellow editor, which pleads towards a CIR case indeed. A fresh reading of the first law of holes is advised. — JFG ^talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Archwayh

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

These are clear topic ban violations. The confrontational statement doesn't help either. Blocked for a month. Sandstein 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick.8.payne

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 Nick.8.payne

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nick.8.payne (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/Waldorf education#Amendments by motion:

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

[66] 2 December 2017 newbie mistake
[67] 3 December 2017 after being warned of discretionary sanctions and advised against performing WP:OR

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 [68] 2 December 2017.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein and SoWhy: Well, I agree with your decision. Could someone show the basics of WP:PAGs to this newbie (more than I did)? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[69]

Discussion concerning Nick.8.payne

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 Nick.8.payne

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nick.8.payne

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

I would take no action. Yes, this looks like WP:OR, but it is still a question of content, not conduct. OR becomes a conduct problem only if it is repeated and egregious. So far nobody has taken the time to explain WP:OR to this new editor. Sandstein 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Sandstein said, too soon. The reporting user only posted an explanation of the rules to the new user's talk page after their last edit and after reporting them here. New user has not edited since, so I see no evidence that they are deliberately ignoring the advice they were given. Regards So Why 16:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme

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 Atsme

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 : [70]. Discretionary sanctions, including a 1RR restriction and the "consensus required" provision added to the article on 2:25 November 16 2017 [71] by User:TonyBallioni.

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

Dec 4 17:22 Adding material to article and...
Dec 4 17:49 re-adding it via revert without bothering to get consensus after it has been challanged.

Personal attacks and clear WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude

[72] "Put your big girl/boy panties on and stop the whining. I'm weary of your POV reverts and UNDUE weight you defend in various articles. It is what it is, and attempts to deny your tendentious editing is laughable"'
[73]

Note that the personal attacks and the practice of discussing other editors without informing them has been noted by other users [74] [75]

@Masem: [76] this is NOT - by any stretch - a violation of the Donald Trump topic ban (commenting on DT per BANEX here). The admin placing the restriction explicitly stated that edits about Roy Moore which are not explicit about Trump are not covered. Neither is the DT topic ban "broadly construed" and the diff you provide does NOT show that (in fact the diff you provide - [77] - is about an appeal of an IBAN... are you confused?). Please strike your false statements. And look, this is a straight up violation of a discretionary sanction by Atsme. A discretionary sanction that Atsme was very well aware of. A discretionary sanction that Atsme tried to get OTHER editors sanctioned under. Yet violated themselves. This is a pretty clear cut case, exactly the same as the one which recently other editors have been sanctioned under. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not sure. Too busy to check right now.

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

Oh boy. The user has participated in recent threads concerning the sanction. For example [78]. Indeed, the editor is currently agitating one of the admins active on this page [79] over this very sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to a straight up violation of the discretionary sanctions, the user also makes frequent personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS against others, as evidenced on User:GoldenRing's talk page. For example, referring to others as "POV warriors". According to them anyone who disagrees with them is a "POV warrior". This is coupled with insistence on using non-reliable, and fringe sources, including conspiracy and hoax sites while at the same time arguing that standard, reliable, mainstream sources are "fringe", should not be trusted and used. Basically they got it exactly backwards. This kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, especially the repeated insults and name calling has made it impossible to work collaboratively with Atsme, which is why most editors have taken to just ignoring them on the talk page.

I am NOT under any TB from the Roy Moore article and I did NOT make a "revert while under TB". Atsme knows this because they have participated in recent discussions where this was brought up. Even if Atsme did not know this for sure, the proper thing to do would've been to ask or inquire, rather than edit war and violate DS by reverting. The excuse offered below is lame and false. Volunteer Marek 21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC) (GoldenRing has explicitly stated, in the same place where Atsme is commenting: " I wouldn't consider Roy Moore covered by it (the topic ban - VM)"[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Atsme

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 Atsme

Volunteer Marek reverted my edit while he was subject of an AE TB by GoldenRing. Another editor was blocked for violating the TB broadly construed. I believed that editors who are under an active TB are not allowed to revert edits on topics for which they are topic banned. See this discussion which includes the violative edits (and diffs) of VM while under the TB - clearly involving a Trump related article considering the upcoming election as a candidate who supports Trump and was recently endorsed by Trump - broadly construed. I requested clarification from GoldenRing, and since there is such a gray area, the ambiguities need to be clarified or WP will end-up with far fewer active editors. Also, there is not a notice of the consensus sanction in the edit view which creates a major issue - it's on the TP which is relatively obscure from editors who are busy building an encyclopedia, and who are not interested in playing politics. I'm popping some popcorn and will quietly watch the pile on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I don't feel that Roy Moore or Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations should be covered by a Donald Trump TBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I do not see how anyone can consider this edit as a topic ban violation with regard to D. Trump. The edit is about an opinion poll with regard to another politician. Of course that another politician was endorsed by D. Trump, and perhaps his election will help D. Trump. However, same can be said about almost any other significant politician in the US, whose elections, comments or whatever might affect the president. Telling this is covered by the topic ban is beyond belief. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Atsme

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

Complicated series of issues here. I think both Atsme and VM are in the wrong. VM clearly did this edit despite the current enforcement they are under against any articles relating to Trump, broadly construed (from here). The edit has zero issues with BLP (its simply results from a poll) or otherwise falls in the usual exemptions that are allowed for, so VM violated that sanction. That said, Atsme may also be goading a bit here - while edits from banned editors can be undone without reason, in a area that is under DS, I would be extremely careful using this as a means to justify the second revert, and for that, this might need a simple short term block as with DHeyward above. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that Trump has backed Moore up frequently against the accusations leveled at him, which in turn has led to criticism towards Trump by the media (just checked google news right now, and there's a whole new flurry of activity because Trump officially endorsed Moore in the election race), this topic falls within "broadly". --MASEM (t) 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Atsme a friend, and as such INVOLVED with her, so I am recusing on this even though I placed the original sanctions on the article. Also, a note that it is technically under BLP sanctions, not AP2, though if that is causing confusion and there is consensus here to move it to AP2, I have no objection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

[3] Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.”

[4] Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.”

[a]

[b]

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 826: / Line 826: @@
 Note that the personal attacks and the practice of discussing other editors without informing them has been noted by other users [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldenRing&diff=prev&oldid=813701711]  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldenRing&diff=prev&oldid=813703399]
+{{ping|Masem}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegations&diff=prev&oldid=813671775] this is NOT - by any stretch - a violation of the Donald Trump topic ban (commenting on DT per BANEX here). The admin placing the restriction explicitly stated that edits about Roy Moore which are not explicit about Trump are not covered. Neither is the DT topic ban "broadly construed" and the diff you provide does NOT show that (in fact the diff you provide - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&diff=810809169&oldid=810777353] - is about an appeal of an IBAN... are you confused?). Please strike your false statements. And look, this is a straight up violation of a discretionary sanction by Atsme. A discretionary sanction that Atsme was very well aware of. A discretionary sanction that Atsme tried to get OTHER editors sanctioned under. Yet violated themselves. This is a pretty clear cut case, exactly the same as the one which recently other editors have been sanctioned under.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Volunteer Marek&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->

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