Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:48, 25 February 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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thucydides411

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: Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Thucydides411 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: blocked from editing for a period of 1 week, imposed at WP:AE#Thucydides411, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2017#American_politics_2

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

Notification of that administrator

I've moved this appeal from the user's talk page and notified Coffee. Sandstein 08:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thucydides411

There are four reasons why I think this sanction should be repealed:

I was blocked for following an interpretation of 1RR that an admin MelanieN, explicitly told editors working on the page we should follow: [1]. This interpretation is based on a number of threads that occurred between admins here: [2] [3].
The block is punitive, not preventative. I have shown that I will follow whatever policy guidelines are given by admins. For Coffee to come come in, after the fact, and tell me that MelanieN and NeilN are incorrect in their interpretation of 1RR, and that my editing is therefore retroactively incorrect, is simply punitive.
I have been singled out for a sanction, when, as was documented in the proceedings, most active editors are guilty of the exact same violation. There is nothing that distinguishes my editing from that of those editors, yet I am the only one to receive a block. If this sanction is to be applied consistently, the editors who must receive equal blocks are as follows: Steve Quinn, JFG, FallingGravity, Volunteer Marek, MelanieN, James J. Lambden, Neutrality, EvergreenFir (see Darouet's and James J. Lambden's comments in the original case for diffs showing exactly the same violation that I was accused of for all of these editors).
Contrary to what the closing note at AE says ("reinstating edits that had been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining or seeking consensus first"), I did, in fact, seek to obtain consensus. In fact, I have been heavily involved in the discussions on the talk page. At the time I received a block, for reinstating material relating to Clapper, the material that I had reinstated had been removed again, and I was involved in discussions with the users who had removed it.

In sum, I was blocked for editing in exactly the same manner as most editors on the page, in a manner that admins had explicitly told us was consistent with the 1RR policy. If Coffee's interpretation of 1RR (which differs from that of several other admins) is correct, it should at least be applied consistently, rather than to one editor in particular. And it should not be applied retroactively to editors who were acting in good faith, according to the interpretation of policy they had been given by admins, and who spent a considerable effort engaging civilly with other editors on the talk page.

@Coffee: I didn't list SPECIFICO above as one of the people who have violated the interpretation of 1RR you've laid out, since SPECIFICO's reverts were not mentioned in the case before. But since SPECIFICO has been so adamant here, yet so disruptive on the talk page (insulting other editors here, for example: [4] [5]), and themselves has violated 1RR several times in just the past few days, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is warranted here. Here are SPECIFICO's recent 1RR violations:

Violation #1: two reverts in 24 hours:

03:52, 15 February 2017: [6]
05:07, 15 February 2017: [7]

Violation #2: two reverts in 24 hours:

22:46, 5 February 2017: [8]
00:27, 6 February 2017: [9]

Violation #3: two reverts in 24 hours:

03:34, 10 February 2017: [10]
03:10, 10 February 2017: [11]

A smattering of other reverts, barely avoiding the 24-hour window:

20:28, 12 February 2017: [12]
00:22, 11 February 2017: [13]

As they say, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee

The Arbitration Committee approved page restriction (placed by Bishonen) states that editors "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" ... the Arbitration Remedies notice at the talk page further states: "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." Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) reinstated two edits that had been challenged without first obtaining consensus, thereby violating the page restriction. The length of the block was recommended by Sandstein (although he later requested an admin more familiar with the area make the disposition) and I found it an appropriate length as well. The block for the above stated violation was proposed by EdJohnston, and I implemented it after a full review. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: So, are you saying there wasn't a violation or that because he misinterpreted the letter of the restriction, and of other administrator's views on the restriction, there can't be a violation? I'm really quite confused as to what caused such a drastic change in your opinion, unless you're saying you didn't fully look at this before making a binding decision (which is just a bit concerning). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain, @NeilN: I'd also state that any edits made after the date the restrictions were imposed, 16 December 2016, can't really claim to be "long-standing". Darouet claims these edits were first placed in the article in mid-January, meaning they're way below that threshold. Furthermore, while the restriction is intended to stabilize the article, it isn't intended to be gamed so that one may force "their version" to be the version... As these edits weren't able to stand for even 40 days without being challenged, I can only see the stated misinterpretation by Thucydides411 to be an attempt to do just that. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: Administrative actions do not work retroactively. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: SPECIFICO brings up a great point... how is 9 days considered "long-standing" (adj. existing or occurring for a long time; synonyms: well established, time-honored, age-old, abiding, enduring)? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Also, according to your analysis, the only other editor that would be eligible for a block currently is JFG (as the other violating edit, made by Darouet, was done over a month ago). As there is an AE thread currently open further down this page to decide on what happens to JFG, I don't see the lack of sanctions being applied to other editors to be a valid reason for lifting or reducing this fully valid block. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: An edit that is challenged isn't considered to be unchallenged just because someone else performs a revert. Once an edit is challenged, it requires consensus to be reinstated. That consensus was not obtained by Thucydides411, Darouet or JFG. As I said above, JFG is the only other editor currently eligible to be sanctioned because of time elapsed. Therefore, this sanction is correct and a sanction for JFG would be in order as well. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: According to the in-depth analysis done by Awilley, the content in question never stood more than 9 days on the article after being added. As such, I think the entirety of the idea that a 4-6 week system applied here, or that these edits were long-standing in any way, is completely impossible. What I blantaly see from his timeline is Darouet, Thucydides411 and JFG gaming the system, by attempting to claim that their obviously challenged edits weren't challenged, and then, almost fully succeeding at reversing the onus of consensus that is required by the DS. Just because three editors really want something on a page, they don't magically override our DS system. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

1. It's been amply disputed by others, and never documented by Thucydides411, that @MelanieN: stated any safe harbor or definition of DS that applies to the facts of this case.
2. Given Thucydides longstanding disruptive editing in a American Politics, this preventive block is needed. "No Fair!" is orthogonal to "Punitive". Claiming he didn't understand the sanctions only reinforces the need for a preventive time-out.
3. His claim that he's been "singled out" only demonstrates that he has not begun to shed his battleground viewpoint and enemies list. The decision in this particular case was about him.
4. It's all the more damning that, "seeking consensus" on the talk page in fact showed editors about evenly split on the issue and any diligent editor would have stayed far away from behavior that could possibly be viewed as edit-warring. Thucydides claimed that his behavior was justified because his opinion was the correct opinion. He tried to claim a false equivalence between other editors' removal of a BLP smear and his obstinate reinsertion of a POV edit.

If he has concerns about the form or function of ARBAP2 sanctions, he should go to Arbcom Clarification to seek improvements after his block expires. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my point (1) above, Thucydides' repeated and ongoing attempts to misattribute self-serving exemptions to several Admins is disruptive and in my opinion is on its face a further serious violation of ARBAP2. I suggest Admins consider whether Thucydides should have a more lengthy ban from this article so that he can fully consider his behavior before returning to action. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I understand that you dissent from the consensus as of the close of the AE against Thucydides. However my understanding of these AE appeals is that they're to correct some defect or omission in the original process, not to re-open the discussion, challenge consensus at the "trial level" or relitigate the details. There are no new facts here, just remarkably obstinate repetition of the disputed meme about longstanding and Admin advice that was rejected first time around. SPECIFICO talk 04:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thanks for your reply, but isn't that about relitigating the original decision rather than ruling on some error or omission of process that would cause the decision to be reversed? I mean, the Admins came to a decision with all the diverse views on the table at the time of the block. Did you feel that your dissenting view was not treated appropriately among the Admins? I understand there may always be a minority opinion in any adjudication, but unless the process itself was flawed, the consensus, taking account of all views, should stand. SPECIFICO talk 04:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand we have the facts -- Thucydides documented to have violated DS, behaved disruptively, and ignored demonstrated consensus against him on talk. On the other hand we have his Special Defense: "No fair!" -- The weight of the evidence in this matter says "appeal denied." SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the analysis by @Awilley:

Awilley, thank you for the work you did to provide that timeline. It shows us that the disputed content was never in the article for more than 9 days before being disputed by revert. It further shows many editors recognizing its BLP violation and duly removing it. I don't believe that 9 days is considered "longstanding" and I don't believe that a BLP violation should ever be reinstated. Even if an editor had doubted all the others who were pointing out the BLP violation, any editor with that doubt could have sought advice by going to BLPN before reinserting that content. Awilley, in light of the 9 day "longstanding" disconnect, please reconsider your conclusion. Instead we saw attacks on the good faith of half a dozen editors who recognized the smear -- published in an opinion piece in a second-tier US newspaper. You may find it helpful to do a similar analysis of the article talk page, where a clear consensus identified the text as a BLP violation glibly referring to misrepresentation by a living person -- a public servant, no less, whose responsibility entails handling sensitive information for the US. SPECIFICO talk 14:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Thanks for your reply. I think the argument Thucydides was using to pursue his appeal, now moot, referred to content that stayed in the article uninterrupted for 4-6 weeks or whatever. Once it is challenged by reversion, it should not go back in. Therefore the fact that Mr. T et al participated in an edit war, never letting the reverted content stay out of the article, does not relate to the requirement of T's theory, namely that it had been stable consensus version for a long period of time. The point is that the first reinstatement occurred after the content had been in the article for 9 days. How does that relate to any advice any Admin gave about "longstanding" in the sense of weeks or months? What happened after T's reinstatement violation is sauce on the pudding, but the pudding was baked after he reinstated the 9-day longstanding. As to BLP UNDUE, SPS and other defects in the content -- yes it had all those problems and the fact that the edit warriors continued to reinstate it after all of those were raised on talk suggests, if anything, that T's block should be lengthened, not commuted. The BLP problem is that the Op-Ed and the WP text were written as if to refer to a fact about Clapper, when in fact the authors were asserting an opinion, and not one suitable for repetition without explicit discussion as an opinion. And becuase of the weak and UNDUE nature of the opinion, that kind of treatment would also have been a BLP violation. But yes, you're right that they should not have been edit-warring this stuff back in regardless of the BLP issue. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thank you for your comment on Awilley's evidence. Given that Thucydides' claim of "longstanding" is invalid, what exemption would apply to his repeated reinsertion of that content given a) the BLP violation (which he could have addressed by seeking support for his view at BLPN) and b) the demonstrated talk page arguments against the content by several editors who presented policy-based reasons including PRIMARY and UNDUE? SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

Admins look for patterns where an editor might be thwarting polices or editing into articles without consensus. In this case, the material was challenged based on content polices by a half dozen productive editors, including me:

Space Time2x 15:01, 12 February 2017, 15:09, 12 February 2017, +
Neutrality 19:44, 12 February 2017, +
Only in death 16:13, 13 February 2017, 17:25, 13 February 2017, 13 February 2017, +
Volunteer Marek 21:50, 12 February 2017 and
SPECIFICO 02:40, 12 February 2017.
Me 15:31, 11 February 2017, 15:54, 11 February 2017

Thucydides411 was actually undoing any edits by some of the above editors in a short amount of time. No consensus had appeared for these edits:

07:14, 11 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO +
21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting Space4Time3Continuum2x
21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO +
16:52, 13 February 2017 reverting Only in death +
20:33, 14 February 2017 Here it appears Thucydides411 reverts two edits by Space4Time3Continuum2x. These are the two prior edits by SpaceTime: 19:35, 14 February 2017 and 19:40, 14 February 2017. +
20:34, 14 February 2017 Reverts Space4Time3Continuum2x again. This particular material was earlier removed by Space Time 15:05, 12 February 2017

This is what Admin Coffee and Admin EdJohnston were able to discern.

Also, Thucydides411's talk page comments demonstrate their disregard for lack of consensus and policy based arguments:

His "longstanding" argument does not hold against the assertion of content policy questions. Rather than engage in discussions about how to properly deal with the material under discussion, or about removal of policy violations, he bangs the "longstanding" gong. Also, there were not enough editors on that agreed with Thucydides411 to say there was a consensus. I will let the other diffs speak for themselves.

Coffee's decision is accurate. Thucydides411 "reinstated edits that had been challenged without obtaining consensus first." Also, he was doing this while discussions were ongoing. As an aside, the discussions are still ongoing. Steve Quinn (talk)

I didn't realize we had to use a signature in our section. I never noticed it before. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain if I may say so, Coffee has presented a clear sighted rationale on his talk page, as they did here and in other places. NeilN has presented a clear sighted description of how the DS are working in this instance, and probably other instances as well. And, imho, another editor is bringing in a lot of superfluous material not related to Coffee's decision, and maybe some other editors are also bringing in lesser amount superfluous material. This seems to have the effect of diluting and blurring the actual facts relevant to this case, imho. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: -- JFGs request (below) appears to be doing an end-around of some sort (05:29, 22 February 2017). NeilN, in this instance, I request that you (and other Admins) stand back and let this be worked out one way or another. He appears to be trying to garner an AE decision without the an actual AE case. Also, it seems to me to be piggy backing on this one to create an outcome suitable to him. He just reinserted material without consensus (04:59, 22 February 2017).

This was previously and explicitly challenged by My very best wishes (14:22, 21 February 2017). There was and is a talk page discussion going on, where MVBW removed the material and then opened the discussion (14:17, 21 February 2017). There is no consensus and no policy based reason for restoring the material, as can be seen in the discussion (hopefully you will look). I notice in his latest request to you, NeilN, is that you link this discussion - he says - "you and other admins...this explanation should be linked from the relevant DS/1RR".

This appears to be a preemptive maneuver to justify reverting against consensus that is a DS violation, according to the article template. This is very much putting the cart before the horse. Two editors have requested that he self-revert per DS violation: (06:59, 22 February 2017), (04:57, 22 February 2017), including on his talk page (06:52, 22 February 2017), (07:02, 22 February 2017). NeilN, as stated above, in this instance, I request that you (and other Admins) stand back and let this be worked out one way or another. This would be much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: it is true anyone can bring an enforcement request for an editing restriction violation. I am not sure what I meant by "stand back", now. Well, other than it seemed that JFG was trying to piggy back on to this AE to get a possibly get a pass for his behavior with this edit here *05:29, 22 February 2017). In any case, if anyone wishes to bring an enforcement complaint, then I have no objection, nor did I have an objection. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG (involved)

Thucydides411 was acting in good faith, based on DS guidance from admins NeilN [14] and Awilley [15], while opposing editors argued that no material should be restored after a deletion is challenged by reversion. This misunderstanding spawned no less than three AE cases (Steve Quinn vs Guccisamsclub, JFG vs SPECIFICO and Steve Quinn vs Thucydides411), plus a fourth case that I refrained from raising against Geogene (see my statement in the Thucydides case above).

Sanctions are meant to be preventive, and in order to prevent further disputes along these lines, all editors need official guidance to clarify whether NeilN and Awilley's interpretation of DS wording — You […] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article — can be considered authoritative. This would discourage slow-warring as happened here and nip several similar disputes in the bud.

We really need strong admin guidance on whether removing longstanding text is a challengeable edit or whether only text additions are challengeable (which would imho be an unbalanced restriction). Thucydides has demonstrated on his talk page that he is ready to abide by the rules, as long as the rules are clear, therefore I deem the block punitive. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thanks for your statement. The special form of restrictions that you mention was agreed at the Donald Trump article, and has been efficient in reducing the maintenance burden for perennial disputes. However these special restrictions do not apply here: we are talking about article 2016 United States election interference by Russia, which is under the standard DS/1RR restrictions for ARBAP2. In this context, the admonition to not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page has been interpreted in conflicting ways, giving rise to the three most recent AE cases, and those conflicting interpretations have contributed to a degraded spirit on the talk page. I should be grateful if you had a comment on the generic restrictions, notably whether a challengeable edit can be both an addition or a deletion. — JFG ^talk 18:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thank you for the detailed clarification; this confirms my reading of the restrictions and will hopefully help resolve or avoid similar cases in the future, and meet the goals of improving page stability and encouraging constructive discourse. May I suggest to you and other admins that this explanation should be linked from the relevant DS/1RR edit notice? Also, note that this scenario can involve more than 2 editors, e.g.:

Editor A removes long-standing material - this is their first revert;
Editor B reinstates the long-standing material - this is their first revert;
Editor C removes the material again - this is their first revert, but they are violating the "consensus required" restriction.

Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: In my edit comment and on the relevant article talk page, I have fully explained my revert of MVBW's sudden deletion of material; I also replied to your message on my personal talk page as soon as I had a chance to. Off-topic for the Thucydides case and appeal that we are discussing here, although the clarification of the DS/1RR rules should help us all with process issues on various articles. — JFG ^talk 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

A couple things here. First, the article is not under WP:1RR but under a special form of WP:1RR, imposed by JFG on December 30, 2016. The wording, "Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions" makes clear the difference and so my conversation last August with MelanieN does not apply to the current situation. Thucydides411, given this, can you please supply a diff where Coffee says Melanie and I are incorrect in our interpretation of 1RR? Second, JFG's modification to 1RR for this article appears nowhere in the talk page guidance detailing editing restrictions. As I alluded to before, I have a lot of sympathy for editors trying to follow the rules in good faith, with all the ill-advised terminology (e.g., "firm consensus") and inconsistent instructions appearing on the article's pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies JFG. Sometimes these articles just melt together. I am copying below what I just posted to Thucydides411's talk page and adding some more thoughts I expressed elsewhere.

There are two separate editing restrictions in place for that article, both independent of each other.

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.

Any edit means any edit, whether addition of new material, the tweaking of long-standing existing material, or the removal of long-standing existing material. The meaning of "long-standing" changes from article to article. As with Donald Trump, I would take it to mean 4-6 weeks for this article. One this challenge has happened, no editor should be re-doing the addition/tweaking/deletion without obtaining consensus.

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).

This is the more prosaic WP:1RR. It is somewhat superfluous given the above, but is useful to stop individual editors from edit warring over new material. Scenario:

Editor A adds new material - this is not a revert, obviously
Editor B removes the new material - this is their first revert
Editor A reinstates new material - this is their first revert, but violates the "consensus required" restriction
Editor B, relying on the "consensus required" restriction, removes the new material - this is their second revert, violating WP:1RR

It can also work out this way:

Editor A removes long-standing material - this is their first revert
Editor B reinstates the long-standing material - this is their first revert
Editor A removes the material again - this is their second revert, violating both the "consensus required" restriction and WP:1RR
Editor B, relying on the "consensus required" restriction, re-adds the material - this is their second revert, violating WP:1RR

WP:1RR is there to tell you that even if the "consensus required" restriction is violated, Editor B still can't edit war. It also keeps things under control if there's a dispute about what is "long-standing".

A challengeable edit can be an addition, modification of long-standing material, or removal or long-standing material. I think the term "edit" you used, from the restriction, is a clear indication of this. Arbcom did not use the more explicit and narrow "addition" and on Wikipedia, editing by no means refers to only adding material. The restriction is supposed to stabilize articles and removal of long-standing content can easily be seen as destabilizing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: What do you mean, "stand back"? If there's an editing restriction violation anyone can bring an enforcement request and we will look at it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn: Per the instructions up top: "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." So yes, essentially anyone, except the obvious exceptions (topic banned, editor with an interaction ban reporting the other editor's content edits, etc.) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Geogene: So you only need consensus to add material to an article? No. You also need consensus to take it out. You'll note that WP:FAIT talks about actions, not additions.

"Fait accompli actions, where additions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate."
"Fait accompli actions, where removals are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate."

Either reading is valid. If Arbcom wants to craft a restriction targeting additions then they need to change "reinstating any edits" to "reinstating any additions". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Geogene: No, of course not. "It's in because it has consensus to stay in" is just as circular as "It's out because it has consensus to stay out". So let's say a paragraph was added a couple months ago. The article is intensely watched but wonder of wonders, no one objects or comments. Fast forward to today and an editor decides the text isn't appropriate. They remove it. It gets restored. It cannot be removed again by saying, "well, no one explicitly agreed with the addition". Instead, reasons rooted in normal policies and guidelines must be given, hopefully by multiple editors. And in that case, the side wanting to retain the material cannot just rely on, "well, the material has been there for two months". They too, must come up with reasons rooted in normal policies and guidelines. However in this case the material should stay until that discussion has been had. It might be a quick discussion, it might be a lengthy one, but it needs to exist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

Thucydides411 has been blocked by Coffee, for challenging, via reversion, edits deleting comments by Pierre Sprey, William Binney and Ray McGovern. Their commentary had been present in the article at least a month prior to efforts to remove them ([16]).

Diff Sequence

[17] Sprey, Binney, McGovern in article, 7 January

(...)

[18] SPECIFICO deletes Binney, McGovern comment claiming BLP vio (Bold), makes no post at Talk or BLPN, 10 February
[19] JFG challenges by reversion (Revert), posts at Talk, 11 February
[20] SPECIFICO reinstates their own edit challenged by reversion, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, still no comment on talk, 11 February
[21] Thucydides411 restores challenge, SPECIFICO finally comments on Talk, 11 February
[22] MelbourneStar reinstates challenged edit, 11 February
[23] Steve Quinn deletes Baltimore Sun reference (Bold), 11 February
[24] James J. Lambden challenges deletion by reversion (Revert), 11 February
[25] Space4Time3Continuum2x Removes Sprey comment (Bold), 12 February
[26] I quote Binney/McGovern directly so attribution is clear, 12 February
[27] SPECIFICO deletes more Binney, McGovern comment (Bold)
[28] Thucydides411 challenges both edits by reversion (Revert) 12 February
[29] Volunteer Marek reinstates edit challenged by reversion, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, 12 February
[30] Guccisamsclub restores challenge, 12 February
[31] OID again deletes Binney/McGovern text, thereby reinstating an edit challenged by reversion, citing BLP as exemption from D/S 13 February
[32] Thucydides411 restores challenge, 13 February
[33] OID reverts, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, 13 February
[34] Space4Time3Continuum2x again tries to remove Sprey, McGovern and Binney, reinstating their own edit challenged by reversion, 14 February
[35] Thucydides411 restores challenge, 14 February
[36] SPECIFICO removes opinion polls showing public skepticism of hacking story (present for one month [37]), (Bold) 15 February
[38] JFG challenges edit by reversion, 15 February
[39] Geogene reinstates edit challenged by reversion, 16 February

There are 5 instances in which editors have "restored edits challenged by reversion: edits #3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene).

There are 8 instances in which further reversions continued after the five D/S violations list above: edits #4-5, 13-18 (Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, Only in Death).

Admin response

On 4-5 February BlueSalix and Volunteer Marek made substantial, contested edits to the article, reverted by MelanieN ([40], [41]). On Talk, MelanieN explained that "edit"≠"text." That is, deleting article text may be an "edit" that can be "challenged," and that trying to delete a second time could therefore be a D/S violation ([42]). This interpretation is consistent with the D/S text and with earlier commentary from NeilN (1, 2).

Sandstein closed the first case against SPECIFICO, explaining, "Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time." That is one way of resolving the conflict, though it would seem many people had "restored edits challenged by reversion." Guy states that SPECIFICO's edits are not justified by BLP [43][44].

In the case against Thucydides, EdJohnston stated, "The current behavior of most editors and the sanction are not compatible,", and ultimately proposed a warning [45].

Coffee stated that because Thucydides411's edits (#11 and #18) did not have consensus, he should be blocked, explaining : "Edits made to revert to an established consensus version, do not count against the WP:1RR restriction." [46][47]. However, Thucydides411's edits #11 and 18 do exactly what Coffee recommends - revert to the prior established version - so Coffee's proposal to block is inconsistent with their own interpretation of the D/S sanctions.

NeilN strongly suggests all 1RR are violations [48]. In response, Coffee repeats that without "consensus," the "established version" holds: "I used the word "established" before "consensus version..."" [49].

In response to all this, Sandstein states, "It now seems to me, as an admin unfamiliar with it, that the wording "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" is not clear enough to be understood in the same way by all editors, and should be rewritten or omitted." I agree D/S is not complicated. What is completely incomprehensible, instead, is Coffee's application of D/S to this particular case.

Look at that stack of 21 diffs, and read MelanieN's, NeilN's, and Coffee's commentaries on D/S restrictions. No matter how you interpret them, edits #3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene) are D/S violations. Under NeilN's 1RR interpretation edits #4-5, 13-18 (Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, Only in Death) are also D/S violations.

Many of us have pointed out how absurd this situation is. There is no way to interpret policy such that Thucydides411 merits a block, but seven other editors don't, and five of them much more so. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: thanks for your comment. Sandstein, NeilN can we have a discussion somewhere about appropriate procedures to follow when editing at this article? I'm afraid to re-engage there because I honestly don't understand what the policy is now, and fear I'll be arbitrarily blocked for following either one or the other interpretation of DS. One possibility is to have mediation, something I earlier proposed several times on the talk page [50][51][52], and endorsed by JFG [53], but nobody else. -Darouet (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: I sort of want to write that essay now. -Darouet (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Mr Ernie's point is that the DS are lifted because they provide unclear and contradictory instructions to editors. If admins themselves cannot agree on what those instructions are, it was wrong to block Thucydides411 for following one admin interpretation - the one explained on the page - instead of Coffee's (who offered his interpretation only after the case was brought here). It should also be noted that Coffee's interpretation - that all edits made after December 16th (a few days after the article was created) are not "longstanding" and can be reverted even via edit warring - is a highly convoluted reading of the DS text, and one that NeilN and MelanieN certainly disagreed with on the Talk page. To me at least it seems clear that Thucydides411's reading of the DS text was straightforward, and this has been bolstered by NeilN's explanations.

Nobody has yet explained what made Thucydides411's editing objectionable. I carried out a careful review of all the edits and reverts related to this case, presented above. The only thing that stands out about Thucydides411's edits are these: that they maintained that former intelligence officials critical of the hacking story should remain in the article. Seven of the nine editors who pushed "revert" more than once, above, were aggressively pushing an anti-Russian line on the article and talk pages. A partisan article tone has been opposed by many editors - Thucydides411, myself, JFG, Guccisamsclub, James J. Lambden, The Four Deuces - but it is practically impossible to edit the article if we are constantly threatened by SPECIFICO (who has an impressive block log, including for "creating an unappealing editing environment"), and if it seems the admins will enforce rules selectively. Nothing about this block ever made sense, and it's frustrating to have the editors who are supposed to uphold the highest standard of conduct intervening (or so it seems) in content disputes. -Darouet (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogene

NeilN, please explain how you arbitrary "longstanding" concept is not WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I think that when you say longstanding you really are just assuming that text in question was once backed by consensus. But consensus is a moving target; text that doesn't have it shouldn't belong in the article. Any reading of this DS that implies otherwise is at odds with community consensus and therefore void. Geogene (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, I believe you are saying that text that is being seriously contested by multiple editors should be restored to an article even if supporters cannot offer a rationale other than citing this DS - a fait accompli justification. Is this correct? If so, then this DS is problematic. Geogene (talk)

Statement by involved admin MelanieN

I've been out of town for 2 weeks on a family emergency, and I came back to find that my name has often been invoked in this discussion. This is because, on that article's talk page, I explained the DS guidelines as they had been explained to me at my talk page by more experienced administrators. link 1, link 2 (It says something sad about the DS guidelines that I, a 10-year editor and 2-year administrator, didn't understand them and was seeking clarification.) The guideline I expounded was that an "edit" under the meaning of the DS could include a removal of longstanding material, so that restoring such a removal was a permissible challenge to it. That made sense to me, because I have seen people game the system by deleting anything they don't like and daring others to restore it; it doesn't seem right to have the guidelines stacked in favor of the deleters like that. I have not followed the incident that led to Theucydides getting blocked, but it appears he was trying to follow the guidelines as I explained them. I am distressed that he wound up blocked for doing in good faith what he had been told was all right, especially since numerous other people including myself did the same thing without consequences. I personally acted on that same understanding, at that same page, when I restored two deletions that I interpreted as "removals of longstanding material" which could be challenged by reversion. (One of my reverts was of a mass deletion of sourced material by Volunteer Marek [54], and the other was of a clearly POINTy removal of a mass of material by BlueSalix.[55]) I cited my own understanding of the guidelines at the talk page when I restored those two removals, adding that "if an admin thinks that was a violation on my part, you know where to find me." [56] No one approached me or chided me about those two reverts, which were done in the same spirit as the revert by Theucydides. Shouldn't I have been banned or blocked also? Should I block myself? As I said, I am distressed that no-one has done anything about what seems to me to be an obvious miscarriage of justice here. And I think it is clear that the guidelines can be interpreted in more than one way, and may need to be clarified by ArbCom. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thank User:Awilley for his detailed analysis of this situation. Maybe the fact that Theucydides restored the information (i.e., reverted the deletion) four times in four days was part of the reason he was singled out here? However, he is certainly not the only one whose name appears multiple times in that analysis. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Thucydides411

Comment by Mr Ernie

Per admin Sandstein's comment below "I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply," the block should be overturned. The administrators responsible for the restriction should refactor and simplify it, and someone should create WP:KAFKA. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen has revoked the remedies at the article, therefore this block should be overturned at once. @User:Sandstein, @User:Coffee, @User:Laser brain, and @User:NeilN. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen just so I understand, you agree the restriction is "too difficult to understand and apply," but don't think that a user blocked by such a restriction should have his block removed a few days early? To put it simply, Thucydides411 is currently blocked for a non-existent reason. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this issue at AN, where I think the discussion is better suited. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN thank you for being a voice of reason here. Now please move forward with the unblock. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis by Awilley

Having been pinged towards this appeal several times, I took a couple of hours today to dig into the edit war that seems to be at the heart of this. I'd like to report my findings, with the disclaimer that this is a complex dispute and I have not been able to read all of the relevant talk page posts. I have attempted to track the disputed content from time it was introduced to the article to the edit war that led to Thucydides441's block. For those who care about such things, I consider myself uninvolved.

An (admittedly incomplete) timeline at the article

20:21, 5 January 2017 Thucydides441 adds new material about William Binney and Ray McGovern criticizing an FBI report on Russian hacking and James Clapper's false testimony to Congress. (Binney and McGovern opinion on leaks)

11:13, 14 January 2017 Guccisamsclub removes the material as part of a string of edits removing a lot of other material. (so is this. minority viewpoints are undue.)
23:52, 14 January 2017‎ JFG restores the material, in a large revert of Guccisamsclub. (Restore WP:JDLI removals of well-sourced and relevant analyses)
00:08, 15 January 2017 Casprings reverts JFG (Undid revision 760100084 by JFG (talk) wp:undue and so:weight)
00:11, 15 January 2017‎ JFG restores (Undid revision 760102697 by Casprings (talk) Per DS, please obtain consensus on talk page before undoing an edit which was challenged by reversion)
16:29, 24 January 2017 Volunteer Marek removes the content (this is outdated, since Clapper has since commented on the issue)
19:22, 24 January 2017 Darouet restores the content (Removal of this material by SPECIFICO was challenged by multiple editors: reinstatement of the edit challenged by reversion is clearly an WP:ARBAPDS violation)
22:11, 5 February 2017 MelanieN comments on the article talk page, and in her rationale to revert another editor's disruptive blanking of different material, she says that
"removal of longstanding material actually counts as an "edit", which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus. "the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged""."
MelanieN linked to another conversation in which admins NeilN and myself gave a similar interpretation [57] [58] and in which NeilN offered his own opinion that "longstanding" on the "Donald Trump" article could be as short as "4-6 weeks" because the page was so intensely watched and heavily edited. [59]

3:34, 10 February 2017 SPECIFICO removes the part about James Clapper (Delete BLP smear unproven libelous allegation against James Clapper.)
19:21, 10 February 2017 JFG reverts SPECIFICO (Opinion is attributed and grounded in facts, not a BLP violation)
00:22, 11 February 2017 SPECIFICO reverts JFG (BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law. If so, please show me and I will restore it.)

07:14, 11 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts SPECIFICO, adding the material back. (There's no policy saying that opinions that haven't been proven in a court of law can't be included.)

11:12, 11 February 2017 MelbourneStar reverts Thucydides411. (WP:BLPCRIME is a policy; those "opinions" are alleging misconduct/crime.)

(Also 11 February 2017, a source for another part of the contested material is removed by Steve Quinn and re-added by James J. Lambden)

07:12, 12 February 2017 JFG restores the sentence about Clapper (Restore deleted material pending outcome of talk page discussion)

20:28, 12 February 2017 SPECIFICO removes a different part of the original material added in January by Thucydides411: the part about Binney and McGovern. ("They have to do X is UNDUE personal opinion. Declassified intelligence report did not purport to provide all evidence the Intelligence Assessment used to reach its conclusion, let alone "proof" - a straw man word.)

21:02, 12 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts (Undid revision 765136639 by SPECIFICO (talk) Restoring long-standing content.)

21:48, 12 February 2017 Volunteer Marek re-removes (i think sufficient concerns about BLP and UNDUE have been raised on talk to keep it out unless it's cleaned up. I'm not totally opposed to including this but it needs to be reworded and NPOVd)

22:19, 12 February 2017 Guccisamsclub restores the text. (Undid revision 765152392 by Volunteer Marek (talk) there's obviously no consensus for blanket removal. you're in violation of sanction BTW.)

23:41, 12 February 2017 JFG reports SPECIFICO to AE

16:59, 13 February 2017 Only in death removes the bit about false testimony. (Quote does not appear in source, source only has two mentions of 'false' one of which states Clapper admitted giving Congress false testimony which AFAIK is not the case. Removed as BLP concern)
16:52, 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts. (Undid revision 765249312 by Only in death (talk) No consensus for this removal. Mention of a notable scandal involving a public figure is not a BLP violation.)
11:32, 13 February 2017 Only in death reverts Thucydides411. (Per the BLP policy you are *required* to gain consensus before reinserting good faith removals of BLP concerns. BLP reverts are also exempt from revert restrictions.)

19:40, 14 February 2017 Space4Time3Continuum2x also removes the rest of the sentence about James Clapper. (no edit summary...tsk tsk)

20:33, 14 February 2017 Thucydides reverts SpaceTime, restoring bit about Clapper. (No consensus for removal)

22:52, 14 February 2017 Sandstein closes AE case against SPECIFICO (Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time.)

07:36, 15 February 2017 Thucydides411 is reported to arbitration enforcement.

18 February 2017 Coffee blocks Thucydides411 for 1 week (Arbitration enforcement - reinstated edits that had been challenged without obtaining consensus first)

My conclusions

Without analyzing the actual content of the edits, I believe Thucydides411 was acting in accordance with the way he understood the discretionary sanctions. His primary mistake, I believe, was extrapolating NeilN's interpretation of the length of "longstanding" (4-6 weeks, applicable only to the Donald Trump article) to other articles covered by the sanctions. Based on the number of times the contested paragraph was added and removed I would personally be hesitant to say that it was "longstanding", but it is also not obvious to me that Thucydides411 violated the sanctions. Given this, I think a 7-day block is excessive especially considering the user's block log (only one 24 hour block 10 years ago).
Looking at the slow edit war above I see other users who are equally deserving of blocks as Thucydides411. I can only imagine how frustrating that must be for them, and I think this frustration has led to excess noise that has bogged down the appeal process.
I would favor at a minimum reducing Thucydides411's block to time served. ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply to the "9 days" argument: There are a couple parties who are using this timeline to say that the content never stayed for 9 consecutive days in the article without being removed. This argument is first, inaccurate, and second, as flimsy as the opposing argument. Consider this: since it was first added on January 5th the content never stayed out of the article for more than a day. It remained in the article for 9 days, and was then temporarily removed and restored in an edit war involving a lot of other material that was blanked. It then stood another 9 days before being removed again, this time for only 3 hours. After that it stood for another 17 days (24 Jan to 10 Feb) before the slow edit war started. So someone from the other "side" could correctly say that from January 5th to February February 10th—more than a month—the material was only not in the article for less than 24 hours. Involved parties will always see their preferred revision as the "status quo". My argument is that it was borderline. And it's not wise to block for borderline cases unless you're interested in creating drama.; Also, @SPECIFICO: I'm not a fan of the stuff about Clapper, but I'm not convinced that saying "Person X wrote an editorial saying bad stuff about Person Y" is a WP:BLP violation. I think you'd get better mileage using WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. ~Awilley (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Thucydides411

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

I would decline the appeal as unconvincing. Although I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply, and would not have taken action myself because of that and the possibly problematic conduct by several editors, the appeal does not convince me that Coffee's interpretation and application of it in this case was not within discretion. To do that, the appeal would have to show that the edits at issue were not in fact violations of the restriction - i.e., that they were not reinstatements of edits challenged via reversion. Because the appeal does not make an argument about this, it is doomed to fail.

As to the reasons given by the appellant:

(1) and (2) The sanction was not for 1RR, so the argument is beside the point; also, any one (or several) administrator's interpretation of a specific restriction is not binding on other admins, the only binding guidance is that of ArbCom.

(3) This is an invalid argument in appeals, because the question here is whether the appellant was properly blocked, and the argument that others should have been blocked too is not an argument for why the appellant should not have been blocked; see WP:NOTTHEM. The same goes for the appellant's complaints against SPECIFICO. These could be raised in a separate enforcement request, but they are out of scope in an appeal.

(4) The restriction requires obtaining consensus, not just merely seeking it, and the appellant does not show that consensus supported any of their edits at issue. Sandstein 09:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. I don't find this appeal compelling, nor to I find the restrictions on that page difficult to understand. Thucydides411 did reinstate edits that were challenged via reversion, and this appeal has not provided evidence to the contrary. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read about this case, the more it seems like the participants are trying to negotiate an impossible minefield of vague restrictions and various interpretations of them. I can no longer in good faith support the sanctioning of a single individual who appears to be at least attempting to follow the guidance provided while editing in an extremely contentious topic area. I'm not saying every one of Thucydides411's edits was far afield of violating restrictions, but I don't think we're being fair here. --Laser brain (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: Quite a bit of discussion and perspective were posted after I initially commented, and I changed my mind. I'm not sure why that would be concerning to you. "Binding decision"? --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I revoked the active arbitration remedies at 2016 United States election interference by Russia today, an act which I've explained on article talk and at WP:AN. Sorry to have done it while this case was active, but considering the discussion on article talk, I doubt I could ever have found a good time. I'm surprised that User:Mr Ernie seems to think my revocation should apply retroactively, and somehow affect a block that was placed several days ago, or indeed affect anything whatsoever that happened before my revocation. Of course it shouldn't. On the other hand... I do agree with Sandstein and with Laser brain that the restriction is too difficult to understand and apply, or indeed "an impossible minefield". That is the reason I removed the restriction. I hope people will discuss in the thread I have opened at WP:AN, with a view to solving the problems of the {{2016 US Election AE}} template. I'm not saying this to criticize Coffee, who created the template; rather, I think the difficulties of the template are caused by the inherent difficulties of keeping highly controversial articles in order. But in any case, it seems to me it's not working very well. Perhaps somebody can come up with something brilliant. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I've had time to focus on the material presented in the original case. It is clear that Coffee's interpretation of how to interpret the restriction differs from mine. I do not agree with the block for "violating the page restrictions... by reinstating edits that had been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining or seeking consensus first." and would support lifting the block. Note that this is a case where different admins interpret restrictions differently for valid reasons - never a good situation when it comes to blocking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: I see two admins agreeing with each other (one of whom handed down the block), one questioning if there's a need for admin action, and one saying the restriction is too confusing. That's not exactly consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Appeals are supposed to review the decision. I believe based on the evidence presented, the decision was in error. And please note I presented no "dissenting view" in the case. I was asked to remark on my comments made last August and that's all I did. Those remarks were not comments on the particular case against Thucydides411. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really fair to Thucydides411 to have this appeal rendered moot simply because the block expired. EdJohnston, you favored blocking. Any comment on the appeal? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: Based on the new evidence provided (thanks Awilley), I agree the material was not long-standing and so Thucydides411 could not claim to be reverting to a consensus version. I still disagree with your interpretation of when consensus is needed by the "consensus required" arbitration remedy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock or "Reduce to time served" (however you care to put it) based on my lengthy analysis above. ~Awilley (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CatapultTalks

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 CatapultTalks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CatapultTalks (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:ARBAP2:

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

Starting with most recent

Feb 19 Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [60] (material was added Feb 17 [61])
Feb 17. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [62]. Note that the original text was inserted by CatapultTalks [63] with a misleading summary (WP:AVOIDVICTIM is suppose to protect BLP subjects - it's not an excuse for victimizing them as CT's edit summary implies)
Feb 15. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [64]. Note that this is also an attempt to restart a previous edit war [65] after failing to obtain consensus or even discuss on talk.

[66] Feb 5, 7:59 (arguably not a revert)
[67] Feb 5, 18:06 (revert)
[68] Feb 6, 6:26 (revert)
[69] Feb 7, 19:12 (note misleading edit summary)
[70] Feb 8, 16:24 (revert)

Depending on how you count it that's either three or two 1RR violations.

On Executive Order 13769 - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

[71] Feb 4, 22:38 (revert)
[72] Feb 4, 23:15 (revert)
[73] Feb 5, 8:09 (revert)
[74] Feb 6, 6:13 (substantially changes the meaning of the sentence which makes it a revert)
[75] Feb 6, 20:24 (revert)

This is at least four 1RR violations and pretty close to a straight up 3RR violation

On Social policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

[76] Feb 1, 22:37 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)
[77] Feb 2, 7:01 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)

Then

[78] Feb 5, 7:56
[79] Feb 5, 16:44 (resumes previous edit war)
[80] Feb 6, 17:02 (revert)
[81] Feb 6, 17:42 (revert. There is another edit by CatapultTalks in between the 17:02 and 17:42 one which could also be seen as a revert)
[82] Feb 6, 20:02 (if this isn't a revert (it is) then the edit immediately following this one is)
[83] Feb 6: 22:30

So that's a few more 1RR violations and a 3RR violation.

In addition to the persistent edit warring several of these edits violate the discretionary sanction which states: " 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." Several of CatapultTalks' edits have been challenged by several users via reversion, yet he persists in restoring his preferred version without much discussion, much less bothering to get consensus.

See this previous 3RR report which was closed with "Report_should_be_made_at_WP:AE.2C_which_is_the_appropriate_forum_for_any_Discretionary_Sanctions_violations" (personally disagree, violating 3RR and 1RR is violating 3RR and 1RR, discretionary sanctions or not, but here it is) [84]

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

I think I really bent over backwards with this user. Here is the first notification. Here is the second notification. Here is the third and formal notification by User:Coffee. Here is the fourth notification. And here is one last ditch attempt to try and get the user to listen and actually make a pretense at observing the discretionary sanctions restrictions: Fifth notification.

Pretty much the response the whole time has been "I'm right, you're wrong, take it to the talk page" (of course CatapultTalks didn't bother taking anything to the talk page themselves)

Note that CatapultTalks' reply here sort of encapsulates the problem - he violates 1RR, 3RR and other discretionary sanctions and when you bring that up to him he tries to argue about how his edits were legit (on his own talk page, rarely on article page) and refuses to stop edit warring. I mean, discussion is good, but if you break the rules that everyone is suppose to abide by, people will get frustrated (especially after he's been notified, what, six times?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Mr.Ernie's comment below itself sanctionable, per WP:ASPERSIONS? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning CatapultTalks

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 CatapultTalks

First, I strongly object to the allegations that I don't bother taking anything to the talk page. Here are examples where I started discussions on talk pages. You would notice that in some instances I agreed based on inputs from other editors that my initial edit could be wrong and we arrived at consensus.

On Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration: [85], [86], [87], [88]

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration: [89], [90], [91]

On Executive Order 13769: [92], [93], [94]

Here's why VolunteerMarek's allegations about my edits are wrong:

Starting with most recent per VolunteerMarek's statement above

VolunteerMarek reverted [95] this well sourced relevant edit of mine, terming it "redundant". Redundant how, why exactly? Previously too, VolunteerMarek reverted [96] a good, non-controversial edit of mine, just because he can. No explanation why.
[97] - The earlier edit was promoting media's narrative of the deported person as "Arizona mother" and this prolong's victimization per [WP:AVOIDVICTIM]. Instead, my edit adds a key sourced detail about the conviction being a felony and that she entered the country illegally which presumably led to her deportation. Those are the facts.
[98] - This was after a discussion regarding this was open on talk page with no comments from other editors

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration:

VolunteerMarek reverted [99] my well sourced edit adding a key detail because it "confuses everything". Really? How? Again, no explanation
[100] - source cited at the time didn't relate to the text. More sources were provided later to back the claim and I didn't challenge or revert it again
How is this [101] a revert? This is backed by an existing source. It has since not been challenged by anyone.

On Immigration policy of Donald Trump:

[102] - definitely not a revert. perfectly sourced
[103] - not a revert. removed redundant content and was never challenged

On Executive Order 13769:

[104] - this was challenged, discussed on talk page and consensus was to keep it out the article - which is exactly what I did
[105] - why is this considered a revert? I removed some unnecessary background. was never challenged
[106] - I reinstated a key detail because it was ignored during a reword by a different editor. wasn't challenged again
[107] - this was discussed in the talk page and once there were more sources countering the initial source, we made a consensus edit

To me, this looks like VolunteerMarek is reverting my sourced good faith edits just because they don't like the edits or that it wouldn't promote a certain narrative. Please note that none of these edits are vandal attempts or unsourced POVs. So there is no justification in reverting my edits without a good reason - especially given that I'm very open to discussion on talk pages.

CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment:

I request administrators commenting/acting on this to please note that this problem has compounded because of VolunteerMarek's continuous disruptive reverts of my good edits. It is almost like VolunteerMarek is setting me up for failure, by reverting without basis and then asking me to go get consensus. I implore you to relook at the kind of reverts we are talking about. Especially this [108], this [109] and this [110]. Also note that I've had fewer problems with other editors in gaining consensus because they have participated in talk page discussions - something that VolunteerMarek hasn't done. I want to reiterate that I do respect the policies, processes of Wikipedia, but it is the bad discretion displayed by VolunteerMarek in reverting my good edits that I don't respect.CatapultTalks (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I propose a topic ban on Volunteer Marek from bringing editors who edit with an opposing political viewpoint to this board. It is beyond disruptive, and overall an enormous waste of time. I encourage everyone to look through the archives from the past few weeks and see how many of these VM has opened to silence other editors whose viewpoints don't line up with theirs. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SPECIFICO any reading of this history will reveal that you are wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Mr Ernie There is absolutely no evidence here to support your assertion that @Volunteer Marek:'s edits are motivated by any "political point of view" and it is unconstructive, to say the least, to present such an undocumented aspersion at AE. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CatapultTalks

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

A troubling pattern of editing is illustrated here, including breaches of 1RR and the requirement for obtaining consensus for challenged material. I think a temporary topic ban from this domain is in order. --Laser brain (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CatapultTalks has been warned more than enough times... and their pattern of editing at this point shows that they hold the discretionary sanctions system in very little regard. As such, I think a 3-6 month topic ban would be appropriate at this time, since CatapultTalks cannot be trusted to follow the less restrictive page restriction system. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block of user:CFCF

Hatting this, as formal appeal is posted below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What part of "he reinserted a challenged edit without consensus" is not correct here? Furthermore, CFCF has been trying to push many statements that just cross the line of BLP, both there and in other articles regarding Trump I've seen him in. In addition, this is not a valid AE appeal. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is blocked. The block is appealed on the blocked user's talk page and seems to me to be harsh. Thus, it's probably a valid appeal, so I brought it here to be discussed. Fie on process for the sake of it. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied CFCF's formal appeal from their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by CFCF

Unblocked and blocking admin is fine with unblock. Closed. --regentspark (comment) 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 24 hour block, no discussion — see block notice: [111]

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

Notification of that administrator: Ping: Coffee Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CFCF

The sanctioned edit was performed in the faith that it was both uncontroversial and in line with the current consensus. It was also performed several days ago, and the action taken against me occurring now is quite far detached from my edit and acts in my view to be WP:PUNITIVE. I realize that this may on certain occasions be appropriate, but the idea that I was acting out of line did not occur to me at the moment. The ongoing discussion on the talk page was not concluded but weighted towards inclusion as per my reading. Judged together with: a discussion consisting of a mix of voting; with non-voting discussion preceding this: and some users who had engaging only in one of the two — it may have been rash for me to conclude that I could so quickly determine consensus. I admit that it may have been wrong in my interpretation, but do not believe this should have incurred sanction. I may also have been rash to conclude that since the image was present for a longer period before being removed, that would fall under the ordinarily interpretation of meaning it was less than controversial. Judging these together I consider I was acting in good faith when I believed my edit would not violate any sanctions.

I realize that my actions can be interpreted as defying consensus, even though this was not my intent. However, the change was neither contested when it was made or in the period preceding this block, which I believe acts in my favor. No comments addressing me or that I was made aware of through a ping or similar were made. Any editor could have repeated the removal or commented with a differing interpretation of the consensus in a way that informed me. To me the block seems harsh, considering neither prior warning nor so much as a comment was directed towards me. Had anyone suggested I was acting incorrectly — the situation would have been very different and I would have attempted to rectify it immediately by self-reverting.

These may be some of our most contentious articles, but I did not act believing I was in defiance of rules, policies or other regulations as set by ArbCom — and would very much like to resume editing as per usual. I believe this type of block is harmful in part because it strongly discourages me (or others) from working in controversial subject areas if such risks persist — and these areas need quite a few eyes. Since I consider editing Wikipedia to be very important to me I am especially careful to avoid risks, and believe this goes for many of us — and this impacts which concepts I feel I can engage in. I hope you accept my sincere apology and regret and hope you would reconsider this block so that I can resume using one of my rarer free evenings to edit. Please also rest assured this has been taken as a strong warning and I will act more carefully in the future.

Statement by Coffee

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CFCF

Just reiterating what I wrote above, the edit was a reinsertion of a challenged edit that had no consensus to reinsert. As such, a block was warranted. I do notice that the block was undone by Bishonen and that seems to me a clear violation of ARBCOM rulings, an ARBCOM block can only be undone by consensus. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a block seems excessive in this situation. I think a warning would have sufficed and been more appropriate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by CFCF

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

CFCF has been a constructive member of the community since 2006, and this is the first smudge on his previously clean block log. I wish Coffee had considered this fact more deeply before hitting the block button. I believe CFCF was acting in good faith, and am generally convinced by his appeal above. I appreciate that he takes it as a warning, too. I've unblocked, possibly thereby violating the arbitration enforcement principle, but I invoke IAR. I'm not closing, in case others wish to comment. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm fine with the unblock; would have done it myself but I was offline. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Block was okay, though a first and last warning would have been better. Unblock was fine, as the behavior CFCF was blocked for is unlikely to happen again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

Appeal declined. Suggest to User:TheTimesAreAChanging that they wait until six months from the original sanction before appealing again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of American politics 2, imposed here, logged here.

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

Notification of that administrator: [112]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

I was indefinitely topic banned from American Politics per this AE request submitted by Casprings. I had not previously been sanctioned for my editing in this area, but I had been warned. There are several reasons why I believe the topic ban was excessive and unwarranted:

Casprings's evidence was very weak, and was initially widely seen as such: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. One of the diffs Casprings cited as me "harassing" another user was in fact me simply addressing that user by their username followed by a comma. Three of the diffs listed pointed back to a single comment. (SPECIFICO also made a number of demonstrably false claims about me, including that in this diff, "TTAC (sic) vows that he will not heed any warning." Not only did I, of course, not "vow" anything of the kind, but I would argue that false claims of that nature are disruptive and turn AE into a circus—and could go on about that, but my appeal is long enough already.)
I was not banned based primarily on Caspring's evidence, or even any of my alleged soapboxing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but rather some trollish and silly political commentary on my own userpage. Within hours of Volunteer Marek bringing up my former userpage, almost every admin changed their opinion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. While the BLP violations on my userpage had to be removed, and have been removed, I think it's a stretch to say that they were causing such disruption to the encyclopedia that an indefinite topic ban was the only recourse. In a previous case involving EEng's since deleted userpage—which is described as featuring "massive, massive BLP violations, including calling public figures 'pussies', extensive allegations of Donald Trump being a Nazi, snippets of speeches with things Trump rails against wikilinked to Jews, accusations of racism, antisemitism, and a whole lot that I could devote many paragraphs to"—there was "no consensus that any sanctions should apply against EEng ... wider community discussion is needed on what's acceptable in terms of "joke" and satire pages, but that's well beyond the scope of AE." TParis criticized the focus on my userpage as "smoke and mirrors," noting that "No recent evidence of poor behavior [in American Politics] has been presented."
(MjoInirPants also objected to a "guest posting" I made on another user's page, which he asserted is "full of right-wing diatribes ... Pay close attention to the sourcing used for that." I urge you to read my comments in full and decide for yourselves if anything about them justifies admin intervention. I have no idea what MjoInirPants considers "right-wing" about my argument; my sources are The Intercept, The Nation, The Washington Post, and, yes, Forbes.)
The previous AE case against me was not, in fact, any stronger--as JFG noted: "Please note that the previous AE request by MelanieN against TTACC was also ruled a content dispute. In one of the diffs levied against the accused editor, they were in fact removing BLPVIO material in conformity with prior consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#Rape lawsuit. The disputed content had been added in violation of longstanding consensus ... Therefore, any influence of the prior 'stern warning' against TTACC should be attenuated, even if there were anything substantial to complain about today on this board." Some editors were under the impression that I had violated 1RR, which was false and not supported by the original complaint. In fact, I had violated the prohibition against reinstating challenged material without consensus; this was my first offense, I was confused about the rules, and I apologized. Very recently, Thucydides, Casprings, and My very best wishes have copped short blocks/bans of between 1 day and 1 week for doing the same thing; by contrast, I was given an open-ended warning, which then resulted in an indefinite ban even for an admittedly weak complaint. The admin that warned me, Dennis Brown, also conceded: "As a community, it appears (to some) that we are more aggressive in policing one side of politics more than the other, which is not surprising given the nature of the project. Unquestionably, TTAAC screwed up but the type of mistakes beg the question whether or not this requires we use the heavy tools grated to us by Arb here at AE. From my perspective, the problems seem rather run of the mill and not really what AE was set up for." (One might well take the dramatically different community response to my userpage versus EEng's as a case in point.) Yet Dennis Brown retired shortly afterward, and therefore was in no position to help other admins interpret and apply his warning.
The article at which I was sanctioned for violating the spirit (though not the letter—I had not violated 1RR or the restriction on reinstating challenged material) of DS—Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections—is no longer subject to active arbitration remedies, as Bishonen determined they were confusing users and had only exacerbated the conflicts on that article.

I fully admit to getting carried away with treating my userpage like a social media shitpost, and to referring tongue-in-cheek to Volunteer Marek as the "whitewasher-in-chief" (in the context of a discussion where he and I were in agreement, I was requesting his help, and he played along—though obviously my sense of humor may not translate well over the Internet), and have taken the time since my ban was imposed to reflect on my past mistakes. But I still think it was excessive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO is referring to a banned user's attempts to frame me; indeffed sockpuppeteer User:Oneshotofwhiskey has been engaged in a sustained "joe job" to damage my reputation since October of 2016. Oneshot's latest sockpuppets—AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am and You'llNeverCare—made edits such as copying and pasting something I wrote on my talk page to another article to make it appear that I was violating my one month block; both accounts were confirmed by checkuser as belonging to Oneshot, not me. I was blocked for this one edit trolling MelanieN's comment "OMG - look at the link we are given to support this - RT!," and served my time. I have indeed emailed many users, both to defend myself from Oneshot's harassment campaign and to discuss issues related to American Politics; I do not believe that violates any policy. Guccisamsclub did not make any edits based on sources that I recommended to him, for example, but if he had—and he could defend them with his own words—there would be nothing wrong with that: Topic bans aren't intended to censor ideas or perspectives, but to suppress bad behavior.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to let @Sandstein: speak for himself, but since both @Peacemaker67: and @Coffee: appear to be confused on this point, I have the same right to appeal as everyone else, as Sandstein later clarified: "You may appeal the sanction to AE or AN at any time if you believe it was wrongly imposed. But if you want to appeal it because you want me to lift it because it is no longer needed, please wait six months." Hopefully we can put that to rest and get back to substance.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I don't have the time today to address this in detail, but I refer to the original discussion and recommend declining the appeal in light of it and Coffee's comment below. Sandstein 05:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guccisamsclubs

It is still not clear why TheTimesAreAChanging was banned. It is true that his user page indicated that he might be a drag on the project. BUT a look at his contribs shows he's anything but that. I've had plenty of acrimonious conflicts with this editor in the past and vehemently disagree with him on virtually every political issue. So I know him quite well, perhaps better than any other editor. I can say with 100% certainty that the quality of his user page did NOT reflect the quality of his edits and arguments. He's one of the few editors I know that routinely makes quality edits which contradict his POV. Moreover, he has a tendency to bring factual and sourced arguments to content disputes, rather than sterile and self-referential wikispeak. He reads his sources closely and avoids making baseless assumptions. In sum, he's a "reliable" editor. We desperately need more readers like Times on wikipedia, seeing as these are a dying breed in the age of Web 2.0. Times' interventions on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, mainly demonstrated his reading comprehension skills and his erudition. Why he got banned for those (apparently, that's where the ball got rolling) is beyond me. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (SPECIFICO)

TTAAC, in the interest of due and clear process, please provide the Admins here with a summary of your behavior subsequent to your TBAN. Specifically, please detail your block evasion, TBAN evasion, sockpuppetry, email solicitation of meatpuppetry, harassment, and the resulting 1 month block and revocation of talk page access by @Bbb23:. It will be more straightforward if you do it yourself, rather than get other editors tangled up in this. I am notifying editors mentioned in TTAAC's plea above: @Casprings: @Volunteer Marek: @MjolnirPants: @MelanieN:. Also, TTAAC, your statement that there are not DS in effect at the Russian article is false – in case you wish to strike that. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TTAAC, please cover all the topics I listed above. "...My one month block..." Oh. And why were you blocked for a month, etc. Let's not turn this into another free-for-all. The facts will come out one way or another. Please just list the facts. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

Result of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

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

Six months has not passed since the imposition of the TBAN, which was imposed on 12 January. Six months is what was specified and I believe that should stand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The enforcement action specifically laid out that TheTimesAreAChanging "may appeal this restriction after six months have passed"; as it is not yet July 12th, and as I see no glaringly obvious issues with Sandstein's judgement, I move to decline this appeal. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I think is quite disingenuous to claim that the ban was in error when, just 3 days after being banned, TheTimesAreAChanging created a sock to evade the ban... just to troll an administrator. The ban should stand for at least 6 months for that alone, as I find overnight changes in ethics hard to believe. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Sandstein summarized the responses of uninvolved admins before imposing the topic ban. I see no issue with the summation or his judgement when imposing the sanction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JFG

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 JFG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JFG (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 : WP:ARBAPDS, WP:ACDS

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

JFG has not been able to establish consensus for restoring material removed and specifically challenged by My very best wishes. This action occurred before the talk page template was changed. Hence, the template formerly read 16:05, 22 February 2017: "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." It is advice that should be followed whether or not it is on the template because this is Wikipedia wide consensus, including what WP:BURDEN says.

I am amending my complaint to include instructions on the DS template of the article talk page, which is the following:

Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.

This covers WP:BURDEN, which states:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution...Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source...All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

This also covers WP:NPOV which states:
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies...This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus...While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

The below WP:ACDS, section of my complaint also addresses this DS:

On WP:ACDS, the section entitled "Guidance for editors", it says: Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

--

14:22, 21 February 2017 My very best wishes improves the article by removing poorly sourced material that contravenes content policies WP:NPOV per UNDUE, WP:V per Exceptional, and WP:NOR per Primary. See edit history where MVBW provides the ratioional "challenging some materials via reversion - see talk"
04:59, 22 February 2017 JFG restores material without having established consensus and while contravening WP:ACDS "Guidance for editors" #2 AND #5. I note Gaming the system includes "...evading the spirit of community consensus - editors typically game the system...to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view." These are applicable to this AE request. Hopefully contravening #2 above is apparent. Also, JFG has not met the onus of WP:BURDEN for reinstating this material - no independent secondary reliable sources have been provided.
14:28, 21 February 2017 MVBW opens a talk page discussion pertaining to this material.
16:07, 21 February 2017 SPECIFICO agrees with this action based on WP policies
04:47, 22 February 2017 JFG responds and claims MVBW was too quick about removing the material. From my perspective, the material has been sitting there collecting dust from lack of conformity with content policies.
06:59, 22 February 2017 Here I recommend that JFG self-revert because that would be "supported by a content policy WP:V per WP:BURDEN". I also noted he is in violation of discretionary sanctions.
07:27, 22 February 2017 Here I present a brief analysis of the removed material and provide a rationale for why it should stay out based on content policies (please read).
1232 22 February 2017 Here User: MrX states: "The material restored by JFG should be left out as WP:UNDUE. Most of the opinions are from primary sources. Including them tends to legitimize a fringe viewpoint. Also, it does appear that JFG violated the DS restriction on restoring material that has been challenged by reversion."

The whole thread is not long and I recommend Admins read it (0301, 23 February) as there is a relevant back and forth between editors. It demonstrates support for showing ~~demonstrating~~ that JFG engaged in contravening aforementioned content policies, thereby violating #2 and #5.

"Long standing text" is not part of the former or current DS template on the talk page. Admin Coffee pointed this out during the appeal by Thucydides411. Coffee also seemed to point out that none of the text in this article should be considered "long standing." And as I mentioned during the article talk page discussion (in so many words), "long standing" does not supersede content policies. Editing behavior that pertains to main-space articles should be in agreement with content policies. In light of this, I have noticed that DS per WP:ACDS and WP:ARBAPDS are in agreement with content policies. Wikipedia remains consistent across content policies and various guidelines. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Additionally there might be a 1RR violation depending on how this is interpreted:

~~04:38, 22 February 2017 JFG removed material not supported by the reference for this material~~

04:59, 22 February 2017 21 minutes later JFG restores the material on which this complaint is based. There were no intervening edits by other editors. However, there is a 21 minute gap and neither edit is related to the other. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I did notice the first edit was to remove an edit by an IP block evader by by Kingshowman. My mistake. So, this part is no longer relevant. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None found

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 18:04, 14 December 2016‎
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC). Note this is actually the AE archive for JFG search

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Prior to this AE request, JFG was also asked to self-revert on his talk page (06:52, 22 February 2017), (07:02, 22 February 2017) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About JFG claiming BRD. Just after MVBW removed the content they opened a discussion right away. It appears to me that MVBW was already practicing BRD. So, JFG's actions might not be BRD.
I agree with Geogene, rather than justify the material on its own merits, it seems action that is characteristic of edit warring was chosen instead (although I personally don't like to go there).
Regarding the argument below, I think the best thing is, not trying to parse "revert" and "edit" and so on. For me it is understood that MBVW challenged the material and for policy based reasons. The material was challenged via removal and opening a talk page discussion - a two step process (at least). This seems appropriate for editing on Wikipedia. Also, for further clarification I will quote User:NeilN, on the Thucydides411 appeal page (20:27, 22 February 2017 ):
So let's say a paragraph was added a couple months ago. The article is intensely watched but wonder of wonders, no one objects or comments. Fast forward to today and an editor decides the text isn't appropriate. They remove it. It gets restored. It cannot be removed again by saying, "well, no one explicitly agreed with the addition". Instead, reasons rooted in normal policies and guidelines must be given, hopefully by multiple editors. And in that case, the side wanting to retain the material cannot just rely on, "well, the material has been there for two months". They too, must come up with reasons rooted in normal policies and guidelines ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

03:35, 23 February 2017

Discussion concerning JFG

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 JFG

This is a simple content dispute.

The interaction between My very best wishes and myself amounts to one round of routine BRD practice, as I explained on the Talk page. This was my only revert of MVBW's BOLD removal of a large chunk of material, and I have immediately engaged in discussion, which is ongoing. I have no prejudice about the outcome of the discussion and we are wasting time litigating at AE instead of discussing the merits of the contents.
My other revert is exempt from 1RR as it applies to content inserted by repeat WP:EVADE offender Kingshowman, posting from yet another IP of the 63.143… range (as also evidenced by the tone of the material and the removal of similar stuff by MrX added from another IP in the same time frame). In addition to the edit summary stating this reason for reversion, I also left a courtesy note on the talk page, because other editors were already starting to fiercely argue about this content.

Although it pains me to contemplate retorsion, I would suggest admins to consider a WP:Boomerang temporary TBAN for Steve Quinn who has now started 3 unproductive AE cases in short succession against various editors on the same page:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive209#Guccisamsclub (no actionable violation detected)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thucydides411 (user blocked, now under appeal hinging on interpretation of the DS phrasing)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JFG (new case, no violation imho — but what do I know, I'm the accused )

I consider this series reflects at best a serious misunderstanding of editor conduct standards, at worst an abuse of the DS litigation process. — JFG ^talk 04:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: I have fully explained the edits you are citing against me. Instead of piggybacking on a case opened by another editor, please feel free to make good on your vague threats and open a separate case, or shut up. — JFG ^talk 05:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: We seem to disagree on what is a revert. If you remove material that has just been added 5 minutes ago, that's an obvious revert. If you restore material that has just been deleted 5 minutes ago, that's an obvious revert. If you remove material that has been added 2 days ago, that's a legit revert because nobody is supposed to be glued to their screen 24/7 patrolling every edit on their watchlist. Same goes for a week ago, if by that time nobody else has reverted the contested material. Beyond that, you're stretching the definition of a revert imho. And if you delete a whole section, on a very actively-edited article, where dozens of people have made thousands of edits over two months, well it's a very wide stretch indeed. A disagreement on contents, sure, perhaps an UNDUE feeling, sure, but definitely not a revert. I saw your blanket removal for the BOLD edit that it was, which I reverted because I don't consider the whole thing to be blanket undue, and now editors are discussing. Please note (as I already said on the talk page) that I did not accuse you of any violation, and I am very respectful of your compliance with process in the few places where our paths have crossed over time. My only criticism towards you was the mislabeling of your edit as a "challenge by reversion" in your edit comment. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 00:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: It's hard to keep track of the dialogue when you modify your statements after my reply. Surely you know of WP:REDACT. Please restore some order and chronology to your section for the benefit of admins reviewing the case. — JFG ^talk 02:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guccisamsclub

Litigation by inertia? Sanctions have been lifted. Only 1RR is in place. PS: SPECIFICO's diffs show no violation of 1RR by JFG. I think SPECIFICO deserves to be blocked for making false statements about users in an attempt to get them blocked. This happened to me as well. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

There is an additional bright-line 1 RR Violation here:
1RR First revert: 09:59, 18 February 2017 [113]
2RR Second revert: 07:22, 19 February 2017 [114]
I asked him on his talk page to undo the violation, but he denied the violation, even after I showed him the diffs: Documented here [115]
SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: makes a very salient point here. Why do a group of editors on this one article claim that the "no reinstatement" sanction is an unmitigated disaster, impossible to understand, unfair, not enforced, etc. etc., and yet we see no problems with it elsewhere. And there's a corollary: Why is it that the editors who see this unique problem all happen to be insistently editing to insinuate doubts, ranging from minority to fringe, about the mainstream conclusions and the overwhelming preponderance of mainstream RS reporting about the subject? How odd that editors with a certain POV all think that the DS as posted by @Bishonen: was unintelligible impossible to observe, while miraculously any number of editors trying to add RS content to the article were able to stay far away from the bright line in Bishonen's DS? These are the mysteries of the night. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

No. No violation. This is getting ridiculous. Stop bringing this crap to AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogene

Diffs so far seem to show JFG using DS as an excuse to revert content removal by others without attempting to justify the content on its own merits. If another user is making a good faith effort to justify an edit-including the removal of content-you must make your own good faith effort to answer those arguments before reverting. Failure to do so, including by changing the subject (crying DS) is edit warring. DS exist to prevent that sort of bad behavior, not to justify it. Geogene (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

JFG violated editing restriction on the page when the restriction still was in effect [116]. As clarified by Bishonen above, he did not revoke his restriction *retroactively* [117]. In addition, JFG also violated 1RR rule on the page.

Based on comments by JFG, he violated this editing restriction willingly [118],[119]. This is wrong. Yes, I can agree with JFG that the restriction is not very helpful. But as long as such restriction remains, it must be respected and enforced.

At the very least, one should clarify here if the edit by JFG was in fact a violation of the editing restriction. If this question can not be clarified, then such restriction should be removed from all pages because it means that the restriction is not really enforceable and only leads to unnecessary conflicts and AE reports. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

Can we please wait a few days before ruling on this case? I'd like to comment but these AE requests have been so frequent it is impossible to keep up. -Darouet (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Another content dispute being dragged into DS? Can't Steve Quinn just discuss on the talk page, rather than trying to get editors they disagree with sanctioned? There's a normal Bold/Revert/Discuss process going on at Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Suggestions. Reading through that discussion, it looks like JFG is genuinely open to finding a compromise with the other editors involved (JFG's comments here). Rather than threatening AE against JFG, Steve Quinn should be on the talk page working through the content dispute with JFG and others.

Please, let's have some sense. This case should be closed down without further ado, and everyone should be admonished to stop bringing their content disputes to AE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JFG

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

To clear up any misunderstandings, discretionary sanctions have not been lifted. Only the "must obtain consensus before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" restriction is gone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 23 February 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 688: / Line 688: @@
 ====Statement by Darouet====
 Can we please wait a few days before ruling on this case? I'd like to comment but these AE requests have been so frequent it is impossible to keep up. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
+====Statement by (username)====
+Another content dispute being dragged into DS? Can't {{u|Steve Quinn}} just discuss on the talk page, rather than trying to get editors they disagree with sanctioned? There's a normal Bold/Revert/Discuss process going on at [[Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Suggestions]]. Reading through that discussion, it looks like {{u|JFG}} is genuinely open to finding a compromise with the other editors involved ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=next&oldid=766865811 JFG's comments here]). Rather than threatening AE against {{u|JFG}}, {{u|Steve Quinn}} should be on the talk page working through the content dispute with {{u|JFG}} and others.
+Please, let's have some sense. This case should be closed down without further ado, and everyone should be admonished to stop bringing their content disputes to AE. -[[User:Thucydides411|Thucydides411]] ([[User talk:Thucydides411|talk]]) 06:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

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