Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:06, 3 November 2016

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 Md iet

Topic ban modified by EdJohnston. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2016 (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: Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Md iet (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Dawoodi Bohra, imposed at this WP:AN3 complaint.

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

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

Statement by Md iet

Due to above ban I indirectly helped others on the subject and got blocked indefinitely. I realized my fault later and pardoned(Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#Standard_offer_unblock_request_from_Md_iet, User talk:Md iet#Unblocked) as I understood the harm caused to Wikipedia unknowingly and pledged to rectify myself. Now request further to lift topic ban related with Dawoodi Bohra considering my attitude and actions shown after this unblock. I think by now I understand WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Original research better.

The articles mentioned by Adamfinmo are general articles covering all Islam/ Taiyabi Ismaili. During discussion of lifting my block it was clearly mentioned that banning me of general Islam topics would be impropriate. Please analyze the specific edit mentioned. These are not affecting any status cu of Dawoodi Bohra topics rather than helping Wikipedia users get properly directed/not get mislead. Information corrected was misleading in one case. The person Mohammad Burhanuddin already dead was presented as live. This I felt not proper of Wikipedia. In the second case, it was just like spelling correction, only [[..]] bracket was added to felicitate reader further. --Md iet (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:EdJohnston, for your support helping my intentions contribute Wikipedia. Declaring one of the claimants victorious was one of the case because of which I got banned. This was the case of not understanding difference between actual correct v/s encyclopedic correct. I feel after this long episode I have better understanding and in position to assure nonrepeating similar blunders. --Md iet (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

I would support relaxing the ban to allow User:Md iet to participate on *talk pages* regarding the Dawoodi Bohra, but not regarding articles. If you check Talk:India/Archive 39#Alternate name Bharat you'll see him advocating changing our India article to refer to the country, in the opening sentence, as 'India that is Bharat' rather than 'India'. His knowledge of English seems too limited for us to expect that he can create well-written prose especially in disputed articles like those that concern the Dawoodi Bohra. His statements in that thread also suggest a weak grasp of consensus, since the name of India has been extensively discussed in the talk archives. The topic on which Md iet has been (in the past) unable to edit neutrally is the 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). Md iet was editing to declare that one of the claimants had been victorious in the dispute, prior to mainstream media having agreed on that. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the encouragement by others in the Result section, I am now modifying User:Md iet's ban as shown in the WP:DSLOG to say that it is only from *articles* regarding the Dawoodi Bohra. From now on he can edit any other pages that mention Dawoodi Bohra, including talk pages. I trust this will allow another admin to close this appeal with no further action. I can't close it myself since it's an appeal of my ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adamfinmo

It is worth noting that Md iet, has edited in on the topic of Dawoodi Bohra at least twice recently, that I could see. diff, diff.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, nor am I involved in any way with this editor or the topic space. I'm concerned that this editor has repeatedly edited in direct violation of their topic ban, multiple times, and very recently. The were explicitly instructed: "You will not edit any articles which relate to Dawoodi Bohra, even distantly." They acknowledged that they understood this and still made repeated edits to the Islam in India article. --Adam in MO Talk 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet

Result of the appeal by Md iet

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

Since the sanctioning admin EdJohnston is in favor of another chance, I think we ought to give one. Theoretically, he could just relax the sanction himself, since he imposed it, and I certainly see no reason to override his judgment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above and with EdJohnston's terms. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with EdJohnston's suggestion, but the two diffs showing he has actually broken the ban at least twice, albeit with small edits, should be noted. The topic ban on articles still stands, and if he edits another article directly this way, he will be fully banned again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting stale. I recommend EdJohnston modify the sanction himself. This doesn't require consensus or consent at AE but he has it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, if you don't mind, just go for it--I agree with the others. There's always something satisfying about modifying/lessening something one imposed; it confirms a kind of optimism. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant 2

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Anythingyouwant

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29

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

That's four reverts on an article under 1RR restriction.

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

Right above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am filing this per User:Seraphimblade's comment in closing the above AE request [5] Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one..

While I agree with the closure of the above request, and that THOSE two edits were justified on BLP grounds, THESE FOUR reverts are not. This appears to be a case of Anythingyouwant running wild and interpreting favorable comments on the previous issue as a carte blanche to revert at will. In this particular case, the edits being reverted are NOT a BLP violation as they are strongly sourced AND there is consensus for the wording on talk [6] (note that because Anythingyouwant started to move other people's comments around some of the flow of the conversation got compromised)

This comment Anythingyouwant clearly indicates that they are aware that "sexual assault" is a potentially valid and sourced way to describe what happened - forcible groping and kissing is "sexual assault" (and ATW agrees). So EVEN IF Anythingyouwant prefers a different description they cannot invoke BLP to make the change. The fact that they did so indicates they are acting in bad faith and making attempts at WP:GAMEing policy.

It seems that Anythingyouwant is trying to use the fact that they were correct in ONE PARTICULAR instance as some kind of twisted mandate to exempt themselves from 1RR... or even 3RR.

And seriously, starting another edit war, and making four reverts on a 1RR article WHILE there's an open AE request on you for the very thing is just... uh, bad form. Or it's a brazen flaunting of the rules.

Tiptoe, Masem, you're trying to argue about content as a way to derail the discussion. But the problem is the 4 (or is it now 5?) reverts in 24hrs on a 1RR article done under a false pretext. You can discuss the issue on talk page if you want. The question here is simply did these edits violate 1RR. Which of course they did.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment on people who are saying something along the lines of "both sides should be sanctioned or neither". No. Yes, there are two sides, and there is disagreement. But disagreement by itself is not sanctionable. What is sanctionable is making 5 reverts on an article under 1RR. And ONLY ONE person has done that. Anythingyouwant. Come on! Shortly before he went on his edit warring spree Anything was agitating for other editors to be sanctioned for making a SINGLE EDIT! Not five, one. And it, unlike Anything's reverts, had consensus too. If that's not WP:BATTLEGROUND I don't know what is. Same goes for several of his supportive commentators.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant

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

Statement by Anythingyouwant

Will deal with this tomorrow, gotta get sleep.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Might I suggest tweaking the top-level header to distinguish it from the other identical header? I probably won't get to this until late tonight (it's now 1:46 PM where I am). In the mean time, please note that an almost identical complaint was brought up yesterday toward the end of the other Anythingyouwant section, and I wrote some responsive material there,[7] and that section was closed with this statement:[reply]

The originally reported edits were good faith reverts as potential BLP problems and so were exempt from revert restrictions. Therefore, no violation of 1RR occurred from these edits. Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one. All editors are reminded that a clear consensus is required to revert an edit which notes it corrects a BLP problem.[8]

So, when I respond to the present issues tonight, I assume that the originally reported edits presented in this current section are what I need to justify or defend (not separate issues that may be subsequently raised here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have some free time now. I'll probably have my response posted here within the hour.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t repeat what I already said about this accusation when it was first made in the previous section here at AE, but I will add to what I already said (as briefly as possible). It is amusing that Marek has the chutzpah to bring this action after trying to get the word "rape" into the lead.[9] As noted above, that attempt was rightly deemed a BLP violation here at AE, though Marek somehow escaped sanctions. Someone else clamoring for sanctions against me here is My very best wishes who likewise sought to violate WP:BLP by jamming "child rape" into the lead of this BLP.[10] He somehow escaped sanctions too. Isn't it amazing? But I still hold out some hope, and therefore request boomerangs against them both.
Marek accuses me now of violating 1RR, and he provides four diffs. I suppose the third diff could technically be considered a revert, because I did not explicitly mention WP:BLP in my edit summary, though Marek did not (and cannot) provide any previous version reverted to. As for the first second , and fourth diffs, they all explicitly cite WP:BLP in the edit summaries which were all directed at pretty much the same thing, respectively:

"Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault' is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape."
"Reverting repeated insertion of 'sexual assault' into the lead in place of more specific language that does not include rape. Per WP:BLP."
"Per WP:BLP, reverting to Dr Fleishman. Mr X, see WP:Game, 'Removing a large addition for a minor error'. You undid edits about which there was no dispute. In so doing, you have implied rape."

We recently had a decision at AE confirming that explicit discussion of "rape" and "child rape" is not currently suitable for this lead, per WP:BLP. My contention is that insinuating or suggesting rape fails the same test, for basically the same reasons. Vaguely saying that Trump is accused of "sexual assault" obviously suggests that he may be accused of rape or attempted rape. That’s why I have urged being specific, and have urged saying that he has been accused of forcible kissing and groping, in the lead. I do not rule out use of the term "sexual assault" in the lead, but it has to be used carefully (like I did here), in such a way as to not suggest or insinuate allegations of rape. Anyway, I stopped pressing this point via BLP edits before this AE section was even started, and will continue to let these POV-pushers have their way until a decision is made here at AE, because I do not relish the prospect of a further bogus topic ban. And that's all I have to say for now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Drmies, you say "Equating rape with sexual assault and thus claiming the same exemption is not going to work." I emphatically didn't do that. As I said above: "I do not rule out use of the term 'sexual assault' in the lead, but it has to be used carefully (like I did here), in such a way as to not suggest or insinuate allegations of rape." Rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault generally, and the number one form of sexual assault on college campuses,[11] and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault.[12][13] According to the lead of our Wikipedia article about sexual assault (until it was just edited by a participant in the present case), "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead has to be done carefully so as not to suggest possible rape accusations. I would be glad to stop editing the Trump article until after the election if that will save me from a topic ban, but I think you're mistaken to green light deliberate insinuations of things you've already barred.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Drmies, well, I stand by what I said too. It's like putting in the lead of your BLP that you're a convicted criminal because you once committed a slight misdemeanor. Technically correct but grossly and unnecessarily misleading. Got it now? People see "sexual assault" and very often think "rape".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tataral et al., "On Political positions of Jeb Bush...it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy." I've never edited any of the abortion material in the Trump article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Drmies, when people hear the word "sexual assault" the last thing many people think of is kissing. And I have reliable sources to back me up. See, for example, this piece in Huffington Post: "'Sexual assault'—an incredibly loaded term—can mean a lot of different things in different contexts....I said I’d come back to the issue of kissing. Remember that this counts, in the AAU survey, as 'sexual touching' - and therefore (possibly) a form of sexual assault....I expect that many people will be tempted to roll their eyes. Kissing? Sure, it might be unpleasant if you weren’t expecting it, but is it really in the same 'category' as rape?" It is indeed in the same category, but most (or at least many) people don't know that, and you, sir, are supporting a highly misleading lead in one of our highest-profile BLPs. But thanks for supporting a shorter topic-ban.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Seraphimblade, I agree with you that the number of sources using the term "sexual assault" regarding Trump allegations is overwhelming, and my willingness to put "sexual assault" into the lead is also overwhelming as long as we indicate what we mean by it. There is relatively little sourcing for use of the term "sexual assault" regarding Trump allegations without describing the kind of sexual assault. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read....The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." You are grossly mistaken in your assertion that a preponderance of reliable sources support using the term "sexual assault" without clarifying that the allegations do not involve rape or attempted rape. I recommend to you the comment below by User:Dervorguilla for further details.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, ‪"While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." ‪Paludi, Michele. Campus Action Against Sexual Assault, p. 56 (‬ABC-CLIO, 2016). No one here has offered any evidence suggesting that "sexual assault" is not usually seen as rape. By putting "sexual assault" in this lead without elaboration, we would be defying the vast majority of reliable sources regarding the allegations against Trump (which do clarify the form of alleged sexual assault) and suggesting to readers that the allegations involve (or at least may involve) rape. This is a clear and obvious BLP violation, not to mention horrifyingly bad writing. If that's what you want, then please by all means give me a topic ban and proceed as you wish. My conscience is clear. As administrator Lankiveil says, my position is defensible, and I don't think you should be dishing out topic-bans for defensible positions, while letting all the indefensible insertions of the explicit word "rape" into the lead go completely unaddressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, one need not be a genius to understand that Wikipedia has the potential to be the biggest source of free knowledge in human history, or the biggest propaganda machine in human history. Maybe it's one or both of those things already. My goal has always been to steer it from the latter to the former. But I see from several of the admin comments that the usual forces in favor of the latter are hard at work. Instead of direct and biased censorship of article content, one can try to get rid of editors who get in the way. As long as User:Jimbo Wales wants this kind of baloney to continue it will continue, and when he is gone there may well be no way to stop it. The structure of dispute resolution at Wikipedia is deeply flawed, and you need to decentralize. Please think about the immense advantages that would accrue from asking (or even requiring) a group of random editors in good standing to decide each case fairly based upon clear rules. A vertical hierarchy is a recipe for disaster, whether it's elected or not. Thank you, and pardon me if I take leave of this particular coliseum.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dennis Brown, thanks for your reasonable comments. The term "sexual assault" can mean anything from an unwanted peck on the cheek to unwanted sexual intercourse. The reliable sources that use the term with regard to Trump almost always clarify exactly what they mean. For us to use the term in the lead without clarification is to insert a suggestion of rape into the lead which is not present in the reliable sources. There is no doubt about this whatsoever, and so if admins want me to stop removing this poorly sourced suggestion from the lead on BLP grounds then you can either ask me politely or topic-ban me; either way, I'll stop doing it. But under protest against such silliness.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the admin consensus is to look the other way as an insinuation of rape is put back into the lead of this BLP, by using the term "sexual assault" without elaboration (and contrary to the sources which do elaborate that it refers to forcible kissing and groping). Many people will understand this use of the term "sexual assault" as a reference to rape. "'Sexual assault'—an incredibly loaded term—can mean a lot of different things in different contexts."[14] "While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...."[15] The leading law dictionary in the United States (Black's) gives a primary sense and a secondary sense of "sexual assault"; the primary sense is "Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent" and the secondary sense is "Offense of sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." So you're making an extremely poor decision. Not sure if I care to appeal though, since many of you would be involved in that process too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Of the four diffs listed by Marek, at least three are unambiguous reverts within a 24 hour period. Doing so under the shelter of the WP:BLP policy is blatant gaming. Regarding this edit, numerous reliable sources have characterized the allegations against Trump's as "sexual assault".[16][17][18][19][20]

In this revert (5th; not in the above list) Anythingyouwant claiming that material must be restored to an article because of WP:BLP. WP:NOT3RR#EX7 does not afford any such 1RR exemption.

In addition to edit warring and abusing the WP:BLP policy, Anythingyouwant continues to try to WP:GAME the system to gain an advantage in content disputes on Donald Trump-related articles:

Steeletrap started this RfC On October 15 at 19:27. Anythingyouwant changed it to a non-RfC and then started a competing RfC a little over two hours later. Note the question posed: "At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, "Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election." Is this number of words in the lead not enough [insufficient], for the time being, regarding this subject?". Not only is this awkwardly worded as noted by several commenters, but it begs the question. In my view, this does not represent a good faith effort to determine consensus, but rather an attempt to control consensus by framing the questions with a particular outcome in mind.
Anythingyouwant used similar tactics in this RfC, attempting to influence the closer of the RfC by Wikilawyering over the term "firm consensus"; using the presence of citations in the lead as a reason for opposing; asking the closer to consider a completely different version of the proposed content; and creating a competing RfC six days after the original one was created.

Anythingyouwant also seems intent on polishing Donald Trump's reputation, in violation of WP:NPOV, by first formulating material that whitewashes plain facts, and then finding one or two outlier sources to support that formulation.

Here, he wants to change the simple fact that Trump bragged about sexual assaulting women, to Trump bragged about his capacity to grope and forcibly kiss women: Talk:Donald_Trump#Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women).
Sometimes he lobbies to add random material, apparently to dilute anything critical about the subject: Talk:Donald_Trump#Removal of sexual misconduct allegations.
Filibustering about a fringe point of view by cherry-picking sources: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_29#Our obligations when media sources differ
Misrepresenting sources: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_27#Description of donees from the Foundation Center
Wikilawyering to override the clear consensus from an RfC: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_24#Discretionary sanctions issue
Using WP:OR to make something bad sound better. [21] [22]

Apparently, Anythingyouwant has been emboldened by escaping sanctions in the previous two AE cases in which his behavior was scrutinized. At his point, I think a 6 month topic ban should be considered. I don't think a block for edit warring would have a lasting effect, nor would it address the totality of the concerns.- Mr X 15:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: What you describe is a matter for reasonable editorial discussion, which has been ongoing, productive, and mostly collegial on the talk page. In no way does a dispute about appropriate weight in a lead, or wording anywhere in the article, justify edit warring or gaming the system to gain advantage. I've said it before: these are some of the same counterproductive behaviors that were documented in the AP1 and AP2 Arbcom cases. I'm not aware that there are any more left-leaning editors trying to vilify right-leaning subjects, than the exact opposite, as evidenced for example in the various Clinton articles. Of course, if you have any evidence of such misdeeds being widespread, AE is also at your disposal.- Mr X 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

This case follows on almost immediately after a near identical case [23] that was also raised against Anythingyouwant. The initiators of each are attempting to misuse the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to usurp our common obligation to obey BLP requirements. As in the earlier case, the content deleted by Anythingyouwant violated BLP policies and required removal. He cannot be sanctioned under subject specific sanctions for doing this. MrX claims, above, that Anythingyouwant "escaped sanctions" in that earlier case, weasely insinuating a lucky escape by a guilty party. The reality was the exact opposite: the idea that Anythingyouwant had violated sanctions was conclusively dismissed and everyone agreed that the material he removed was violating BLP requirements. The nastiness and general slimyness seen in the Donald Trump article content is getting out of hand, and I think Volunteer Markek and his ever-present sidekick My very best wishes want that state of affairs to continue. The misrepresentation and distortion of sources is blatant - I have pointed out one example of it here: [24]. Does Fyddlestix, in his definitions of "sexual assault" given below, consider shaking hands with a fully clothed 15 year old counts as "sexual assault"? The article as it is currently worded does. Here is another example: obviously off-topic detail about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump, editorialising done for no other reason I am sure than to blatantly imply guilt by association - [25]. And this stuff is actually placed in a section of the article dealing with Trump's business interests! At best, the part dealing with Tyson's 2016 endorsement could be on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as part of a listing of celebrity endorsements. I also think this here [26] is a bad faith implied threat intended to be seen by all editors working on the article - article talk pages are about content discussions and are not for notices about cases raised against individual editors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix's claim that the obvious falsehood of the implied "15 year old in a state of undress" claim and related content is a completely separate issue to this case is unconvincing to me. This case is about an editor trying to follow BLP requirements, that content reveals how bad the BLP infractions have gotten in the article; it reveals more of the serious problem that Anythingyouwant was trying to reduce when making the edits that are being used to bring him here. I have "made no comment on" that content, says Fyddlestix, correctly. Yet, while washing his hands of that ongoing misrepresentation of sexual assault in the article's content (it had been there for at least a week, and is still there in a very slightly changed form, in a section formerly titled "Sexual assault allegations" that is now titled "Sexual misconduct allegations"), he still feels able to comment here on exactly what a "sexual assault" is. Does he think shaking hands with a clothed 15 year old counts as "sexual misconduct"? The article does.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix

Just commenting to note that the suggestion that "sexual assault" is a BLP violation (Anythingyouwant's stated reason for the removals linked above) is wholly inaccurate. The term does not imply an accusation of rape by any stretch of the imagination. It is variously defined by some of the most authoritative sources imaginable as:

In short, this is precisely what Trump has been accused of. There are also a very large number of reliable sources that document those accusations, and which specifically apply the term "sexual assault" to Trump's case. I listed some (one example from each major American news outlet) here, but there are dozens (very likely hundreds) or RS that apply the term to Trump. So please don't give the claim of a BLP exemption any credence here, it's demonstrably false. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: re: this - the answer is no, of course not. My comments above were obviously in reference to the edits by Anythingyouwant that Marek linked in the complaint above, there is nothing in those edits or in mine that implies what you suggest. This is a completely separate issue, which I have made no comment on. I suggest you redact your comment and avoid making such utterly preposterous suggestions going forward, it's obviously not going to help resolve the dispute. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is lovely too. Can an admin at least hand out some warnings here? Left unchecked the behavioral issues at this article are just going to get worse. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Anythingyouwant is evading her TBAN from abortion-related articles through a campaign of disruptive edits to articles on the US election, where the future of the Supreme Court and abortion-related law is at stake. She bludgeons discussion threads with a broad spectrum of artful, passive-aggressive deflections, equivocations, and denials to hog-tie neutral policy-based editing. I doubt she is as incompetent as her words would suggest, so I interpret this behavior to be willful (or at least uncontrollable) disruption. She's been amply warned on her talk page and on the article talk pages, but she knows most editors will not take the time and effort to file complaints such as this one. In my opinion, most editors react not by pursuing Enforcement but simply by walking away from the articles. I can't believe that Arbcom Enforcement Admin's wish to validate the disruptive editing strategy of this consummate Wikilawyer and allow her to hound ever more editors off of these abortion-related election articles. The current revert-warring has nothing in common with the one in the previous complaint, where the use of the word "rape" was not well-supported by RS and was undue and was arguably a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant recently ignored warnings from several editors. Here is mine, on her talk page: [27] SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: BLP above all, but it's been amply demonstrated that BLP does not justify Anythingyouwant's reverts. Not even plausibly. Public figure, hundreds of RS, accurately represented. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC) You're going on at length about perceived systemic bias on WP and other general concerns, but my point is that this is a complaint about specific behavior of one editor under clearly defined circumstances and the violation is verifiable and proven. Larger issues belong elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, you have a tough job. But you're here voluntarily and the community is counting on you. Even if it's facetious, the suggestion of rounding up active editors (I'm not one of them) and TBANning the whole carload is appalling. This is a simple case of a Anything, a deft and experienced wikilawyer, gaming the system to violate her Abortion Topic Ban -- a ban she openly renounces as illegitimate at every opportunity. Because she's so careful not to be overtly hostile or uncivil, she will not come up for any really draconian penalties, no matter how much of other editors' time she wastes. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit, but in this case it's more like "if the shoe fits, wear it." She needs to have her Abortion-related TBAN extended to American Politics, where her disruptive editing and obstruction is an obvious evasion of her existing TBAN. T-t-t-that's all folks! SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I'd echo the statement of Tiptoethrutheminefield above - while it may be true that these are accusations put against him, they have no business to be highlighted to that great a detail in the lede. I've been finding more and more that some editors seem to want to vilify any BLP that is right-leaning to the greatest extent they can by reliable sources (which are broadly left-leaning, making it easy to find material to pin on the BLP) in the lede, where instead WP:BLP advices dispassionate and impartial writing. Accusations of crimes may have a place in the lede, but if they are only accusations, they should not be given undue focus (though can be explained out in the body as allowed for by BLP). --MASEM (t) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: The issue that I have been seeing becoming more and more of problem, something I identified back in the Gamrilel arbcom case. I agree there's probably just as many right-leaning editors seeking to vilify left-leaning BLPs as vice versa (a practice that should be ~~condoned~~condemned, either direction) The issue, however, is that our RS policy has developed in a manner that favors left-leaning sources and excludes right-leaning ones, so trying to back up a claim against a left-leaning BLP is nearly impossible with the lack of usable RSes, but finding claims against right-leaning BLP is easy as pie due to the predominate number of usable RSes. (There's a whole other external issue of shoddy journalism today but that's beyond our control). And left-leaning editors have used this alongside UNDUE (specifically) to insist this information must be included, overriding the principles of NPOV and BLP. Throwing a lot of detail about yet-proven accusations of a running candidate in the brief lede is exactly the type of thing we shouldn't be doing, but we're here because some editors don't see this as a problem. It's difficult to pin as AN issues because it is very slow, and it involves many degrees of subtly. There needs to be community-wide input and discussion of this problem. In the meanwhile, however, BLP still stands above all other policies. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: You're self-demonstrating the issue. I have no love of either candidate here, but there's just as much mud being thrown at Clinton as there is at Trump, but because those accusing Clinton are right-leaning sources, either editors deem the sources unreliable (which is a fair assessment for many right-leaning sources) or when the sources aren't unreliable, they state "well, they're unproven accusations, so we can't give any weight to those". That logic and impartiality is not implied in the current edits here. Just because the accusations are well-sourced to reliable sources they are unproven, and we should be using the utmost care to avoid giving undue weight to them by throwing them in the lede, as otherwise this give them implicit equal weight as his campaign platform and previous history. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To several more recent comments, while one could argue this is a content situation since we are talking about material that is reliably sourced and that I do agree belong somewhere on WP (certainly in the article(s) about the specific presidential campaigns since the accusations are influencing the election to a degree), fundamentally these accusations (neither proven nor have led to any charges) are rumors and BLP is very specific about giving undue weight to rumormongering on BLP pages (Other policy like NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM also comes to mind). They shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all at this point, but there's a certain callousness by several editors here that give the impression "oh, but reliable sources reign over BLP", which should not be happening here, otherwise we as Wikipedia are engaging in the external problem. We need to be better than the sources when it comes to impartiality and tone. To that point, the edits tagged above by Anythingyouwant are just as problematic as the edits undoing those, since they are retaining the core problematic BLP, but they are at least de-sensationalizing the newer additions. The fact that multiple editors appeared to have restored it shows that there's a larger problem than one person involved here. The suggestion of short-term topic ban for all involved until after the election makes sense to this point, because most of this appears centered on this developing issue, but I still believe we're not solving the long-term problems with this solution, but solving that is well beyond the remit of ArbCom. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

Here is edit by Anythingyouwant made in violation of 1RR rule on the page. This edit does not fix any BLP violations because (a) the material in question is well-sourced and included on the page itself [28] and other pages [29],[30] and (b) the material remains in the lede even after the edit by Anythingyouwant but became less visible (note that only poorly sourced materials are exempt from 1RR rule [31]). Actually, no one disputed that the information itself was well-sourced, and must be included on the page. The dispute was about including this info in lede. Moreover, Anythingyouwant made revert of material that is currently under discussion in an RfC and was warned not make this edit in advance [32], but still did it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG. There is no "imbalance between the way Trump and Clinton's bios are treated by the wikipedian community". There could be only some "imbalance" in the way they are treated by reliable sources, although this is difficult to say - one can compare pages here and here (perhaps there are more negative materials about another candidate). Also, one should not talk about "sides" per Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown. Yes, many people have biases, which should not prevent their participation. The problem only arises when someone willingly violates editing restrictions and rules, does not admit it, and continue telling "I was right" even after being reported on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

I'd like one of the editors accusing AnythingYouWant to point to the discussion showing consensus for the edits she reverted. Steeletrap for example, makes no attempt to gain consensus for this latest edit.

The sequence as I see it here is:

Editor A violates policy (BLP and article-specific restrictions) to include or alter article text
Editor B violates policy by undoing Editor A's edit
Optionally: Editor A reports Editor B to enforcement

Instead of talk page discussion we have edit-warring and enforcement requests. Can we require admin approval for changes, with consensus required for admin approval? I don't think that's unreasonable for the two candidates' BLPs in the weeks leading up to the election. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand administrators reluctance to involve themselves, by my quick-and-dirty math about a million people viewed the Donald Trump article with dubious accusations of "child sexual abuse" or "child rape" in the lede. That should warrant serious action in any BLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The talk page lists 3 active arbitration remedies. You support (I think) sanctioning Anythingyouwant for violating the 2nd, which limits reverts to one every 24 hours, but say nothing about the filer and others who violated the 1st:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)

Is the 1st less important or does the warning at the top of this page, which tells filers:

your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it

not apply? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment: I'd like the record to show that in two diffs presented (35 and 36) for which she may be sanctioned, Anythingyouwant removed content reinstated by Volunteer Marek (diff) which had been previously removed by D.Creish (diff), DrFleischman (diff) and myself.

That same phrasing (sexual assault) was reinstated by MrX (diff), SPECIFICO (diff) and My very best wishes (diff) who all presented evidence against Anythingyouwant.

At the time of their edits, as now, the RFC favors exclusion from the lede or a brief mention, with no consensus to include "sexual assault", so each of these reinstatements violated the arbitration remedy that editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)

In sanctioning Anythingyouwant you'd allow the filer and several supporters to unambiguously violate a remedy, while sanctioning Anythingyouwant for violating another in reverting their violation - in a high profile BLP, regarding "sexual assault." I find it hard to believe not a single admin is concerned by that. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tataral

As pointed out by others, Anythingyouwant is "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion). One of the main issues for Donald Trump and his party in this election, as one could expect, is abortion (often in connection with appointments to the supreme court), which was one of the key issues debated, for instance, in the most recent presidential debate, in which Trump said "I am pro life and I will be appointing pro life judges" and even more polemically that under current abortion law in the US "You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day".[33] The fact that abortion is one of the main issues for the Republican Party in presidential elections is very well known, and Trump has made it clear for a long time, and well before the edits in question, that he is an anti-abortion political candidate who uses strong anti-abortion language and who will appoint "pro life judges". It seems quite clear that the Trump article is within the scope of a topic ban covering "abortion-related pages, broadly construed." --Tataral (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dervorguilla

"sexual assault. 1. Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent. 2. Offensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." (Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.)

In some states, sexual assault is understood to mean "forcible fondling" and the like. In other states, it's understood to mean "rape". An editor living in a conservative state may legitimately see a BLP violation where one living in a progressive state does not. (Note: The AP says that any statement "capable of conveying a defamatory meaning" is defamatory.)

In a Wikipedia article, you can fairly and ethically say that a suspect is accused of "sexual assault" if you make clear whether the allegator accused him of (1) rape or (2) forcible fondling. Which was not the case here. It accordingly appears to me that Anythingyouwant did no wrong. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the statements by The Blade of the Northern Lights and Lankiveil, who are "almost of the view that the top 10 editors of the article ... in the past month should be banned until after the election is out of its misery" and "would not object at all to a topic ban for a number of editors on both 'sides' of this dispute until at least November 10". I'm Editor No. 8, and I support any such bilateral ban.

I'd like to see how the article evolves if we let the less-invested editors take over for a few weeks. I think you could feasibly implement an informal ban by asking all top-ten editors to voluntarily withdraw from editing the article for the duration. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) 07:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

Throughout the election campaign, it has proven very hard to conduct a level-headed discussion towards building consensus. Discretionary sanctions are effective against simple trolls and relatively inexperienced editors, however experienced editors have both demonstrated uncanny capacity to skirt the rules or stonewall the process. Irrespective of political inclinations, AGF and BLP should prevail over attempts to smear a candidate or exonerate the other.

This case looks like a sanctions war between two experienced editors who seem to be both exasperated by the "other side". Either we give them both a slap on the wrist in the form of a week block or we TBAN them from political topics for a few months to cut the drama. I would not condone any unilateral sanctions against one side who happened to have a slightly different reading of BLP defense than the other side. We are facing a good-faith attempt at maintaining balance, not a sneaky attempt to game the DS. Several other editors have switched the lead one way or the other, this fact alone shows there is no consensus about keeping sexual assault accusations in the lead; my personal opinion is they should be left out until the RfC concludes, but I'd rather stay uninvolved on contents here.

The issue of imbalance between the way Trump and Clinton's bios are treated by the wikipedian community and journalistic sources is out of scope of this particular AE request but certainly needs to be kept in mind as background context in evaluating appropriate sanctions. — JFG ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irony: A couple months ago, when discussing whether to mention Trump's campaign lies in his bio, I warned that the lead would soon read "Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." We're getting there, BLP be damned… Sad! — JFG ^talk 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I was just adding some lighthearted banter to the never-ending drama (two weeks left!). But I get your point on poisonous hyperbole. As you noticed too, people are seriously equating Trump's hairstyle to his political positions in terms of encyclopedic relevance: not only is the campaign both entertaining and appalling but so is its meta-coverage here

— JFG ^talk 04:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

There are many editors in that topic area intent on using any and all sources and tidbits of information that portray Trump in a negative light. There are also many editors who are keen to oppose this approach. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing to see the admin response to this. It's quite clear from a few previous enforcement cases that had Anythingyouwant edited with the opposite POV that we would be seeing calls for no action at the least, to boomerang at worst. Editors are trying to put any and every mention of negative items into Trump's lead, with no regard to weight or recentism or npov or notnews because of the house and MSM POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Fleischman

I have no opinions to share about Anythingyouwant, but I would like to say that I trust that The Blade of the Northern Lights and Lankiveil's comments on the subject here and here were made in partial jest, and that if sanctions were to go beyond Anythingyouwant then evidence would be presented and those accused would get a chance to respond. I certainly agree that there's been a lot of POV pushing at Donald Trump recently, but I certainly wouldn't want to find myself the subject of arbitrary sanctions simply for contributing to a very controversial article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

I note Anythingyouwant changed "sexual assault" to "forcibly kissing and groping." The BLP issue seems to have some validity. A reader could be left with the impression that these were accusations of rape or similar felonies. I note that many news sources to refer to the allegations as "sexual assault," but they also clarify what the specific claims are. The version of the lead with "sexual assault" does not do that.

While Anythingyouwant has explained their reasons for changing the wording, I would ask the administrators examining this complaint to read the edit summaries and arguments against the change. Basically they are that by definition, it constitutes sexual assault, reliable sources use the term and there is consensus to keep it. As I mentioned above, sources that use the term clarify the specific claims. But none of them explain how it improves the article.

TFD (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Markbassett)

???? What is listed seems clearly not 4 reverts (maybe too late but here's my $0.02)

The first two cited here and here have the same text 'Late in Trump's campaign', so show one revert to put his prior edit back in place. (The note on both mention reverting so maybe two reverts.

The next two there and there do not have the same text, so are not reverts of that prior item. They are also not the same between themselves -- it looks like Any changed "accusing him of varying degrees of assault" to "groping or forcible kissing by him" under note assault would mean rape; then when someone reinstated prior language a few (?) revs later he puts in a note "reverting to Dr. Fleischman' which edits an earlier part of the same line -- not to his third edit, it's undoing whoever reverted multiple intervening edits. Not a revert to his own language apparently, for whatever mitigation that may be. Again here what's shown is a mention of revert. I didn't go thru the history to see if I could confirm that they are actually reverts or not, but if that makes 3 it seems a bit mitigated that he was being self-reporting.

It's a bit of sidenote - but there's a lot of thrash over 'bragging' vs 'reported as bragging' vs 'talked' and whether it's about 'sexual misconduct' vs 'capability for' vs 'sexual assault' -- plus whether 'sexual assault' should be viewed as saying the felony 'rape'.

Markbassett (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The first two show a revert, but the second two are marked ass BLPviolation reverts ... maybe leans things a bit to ba cautious to not discourage Note marking or discourage BLPviolation claims. (And for those saying its a false claim ... when would invocation ever not have such remarks?). I at least was in TALK before this and still am saying 'sexual assault' is a legal term commonly understood as felony/rape for whatever that's worth. (Some states interpret the term to include non-penetration, and some advocates use the inflamatory term for lesser occurances ... but mostly read rape by drugs or weapon.) Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Given the unprecedented goings-on in the current U.S. presidential election it may be wise for any sanctions to continue until the outcome of the election is no longer a matter of significant dispute, or similar wording. The possibility of a drawn-out, acrimonious state-by-state legal challenge to the validity of the election is presently being discussed in high-end reliable sources.[34] These are strange times. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

I am Recused from 2016 election-related articles, as usual. However as an editor, I would tend to largely agree with Dennis Brown here. Sexual assault and rape are not the same thing, however in many areas sexual assault is a euphemism for rape. The issue is not one of definition, but connotation. And having watched the discussions on that article for some time, good faith is failing and I have little doubt that the connotation wasn't absolutely intentional. It may not be a BLP vio by the literal text, but it definitely is by implication. I believe an admonishment is appropriate here, and after the election I predict that this topic area will be much quieter without the need for bans. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

~~I have no opinion regarding Anythingyouwant, however~~ I do think it is worth noting that Volunteer Marek is a formidable edit warrior who has recently violated 1RR on the page Clinton Foundation (diff, diff). It seems to me this should encourage an in-depth look at his recent editing history which might, just maybe, suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. SashiRolls (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had the courage to look into it, I'll say that I agree with those who say this is not a case of WP:CRYBLP as there is no consensus for inclusion of this language in the lede on the talk page. I do not think Anythingyouwant should be sanctioned at all for these edits. SashiRolls (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

This is a tough case for me. I think that Anythingyouwant's reverts were good in that they were on the right side of BLP, and were in line with the relevant discussion on the talk page. But I'm not convinced it was the kind of clear-cut BLP violation that warrants an exemption to 1RR. I think the Trump article needs experienced editors to counter the folks who want, say, an entire paragraph in the Lead devoted to sexual assault allegations. Anythingyouwant has certainly been that, but in the process has been engaging in long term borderline behavior, knowing that it would eventually lead to a topic ban. (I can provide diffs if requested.) In short, I think a topic ban is overdue, but it bugs me that this particular issue is the last straw. ~Awilley (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Anythingyouwant

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

I'm sorry, I think all the uninvolved admins are too too tired. I know I am. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I've recovered and added a hopefully more useful comment at the end of this section, which seemed a better place for it even though technically perhaps not correct. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

As am I. I'm almost of the view that the top 10 editors of the article and talkpage in the past month should be banned until after the election is out of its misery, but I don't think that's feasible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My frustrated comment above stands, but in terms of this specific issue I think at least 6 month ban from American politics is warranted. I wholly agree with Drmies' summary below. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgment Drmies, and I'm willing to go with something shorter. Also, to be completely clear my comment above was not a suggestion for responding to this specific instance; I wouldn't do something like that without all the proper notifications and statements at least. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of Anything vol. 1, which just closed; if I had seen that I would have agreed with closing that as a good-faith BLP exemption. However, I do not see how that applies here--I'm sorry, Anything. But the edit cannot be justified by way of the BLP exemption, since the allegations and their phrasing are well sourced and widely known, unlike the previous case's "rape". Equating rape with sexual assault and thus claiming the same exemption is not going to work. My colleague Masem says, above, "while it may be true that these are accusations put against him, they have no business to be highlighted to that great a detail in the lede"--this may well be true, and I am usually a fan of less rather than more, what Masem offers us is in no way a valid exemption. There is no significant difference in the level of detail, and how for instance UNDUE applies here is not clear, esp. since Anything's edits/tweaks do not materially shorten the lead. If the lead is too detailed or whatever, settle it on the talk page; the only question here is whether, for instance, changing "forcible groping or kissing" to "assaulting" is a BLP violation which can legitimately lead to an exemption. I think the answer is no. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything, I'm sorry, but I stand by what I said. If you like I'll modify and change "equate" to something much longer involving "is practically equated to ___ because in many cases the suggestion is that etc." In order to get some sort of exemption you simply have to accept that "sexual assault" was a BLP violation. I don't see that. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Six months is a long time. I am not sure if Anything has a block/topic ban log, but they're fairly reasonable, and if a topic ban comes to an end and the behavior hasn't improved, a new one is handed out easily enough. So as far as I'm concerned a month, no more than three months, is more than enough. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- JFG, if you have any good intentions here at all, please don't exaggerate by stating that the lead of his article practically reads "Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." Or, if you were trying to be funny, don't. Exaggeration without proof may provide a good soundbite, but it poisons the atmosphere because those claims can't easily be countered. Sound familiar? Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - JFG, If I took your words more literal than they were intended, which it seems I did, I certainly apologize, and I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree with Drmies here. While there is an exemption to revert rules for BLP enforcement, we also have to be mindful that it's easily abused. I think this has crossed over into abuse territory, given the high profile of the sexual assault allegations and their clear backing in reliable sources. Presenting well sourced negative information is not a BLP issue, it's a content decision, and that's subject to revert restrictions like any other content matter. Accordingly, I do believe 1RR was violated here, as these were not reasonable BLP concerns. BLP covers unsourced or poorly sourced content, not well sourced content. That being said, I also do agree with Drmies that any sanction should be a relatively short one, given that the US political season will be over shortly and these areas will likely cool off after that. I'd support a month long topic ban from the subject of Donald Trump, with the expectation that the sanction may be lengthened and/or broadened if issues like this occur again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These actions were technically 1RR I suppose, although I think it is defensible (but wrong) to say that they were legitimate per BLP. Either way, it's such a minor thing that under reasonable circumstances a quick discussion on the talkpage should have sorted it out, but partisans on both sides have dug in their battleground mentality so hard that that is not going to happen. To be honest, I am in agreement with User:The Blade of the Northern Lights here, and would not object at all to a topic ban for a number of editors on both "sides" of this dispute until at least November 10, at which point it will all hopefully be moot. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- I think six months for a topic ban is excessive, lets try for "until the winner of the election is declared", and see if anyone still wants to carry the flame after that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
This is a case of WP:CRYBLP in support of partisan editing by an editor already sanctioned for partisan editing, in an area that is strongly related to one where the editor has a ban already in place. I have great sympathy for the "plague on all their houses" view expressed above, but I think it is also unarguable that this is disruptive and tendentious editing and that a good case could be made for topic-banning Anythingyouwant from American politics until December. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these reverts were justified under the BLP exception to 1RR. That exception isn't supposed to be used for people to promote their sides of arguable issues through edit warring. The exact wording that should be used to describe the allegations can of course be discussed, but labelling them as "sexual assault" isn't the kind of clear BLP violation that would justify starting an edit war. Some kind of sanctions on both "sides" until after the presidential election, as suggested above, may be a good idea. Hut 8.5 12:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was drawn here by this dispute popping up on my watchlist. The points I would make have been made more clearly by folks above: so let me just say that the diffs presented strike me as willful misuse of the BLP exemption. Add to this a clear battleground mentality and an unwillingness to drop the stick, and a topic ban is very much in order. Personally, I do not see the mindset that drives this behavior changing quickly: but perhaps the level of motivation for it will change after the election. A month-long topic ban is the minimum I would suggest. Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying after reading Doug's comment: I, too, mean a topic-ban from post 1932 US politics. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Vanamonde here. At one point I was thinking "a plague on both your houses", but I've changed my mind in the light of various comments above. I'd support a topic ban for Anythingyouwant - not just until November 10th however. At least until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying my comment, I mean a ban from American politics post 1932, not just Trump. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've recovered from the ennui recorded in my original post and read up. Like the other admins commenting in "Anythingyouwant 1" higher up on this page,[35] I thought Anythingyouwant did the right thing in removing a clear BLP vio (accusations of "rape and child rape") from the lead of Donald Trump. The reverts in this present report are something else, and I agree with Vanamonde that they show a battleground attitude on one of the Wikipedia pages that least need it. Agree with a topic ban from American politics for Anythingyouwant. I like Doug Weller's careful formulation: "at least until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede", but I'll support any proposed ban length up to three months. I don't support any kind of 'ban the lot and let god sort 'em out' solution here. Too radical, and not fair. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't exactly agree with many of compatriots here, at least in part. I think Anything needs to be sent back with clear instructions that "sexual assault" is not synonymous with rape, but I've lived all over the US, and in many places, it is. In many texts it is. We can't escape that. That doesn't mean we are bound to that standard here, but it does offer some explanation. As for CRYBLP, most people editing these articles do have a strong bias one way or another. These political articles are already a handful, the last thing I want to do is affect the balance by topic banning someone under these circumstances. I prefer a warning and instruction to read the advice herein, and accept the consensus view on that phrase. This madness will be over soon enough, but not soon enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Blade of the Northern Lights, Bishonen, Drmies, Doug Weller, Dennis Brown, JzG, Lankiveil, and Seraphimblade: This has been open a while, and there does not appear to be much further discussion happening. I don't think it is fair to either the filing party or the respondent to leave it open further. I am not seeing a clear consensus here, but there does seem to be general support for a topic ban from US politics until ~~the election is over~~ the losing candidate concedes the election. Is this something we can agree upon? If no objections are raised, I'm inclined to close it as such in the next 24 hours. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly ripe for closing, but there have been a number of suggestions for a longer ban than just until the election is over. I recommend you phrase the ban per Doug Weller's suggestion: topic banned from American politics post 1932 until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede. I know it's far-fetched... but we really don't want to have to start this over again if there's, well, unrest after the election. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  - That is a good point, and was one of the reasons I suggested a minimum of three months. I will amend my wording: I don't anticipate anybody objecting to the amendment if they were okay with the original. Vanamonde (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously it isn't my preference, but if we must, the narrower and shorter the better. Anything past Dec 1 or the loser conceding (which ever happens first) would be excessive and go beyond the actual problem. I trust Anything already gets the point, so it seems unnecessary considering the vitriol on both sides of the isle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I concur we seem to have broad agreement here; my preference for ban length is still as above, but I wouldn't be tremendously upset by three months. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
        @Dennis Brown: I personally do not think we should add an escape clause if one of the candidates does not concede. Unless a concession happens, this is liable to continue to be a highly visible/disputed area, and the reasons for the ban remain unaltered. In the unusual situation that a candidate does not concede but the election is actually considered "over" and the disputes die down, it can be lifted by one of us. Vanamonde (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Once the votes are simply cast, does any of this matter? Is the likelihood of problems not go down? I think Dec 1 is more than enough if someone doesn't concede. Only time in my long lifetime this didn't happen by Dec. 1 was in 2000. I think we are overthinking this, and still think it is unnecessary to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        That was however a very, very different situation, with a mandatory recount in one state and various litigation. Once that was over Gore conceded. It would have been foolish of anyone to concede earlier then. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad

On hold until 26 November 2016, to run concurrently with a voluntary wikibreak by SageRad. Bishonen | talk 08:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Request concerning SageRad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SageRad (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions : discretionary sanctions

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

SageRad is on a campaign against skepticism and for giving more credence to altmed, and this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, civil as it may be, has been consistently disruptive on fringey medical and CAM topics like fad diets. The key issues are BLUDGEONing discussion with long soapbox-y rants against "skepticism" and for "Truth " -- a consistent behavior of using talk pages as forums, talking about "meta-issues", etc, instead of focused discussion on crafting content based on sources per policy and guidelines. He also misrepresents sources in the course of his arguments. In all of that, he fails to yield to consensus, and accuses other editors of lacking "integrity". His presence on these topics is just a tremendous time sink.

The issue goes back at least to SageRad's editing at David Gorski (a skeptic) in May 2015 (three article edits and 21 talk edits) which led to a block to which SageRad responded with the expected complaint of censorship.

From Dec 2015 to March 2016 at Paleolithic diet - see pretty much the entirety of Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_6 in which SageRad bludgeoned the talk page with 180,000 bytes of talk page comments expressing his perception that the article was hijacked by "Skeptics" and was "biased"; he protested the fad diet attribution. A huge drag on the time of other editors.
- first post in Dec 2015 where he first said there is a scientific basis for the diet (against all the RS) and
- this also from December where he wrote: "I think it's pretty obvious here that there is a strong pushing to interpret the review article in the very least favorable way possible in regard to the Paleolithic diet, and this is holographically emblematic of the editing practice used in the entire article from the lede throughout the body. There is a serious wind blowing in the direction of "debunking" the article's subject throughout, and every single line is being used to slam the Paleolithic diet against a wall and to beat it up here. That's not cool. That's essentially like a witch hunt and trial against the article's subject being done by the dominant group of editors here. It's not alright. The readings here seem to strive so hard to interpret the article in question as being guilty before proven innocent. It's a witch hunt. There will never be any good dialogue here and no fair or unbiased approach to the article taken, so long as this is the prevailing flavor of the editorship here. It smacks of the same attitude taken in much of the Skeptic™ literature, and i call out the bias here." More of them same "meta-discussion" and giving his personal perception/philosophy and skeptic-complaints here (more anti-Skepticism) and here (the "integrity" bit in the face of consensus against his proposals, and "McCarthyism") and here (noodling/soapboxing against "fad diet") and here (more personal opinion) and here (more anti-skeptic general soapboxing) all the way though to
- near-last post in Feb 2016 - after extensive discussion - saying pretty much the same thing.

More recently he took his anti-Skeptic campaign to Jimbo's talk page:
- Wikipedia we have a problem in August 2016, and
- Wikipedia we still have a problem a month later, reacting mostly to the month-long block he got due to his first one.

The titles of both of these posts are direct quotes of banned user Rome Viharo's website (which I can't link to, as it is blacklisted) and the posts echo much of Viharo's conspiracist hysteria about a skeptic takeover of WP (which Viharo apparently decided must be True after the community continually rejected his FRINGE-pushing nonsense about Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, two topics of longterm disruption with regard to altmed here in WP)

In both of the threads above you will find SageRad accusing others of McCarthyism, soapboxing, complaining about others' lack of integrity and his own adherence to The Truth. (diff (a whole "holographic" analysis of the "Skeptics conspiracy takeover" thing); diff (McCarthyist); diff (fascist, totalitarian); diff (speaking truth to power); diff there is an ideological war being waged here within Wikipedia. This is against the policies and rules of Wikipedia, and i have repeatedly been demonized as a result, not because i was guilty of violating the policies. but because i am an enemy to an ideological faction's dominance and therefore like an immune system they seek to eject me for speaking about the lay of the land in this regard); etc)

SageRad's campaign is also aligned with other altmed advocates that complain about a "skeptic takeover" of WP, like the folks at Natural News (see here for example).

He has continued that campaign in WP space:

On October 15 he opened a discussion at the Fringe Noticeboard here with more soapboxing - you can read his first three noodling remarks there.
That discussion was moved to WT:FRINGE where he has written stuff like this, soapboxing about the (nonexistent in WP) difference between institutions that create sources and the "power" in society expressed via those institutions.
On October 20 he opened a section at FRINGEN here claiming that the Chemophobia article is FRINGE in that it treated this like a psychological condition; this was a misrepresentation in that the article specifically says "Despite containing the suffix -phobia, the majority of written work focusing on addressing chemophobia describes it as a non-clinical aversion or prejudice, and not as a phobia in the standard medical definition".

What spurs this filing, is that SageRad has continued this campaign -- really WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior -- against the perceived skeptic takeover, in article space this fall.

On Sept 10, opened a section at Talk:Michael Greger (plant-based diet advocate who unfortunately often exaggerates health claims) focusing on his "skeptic" issue: Talk:Michael_Greger#Problem_with_.22skeptic.22_as_a_title, generally OFFTOPIC soapboxing disrupting already difficult discussions with Greger fans objecting to any critical discussion of Greger. Made 39 comments mostly all on this "skeptic" stuff.
On Sept 11 he jumped into the Scientific skepticism article to pursue his campaign there, making 6 edits to Talk exemplified by this where he brings no sources but just noodles on the topic and continues his campaign: "And this is not solely about paranormal phenomena, but also about other aspects of interpretation of the world through science where the social movement may have a world view that is not in line completely with the actual science, and thereby uses the appearance of the role of skeptic to promote something that is not true scientific skepticism"
On Sept 16 entered discussion at Talk:John A. McDougall, an article about another diet advocate where we have consistent low level trouble from "fans" of the diet, making 9 edits to Talk, again arguing against the fad diet attribution and writing the following (dif: "The source cited appears to not support the claim. There seems to be a lot of WP:IDHT going on where people seem to not hear that the source doesn't say what is claimed that it says" which completely misrepresented the source as I showed him I here. He went on to actually invoke Godwin's Law here.
On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine) in a section entitled "Truth of Toxins" ( right down his alley) where he helpfully brought a new ref (PMID 25522674) but then misrepresented it here and again here arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is: "At present, there is no compelling evidence to support the use of detox diets for weight management or toxin elimination. Considering the financial costs to consumers, unsubstantiated claims and potential health risks of detox products, they should be discouraged by health professionals and subject to independent regulatory review and monitoring.") Even after that was pointed out to him here he persisted. He also brought more of his anti-Skeptic campaigning in diff (already cited dif): "Person Z calls himself a "skeptic" and some editors declare this topic is "fringe" because "it's obvious" and therefore normal sourcing considerations of Wikipedia are suspended and anything uttered by someone who self-identifies as a "Skeptic" and says the right combination of memes on their blog becomes a reliable source. Now i understand how Wikipedia works in practice, through observation of what actually happens."
Most recently at misophonia (a condition proposed in 2000 for people who have strong negative reactions to soft sounds, like eating noises)... which has been a struggle to keep neutral in the face of a lot of advocacy both by people who experience this as well as (bizarrely) by various groups who study and claim to treat people with symptoms.... He has again been abusing the talk page as a place to philosophize and push his anti-skeptic/FRINGE campaign, now about whether this condition exists or not and more generally what we do here in WP, instead of simply following sources which are extremely clear that the condition is proposed, has no classification, is not in the DSM or ICM, etc. He doesn't have access to the sources (as at the Detox article above, he was making strident claims citing only the abstract) yet he writes things like this, even after I present him with the relevant parts of the sources twice (here and later here, which he has refused to even engage. In all this he is pushing for content to be added that gives more certainty to the proposed condition than reliable sources allow and again fighting what he perceives as a skeptic agenda (dif: "Misophonia is a condition. ...The tone of the article, and the lead, should not be one of discrediting or disbelief." Argh. I dread that this is heading into another slog like the Paleo diet fiasco discussed above and I have no desire to go through that again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

29 May 2015 block for violating BLP at David Gorski (see relevance above)
topic banned per GMO arbcom case in December 2015
blocked via AE for 5 days for violating TBAN in July 2016
blocked for one 1 month via DS for violating TBAN in August 2016

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If you look at SageRad's contribs, this anti-skeptic pro-altmed editing is pretty much all they do here (with the exception of some Race & Intelligence work and some scattered editing on basic biology). In all these cases he is making difficult editing situations worse by adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are. Am suggesting a TBAN from anything related to health, as it is articles about health/alt med where he has mostly brought his SOAPBOXing and disruptive, time-wasting behavior. I would suggest alt med more narrowly but I don't want to get into endless border disputes. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

link updated per SageRad's request. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, I will do no more adjusting. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, while i think restricting SageRad from soapboxing would help, the deeper problem of not dealing with sources and even misrepresenting them, and relentlessly advocating for his preferred content, is not going to be addressed by that. The disruption from SageRad's first edits here have been in the field of health which is why I requested what I did. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish; while i see how you could suggest that this is at base an interpersonal dispute, SageRad's editing has focused on health from his first days here and there is one consistent arc of behavior that I described in my OP. Yes, that means he and I have clashed since he arrived, since my editing is also focused on health. So yes there is an element of interpersonal dispute, but in my view, it arises from my having to deal with SageRad's problematic behavior on health topics for all this time. I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. The problems are actual, not perceived by me. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your reply. When I filed this I was concerned it might get framed as an interpersonal dispute. I cannot deny that we have been at loggerheads since he arrived; I don't want that to obscure the facts of SageRad's consistent pattern of POV editing and his behavior pursuing that POV, since he arrived here. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish I know you nodded at the problem with SageRad's behavior with your suggestion about some limit on his talk postings. However, I contest your description of this as "Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another." and the mention of RfCs as a possible solution. This is not a DR thing. SageRad has demonstrated a consistent set of problems with regard to POV on content about health and behavior trying to get that content into WP. It is not going to be resolved by treating it merely as a series of good faith content disputes that can be resolved with RfCs. That is why I posted here. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and now i am going to shut the heck up, unless I am asked something. :) i am arguing too hard. I am long term frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here and I am very comfortable putting that history on the table. Here is his talk page before he purged it at the start of this year; that is where key interactions between SageRad and me took place. I invite anybody who wants to cast this as equivalent to review that from the top down. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, i have no objection at all to the month pause in conjunction with SageRad taking a break Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning SageRad

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 SageRad

Wow. I think a few specific editors have it out for me and are making mountains out of molehills because they have it out for me.

I do my best to follow sources and make good edits. On Jimbo's page, i speak to patterns i see within Wikipedia. Big deal. I use forums for discussion as they're intended. Big deal.

Ironically, i've been having issues with Jytdog, the very editor who brought this here, for the whole time i've been on Wikipedia.

Most recently, we've been at loggerheads on the Misophonia article. I don't think i have any other atypical conditions, but i have suffered from misophonia all my life, and only recently learned that others have the very same specific condition. And so i was learning more from MEDRS sources, and made few edits there too. And now that article seems to have a pretty serious WP:OWNership problem with this editor.

Anyway, i just filed a request at the NPOV noticeboard for other editors to help out with that article, providing help with neutrality.

And then i saw the notice about this AE case, and i just have to say Wow i'm pretty incredulous. Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog.

I'm honest, forthright, and speak what i see. In editing articles i've improved greatly since i began, and i think i understand the policies well. I edit according to policies. I speak honestly. I want good article -- nothing more. I want good articles that follow the best sources.

Other people have issues that i speak to problems in Wikipedia. Are you going to shoot me for speaking? If so then it's on your hands.

SageRad (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty busy, have a child, and working. Last thing i want is drama. This is ridiculous. To anyone who sees Jytdog's lengthy diatribe, i ask you to simply choose any one aspect, and look at it in depth. Don't be fooled by the size of the complaint. See if it really holds up under a microscope. I'm not perfect, but i edit with integrity and following the policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has problems, but it's not me. SageRad (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny note. So i saw Jytdog said "That discussion was moved to WT:FRINGE where he has written stuff like this" with a link here. Note that this contained typos and missing words and you should actually read this diff -- Jytdog, will you change that in your long long thing about me please? Wouldn't want to deceive a reader, would we? The difference in the text is huge in light of this case, and it's obvious i revised that immediately. SageRad (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed my statement to this and then was told that i was not supposed to change my statement. Well, ok, now i know that. I'm working on this in the margins of my time. I don't have hours to write here, and i don't want this drama nor to be topic banned, so what to do? Can i know how much time i may have? I don't have hours to put into this. Wikipedia is a labor of love, but if it's going to be like a court case then it's not the thing i would prioritize in my life right now. But on the other hand, litigious people can't be able to drive editors away by bringing such cases, but that may be just what happens too often. I love Wikipedia and want to see policies applied. Please read my other statement in the link above if you're interested. I sort of need help to know what the process is, in short terms. But on the other hand, i don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I'm not paid to be a lawyer. 23:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the alternate version of Sage's statement, from the diff above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process here?

I don't have time to follow long threads of comments right now.

What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?

Is there some sort of cross-examination? Can people ask me about what they are concerned about, allow me to respond?

I do not thing Jytdog's painting of me as a really bad figure and a person on a crusade are correct. I strive to follow the policies of Wikipedia and it actually really bothers me that they are not followed more to the letter more often.

I do get very frustrated sometimes by what i see as some people getting off scott-free while flouting the policies, or filibustering, while others are trying to have good dialog and to use good sourcing to write good articles.

I do not think Wikipedia is the place to "right great wrongs" or to do anything other than report what's in reliable sources, and to copyedit and organize the content well for the readers.

I do think it matters what is covered and how it's covered, and there are many ways this can be done about any topic. The best articles arise from the good-faith discussion among editors with differing perspectives. If they can be civil and follow the policies, and also to admit when they are wrong (as everyone is sometimes) then you get good article -- and also a camaraderie feeling.

I wish i could get along with Jytdog but it's been quite rough over the last year and a half. He's taught me some things. I appreciate some of the work he does. He's sometimes kind and helpful to people, and i know it takes patience. I appreciate some of the fact-checking he does. I appreciate his explaining sourcing or other policies to other editors.

However, i see him sometimes using his great talent to actually overstep what policies say, or to bend things in a certain way, or to intimidate other editors with alphabet soup (even when sometimes the essays or guidelines don't even really apply) and i have also felt him to be very obstinate sometimes, and not willing to have a truly good dialog sometimes (as in the misophonia article where we've most recently had some tension).

Anyway, i love Wikipedia and i want to be here when i can, but i don't want this drama. I want people to be cooperative and even to admit when i'm wrong. I have done so -- admitted i'm wrong -- even to Jytdog in the past couple of months, which i could verify with diffs if anyone wants. I don't have time for the drama, or lawyering, for finding the 15 relevant diffs among 4,000 or whatever... i love knowledge and to work on articles, but the time sink tax when there's this level of drama is too much. I have a child and a job and relationships to maintain. It's real life.

I am willing to answer any questions or respond to any observations that are in good faith and not from specific editors (a handful) who seem to hate my guts as far as i can tell. I'm sorry they don't like me. I wish everyone would like me, but i will always speak my honest thoughts. SageRad (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, contrary to what Jytdog said, i do have access to most journal articles through my past university lab affiliation.

Lastly, i admit i may have spoken too much about patterns within Wikipedia, or attributing motives to other editors, which should not use space on talk pages. Sometimes it's a response to the mirror image accusations made about me.

In many ways, i appreciate Jytdog's integrity. In some ways, he really does own up to some sorts of mistakes and make corrections. He really does want to make the encyclopedia the best it can be, i believe, but perhaps needs to consider some things more carefully from time to time and not be so reactive. Sorry if that's too much critique to speak of another editor. I mean it with good will. SageRad (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look.......... all the dozen or so enemies are out making horribly distorted and untrue nd biased and polemic statements against me.

This is onerous and there ought to be a boomerang instead of me being on the defense. Jytdog needs to be reigned in. Everything he says about me is actually showing HIM to be on a "right great wrongs" bender, with a mission to eradicate people who disagree with him on some axes.

I don't even have time for this shit.

SageRad (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THE HYPOCRISY IS ABSLUTELY ASTOUNDING.

Jytdog has mounted an ideological crusade, and the people who are in continuous agreement with this come out to cheer "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!" and others actually allow this.

Get the hypocrisy, the irony:

The very thing that Jytdog is incorrectly railing about me, is what HE is doing. Running an editor out for ideological reasons. I've expressed myself in forums meant for the purpose. He doesn't like that. He stored up a list and made a Monday-morning drop of a case to eradicate me because HE doesn't like my beliefs about Wikipedia.

This has NOTHING to do with the policies of Wikipedia. I follow those to a T. I have learned the better and if you look at my recent edits, you'll see that i follow them. Therefore there ought to be NOTHING for which to ban me from any topic. Speaking thoughts and observations on Jimbo's page and talk pages is WHAT WE DO HERE! You don't like the things i've said? That's your problem.

I'm not "disrupting" -- that's a bullshit complaint. I am speaking. You don't like the inconvenience of someone disagreeing with you. You don't like the invonvenience of having to explain and justify your edits (like at the misophonia article, where i'm still pretty sure i'm right about the reading of the sources and the fact that YOU are doing WP:OR and WP:SYN there with nosology and even doing that incorrectly.) Sorry if you're frustrated that sometimes you cannot "win" the content you want when it's contrary to sourcing and policies.

This is a witch hunt type of thing. Better analogized to McCarthyism as it's a political purging.

If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands.

See what's happening here.

Speaking these things is not a crime! The shooting of people for speaking these things is a crime.

Most of y'all who've come out of the woodword (predictably) are in the same camp -- demonstrably through your actions, words, and edits -- doing the very thing you're accusing me of merely speaking about.

This place is damned.

This place is gone.

This place is captured by an ideological crew. I hold strong and true to everything i've said through my time here. It's more instructive who's come out to make statements against me, than the content of those statements. You can see who hates my presence here because they hate the things i say. That is instructive. Think for yourself, observers.

Kill me if you must but i will not pander or lie.

SageRad (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen -- i just saw your comment in which you pinged me. I would like to request a month to get a defense together then. I would be able to process and not feel in jeopardy of a hammer coming down at any moment. The process has felt uncontrollable so far, with the sheer volume of Jytdog's long statement in which i'm described as a demon at all turns. It's far above the 500 word traditional word limit and it's too demonizing to make a simple statement about. It's too deep of a problem and needs some serious addressing. Another thing i would ask is to be able to erase the current statement and make a coherent new one. I've been in a panic mode of sorts and other things in life have been too demanding, and as a result i've written off the cuff. I've also been in shocked traumatic response to the half dozen people who've been in bad conflict with me for a long time all coming out of the woodwork to make horrible statements about me. Wow talk about a jury of one's enemies. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, if speaking in this way is clearly reason for a siteban in your eyes and the "court's" eyes then you might as well site-ban me and be done with it, for this place is then absolutely and proven to be an ideologically purged place where speaking of ideological purging is grounds for being purged. I can't beleive that people cannot see the absolute irony in this condition. It's so basic and foundational. A dynamic where one might see something problematic and speak of it, and then they get punished for speaking of it, is not a healthy place and actually fairly well proves that there is a problem. In other words, this place is enabling to an ideological purging by one specific group. And the very saying that i see this happening is grounds to ban me. Well then, this place IS ABSOLUTELY CAPTURED NOW BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' and i will never be able to work well here in a collegiate way because collegiality hardly exists here and it's more like being a member of Stalin's Party -- tow the party line or be purged. So i guess you've given me your answer in your very reply.

THERE IS NO JUSTICE HERE. THERE IS ONLY POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP AND MACHIAVELLIAN MACHINATION.

Good luck with that.

Unfortunately the effect is disgusting upon this repository supposedly of the world's knowledge which pretends to be independent and open-source but is actually controlled in this blatant way, though not obvious to those who have not been through the wringer like i have. So, good job! You've got a mouthpiece that appears to be neutral but is actually captured! I think someone is pleased with this establishment status quo.

And the irony is my saying this will be ground for my destruction as a voice in the world of Wikipedia.

Well, give me liberty of give me death. Guess you're choosing to give me death.

SageRad (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown what you propose would not be acceptable to me and i'll simply be gone, as if site-banned. I'm sick of topic bans and i'm sick of those who speak being pillories and neutralized. It's obvious that's what's happening here, and nobody has the guts to speak up, or those who would have all already been site-banned or shake in fear at a few names below who've time and again enforced the dogma. So, it's not a game i will play anymore. I'm calling it out, and for doing so if you ban me then you ban me. I will not accept any such topic ban. I will consider it tantamount to a total site ban. There's no getting around this. It's all or nothing. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, i will take a month wiki-break. That's great. I would love to. I was happy to be working on the misophonia article (as it relates personally and it's interesting) but then came to loggerheads with Jytdog on it, and sense he got frustrated about this, and then i posted on WP:NPOV/N about it and was happy with that process. But then on the same Monday morning before work, to get a 1,500 word screed dropped upon me felt horrible. Yes, i felt really overwhelmed and like i have no time, and felt so screwed over in an unfair way.

Here's the thing. I do see patterns here. I see editing patterns. Who doesn't? Is it wrong to speak of them?

If it's wrong then Jytdog's entire screed is wrong. If it's not wrong, then it's okay.

So why the double standard? Why's it alright for Jytdog at Talk:Misophonia to accuse others of advocacy editing, whereas to say that there are problematic patterns in his or others' editing is anathema?

Why is it wrong to point out the very obvious "Skeptic" memes and sources that are populating Wikipedia so ubiquitously? Why's it wrong to point out that there is indeed a project to send people to Wikipedia to edit with this directive, in fact, as documented by external sources?

Why is it defined as a complete and total capital offense to speak of things in one direction, and yet the mirror image is completely sanctioned, and even praised and worshipped?

Seems there is a power structure with a particular bent here.

I am not "bludgeoning" -- i've spoken the same amount as others here in some public forum locations -- like Jimbo's page, and like the talk page on the "fringe" guideline. Those were places where this discussion is sanctioned --- so why is it seen as "evidence" of my "wrongdoing" when Jytdog presents these things here?

And yeah -- the article on Dr Michael Greger -- i did indeed question the use of the word "skeptic" as a title for a person. So? That's good critique of the article. It's a real point that i can legally and rightfully bring up. Why is that presented as if it's a crime?

Jeez.... does anyone see the craziness of this AE case?

This is like The Trial. My crime? Thinking about things and speaking.

Yes, it is like Stalin's Party. There are unspeakable things. You must not say them or you get taken here, and pilloried. Yes, it is like McCarthyism.

Saying this is not wrong. You don't have to agree. But why is saying that a punishable offense?

I'll tell you why. It's a thoughtcrime.

You should think on that. Why is something a thoughtcrime here in Wikipedia? Perhaps because there is a power issue at play.

Anyway, i edit according to policies. You will see within the last few months, any edit i have made to an article is 9 times out of 10 a good edit with good sources. I'm not pushing anything into articles. I'm not pushing an agenda other than to make good articles following the sources.

Please, please, go to the misophonia article and the Talk:Misophonia talk page and see for yourselves. Please, see whether i am breaking any rules in a bad way, or simply trying to improve the article.

With that, i will take a one month wiki-break. I need my time for other things and have too much to do to take part in a trial of this kind, and have little expectation of justice prevailing anyway.

Sage

Statement by JzG

SageRad has taken it upon himself to be arbiter of "integrity" on Wikipedia. The recent discussions on Jimbotalk showed that Sage rejects conflicting opinion as invalid, and considers that intergrity is measured by consonance with his ideology. On his user page he links to a website promoting an "ethical skeptic" agenda, which promotes Brian Martin (conspiracy theorist and supervisor of Judith Wilyman's substandard and anti-vaccine PhD) and the website where Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin and others rant against pesky science for not accepting their beliefs. He has adopted the rhetoric of Rome Viharo, who was banned for sockpuppetry while promoting Sheldrake and woo-meister Deepak Chopra (where he also had a COI, IIRC). Sage has used the name of Viharo's website, Wikipedia, we have a problem, as the title of at least one o his threads: [36].

One could put this down to the aftermath of ARBGMO, but long before that he was inserting accusations of censorship against David Gorski based on Gorski's banning him from commenting for trolling. The skeptic community is generally skeptical about anti-GMO rhetoric, and this seems to have set Sage against organised skepticism pretty much from the outset.

All this would be fine if Sage were capable of understanding the difference between his opinion and objective fact. He consistently demonstrates that he is not.

Sage is intelligent and articulate, but he lacks the ability to accept that any conclusion differing from his own might be grounded in truth. The diffs above clearly show this. The biggest problem is that any topic ban would have to include all areas subject to skeptical activism, and I don't honestly think he edits anything much else. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I am not sure this actually is a case of editors who can't stand each other. I can't speak for Jytdog, but I do not dislike Sage at all. That's part of the problem: I feel very conflicted. I like him but his constant m:MPOV is vexing. In my opinion, if he could accept the possibility of any valid conclusion other than his own, he would be a valued contributor. He has the time and intelligence to read sources, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SageRad: You ask "What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?" Really? You can ask that still, after the recent discussions at Jimbotalk? I'd say that [37] and [38] contain a pretty complete answer to exactly that question. Your problem is as I state above: you seem unwilling or unable to accept that any conclusion other than yours could possibly be valid, and you clearly consider that anybody who states a conclusion other than yours is ill-informed, stupid, corrupt or some combination of the three. [39] followed by [40] set the tone, and I reckon the whole reason we are here is that if you took a straw poll of those who have spent time trying to work on articles alongside you, most of us would be of the opinion that left to your own devices you would make those edits again right now. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I have never seen any evidence of you even acknowledging that these are matters where reasonable people may differ, let alone being open to changing your mind. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Fine with that, Sage has a new baby I think - I can still remember the effects of infant-induced sleep deprivation even two decades later. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't have anything particularly global to add, although I agree with Bishonen's concern that there is a genuine time-sink going on.

Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another. See also: User talk:SageRad#Talk:Misophonia. It's not as simple as white-hats and black-hats.

Instead of editors getting sucked into tl;dr arguments where nobody persuades anyone else, have content RfCs been adequately explored as a way of moving past logjams? (Example RfC question: "Below are some sources that say that misphonia is a genuine disorder, and some sources that say that it is not. Taking the sources together, should this page present it as a genuine disorder?")

I've been trying to think of a possible DS restriction on SageRad that might be practical to design. Perhaps a word limit for talk page comments about AltMed pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I did not say it was interpersonal at its base. It isn't. But it is, partly ("some"). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy: I agree with you that Sage has a lot of potential as an editor, and I was referring more to Jytdog than to you, but despite the replies from Jytdog and from you, I still think that my statement is accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I IAR put back (collapsed) the version of Sage's statement that he had reverted, and I think that it is a better statement than his original one. @Sage: you are permitted to add to your original statement, so you can always add new stuff (well, there's a word limit that is not being followed at the moment) as long as you don't delete the old stuff; you can also strike through anything you wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

I've been seeing problems with SageRad continue to brew on my watchlist after their GMO sanctions. Just in the context of their previous sanctions from GMOs, part of the reasoning why they were topic banned was the exact same behavior we're still seeing here. When people start to complain about how a topic is being antagonized by SageRad's continued soapboxing, they're often met with SageRad's "What, who me?" responses when told to knock it off just like we are seeing in their response to this AE. Basically, disruption in fringe and health topics followed by playing the victim when they're behavior on article pages is called out. Add in the obvious battleground behavior, and we're back to where we were with SageRad before the GMO ArbCom case. That's especially apparent with their "othering" (i.e., "bullies") of editors that try to curtail the disruption SageRad causes in topics where they engage in advocacy or soapboxing about their personal ideals. It's becoming apparent SageRad just won't listen even after their sanctions. Same behavior as GMOs, just different topics now.

At the end of the day, I don't have strong convictions about specific action against SageRad since I don't have to deal with them in my topic areas anymore (mainspace at least), but it's apparent they just moved their behavior issues outside their topic ban. I do feel for editors that still end up putting up with this behavior pretty regularly though. Here area a few ideas for sanctions to impose on SageRad that should at least stop the disruption and maybe turn them around:

1. One-way interaction ban when dealing with Jytdog. I don't have super strong support for this as it's really just a band-aid, but the continued battleground behavior is obvious while Jytdog has been acting at least relatively reasonable (though obviously frustrated) in the face of this string of continued behavior. I'm usually open to less complicated two-way bans, but I think we can agree SageRad's behavior is the core issue here to work on first.

2. Expanding topic bans as JzG mentioned. Probably the most concrete topic ban would be a broadly construed ban on any topic related to health (including environmental contamination for clarity). A topic ban on any WP:FRINGE topic could be a secondary consideration, but that's harder to define for avoiding wikilawyering. Word limits might have been a consideration back when SageRad was newer to Wikipedia, but the issue here seems to be they just can't let go in these topics.

3. Long-term block. SageRad has used tons of rope already still showing behavior (regardless of what they actually say) that they are not WP:HERE and are instead using Wikipedia more for soapboxing and hyperbole. Maybe that can change if they are handed a topic ban that gets them out of this activism mindset and into topics where they can act like a normal editor. I think we have to acknowledge though that if this all continues, the WP:ROPE is going leading to this last option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing The Wordsmith's and Dennis Brown's comments on on applicable DS for a topic ban, this ArbCom case explicitly imposes DS on "all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". In terms of DS, there would be no issue with a WP:FRINGE topic ban option, and the case could be made under that for a medical topic ban because that's where the fringe issues occur. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skyring

After a tangential mention in discussion below, a tangential comment. SageRad has his own strong views, is well-informed, intelligent, and productive. There's a place for him here. But when he encounters opposition, rather than discuss the points of opposition in the context on improving the article(s), he takes it personal and tries to convert other editors to his views, which he considers to be the rational factual objective plain truth, and everybody else is a deluded fool or a tool of big business or something, and ultimately Wikipedia is fatally flawed because of this evil and that evil.

Well, it's not. It works, it's a valuable reference, it's an internet marvel. SageRad should get offa his soapbox, work with those who have contrary opinions, and for the love of ghod, stop filling pages with long rambling rants! SageRad, we love you, we want you, it's just your behaviour needs a bit of a tweak. Okay? --Pete (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

As an editor who has had a role in the current Chemophobia article I was surprised to see, on 20 October, postings by SageRad on both the article's Talk page and at WP:FT/N report a "POV issue" because "This article presents 'chemophobia' as if it's a psychological phenomenon ..."

[41]
[42]

On re-reading the article I saw (as did a number of other editors) that this is simply not the case: the article says precisely the opposite. This has been pointed out but since then no retraction, explanation or further comment has been made. On top of SageRad's editing history this looks far from being constructive activity. What is going on?

Because of SageRad's problematic stance towards skepticism I don't think a TBAN on health content is quite right - a TBAN needs to cover (probably in addition) any topic covered by the WP:FRINGE guidance - broadly construed - though I fear this will not succeed because SageRad seems to have a novel view of what is, and is not, fringe that is out-of-sync with the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

@Wordsmith, discretionary sanctions are authorised for a number of areas SageRad has been problematic in. So realistically you could apply any sanction you wanted (provided you felt it had merit). The real issue is that SageRad is not topic-bound in his disruption. He has an anti-skeptic agenda which manifests in disruptive editing wherever skepticism is evident. He is not pro-fringe as it was, just anti-evidence-based science. His editing MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, argue with people until he finally gets they dont agree with him, then rants about how everything is unfair.

The problem is fringe and skepticism cover a huge range of topics. From pseudoscience, lifestyle, history, medical etc. Normally a targetted topic ban would suffice, but to limit SageRad's disruption would require a 0/1 revert restriction AND some sort of enforced character limit on discussions. And even *then* that would really only just keep disruption to a minimum, it wouldnt prevent anything as SageRad has a worldview that is incompatible with how Wikipedia populates article content. Alexbrn has laid out the most recent example. Jzg and a couple of others say SageRad is clearly intelligent etc, but I disagree. SageRad has repeatedly failed to grasp basic wikipedia concepts & policies, and as Alexbrn's example shows above, clearly has an issue in reading comprehension. There is a CIR issue here. This may be because he skim-reads and fails to grasp what is actually said - Jytdog has listed a number of examples where SageRad cherry-picks/looks at brief abstracts/summaries instead of reading and understanding what material actually says.

But this disruption is not limited to Wikipedia, this is just his latest venue for pushing his POV/Agenda. He came here (and was subsequently sanctioned) after getting into conflict with Gorski. He previously linked to his rants/comments offsite - and even a basic internet search shows his attack-dog mentality when criticised (just in case anyone thinks to accuse me of outing, SageRad has previously linked to his offsite comments himself, then deleted them when it was pointed out they showed his bias). If you are unable to actually implement a workable sanction, this will need to go to ANI or Arbcom for a site ban discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnd we reached the hysterical McCarthy accusations again (this is an ongoing theme, if you take a look at SageRad's talkpage history, specificially their interactions with MjolnirPants). Essentially this illustrates the problem - where multiple people disagree with SageRad, its everyone else that is the problem. Keep in mind, this is multiple editors in multiple topics over an extended period of time (since SageRad came to wikipedia). This is simply a case of 'this person is not suited for wikipedia'. Failure to agree with others is generally fine. People are not required to agree all the time. Failure to agree plus disruption plus personal attacks, plus agenda pushing plus inability to accept consensus is not ok. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'cool down blocks' imply there is something to cool down from. Or that SageRad is acting out currently. This is not the case. SageRad's current behaviour is completely normal for him. Both during his entire tenure at Wikipedia, and his off-site activities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plea by DrChrissy

I am not here to comment on the merits or otherwise of this case, rather, I am here to make observations on Sage's behaviour and a plea for a moritorium. Sage's most recent behaviour on this noticeboard and at other places is very uncharacteristic for him. He is making unfocussed edits and flailing around in the multiple threads regarding his behaviour. He has even resorted to swearing which I don't think I have ever seen him do before. His baby is a new baby, I think only 6 weeks old or so, and I think is his first. To make this brief, I believe Sage may be experiencing some sort of melt-down. A moritorium would show compassion and allow Sage to either calm down and/or make decisions in a more rational way which Arbcom would be more able to deal with. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Unfortunately, I see two problems here. The first has to do with the subject editor, User:SageRad, who has been editing aggressively since May 2015 with a strong point of view on medical and agricultural topics. The second has to do with the history between the subject editor and the filing editor, User:Jytdog. Jytdog has long been editing aggressively in accordance with Wikipedia policy to try to ensure that medical and scientific articles follow Wikipedia medical reliable source guidelines. Jytdog is almost always right with regard to policy, and has made enemies in Wikipedia, and SageRad is one of them, and SageRad has been aggressively attacking Jytdog since he began editing Wikipedia in May 2015. (SageRad made a few scattered edits before then.) Jytdog is absolutely correct in writing:

Actually, one more thing.  The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here.

Jytdog is completely correct in writing:

I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way.

I first became familiar with SageRad when he showed up at the dispute resolution noticeboard hounding Jytdog and claiming mistakenly to be a DRN volunteer. SageRad has been going after Jytdog at least since June 2015.

It is impossible to reason with SageRad to advise him that his behavior is disruptive. SageRad has, since May 2015, seen all efforts to advise him to modify his behavior as "McCarthyism" and "bullying". SageRad was topic-banned by the ArbCom from the topic area of genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. (In case anyone argues that there was a kangaroo court proceeding, he wasn’t just banned by one kangaroo under discretionary sanctions. He was banned by the community-elected panel of kangaroos, except that we are not kangaroos because we are great apes.) He has recently been blocked twice, first for five days, then for one month. It isn’t clear why SageRad is so determined to change Wikipedia when he has apparently decided that Wikipedia is such an ugly corrupt place, but that is SageRad.

If any editor other than Jytdog had been the one filing this request, I would suggest that SageRad be Site-Banned. As it is, Jytdog is the wrong editor to be filing this request, because Jytdog is right, but it looks too much like (almost justified) revenge. I suggest that SageRad be blocked for another month, and that Jytdog be asked to let other editors deal with SageRad after he is unblocked this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

I was trying to avoid commenting here because I've butted heads enough with Sage that it just feels like piling on. That said, what the admins here are seeing as a meltdown is actually pretty par for the course. Outbursts claiming McCarthyism (such as here [43] against Guy or here [44] against... everyone I guess) are fairly normal with Sage, though the Stalinism claim is a new one to me. This has been an ongoing issue when it comes to such hyperbolic claims against other users or WP in general. Capeo (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note to admins, it seems unlikely SageRad will accept a voluntary editing restriction after saying they wouldn't accept an enforced one. I highly doubt it will work and will just serve to incite more drama. Perhaps I'm wrong, and SageRad will be fine with it, but I don't think you're going to get the response you're hoping for. Capeo (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because SageRad keeps insisting that folks look at the Misophonia talk page I did. As well as the article, its history, its sources and the current research. The article was a mess earlier in the year with extraordinary levels of advocate editing. To the degree that editors were adding things to the article, openly in edit summaries no less, to favor particular researchers. The majority of editors on the talk page over the last couple years I looked at also say they have Misophonia. It was brought back to some semblance of balance by Jytdog and others back in February. It quickly spiraled back to being a mess in the interceding months. Looking at the current research "a proposed condition" is exactly the proper way to characterize Misophonia according to the preponderance of RS. There is no diagnostic criteria for it. It's not listed in any diagnostic text. It's near invariably associated with other conditions such as OCD (primarily), anxiety disorders, Autism spectrum or Tourette's Syndrome. SageRad's selective use of a sentence from the Cavanna abstract is not engaging with the actual sources or even the abstract in question, or even Cavanna's actual paper. Even in the abstract itself, it's admitted "At the present stage, competing paradigms see misophonia as a physiological state potentially inducible in any subject, an idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders), or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder."

Cavanna and the one study he cites that agrees with him (that aren't his own) is the only person I can find that presently suggests it might be a primary condition. Even then he admits, in regard to the current definition of Misophonia, "This definition challenges the subsequently proposed views that misophonia is a discrete/idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders)8 or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder, at least in a proportion of cases.4 If confirmed by future systematic studies in large populations, the presence of high rates of comorbidity would go against the argument that misophonia should be labeled as a primary diagnosis. In fact, it would suggest that it is a symptom manifestation of other underlying or comorbid diagnoses and should more appropriately be labeled as a symptom, rather than as a stand-alone diagnosis. Either way, the addition of misophonia to nosographic classification systems of psychiatric disorders, such as the DSM, would require careful consideration." 8 is the study I mentioned. 4 is a short paper by Cavanna. Long story short: Jytdog's wording is correct and it appears SageRad is ignoring the caveats the source in question, which he provided, which isn't even close to the totality of sources in question. Capeo (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I'm not going to post my usual, fifteen paragraph explanation of every nuance of my own thoughts about this. I'm just going to say two things.

I actually do 'like' SageRad in that I get the impression I could have a few beers with him, work alongside him, or have a friendly relationship with him as my next door neighbor. I would likely befriend him if I knew him IRL.
I absolutely, wholeheartedly, 100% without reservation support a permanent site ban. His views are immutable, and they are utterly incompatible with Wikipedia. He constantly expresses angst and frustration at his participation here. This is one of those rare cases where a permanent site ban would (eventually) make everyone happier, including Sage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Roxy the dog)

I'm going to tender for the WP:ROPE supply contract with wikipedia. Must be racing up in value. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SageRad

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

I hope I'll have time to return to this request — it requires a daunting amount of reading for someone not already familiar with the relevant discussions — but I have a couple of initial points:

A. I don't see a problem with SageRad's posts on Jimbo's page. They're the kind of thing that page is for. But it's another matter to keep "adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are", as Jytdog puts it, to various article talkpages. I agree that is disruptive and time-wasting. To get the flavour, I've read through the Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 6, that Jytdog referred to and I see exactly what he means by timesink. (I admit I didn't read quite all of the archive, but a good chunk, maybe half, and it was one of my worst hours on Wikipedia.) SageRad's bandying of phrases like "witch hunt" and his assumptions of bad faith of editors like Johnuniq and User:Skyring are just depressing.[45] ("Thanks sir, who I have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion"... "another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past... the gang shows up.") The best thing might be a topic ban from going on about meta-issues on article talkpages, as well as the persistent accusations of people "ganging up" on and "bullying" him as soon as they disagree with him. But formulating such a ban properly and usefully is no doubt impossible. I see JzG too has a problem with what a ban might cover.

B. SageRad's comment "Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog" in his response here is really unpromising. SageRad, I have read the "diatribe" carefully and found it full of interesting stuff and food for thought. Well, I would guess you have read it too by now, but for you to start by blowing off your opponent like that looks just like an unfortunate illustration of what JzG said above about a lack of ability to accept that any conclusion differing from your own might be grounded in truth. I hear what you say about real life busyness, but there's always the option of requesting more time to reply.

Oh, and C, just a PS to Jytdog: updating the link just now was fine, but for goodness sake don't otherwise fiddle with your initial statement any more. Fluidity in that makes it much harder for others to evaluate and respond. If you must make new points, please do so below your main signed and dated filing, with a new sig and datestamp. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: @SageRad: I see you ask above how much time you may have, and saying you don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I suggest you put a request above, at the end of your statement, something on the lines of "I'm busy in real life, can I please have a week (or whatever specific time span would fit your circumstances) to supply a responsive and factual statement?" I'm sure the admins would agree to put this on hold for the time you need. However, if what you mean is that you will never have time to make a reasonable defense, or supply any evidential diffs, then we might as well deal with this as speedily as possible. Please let us know. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Continued note: I see @SageRad: says he wants a month. (Please stop adding stuff for a minute, as that's making it rather hard to respond.) Of course that seems a lot. When I wrote my original note, I hadn't seen your latest edits [46][47][48] ("This place is damned.. This place is gone..This place is captured by an ideological crew..." etc), which strongly supports Jytdog's complaint. If you stand by that, we may IMO as well siteban you and be done with it. But if what you need is some cooling-off time and then a new statement, it's fine by me. A month of not editing (since you're busy IRL. and will also be busy writing up a statement here) would work for me. What do other people think of a one-month moratorium, please? We could archive this request temporarily and bring it back on 25 November. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I'm still reading through the copious amounts of content presented as evidence. I think there is probably a need for some sort of action here, though I'm not quite sure what the best course is yet. As a point of order, however, I would like to note that this board and its administrators do not have the power to issue a topic ban from "health content"; that would be something to be brought up at one of the conventional noticeboards. The most severe topic ban available to us would be "pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine" or some narrower subset of that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading SageRad's latest postings, I think the assessment that he is in some sort of meltdown is essentially correct. Given that he is also dealing with a newborn child, I think compassion ought to reign here. Provided Sage agrees to take some voluntary time off editing, I would have no problem with putting the request on hold for a month or so. If he returns to editing, it can be resumed with cooler heads all around. Getting some sleep and adjusting to his new family situation might help the behavior problem on its own. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are empowered to implement any conventional sanction even though it is here at AE, treating it as a non-Arb issue without moving it to another board. OID raises some interesting points, and I have to admit only going through part of the evidence, yet this looks like one form of WP:Tendentious editing, albeit not a textbook example. He seems to be taking a singular position on a general theme (skepticism) and bludgeoning multiple pages and refusing to listen to consensus, to the point that it is disruptive to other editors that are simply trying to build an encyclopedia. It does seem to be a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single venue, which has gone well beyond spirited debate and to the point that it is hindering the building of the encyclopedia. Again, WP:TE. I would like to read more and will later today, but this is how it is shaping up in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm was about to propose something else, something not as palatable as Bishonen's idea, but would entertain Bish's idea. What I don't want to happen is for SageRad to say he is leaving Wikipedia forever, then come back in a month or two and we have the same problem. I would only accept if we continue this in one month, even if it is in absentia. What I would have proposed is a 6 month block and 12 month ban on pseudoscience/medicine (to include skepticism, which is a stretch), to run concurrently. That would allow a long enough period of time as to prevent disruption for 6 months at least, and perhaps past that knowing the next block is indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I've learned anything in my decade plus experience here, SageRad, it is that people often say things in the heat of the moment they regret. A sanction doesn't require consent by the sanctioned. My first concern is all the other editors that are affected by your behavior. People leave Wikipedia because they get frustrated by people doing things like what you are doing, because they can't edit in a normal fashion and the frustration is too much. That is the purpose of a sanction, not to benefit you, but to benefit them, and by extension, Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands." Oh dear. If that was a statement made under what we can call extenuating circumstances, it's probably best if this editor stays away from Wikipedia for a while. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: What I suggested above was that we put this on hold for a month with SageRad voluntarily abstaining from editing during that period, which is apparently The Wordsmith's opinion also. Having watched SR continue to "flail around" (per DrChrissy) makes me a bit dubious about the voluntary part; is he in a state where he can and will comply with a voluntary restriction? A one-month block for recent and ongoing disruption might technically be better. But I don't like to consider it, because people generally take blocks as humiliating. (Not me, I'm proud of mine, but it took me a few years to attain such block zen.) Humiliation is very bad and goes counter to the compassion principle. Therefore, I suggest a one-month moratorium with SageRad taking a wikibreak that has nothing to do with blocks and block logs. (Please briefly indicate if you agree to do that, @SageRad:.) If he edits anywhere in a disruptive way during the moratorium, he will then be blocked, and I advise against editing at all. And we collapse this until 25 November, but it can be re-opened earlier by SR himself, if he feels ready for it. He will be free to remove all his own posts here and start afresh, if desired. And I agree emphatically with Dennis that we must avoid a situation where we close without action, SR leaves, and then returns in a month or two, unsanctioned. We need to protect Wikipedia and other users from the bludgeoning that has been going on. The case should be discussed again in a month at the latest, even if in absentia. Is this acceptable to other admins? Bishonen | talk 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

For the record, that's more or less what I was suggesting. I'm not a fan of WP:COOLDOWN blocks when not absolutely necessary, and I'm not convinced this case warrants it. His conduct needs to be dealt with, but letting cooler heads prevail is a much better path for everyone involved. I endorse this proposal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Can't hurt to try as long as we don't forget it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, all. Sigh... let's focus on the edit summary and first sentence of SageRad's statement here, that he is actually, now, taking a wikibreak, and put this on hold for a month. I hope he means it, because if there should be further ABF harangues in the coming month, I believe he should be blocked. Closing. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

DevilWearsBrioni

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 DevilWearsBrioni

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC :

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

DWB is a user with a history of WP:IDHT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:BATTLEGROUND that causes considerable disruption in Balkan related topics. A dispute at Expulsion of Cham Albanians that began months ago over DWB's unsubstantiated claims of WP:OR has been dragging on because DWB cannot concede that there is no case of WP:OR. The dispute has been ongoing since January 2016, and in August of this year DWB filed at WP:DRN [49]. The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB, but the outcome was 100% against him. DWB then goes to the DRN talkpage, alleging that the dispute was not handled properly [50] even though there are no grounds to support this. This also drags on for a while due to filibustering and again the result is against DWB. ~~The dispute then moved to formal mediation [51], where the mediator, User:Anthony Appleyard has asked him to stay on topic and stop filibustering [52] [53].~~ All the uninvolved users that have interacted with DWB in these disputes seem to think that DWB is behaving disruptively: User:Iazyges [54] [55] [56], User:Robert McClenon [57], User:Anthony Appleyard [58]. It is quite clear from these discussions that DWB is not going to accept "no" for an answer or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Added to that is a WP:BATTLEGROUND type behavior of filing frivolous reports at AN/I against users that disagree with him [59] [60] (both reports a huge of waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed). Looking through this user's contribs, I see very little content creation and positive editing, and a whole lot of wikidrama. The disruption caused by DWB far outweighs any positive contribs. Athenean (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[61] [62]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would also like to draw attention to this attempt at off-wiki canvassing by DWB on Reddit [63]. DWB admitted was him [64] in this AN/I attack thread [65]. Athenean (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens: I have e-mailed MEDCOM to ask for permission to include the mediation deliberations as evidence. Further more, per WP:MC/P#PRIV, Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of that party's communications.. I firmly believe that DWB is being deliberately obstructive at the mediation proceedings. Athenean (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@T.Canens: I have struck the portion of my report involving the mediation proceedings. All diffs are from before Sep. 26 and are used to show a pattern of filibustering; the behavior at mediation was what led me to file a report. Athenean (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWB's defense shows exactly what the problem is

1) Contemptuously dismisses guidelines like WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND as "essays". I have seen people banned for violating these.
2) Has to claim victory at every turn and cannot back down. For the rather strong claim that Italy invaded Greece in 1919 (a claim for which it should not be hard to find good sources if it were true), he presents with a) a purported document from the Greek delegation at the 1919 Paris conferece, b) an unreadable image of the "Literary Digest" from an unspecified (likely very old) date, and c) the testimony of a certain "cashier from Konitsa" in a 1958 English-language Greek newspaper [66]. This goes to the heart of the behavioral issue. Because this user just cannot back down, he will scrape the bottom of the barrel and then declare victory ("Everything seems to check out").
3) A refusal to accept reliably sourced material. Here he removes a very solidly sourced claim that "large parts of the Cham Albanian community collaborated with the Axis occupiers" [67], which is sourced to Hermann Meyer, an academic who specializes in WW2 and has written one of the definitive works on the Nazi unit that was active in the area at the time [68]. Yet here he arguing that " "Large part" is not necessarily the same as "to a large extent/part" and that we shouldn't use Meyer. This is sophistry of a high degree. He has no problem claiming the shoddiest sources back his claims but will use sophistry to try and dismiss one of the best sources on the topic we could hope for. It's impossible to reach any kind of agreement at the tp with this kind of behavior, and attempts at dispute resolution devolve into similar charades. Athenean (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[69]

Discussion concerning DevilWearsBrioni

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 DevilWearsBrioni

@Athenean: ”The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB.” It was closed within a few hours after discussion was opened, which you would have noticed if you actually looked into it and not just routinely assumed things. While Athenean likes to throw around links to various essays like WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, I'll provide some illustrative examples of his hypocrisy in regards to this. When Athenean once tried to discredit a source, he argued that it should be avoided, and concluded "Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick." [70] In his attempts to discredit the author, Athenean claimed that there were factual errors in the book regarding the Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. [71] I provided him with additional sources that confirmed these details, i.e. contrary to what Athenean had claimed, there was in fact was an Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. [72] Athenean ignored this, only to show up later in the discussion stating in a provocative way, "careful what you wish for" while simultaneously casting doubt on several sources, because according to Athenean, Chams weren't really oppressed, regardless of what the sources claimed. [73] After I had provided Athenean with the additional sources that confirmed the events in 1917, Athenean only made one more statement related to it, he declared in another section/discussion that I had made up the "fictitious invasions of Greece by Italy in 1917." [74]

@Iazyges: You stated that I would, ”per WP:M”, be blocked if I ”disrupt the decisions made” after you had closed the DRN.[75] First of all, while I fully understand that your opinion should not be disregarded in the consensus process, you have no authority, as a DRN volunteer, to issue decisions concerning disputes. Second, the part in WP:M, which you referred to, [76] [77] deals with user conduct during mediation. How is that, and I’m sorry if I’m being blunt, not clear to you? The part you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing content dispute decisions, because again, volunteers don't issue decisions, and it has everything to do with user conduct during mediation.

During mediation SilentResident was, in regular fashion, campaigning for sanctions against me, and Anthony_Appleyard apparently took everything she said at face value. The latter filed a report against me at AN/I, stating that ”User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third” which essentially echoed what SilentResident had told him moments earlier, i.e. ”resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing”. [78] For clarification, I had received one ARBMAC warning by an editor I've rarely seen eye to eye with on anything. And honestly, it boggles my mind that an admin of 10 years just parrots what he’s being told and uses that as an argument for sanctions against me at AN/I. Anthony, when you claim that I have ignored two ARBMAC warnings, what do you mean and how does my behavior justify sanctions? Could you point to something specific? Did you actually bother looking into whether SilentResident's accusations were true?

@SilentResident: How about you provide some evidence (diffs) for the things you accuse me of? You could start with diffs of 3RR breaches, an accusation you like to throw around. Recently you even told Anthony, among many things in your efforts to get me banned, that I've resumed "with new 3RR breaches". [79] Would you be so kind to provide those diffs?

Question to admins: I'd like to ask for permission to post my side of the story with regards to my interactions with SilentResident, but it's currently not possible since I will exceed the 500 word limit. I will provide diffs to show that the editor created a erroneous narrative about me that I maintain should be sanctionable. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean: Oh yes, my "contemptuous" dismissal of guidelines. Ridiculous hyperboles aside, "Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick" is the epitome of battleground behavior, [80] and so is, within its context the taunting reply "careful what you wish for". [81] Furthermore, I did not claim victory; you on the other hand did by asserting that I had made up the "fictitious invasion of Greece" while also refusing to discuss the issue on the talk page. [82] Whether the invasion actually happened or not, you knew for a fact that at least one reliable source (despite your futile efforts to dismiss said source at RS/N [83]) maintained that it had occurred. Thus the accusation that I had made up "the fictitious invasion" is not only false, but also dishonest, which further confirms your battleground behavior. I will not bother responding to your analysis of the sources since that discussion belongs to the article talk page, but I will tell you that the three sources were only meant to corroborate the one source you failed to discredit; they were never intended to be included in the article (which is why I never added them). At the end of the day, you never brought forth any sources to substantiate your opinions concerning the supposed inaccuracies. With regards to Meyer, the claim that I've argued that we "shouldn't use Meyer" is a lie. So is the statement that I tried to "dismiss one of the best sources on the topic". I disagreed with some of the wording on the article, but I never questioned the source itself. Finally, maybe you could explain why you put "oppression" in quotations marks despite several sources asserting that Chams were in fact oppressed? [84]

Statement by User:Iazyges

One thing that concerns me is his apparent knowledge of many WP guidelines but it seems that when it comes to WP's that disagree with or contradict him, he either has selectively avoided them or feigns ignorance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that for the DRN case, it was arguable that there was fault, but this is because the DRN isn't for a "right wrong" conclusion, unlike OR or RFC there are no "winners", it's for building consensus so that ideally all parties agree to something, because of this a OR case like this doesn't really belong in DRN. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave DWB a (arguably) formal warning, by telling him that if he chose to continue disruption without community involvement, I could request that he be sanctioned by an admin, per WP:M (Which covers informal mediation, DRN and mediation comitee mediation. While RFC was an option, i suggested formal mediation or else arbitration, (I was at the time under the misconception that the mediation committee's agreements were binding, i was informed that it wasn't later by another mediator of the DRN) due to the history of the talk page and OR arguments. He chose to ignore these warnings.

I have removed this after reviewing it and realizing that I mis-read it earlier. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: I resent your implication of partiality. How have I been partial? I closed it in a logical manner, unless the source that agreed with it was totally disproven it isn't OR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the filing party that the only way to avoid disruption is to give User:DevilWearsBrioni an indefinite topic-ban from all Balkan-related editing. Informal mediation was attempted at the dispute resolution noticeboard. DWB persistently argues that any edits with which they disagree are necessarily original research, in spite of repeatedly having that argument considered and rejected. I then proposed formal mediation, which is being done by User:Anthony Appleyard, to which the parties agreed. However, DWB apparently isn't following the mediator's instructions to stay on topic (even though multiple copies have been defined) and is filibustering. I don't see any alternative to an indefinite topic-ban, because this editor is not contributing constructively to the encyclopedia in the Balkan area but is being disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have, belatedly, given User:DevilWearsBrioni the formal alert concerning discretionary sanctions. It is unfortunately my opinion that this case will have to be withdrawn as being defective in two respects. First, it appears that the formal notice wasn't given earlier. Second, it relies partly on inadmissible testimony from Mediation proceedings. As a result, I think that DevilWearsBrioni should be given a very strong normal administrative warning that any further disruptive editing in the area of the Balkans will result in a topic ban. A topic-ban isn't (as far as I can tell) within the scope of normal administrative action. Clearly formal mediation isn't going to work, because it has already been tried and has failed, so only administrative action is available. If anyone wants to go back to WP:ANI and ask for a community topic ban, that is within the scope of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the alert was given on 26 September 2016. Therefore any disruptive editing after 26 September 2016, except in formal mediation, is sanctionable. I defer to the judgment of the Mediation Committee and the administrators here as to whether disruption of mediation is sanctionable. However, it doesn't appear that there was any disruptive editing outside of mediation after 26 September, so that I restate my recommendation that this case be closed with a very strong normal administrative warning that any further disruptive editing will result in at least a topic-ban and possible an indefinite block. At this point, a topic-ban is unfortunately out of scope, and a block would be punitive. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SilentResident

The problem with user:DevilWearsBrioni is that although he has a decent knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, his editorial conduct so far has been extremely disruptive on ARBMAC-protected articles. His actions and stance have not contributed anything, besides disruption. He's trying to impose certain POV regarding historical events of the past, at the expense of neutrality. To achieve this, he keeps raising false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH cases, (where in NOR Board, DRN Board, ANI Board ~~Mediation Board~~, and Talks, absolutely no neutral party has backed him). By insisting on his own perception of rules, broke 3RR [85], violated ARBMAC [86], violated NPOV, abused the Tagging [87], acted against consensus, refused to be reasoned by others, dismissed dispute resolutions [88], and refuses to remedy. This leaves us no other options. I suggest that DevilWearsBrioni is indefinitely banned from any Balkan topic-related articles, or at least be given a strong warning like Robert McClenon suggested. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for T. Canens: Such a diff exists, just it seems the filler forgot to include it: [89]. The AE report has now been corrected. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Moved to editor's section from results section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Reply to Resnjari: Since the majority of the scholars agree on traitorous collaboration of Chams with Nazis, and only a minority adopts the viewpoint from that peer viewed content you have tried to restore, then I have every right to remove it until it is fairly presented into the article, without leaving a false impression of being the majority's viewpoint. If you do believe that citation reflecting a minority viewpoint shouldn't be clarified in its attribution (name those who support it), then, you better send an e-mail to the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and tell him your disagreements with his rules. What he said: "1) If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; 2) If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; 3) If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research." As for assuming Bad Faith, this unfortunately is not the first time. Such assumptions you have made in the past too, like here: [90], where you have assumed the Wikipedians for bias against Muslims when they do not accept your positions. Furthermore, accusing the Mediators, such as Iazyges, for partiality just because they did not rule in favor of your positions, makes your own objectivity and good faith rather questionable. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mediation Committee

A request to waive the privilege of mediation has been made to the Mediation Committee and will be discussed on the Committee's mailing list. Unless and until such time as the Committee consents to waive the privilege, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

The request to waive the privilege of mediation has been declined by the Committee. The privilege of mediation remains in effect and, as noted above, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Statement by User:Resnjari

I am a little concerned about some editors in here advocating for a ban on Brioni in participating on all Balkan related topics on Wikipedia. Brioni’s insistence on raising certain content issues have been in relation to one article, that of the Expulsions of the Chams. A number of editors who have participated in that discussion themselves have resorted to colourful language and made editing unpalatable at times, things of which they accuse Brioni in here. Moreover when Brioni has taken matters to DRN, the process was closed within a short period of time which he felt certain issues were not addressed adequately. I noted a similar sentiment on my part to editor Iazyges who eventually acknowledged that a concern of mine was within reason (see my comments: [91]). No editor who participated in the Chams discussion in here is clean and one can cite multiple issues on their part in the talkpage. The process is now at formal mediation where it should have gone long ago (where discussion can be had in depth, over time, instead of it being rushed and without an impartial third party watching over proceedings). All editors need to observe good faith there and stick to content instead of trivial issues. The topic of the Chams is complex and yes there are passions. Passions though should not guide the editing process such as this insistence of “traitorous actions” [92] by Silent being invoked to remove peer reviewed material thereby making good faith questionable. A final warning should be made to all participants.Resnjari (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @SilentResident:. Well it’s not just a scholar’s “opinion” and “traitorous actions” being a reason for removal of content do not suffice. The second pillar of which you cite is exactly my point. “Traitorous actions” is not a reason to remove peer reviewed content even if you don't like it.See this is why the in the end the discussion has had to go to mediation where an outside and impartial editor to keep an eye out on proceedings. Whether Brioni will be part of those discussions or not, i don’t know. Regarding myself, I now have time and will be partaking in the discussions.Resnjari (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd reply to @SilentResident:. My comment was a follow up to your reason of “traitorous actions” which was not based on policy but your personal opinion regarding removal of peer reviewed content. What am I supposed to make of that? I have had more than a few experiences on Wikipedia by now with other editors on different topics. These editors acknowledged the mass violence and suffering done to Christian populations by Ottoman Muslim perpetrators, as I do. However when the religious identities are reversed relating to victim and perpetrator, those same editors have questioned such events and the validity of an article existing, even though peer reviewed sources exist. Such experiences have made me skeptical and it was with those thoughts in mind that I replied to you at the time. That’s why I prefer mediation and someone keeping an eye on things. May take longer, however it will be a binding and final outcome.Resnjari (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident:, once again you use that word “traitorous” and this time in front of “collaboration". The scholarship does not discount that a portion of the Muslim Cham population joined the side of the Axis powers. None though use loaded terminology such as “traitorous” like yourself. So I stand once again by what I wrote that issues relating to the article should be undertaken in mediation, so at least some kind of semblance of good faith is maintained.Resnjari (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:, my comments were in relation to the process that occurred that was concluded within the scope of just an hour or two and closed. This left out other editors involved in the discussion being unable to comment. In the exchange that followed in the DRN talkpage there was acknowledgement that an issue I raised regarding Cham sentiments on the eve of the Balkan wars was within reason. The forum DRN that Brioni took the matter to is limited as it is designed to hear and resolve disputes in a limited fashion and not designed for a prolonged and in depth discussion. This subject matter is complex and is now at mediation. @SilentResident:, I stand by my comments and issues of that nature should be dealt at mediation. If you still wish to partake in the discussion, do so, if not your choice. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Alexikoua

Apart from the evidence provided above, which appears quite overwhelming against DevilWearsBrioni, I believe that some additional piece of info may be helpfull: DWB displayed an aggresive pattern from his very beginning in wikipedia (forumshopping, reddit&off wiki activity as he admitted) and did not hesitate to fill two frivolous ANI reports against me (both of them summarily dismissed) [[93]] [[94]]. Even the heading of the last report-attack leaves no doubt that this editor is not here to built an encyclopedia in a constructive manner: he questions eight years of contribution of a co-editor as he clearly declares in the heading.

After the following DRN turned against him, it was time for the DRN vollunteer to became his new opponent: he even edit-warred [[95]][[96]] and warned him not to revert again: [[97]]. Although he was again adviced by mediator not to engage in further edit-warring [[98]], this wasn't enough: [[99]]

The OR obsession in the case of 'Expulsion of Cham Albanians' and the way it is handled by DWB during the last months, reveals a disruption and stubborness. The fact that a number of mediators/administrators asked for a ban/restriction isn't unfounded. Although a topic ban in the entire ARBMAC may be too much a restriction in a more limited area, let's say Albania/-ns broadly constructed, will certainly be a better solution.Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DevilWearsBrioni

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

Two procedural points:

We need something more for "awareness", which has a very technical meaning in this context. See WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. If no such diff is available, we can't impose a discretionary sanction, but normal admin action is still available.
Per WP:MC/P#PRIV, formal mediation proceedings cannot be used as evidence in subsequent dispute settlement absent prior written consent from MEDCOM. Unless such consent has been given, the portion of the complaint related to mediation will have to be stricken. T. Canens (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the formal notification diff we have is from Sept. 26, can the complainant organize his diffs to make clear which ones took place before the formal notification and which one after? We can consider diffs before the notification as background or for normal admin action, but not for a discretionary sanction. In addition, please remove all references to the formal mediation proceedings unless and until MEDCOM waives the privilege. T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information

The noticeboard discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Dispute about page Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ה-זפר

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: ה-זפר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Blocked for 1 year for breach of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban (diff of block)

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

Notification of that administrator: Admin notified - diff

Statement by ה-זפר

Copied from user talk page at User_talk:ה-זפר#NOT_GOOD! by Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. :I was blocked, with out a explanation, the reason stated was I did a violation of my ARBPIA articles ban, but I did follow my topic ban by not editing IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that Tel Aviv, Gush Dan, and even Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics. (and now it changed to Arab-IL topics?) :On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel. :After a recent report at AN, I got blocked? why? My topic ban was not explained to me and also I got blocked now? This is very unfair! David Aaron ^talk 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I originally copied the above message incorrectly and lost the links. I have now replaced it with the source and it now contains the links - nothing else is changed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from user talk page, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC) ...[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, Thank you, hope you and the other admins go through my words and links. There's a thing in my mind = Golan Heights is no where related to Palestine. Golan Heights is a dispute between Israel and Syria. So, due to a revert conflict with a user on the article Golan Heights I was reported (not notified about it though), fine. But then why was I notified about being banned on articles related to Israel-Palestine conflicts? That's what I'm saying, then why was I even topic banned on first place? The other user was not even warned for the reverts, why just me? Also later I'm blocked (which says under violation of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban)? Are the administrators gone out of dictionary or it's meanings? Israel-Palestine conflict is something else and Arab-Israel conflict is other, whereas Golan Heights is not even near to the Palestinian territories, lol. If I'm notified on "Israel-Palestine conflict topic ban", the how can I be blocked on violation of "Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban"? It makes no sense to me! The topic ban and even the block makes no sense. I think some admins just want to sandwich me up! I had a headache for no sense. Haha. The revert conflicts could have been solved on the Golan heights talk page (as I already explained the revert conflict in the RED box above) HAHAHA...

On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds), indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to include, occupied by Israel in infobox.

HAHAHAHAHAHA..... David Aaron ^talk 10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston (re David Aaron's appeal)

It is unfortunate that the editor's responses show he doesn't understand the ban. If we could be sure he would follow Wikipedia policy in the future the block could be lifted. The ban itself is negotiable, though it can't be lifted by me since the ban was imposed by The Blade of the Northern Lights. The ban is in place due to a concern that he can't neutrally. When a new editor jumps into the hot-button articles right away (such as Golan Heights) and seems unaware that he is acting like a bull in a china shop it causes concern. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I find it astonishing that anyone would not realise that the Golan Heights are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I consider that ה-זפר was given a lot of support and guidance in how to avoid falling foul of the restriction, and failed to use it to material advantage. The length of his current block seems harsh, as he comes across as Tigger-ish not a WP:RGW warrior, but the restriction appears valid and the violation of the restriction, leading to blocking, unarguable, especially given the thoughtful help offered on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ANI participant Dennis Brown

I will stay on this side of the line since I participated in the ANI. David seemed to have a great difficulty understanding the previous topic ban, even though it was explained many times. If someone is capable of stringing together coherent ideas into prose, you would expect they are capable of understanding the concept of a topic ban once it is explained more than a few times. As I said there, AGF is not a suicide pact and I find it difficult to believe that David is so thick as to not have understood all along. In short, I don't believe the feigning of ignorance. So was a block and ban justified? Absolutely.

As for the duration, we admin use our best judgement to determine what a consensus of editors would choose, and sometimes we fall short and sometimes overshoot the mark. One year is on the high side, but is within acceptable limits. It is impossible to gauge with any accuracy how long is "long enough", after all. If a consensus here believes a different duration of block is more appropriate, I'm sure EdJohnston would accept that consensus without issue. I support his block, but I'm willing to support anything for at least one month, which I think is grossly insufficient. I strongly prefer at least 90 days for the block, but I'm more concerned with finding consensus and moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Golan Heights are not Palestine. If administrators are taking/interpreting the Israel-Palestine case/remedy's to apply to Israel and all Arabs regardless of location under 'broadly construed' then there should probably be a request to amend the case to make this explicit. Thanks Roland for the correction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

For the benefit of OID above, and in order to clarify any possible misunderstanding, it is worth repeating the outcome of the original arbitration case. By eleven votes to none, the arbitrators found that "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", and by fourteen votes to none they ruled that "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions". There is no possible ambiguity here. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

My view as stated at the ANI has not changed: [100] 'You don't understand how Gush Dan (fought over as part of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War), Golan Heights (occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War), and Tel Aviv (one of the most bombed cities in the region) don't fall under the Arab-Isreali conflict?'. Indeed, it was reinforced less than 12 hours later by a follow-up comment: [101] 'I did follow my topic ban by not editing Golan Heights... What I didn't know is that... Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict.' Now there is an unexplainable level of confusion in these statements, particularly the latter. Now, clearly WP:CIR is not an issue, as his article creation shows, so I think there must literally be a blind-spot to this specific idea (the TBan). The question then, is how long it will feasibly take him to comprehend the restriction- and that is the length of time the block should run for. ~~How long is a piece of string?~~ ~~But User:The Blade of the Northern Lights' agreement to clarify its parameters will surely help reduce this from a year. Personally I think three months should suffice. If it doesn't, then what will?~~

Striking proposal to reduce length of block. Due to the fact that, going by his second statement, ה-זפר seems to be getting mega-lulz out of this. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ה-זפר

Statement by Debresser

If my opinion be know, it is that 1. The initial indefinite topic ban was overkill. Banning all interested editors, or even all POV editors from the IP topic is a bad "solution". The one-year block was also excessive, and clearly punitive. It is not in the interest of this project to ban or block an editor who has shown he can be productive in this area for such an overly long period. WP:AE should be more understanding and use sanctions as a last resort. 2. It is easy to make an edit that is not related to the IP-conflict on a page that is related. We should show some understanding, and not slam people on the wrist for a mistake. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by ה-זפר

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

I agree with the comment by EdJohnston: "It's a puzzling fact that he seems not to understand his ban". Drmies (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that the sanctioning admin actually type out the exact wording for area of conflict from WP:ARBPIA or WP:AC/DS next time? It's not that much longer. T. Canens (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's on me. I stand by the ban, agree I could have been a bit clearer about it; I've gotten a little rusty with AE procedure. No specific comment on the length of the block, but the comments above about the implausibility of understanding the limits of the ban seem spot on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The block is fundamentally sound, and I don't think we need to tinker with the block length at this time. We can revisit after three months if a more convincing appeal is presented then. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, trying to claim that Golan Heights-related issues aren't covered under WP:ARBPIA is a case of trying to get clever and skirt around something that ought to be very clear. I don't think that trying to find technicalities to get around a sanction is something that should be encouraged. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS :

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

06:54, 17 October 2016 The first time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of an RfC. Instead of posting something on the talk page, My very best wishes described the perfectly reasonable RfC as "ridiculous" and accused the requestor, EvergreenFir, of using it to stonewall. The irony here is that the one stonewalling was My very best wishes, not EvergreenFir.
21:27, 19 October 2016 The second time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of the RfC.
09:54, 26 October 2016 The third time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of the RfC. In the edit summary they acknowledged the existence of the RfC. My very best wishes ignored repeated talk page comments that the content should be excluded during the pendancy of the RfC. A pretty clear violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT.
12:19, 26 October 2016 Playing dumb and failing to acknowledge RfC, after AE warning.
12:40, 26 October 2016 Refusal to self-revert, and failure to acknowledge that their re-insertions violated our WP:NOCONSENSUS policy.
19:58, 27 October 2016 My very best wishes continues to edit war over this material, now re-deleting an {{undue-inline}} tag that flagged the existence of the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

17:35, 20 October 2016 (one of many).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(My apologies if I've messed something up, as this is my first time lodging an AE complaint.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, the arbitration warning 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.

”

This is what you did, three times. Your primary justification appears to be that you were following some sort of custom to preserve the material being discussed in an RfC. This custom does not "trump" (pardon the pun) active arbitration remedies, especially when you are re-inserting allegations of sexual misconduct in a BLP. I'll also note that WP:RFC states:

“

Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved.

”

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, thank you for pointing out that I did accidentally and technically violate 1RR just now (after filing this complaint) by restoring a dispute tag while the relevant dispute was ongoing. I acknowledge my mistake and have self-reverted--something you have refused to do. As for your suggestion that the RfC be closed, I agree that would help toward resolving the content dispute, but not toward resolving this conduct dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified at least 3 verifiable falsehoods in Tataral's statement, but they really bear on the matters not pertinent to this complaint, which is about My very best wishes's conduct, not about my conduct or the content dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Lankiveil, and Guy, I think some of you (at least Drmies) have misunderstood this complaint. I'm not screaming BLP violation, I'm saying that Mvbw clearly and flagrantly violated the arbitration remedy that provides: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Mvbw and I have a disagreement about content, which is being hashed out on the talk page. The difference between my behavior and theirs is that I have used only the talk page and tagging to "stick to my guns" whereas they have repeatedly re-reverted the same content without consensus, in violation of active arbitration remedies, to stick to theirs. One is the right way to edit DS articles and the other is not. I'm puzzled that you're so quick to excuse such behavior on one of the most visible and contentious articles in the encyclopedia - one that was basically what DS was designed to manage. Drmies, I'm also surprised at your uncharacteristically un-AGF comment. If you look at the entirety of my contributions to Donald Trump you'll see that I've taken all sides, sometimes with Mvbw and sometimes against, and I have nothing against them beyond that they have behaved disruptively in this particular dispute and have set a very poor example for less experienced editors. I have to be honest, this smacks of favoritism toward the long-timers, even if unintended. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I must say I'm completely baffled by your latest response, and I think you continue to misunderstand me. I absolutely disagree with those who say that insertion of the rape content is immediately blockable, and I'm blinkered as to how you can tag me with poor arguments made by others. Moreover, your suggestion that Mvbw "did something I think is wrong and didn't repeat it" is verifiably false. Mvbw restored content without consensus three times--in clear violation of AE remedies, no?--while there was ongoing talk page discussion. The third time I had specifically called out this behavior and asked editors like Mvbw to stop restoring the content without consensus. So what does Mvbw do? They ignored the discussion and restored the content anyway. (1) How is this good behavior? (2) How is this in compliance with AE remedies--and if it's not, are you really ready to signal that enforcement of AE remedies is discretionary? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, say what? You continue to misread. The RfC was set up by EvergreenFir, not by me, and the comments you're quoting aren't part of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I hope I can answer your questions by saying: (1) Yes, I hope everyone will stop fighting over that content, not just Mvbw; (2) Here is the reason I chose to bring this complaint against Mvbw; and (3) My dream remedy would be an uninvolved admin posting a big, bold notice on the talk page saying something like, "Everyone, knock it off and leave this material out of the lead section pending formal closure of the RfC or other consensus to restore this material, per policy. Violators will be tbanned until after the election." I don't know if you guys have authority to do that, but it would solve a lot of problems all at once. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schmarnnintelligenz, you are deliberately misrepresenting my motives. In the very same comment that you linked to, I explain that the reason for this complaint is to discourage bad behavior (edit warring, reverting with out discussing) by Mvbw and others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:42, 26 October 2016

Discussion concerning My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

In the first diff of complaint I refer (edit summary) to this unhelpful RfC request closed by an administrator. I obviously did not mean user EvergreenFir in this edit summary. I meant other users.

An administrator who closed this request also opened another RfC that was a lot more helpful. Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC by admin. The content under discussion in the RfC was the last paragraph in the introduction. Strictly speaking, this paragraph should not be modified during standing RfC until it is closed. However, I do agree that the initial version of this paragraph was POVish, and it evolved to another, more neutral version, one that I have restored here (3rd diff in complaint).

I think this latest version is fine and should remain, possibly in this, even more neutral version. However, if the RfC will be properly closed with conclusion to remove, I am very much willing to agree with consensus. But the RfC is still open, and there is no consensus to remove this material from intro. I fully explained my edits here and here. Nevertheless, the filer decided to go ahead with this complaint. Why? If am wrong here, please explain, and I will try to improve. Note that I discussed this subject on article talk page.

As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest, and I did not receive a formal warning about discretionary sanctions in this area, although I know about these sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A constructive suggestion. Could an uninvolved admin look at this RfC and close it please, one way or another. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Note that DrFleischman just threatened to report yet another user on WP:AE [102] and ... violated 1RR rule on this page [103],[104] (note that both his edits are restoration of "content challenged by reversion" he complains about here). DrFleischman is well aware of the 1RR restriction on this page, but refused to comply [105]. Note that I made only three edits on this page during a week. My very best wishes (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DrFleschman now self-reverted, but asked other users (edit summary) to continue edit warring on his behalf. I tried to explain him that he acted inappropriately, but without any success. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden. After reading comments on the RfC, it appears that most people agree with this edit by Awilley. His text is similar to that in my last edit on this page. I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden.

No, this is wrong count by you. Most people on the RfC agreed that at least one phrase should be included in intro.
Even if I made mistakes, I corrected them later - see my last diff which places essentially same content as was previously placed by admin based on his reading of comments on very same RfC;
I think some participants around here are gaming the rules by removing everything they do not like to claim "hey, you can not place this back as something I challenged by reversion",
I think my editing of BLP pages is generally fine (I had no a single warning for this);
This is all beyond the point because I am not going back into this mess per suggestion by Lankeveil. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EtienneDolet and James J. Lambden. Yes, I have some interest in US politics, but this is not an area of my main interest. Why do you see it as a problem? My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean. I think my involvement in the area of US politics is generally constructive. I discuss these issues a lot prior to making any edits. Here are my most recent edits in article space [106] - very few of them are in the area of US politics. Here are my edits in article talk space [107] - most of them are US-related discussions. If I removed or reverted something in this subject area, that has been extensively discussed on article talk page (including my participation) and at least some other users agreed with my changes. My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankeveil. I agree to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, no problem. P.P.S. I do have an opinion about this election, but it's not anything original and was nicely explained by many political commentators like here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EtienneDoliet. In the comment you quoted I refer to this RfC. Yes, this RfC is ridiculous because it asks about the number of words in a phrase. That's why an admin posted another RfC instead. As about child rape accusations, I saw them in this section of a WP article and they seemed well sourced to me. I do not insist these accusations should be placed back. This is something to be decided by WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield. What "attack dog"? I only made three or four edits on this page. In fact it is the filer of this request who constantly edit war on this page, even during his own standing AE request [108],[109] and admitted that he submitted this request to gain an upper hand in a content dispute [110]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tataral

If I'm not mistaken, User:DrFleischman has made at least 3 reverts during the last 24 hours in violation of 1RR. It is somewhat amusing that this user, DrFleischman, who is engaging in revert warring and battleground behaviour to such an extent, threatens to file frivolous reports over the same issue against one editor after another (who unlike him haven't edit warred and who have made only one edit during a whole week reinstating the stable and consensus-supported version) when he doesn't get it his way. When someone claims everyone else is wrong, it's usually the other way round.

When reading the talk page in its entirety, after 2 weeks of discussion, it is clear based on policy-based arguments that there is consensus to include a brief mention of the controversy, in the form of the wording that has been stable for quite some time now. Numerous editors have presented sound policy-based arguments (summed up nicely by JasperTECH under the heading "My comment copied from below") in favour of its inclusion, at least in the form of a brief mention (as is currently the case), but on the other hand there is a case to be made that consensus is against including a whole paragraph on it, as was originally the case. The current two-sentence wording is much shorter than the original paragraph, and also a lot more neutral, and is really a compromise and the result of painstaking work by many editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording that complies with the BLP policy to the maximum extent possible. If User:DrFleischman disagrees with it, he should seek consensus on the talk page instead of revert-warring or trying to bully other editors. --Tataral (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

Nowhere in My very best wishes's response do I see a link to any discussion showing consensus to include the text he restored. Did I miss it?

His comment above is also dubious:

"As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest"

He made a similar comment a few days ago on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 talk page:

"I usually do not edit US politics and have more or less fresh eyes here"

Yet, examining his recent contributions I see he's involved in the following articles:

Now I'm just a simple caveman but the Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy seems like a relatively obscure topic for someone not very interested in American politics.

It will be interesting to compare editors' responses in this request to their responses in Anythingyouwant's request above, since they involve the same bit of text in the same article. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: You say: "I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page." Let's see:

On Oct 17 the RFC asking whether the existing coverage ("Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.") was sufficient stood at:

Yes: 5
No: 5 (one of those saying it should only be expanded to include Trump's counterclaims)
Maybe/Comment: 3

You expanded it to a paragraph shortly after, including a poorly-sourced claim of "child rape" (diff #1)

On Oct 20 the RFC asking whether the allegations should be included in the lede and to what extent stood at:

Yes/short or one sentence: 2
Yes/more than short or one sentence: 9
No: 11

Based on that you restored a full paragraph (diff #2)

On Oct 26 the same RFC stood at:

Yes/short or one sentence: 4
Yes/more than short or one sentence: 13
No: 13

Based on that you restored a 3-sentence description (diff #3)

Comments addressing potential BLP violations are I believe misguided - the relevant policy (as DrFleischman specifies in his complaint) is WP:ARBAPDS:

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.

In each of these instances consensus was not just absent but against the multiple-sentence description restored by My very best wishes.

My own opinion (as far as BLP) is that a single restoration of a poorly-sourced child rape claim, against consensus, in a highly visible BLP and an area covered by discretionary sanctions is grounds for a permanent ban from BLPs. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Schmarnnintelligenz

I came here feeling invited via a link posted by DrFleischmann to Talk:Donald Trump#Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2 and am really astonished reading this (not all tl;dr;) and just wanted to leave this comment: While working on some of the current politics articles I saw the name DrFleischman really often - and often reverting other users. Then suddenly he placed a warning on my usertalk although I had strictly followed the 1RR rule prominently displayed on the Trump article, so I looked a bit more what he was doing and to me several edits look like breaching the 1RR or "avoiding" it by using just other words. Also in my eyes DrFleischman is very skillful on talkpages interpreting disagreements towards the solutions he wants to achieve, often by accusing fellow contributors of not adhering to the guidelines, also often by positive, constructive language. In the Difflinks provided I don't see [My very best wishes] acting against the rules, just editing with similar means like DrFleischman. Perhaps both could agree to both adhere more to our giudelines and look more friendly for consensus while accepting that consensus is not always "what I want" and that consensus is fluent and not only the "powerusers" here have valid arguments. My suggestion would be: Close this here and Keep calm and focus on content, folks :-) --S I 17:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see that this is still an open case, I ask the admins to have a look at User talk:DrFleischman#AE question, especially this edit: "Tell you what, if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint.". I'm really shocked. So this case here is deliberately used to force content out of an WP article by trying to force one user to grant a consensus with many others? Do I undestand that langauge correct? --S I 14:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EtienneDolet

@Lankiveil: and @JzG: and to all the other admins involved in this case. There's a lot of misleading claims here that My very best wishes regularly employs in order to excuse himself when the going gets tough. Just two months ago, in this case, Mvbw was quick to say that he was actually interested in American politics to excuse himself from tag-team edit-warring charges piled against him. Here is exactly what Mvbw said at the tag-teaming accusations against him:

If it helps, I promise never look at the editing history of VM in the future, even though this is not forbidden by policy. That however, does not guarantee that I will not appear on the same pages as him, because we have a significant overlap of interest, including US politics.

To clarify matters further, he also said the following in response to Softlavender's concerns that the tag-team edit-warring was spreading to different topic areas:

@Softlavender. Even if I was not interested in these subjects (yes, they are actually interesting to me), but only wanted to improve content as a generally disinterested contributor, that still would be OK.

And indeed, there's this stark comment here:

It was only very recently that the ongoing presidential campaign in US brought my attention. This is something highly unusual and therefore interesting to me.

So it's one form of the truth when he's under fire with one accusation, but it's another form of truth under another. Apparently, it's an all too familiar pattern of playing dumb when it comes to not only editing at mainspace (as exemplified by DrFleischman), but even as he defends himself as well. All in all, it's quite deceptive towards admins that haven't known this user's history and apparent pattern of disingenuous handling of his affairs. As for Mvbw's editing pattern, I'm surprised this user is not banned for this edit alone. As I am also surprised that he wasn't banned for this. I mean, there's a pretty strong pattern here of treating the articles of people he doesn't like with a sly attempt to destroy them, either by undermining the consensus building process to make them better, or to directly add material that would undermine the article altogether. I suggest the admins look beyond this report and seriously consider the long pattern of problematic behavior this user has be accused of doing. It's the only way of truly grasping the extent of the concerning behavior this user has caused in the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, see the edit-summary of that edit. You see the part that says "RfC is ridiculous and used for stonewalling"? Well, that's not the same as making a wrong edit that's "not maintained by consensus". Indeed, that would make it sound okay. As in, much more blameless than it should be. You know, as if it were some accident or something. But this was a highly contentious edit in the most visible BLP article in Wikipedia (and of a guy that's known to sue, might I add). To top it all off, Mvbw makes a mockery of this project's consensus building procedures (calling it: "This is probably the most ridiculous RfC I have seen in the project") and has the effrontery to dismiss those who participate in them as nothing but "stonewallers". And he does this not once, not twice, but three times, which in itself makes a mockery of the RfC. So it's not just a wrong edit, it's a disruptive POV pushing pattern. He has openly taken a side on the issue and pushed his POV even while good faith editors were in the process of building a consensus. The pattern is there. The disruption is there. All the fundamental signs that would usually lead to a topic ban are there. What else is missing? I've seen users get indeffed for doing much much less. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should not give you the right to delete material you don't like only hours before you made that remark. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

I'm frankly amazed My very best wishes hasn't been topic banned from US politics articles already. At Donald Trump in particular, all he does is edit war [111]. The rape diff alone is especially disturbing and grounds for a ban just by itself. He is edit-warring to reinstate extremely defamatory, poorly sourced material to the lede of a high visibility BLP article. for crying out loud. Can anyone think of something worse? Because I can't. Drmies' special pleading that it was a "setup" is baffling. Users are fully responsible for their edits, and Mvbw is a veteran contributor. Especially in hot articles like Donald Trump, all users should be extra careful with their edits. The conspiratorial suggestion that he was somehow "set up" is simply mind boggling.

As someone else has pointed out, for someone who disingenuously claims to "not be interested in American politics articles", he sure edit wars a lot [112] [113] [114] [115]. In fact that's pretty much all he does in this topic. Content building is virtually zilch. Talk pages are mainly used for obfuscation and deception instead of trying to resolve disagreements in good faith. For example here is demanding users not edit the article until the RfC is closed [116] (but he himself has no problem re-adding controversial material on Donald Trump even though an RfC on the material is ongoing), deliberately misconstruing RfC results ([117]), wikilawyering about when 1RR applies [118], the list goes on.

Which brings us to what is arguably the most disruptive aspect of Mvbw's editing: the active use of deception. Mvbw frequently plays dumb (e.g. pretending not to notice an RfC is ongoing) even though he knows full well what is going on. Rules and guidelines are selectively misquoted and manipulated as desired. This shows great contempt for the wikipedia community and its processes. In one edit summary he will say an Rfc is "ridiculous" and use that as an excuse to revert [119], in the next edit summary he uses the fact that the RfC is ongoing as an excuse to revert again (but this time he validates the RfC) [120]. This user just makes a mockery of the entire wikipedia community process at every turn. This is a game to him.

Finally, I would also like to disabuse everyone here of the naive notion that Mvbw's disruption in this topic area will magically cease after Nov. 8. As anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia. This is why he edit wars to remove any material that reflects negatively on Clinton [121] [122] and her people [123] [124] using absurd, mocking edit summaries ("not every cold deserves mention", "petty details", "RfC not closed", etc...) and edit wars to reinstate any material that reflects negatively on Trump (the more defamatory the better). Reliable sources and wikipedia process mean nothing; it's all about the mission. Regardless of who wins, I can guarantee the chance of Mvbw abandoning these articles after election day is zilch.

Considering the lack of positive contribs, and the disruption wrought, I can't think of a single reason why this topic area benefits from Mvbw's presence. Athenean (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: So the fact he re-instated the child-rape only once makes it ok? I find it impossible to believe that Mvbw didn't do this knowingly and intentionally. Then we also have this [125], which while not quite as bad as child rape, is quite close. Then there's this little gem here with the whole guilt-by-association gimmick with Mike Tyson [126]. Doesn't quite accuse Trump of rape, but comes quite close. This is deep, deep in WP:TEND and WP:BLPVIO territory. I'm just curious, what would this user have to do to get banned from this topic area? Because if the above behavior is not enough, I don't know what is. Athenean (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

I wholeheartedly agree with Athenean's "anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia" description of the editing aims of My very best wishes. Regarding the Mike Tyson gimmick Athenean mentioned. I also tried to remove that content [127], only to see it immediately returned by My very best wishes [128]. As explained here [129], this off-topic content about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction was being added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump in order to blatantly imply guilt by association. That Mvbw has continue to edit war in this obviously invalid content is telling, but I think even more telling is the silent agreement of many editors to allow it and similar disgraceful content to remain and allow Mvbw to be the attack dog in reversing any attempts at deletion. This is not just "sticking to one's guns", to use Drmies' wording - it is a constant and pov consistent obstruction to the removal of content that clearly breaks numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines on content, language usage, editorializing, and BLP issues. These policies and guidelines take precedence over article-specific sanctions, so Drmies' hand washing "there was some kind of consensus over it" shows a failing in the judgment and guidance that are expected from an administrator. It also displays some flippancy - can Drmies actually point to the talk page discussion that decided on the consensus for the Tyson content he claims exists? There was none - the "consensus" that has allowed that content to remain is nothing more than a "the party that edit wars the longest wins" - this is not how consensus should be determined, and article-specific (even if article-specific ARBAPDS sanction supported) consensus anyway cannot decide to ignore site-wide policies and guidelines. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, re your question, by "attack dog" I didn't mean this is what you have been doing, but that I think there are editors who look on you as having that purpose for them: they would like, for pov reasons, to retain for example the Tyson editorialized content, but chose not to defend the material on talk (since it is ultimately un defendable). Instead they are letting you do it through your reverts, knowing that if you are blocked it does not affect them - you are a recent arrival to that article and are editing there for different reasons. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

My very best wishes is clearly an experienced editor who knows very well how to walk a fine line on the edge of the rules, and quickly retract when caught. I wouldn't go so far as to call him "on a mission" but I concur with Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield about his general editing style and behaviour, which tends to discourage editors who are not as strong-willed or as passionate. Unfortunately, neutral and consensus-minded editors can get tired of fighting such people and refrain from further attempts to improve articles on sensitive topics — precisely driving away the kind of contributors we need at Wikipedia: that is the key issue to me in this case. This particular violation doesn't look like a big deal, but it is part of a tendentious pattern coupled with sometimes derogatory or lawyeresque comments. In that spirit, I would find it unfair that MBVW escape with a mere slap of the trout when just a few days ago the same kind of minor violation (although from an editor who has generally proved to be more amenable to consensus discussions) was sanctioned with a TBAN for Anythingyouwant considering his overall pattern of behaviour. Therefore I advocate the exact same "Vanamonde-standard" sanction for MBVW, with an encouragement to be less combative in his future contributions. — JFG ^talk 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning My very best wishes

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

It is hard to escape the suggestion that this is a setup, and some commentators confirm that. The worst in all this is the inclusion of the "rape" phrase--but that's only in the very first diff. Another editor (Steeletrap, if I remember correctly) used that word on another Trump-related article (can't find which one right now) and I warned them not to do that again--perhaps My very best etc. saw that warning. Moreover, that content was there before the RfC started, so whether removal or reinsertion is the disruptive bit remains to be seen--in other words, what the B is in BRD, for instance. And so what we have is three reinsertions over the course of a week, the first one of which with what I consider a serious BLP violation, but the second ones without that mistake. Now, when exactly which RfC was started and when what content was in, that's less interesting than other matters here: there is no BLP exception (except for in the first, already mentioned and not repeated edit), and the content itself is better documented than the recent effort to land something on Mars. Now, someone inserts that rape shit again, me and a bunch of others will be happy to block on the spot. You want a sentence instead of three sentences on this content, that's fine--but you wait until the RfC is closed before you go to AE, because--again--while one may argue it is undue, it is very hard to see it as a BLP violation. So, this AE request certainly proves that My very best sticks to their guns, as does Dr. Fleischman--good for both of you. It also proves that every single case here has the potential of becoming a lithmus test, which is why James Lambden should really withdraw from this subject matter, since they seem to be incapable of treating any Trump-related conflict as just an editorial conflict, not as some matter of life and death. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Fleischman, I am surprised to see you read so much, or misread, my "stick to guns" phrase. Seriously. I have little more to add, except that I just saw yet another editor saying that the rape thing ought to be immediately blockable. It's not. It's not a crazy edit (read the sources, there are some)--just a wrong one which was not maintained by consensus. One of the things that needs to happen here is that if someone does something you think is wrong and doesn't repeat it, that you be happy and maybe congratulate the other editor. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Etienne Dolet, Athenean, et al., "inserted" or "reinserted"? As far as I can tell the editor only inserted it once. Yes, that's not great while an RfC is going on but it's better than twice. Now, that "sexual advances towards" --> "sexually assaulting" edit, claiming that that's somehow almost as bad as accusing someone of child rape is prima facie ridiculous, and such commentary invalidates the point--never mind that "You can do anything. ... Grab them by the p---. You can do anything" is well verified, and is read widely as describing sexual assault. Grabbing someone by the qeuynte is indeed a "sexual advance" in one literary text, but that one is a fabliau and hardly a reliable source for dating advice. And if the Mike Tyson reference is guilt by association, then you have a bigger problem since apparently it's in the article right now, which I assume means there was some kind of consensus over it. Besides, what the editor did was modify something that was already there, so I don't see how that is POV or disruptive or whatever. No, I do not believe I have seen editors indeffed for less. That kind of exaggeration is typical, maybe, for this topic area, and I hear it on TV as well, but in an arbitration forum it is counterproductive. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Fleischman, I don't quite follow. The three diffs do not make the same edit. The first contained the rape allegation. That's contentious, I agree, but they didn't repeat it. The second is hardly as controversial as you may claim, and is more a tweak than anything else--as long as we're talking about the lead, and not about Tyson (which is not, as far as I can tell, the subject of talk discussion). One can easily argue that it's an improvement since it turns a specific point about the campaign (already there in the lead--the groping bit) into a general point about the subject, which in this article is (more) appropriate. The edit appears factual and well verified, or at least easily verifiable; I don't see how one could call that change a BLP violation or something like that--just compare Anythingyouwant's version to My very best wishes's. The third actually restores content that was already there in Anythingyouwant's version just before My very best wishes "second" diff--so you're faulting Mvbw for basically making the same edit that Anythingyouwant made when the latter moved that same material to another spot in the lead. And I assume that if Mvbw did that while an RfC was ongoing, then Anything also did it while an RfC was ongoing.
  Plus, I don't want to nitpick, but that RfC is not much of an RfC. I'm not big on formalizing anything, but it seems like a discussion over a few phrases more than a well-formed, clear RfC. The question, as Lankiveil says below, is reasonable, but it's hardly a clear-cut question to be answered with an unambiguous mandate to include or exclude some specific content or organize it in some specific way. I mean, the opening section ends with "Or just listen to the tape yourself." I wouldn't call this RfC ridiculous, but to have that ongoing discussion being used to get someone banned is pushing it too far. If you want RfC's to be binding, set them up better. The second part, for instance, is this: "Saying Trump "appeared to" brag is non-neutral. He bragged, and sources such as the Washington Post article verify this." OK, that's a statement by an editor (you), and editors can discuss. But that's not much of an RfC. If you want to nail an editor for reinserting "appeared to brag" after you said on the talk page you didn't like the phrase, that's your prerogative, of course, but I can't see how this is some grave violation (or any violation at all) which needs an arbitrated slap on the wrist. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Fleischman, I stand corrected: I was citing from Talk:Donald_Trump#Language_in_lead_section_about_sexual_misconduct. But I deny that I continue to misread, and my point about Mvbw's edits compared to those of others stand. As for the RfC, well, no conclusion is ever going to be reached on it--and I would like to ask you, since the RfC is technically still ongoing, whether you will also file charges against the editors who have (re-?)inserted the groping content which is currently in the article. Doesn't that very fact suggest the RfC is either impossible or already outdated? Isn't your time better spent dealing with that little tag and rather outlandish claims such as "serious BLP issues"? Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might be sympathetic to the comments about the RFC being "used for stonewalling" if it were ridiculous and heading for the snowball clause, but I see a perfectly reasonable question with no clear consensus either way. The user should not have re-inserted this material while the discussion was under way. I'm not sure this rises to a level where sanctions need to be considered (assuming the problematic edits are not repeated), but it might be best if MVBW were to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, which I assume will not be a problem given that it is "not an area of ... major interest". As for the 1RR breach by User:DrFleischman; it is there but given that the user has voluntarily self-reverted I don't see anything to be gained by throwing the book at them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Meh. The election is weeks away and the candidates both highly divisive, anyone expecting calm and measured editing is delusional. Long-time Wikipedians would be best off showing everyone else a bit of class and following WP:BRD with emphasis on the D, but this specific case is in the end a content matter where reasonable people may differ. Perhaps a slap with the WP:TROUT and move on. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon

Premature given lack of substantive effots at resolving the content dispute at its core. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning LouisAragon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Removal of Armenian content, POV pushing, and edit-warring

30 December 2015 says an Armenian name is of Persian origin with no source and removes Armenian language name (I provided these old diffs to show a long pattern lasting 1 year now)
24 February 2016 removes Armenian language name claiming it wasn't part of ancient Armenia, even though the article says it was historically inhabited by Armenians
22 August 2016 removes Armenian language and background from dynasty that ruled Armenia, along with source for it
22 August 2016 removes relevant Armenian category for no given reason
2 September 2016 removes links to Armenians article with no talk or consensus
5 September 2016 places the Persian name first. Pretty nasty edit-summary too.
8 September 2016 removes Armenian name and replaces it with Persian, even though it's located in Armenia.
10 September 2016 removes all those named Yervand (Armenian version of Orontes) at the Yervand article
11 September 2016 removes Armenian language name and any mention of Armenia from lead
11 September 2016 removes an academic source saying dynasty origins are unknown and could be Armenian and/or Iranian, then nitpicks a source that says only Iranian, then deleting the rest
11 September 2016 removes Armenian language and Armenian name
11 September 2016 Same as above.
11 September 2016 Same as above.
11 September 2016 Same as above.
11 September 2016 Same as above.
11 September 2016 Same as above.
8 October 2016 edit-warring over moving the Armenian name to the end. Edit-wars to maintain his edit and doesn't go to the TP [130][131]
12 October 2016 removes Armenian language at Urartu article. Replaces it with Persian.

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

9 December 2015 by Callanecc (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

LouisAragon has been pushing a Persian nationalist POV for quite some time now. When editing Armenian articles, LouisAragon often removes the Armenian foreign language alternate name and replaces it with Persian. When he simply can't do that, he places Armenian as the last language mentioned. When it comes to Iran's neighborhood, it is Iran that comes first, even if there's not much relevance to Iranian culture today. Take for example the edits at Urartu. LouisAragon removes the Armenian name, replaces it with Persian, even though there's absolutely no indication in the article about Urartu's significance to modern day Iranian culture and identity. Yet, on the other hand, there's entire sections devoted to Urartu's notable role in the development of Armenian culture, language, kingdoms, and its identity at large. Yet, it's Armenian that gets removed. This is a repeated pattern in almost every Armenian article he touches. I must also add that it's not limited to Armenia. Azerbaijani and Kurdish (as far as I can see) articles suffer a similar fate. Stuff like this is deeply concerning (i.e. removing the Kurdish alternate name of a province named Kurdistan). I mean, in other words, if we are to leave LouisAragon to his own devices, I'm afraid articles pertaining to countries that neighbor Iran or have a shared history with Iranians would be forced to conform to the will of this user's apparent pro-Iranian POV.

I must add that this pattern is an old one. His edits on AA2 articles prior to his warning show a clear resemblance to his edits above, such as the removal of any mention of Armenians as European ([132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139]) and attempting to turn Armenian kings into Iranian ([140][141][142][143][144][145]), the latter being reminiscent of his recent edits on Armenian king articles. LouisAragon had also made several tongue in cheek personal insults such as Incompetent pov pushers, fanboy, POV pusher, incompetent people, and ignorant. It's an all too familiar pattern that shouldn't be ignored anymore. I think strictures are necessary.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[146]

Yes, I believe LouisAragon is POV pushing when it comes to simple issues like foreign language transliterations. Never in my 10 years of editing Wikipedia have I heard a user remove a foreign language alternate name because that "language wasn't spoken back then" or that "that language wasn't the territory's official language" or that "Armenia/Azerbaijan/Kurdistan didn't exist", which is exactly what LouisAragaon has been saying, even in his defense at this very forum. Where does LouisAragaon come up with these rules? This in no way reflects Wikipedia policy guidelines and hence, it is nothing but clear-cut POV editing. These are rules LouisAragon, and only LouisAragon, has contrived for himself, and expects everyone else to board his ship. And this has been going on for years now.

And can an admin look into Kouhi's statement, especially the part about "Those users are using Wikipedia just for nationalist propaganda and everybody should fight with those users." And last but not least, this wonderful defense of Louis' activities: "LouiseAragon is a very helpful in fighting with those nationalist/disruptive users who try to misuse Wikipedia for their propaganda." That's awfully disturbing, to say the least; and it actually validates my concerns raised here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I don't see it that way. This is a user pushing his own rules and agenda that he, and only he, has conceived. That's textbook POV editing. And when other users disagree with him, he gets into WP:IDHT behavior and repeats his personal refrains on how he thinks foreign transliterations should be. These types of edits cause problems and are highly disruptive: [147][148]. Removing the Armenian language in an article about a civilization that started Armenia, or removing the Kurdish language from a province in Iran that is named after Kurdistan and has a majority Kurdish population with the edit-summary of "Removed relentless ethno-nationalist irredentism". And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This is an ongoing pattern in multiple articles all throughout Wikipedia for years now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors? It's the same editor! Yet, that editor does not condone the removal of any Armenian transliterations, which is why we're here. Now you can add any language you'd like (as long as you can get the consensus for it), but removing Armenian under pretenses that only you appear to represent is disruptive and hasn't warranted any praise thus far. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: Well, I'd consider these aspersions as nothing but that, aspersions. While never asking my take on these matters, it would appear that Steverci was my buddy or something. But that was never the case. Quite the opposite, I've reverted and came into conflict with him/her over his/her nationalistic bullshit in many articles. I specifically recall reverting ([149][150]) him/her at Armenians in France and Armenians in Russia articles. Steverci was always on my radar because s/he was so blindly nationalist that s/he thought Joachim Murat and Ivan the Terrible were Armenians. With that said, I don't think all of Steverci's edits were this bad, as I have mentioned before. In fact, some were quite constructive, including the recent stuff s/he did with his/her socks. If I hadn't reverted LouisAragon at Ayşe Kulin, the Armenian Genocide would have been known as the Armenian deportation. If I hadn't reverted LouisAragon at Jean Schmidt, the Armenian Genocide would've been left as Armenian "Genocide". Better yet, the ASALA militants would be characterized as terrorists at Bruce Fein. So yes, just as Steverci got justifiably banned for his/her disruptive editing pattern, I believe LouisAragon should as well, for his similar pattern of disruptive POV editing. And if it takes diffs to show LouisAragon was no different than Steverci, so be it. And I respect that you do not call it a "Persian nationalist" editing pattern. That is your right. But it shouldn't matter. It's POV pushing to say the least. And therefore, it should matter. Whether what guides these edits are Persian nationalism, anti-Armenianism, or just personal ambitions is really not the point. But I would agree that it's more likely the former than anything else. And yes, I do plan to remove those PA diffs and replace them with more recent ones that I've come across. Yeah, they're too old. But I just thought Steverci received pretty harsh PAs there that should be noted. LouisAragon's hands are far from clean when it comes to civil discourse for quite some time now.

P.S. Regardless of all this, I've always had a strong respect for you Kansas Bear, since the wild E4024 (talk · contribs) days. And I still do. If you didn't know that already, I wanted you to know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning LouisAragon

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 LouisAragon

1) "removes Armenian language name claiming it wasn't part of ancient Armenia, even though the article says it was historically inhabited by Armenians"
-- the article, nor the sources state that it was a historic part of Armenia. Many peoples inhabited various places in history, and many empires and kingdoms once ruled areas that are now located far away from their modern day successor states, and that doesn't necessarily mean that these transliterations need to be added. Furthermore, the user(s) added it without any edit summary, explanation, or whatsoever.[151][152]

2) "removes Armenian language and background from dynasty that ruled Armenia, along with source for it"
-- the burden is on you to prove that the Armenian language was spoken and was written in that script in the time of Artaxias I, namely the 2nd century BC. This is not a hub to support your cross-article stance that we should right great wrongs, e.g., just because its part of Armenia's heritage, that we should add totally anachronistic translations in scripts that would still take another 1,000 years to be formed. The same way we don't add anachronstic transliterations on the articles of the Parthian Empire (FA class) and the Byzantine Empire (also a FA article), as well as other notable (lower-rated articles), e.g. Kievan Rus, Francia, Sultanate of Rum, Seljuk empire). Also, I didn't remove the source; its present in the alinea under it, as we can see.

3) "removes relevant Armenian category for no given reason"
-- Let's see what the article states; "The city was formerly known as Armenopolis[2] (Armenian: Հայաքաղաք Hayakaghak; German: Armenierstadt; Hungarian: Örményváros) because it was populated by Armenians." That means its not a diaspora community anymore. The 2011 census, linked on the page itself, doesn't even mention a single thing about it, e.g. any number of Armenians. On top of that, the two sources in question (Mallows, Lucy (2008). Transylvania. Chalfont St. Peter: Bradt Travel Guides. p. 256. ISBN 978-1841622309; Steve Kokker, Cathryn Kemp (2004). Romania & Moldova. Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. p. 159. ISBN 9781741041491.) aren't even WP:RS.

4) "removes links to Armenians article with no talk or consensus"
-- Most reliable sources, many of which you blatantly deleted on the eponymous article, without any reason,[153] e.g.;

Babaie, Sussan; Grigor; Talinn. Persian Kingship and Architecture: Strategies of Power in Iran from the Achaemenids to the Pahlavis. 2015. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1848857513. p 80. Iranian culture deeply influenced Armenia, and Iranian dynasties ruled Armenia during several important periods, including the Orontids (c. sixth century - c. early second century BCE) and Arsacids (54-428 CE).;
TIGRAN II; Garsoian, N.; Encyclopaedia Iranica. 2005. ;Tigran (Tigranes) II was the most distinguished member of the so-called Artašēsid/Artaxiad dynasty, which has now been identified as a branch of the earlier Eruandid [Orontid] dynasty of Iranian origin attested as ruling in Armenia from at least the 5th century B.C.E.;
Allsen, Thomas T. The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History. 2011. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0812201079. p. 37; "The Orontid dynasty of Armenia (ca. 401-200), whose ruling house was of Achaemenid origin, originally administered the territory as satraps and later as independent kings."
Sartre, Maurice. The Middle East Under Rome. 2005. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674016835. p. 23. The Commagene kings claimed to be descended from the Orontids, a powerful Iranian family that had ruled the area during the Achaemenid period. They were related to the Achaemenids who had built a kingdom (...).
.... don't support an ethnic Armenian origin, hence its not as disputed the way you're portraying it. Hence, it was correctly removed per WP:NPOV.

5) "Stuff like this is deeply concerning (i.e. removing the Kurdish alternate name of a province named Kurdistan)."
-- The transliteration states Kurdistan, while the article is called "Kurdistan Province" Hence, whoever added it, did not do so correctly as it implies irridentism (referring to the much larger geo-cultural region of Kurdistan), instead of a province within modern-day Iran.

6) "Take for example the edits at Urartu. LouisAragon removes the Armenian name, replaces it with Persian."
-- Nice erroneous portrayal of what actually happened. I made a talk page section on September 11 2016, questioning the legitimacy of the modern Armenian name of an entity that existed in antiquity that did not use the Armenian language written in the alphabet created some 1,000 years later. On 13 October, more than a month later without any response/reply or whatsoever on the talk page, I removed the Armenian transliteration per the talk page, and per WP:SILENCE.[154] I also added the Old Persian (you mention "just" Persian) to it because its an alternate transliteration of a language that was spoken around that time, and it serves well to justify the fact that Urartu is mainly/solely part of Armenia's heritage, as the Old Persian transliteration for Urartu is Armina. I was, however, instantly reverted by EtienneDolet. Only now, he decided to post on the talk page section I had made, and even up to the very moment I'm writing this, there is another user disagreeing with him as well regarding the inclusion of the modern-day Armenian language as we can see on the talk page.

7) "places the Persian name first. Pretty nasty edit-summary too."
-- It was the official language in the province, as in the rest of the realm/empire. Armenian was not the official language, nor was it established by Armenians. Furthermore, it wasn't the first time that said user randomly changed the order of the languages on the page, without an edit summary.[155]-[156]. WP:NCGN literally states; These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus So to mis-cite that WP over and over in order to "secure" a certain "niche" of articles, is just disruptive at best. Lastly, there's another user disagreeing with EtienneDolet's "WP:NCGN-mantra" as well, as we can see here on the talk page.

8) "removes Armenian name and replaces it with Persian, even though it's located in Armenia."
-- Wow. It was a battle between the Russian Empire and the Persian Empire, over a town then under the Persian sway. Armenia played no role in this, other than for the battle being located there. That's pure undue weight, and hence the transliteration does not belong there. Or should we add the Syriac translitarion to the article of the Battle of Gaugamela just because the place of the war is located in what is historic Assyria? Very, very weak argument.

9) " removes all those named Yervand (Armenian version of Orontes) at the Yervand article."
-- I explicitly stated in my edit summary, that, logically seen, everything regarding "Orontes" should belong on the "Orontes" article. However, I didn't notice the part where it said that "Yervand" is the Armenian transliteration of Orontes. Hence, I also obviously didn't contest the (rightful) revert.

10) "removes Armenian language name and any mention of Armenia from lead"
-- I know you're at pains regarding this, but the Armenian language was first attested (written) in the 5th century AD. The Armenian language written in that script which I removed did not exist at the time (2nd century BC). If it did, the burden is on you to provide references for that, as you're the one who contests it (funny enough not even on the talk page, but just here on Arbcom). Regarding the removal of the link to "Armenians" in the lede; as explicitly demonstrated in the Arbcom topic down below, and above, the majority of the sources do not agree that the Orontids were ethnically Armenian. To the admins here; its interesting EtienneDolet points out whatever edit that he's uncomfortable with, such as the removal of the word "Armenians" even though the majority of the sources disagree with this, but easily removes multiple WP:RS sources as seen here on the same article, and here (notice the edit summary), but doesn't mention a word here about that.

11) "removes an academic source saying dynasty origins are unknown and could be Armenian and/or Iranian, then nitpicks a source that says only Iranian, then deleting the rest"
-- I added three additional reliable sources that back this up. The revision before I even edited that section literally shows that there were only three. You added 5 more sources to it, and then claim here as if I deleted all of those. What a joke, and I will demonstrate it here;

16 July 2016 (before I edited that part);

"Little is known about the origins of the Orontid dynasty.[5] Some historians believe that the Orontid kings were of Urartian origin.[6]^{[failed verification]} Other historians, however, believe the dynasty may have been of Iranian origin.[7]"

18 October 2016 (what EtienneDolet changed it to, and removed numerous of its sources, and added numerous new/other sources to it);

"Little is known about the origins of the Orontid dynasty.[4][5][6] Some historians believe that the Orontid kings were of Armenian or Urartian origin.[4][7][6] In addition, historians believe the dynasty may have had Iranian origin through a possible relation to the Achaemenids, either through marriage or blood.[4][8]"

12) "removes Armenian language and Armenian name"
-- There was no Armenian language at that time written in that script. That script was formed some 1,000 years later ,and thus it implies anachronism. If it was used during that time, the burden is on you to prove it. The same argument goes for the other five diffs posted. It is simply totally anachronistic, and thus does not belong there.

13) "edit-warring over moving the Armenian name to the end. Edit-wars to maintain his edit and doesn't go to the TP"
-- You randomly hopped in and changed the order of the languages, using WP:NCGN as your means to push that view in, even though the WP explicitly states, I will quote, once again; "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus". Two reverts, backed up by a clear rationale don't merit the labeling of "edit warring", I'm sorry. I didn't post anything on the talk page as of yet as I first wanted to know more about the implementation of this WP. Nor did I edit the article anymore in general. Hence, I opened a Village Pump section. Another interesting thing to note is that EtienneDolet, who as you can see is very keen to push the view that the Armenian language should be in front everywhere, with WP:NCGN being his sole rope to hang on,[157][158][159] didn't even bother to reply on the very same talk page section which he opened to another user who opposed his view,[160] yet went on to post this here on Arbcom.

14) "Indefinitely blocked twice previously, despite getting unblocked per WP:ROPE the first time"
-- LMFAO! Those blocks were due to the verifiable fact that I was blocked due to an admins fault.[161] I was blocked on the erroneous assumption of being the same person who apparantly lives/lived on the other side of the world. Hence, I was promptly unblocked when this was brought to the light, and it was even added as an admin note on numerous places, and I have it in my email as well. Other than this mistake, I was never ever blocked.

15) [162]
-- No such consensus was ever agreed to include Armenia, a country geographically fully in Asia, (even the Republic of Armenia literally states this, e.g.; Geographic Characteristics of the Republic of Armenia. Marzes of the Republic of Armenia in Figures, 2002–2006. Published by the National Statistical Service of The Republic of Armenia. p. 6 (2007); "Republic of Armenia is situated in south-western part of Asia. The country occupies the north-eastern part of Armenian plateau – between Caucasus and Nearest Asia") into the list. Nor had anyone who opted for its inclusion provided a reference or anything alike

15) [163]
-- Same IP as above edit-warring without edit summary, and ignoring the talk page section which I created.

16) [164]
-- Anatolia is geographically fully in Asia. Shocking, eh?

17) [165]
-- Same IP, cross-article edit-warring and ignoring the talk page.

18) [166]
-- Same user, continuously ignored the talk page of the article in question (a section which I had made),[167] as well as on his own talk page (which I had made as well).[168]

19) "and attempting to turn Armenian kings into Iranian"
-- I think this sentence really stipulates EtienneDolet's credo and overal editorial pattern very well, emphasizing on the word "attempt". One is not allowed to edit his precious Armenia-related articles, and definetely not as well if they're backed up by reliable sources, just because he doesn't like to.
The Arsacid dynasty of Armenia was of Iranian (Parthian) origin, a branch of the Arsacid dynasty of Parthia. This is undisputable;

Pourshariati, Parvaneh. Decline and fall of the Sasanian empire: the Sasanian-Parthian confederacy and the Arab conquest of Iran (2008). I.B. Tauris in association with the Iran Heritage Foundation. ISBN 978-1845116453. p. 44. "Armenian Arsacids continued to claim to be the champions of Iranian legitimacy. (...)";
Sigfried J. de Laet & Joachim Herrmann. History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D. (1996). UNESCO. ISBN 978-9231028120. page 128. "(...) Tiridates [I], the brother of the ruler of Parthia and the founder of the dynasty of the Armenian Arsacids. (...)";
Toumanoff, Cyrill. Studies in Christian Caucasian history (Armenian Research Center collection) (1963). Georgetown University Press. "(...) the impact of the Parthian empire of the Arsacid Dynasty, of which the Armenian royal house was a branch. (...)";
Bowman, et al. The Cambridge Ancient History (Vol. 12; The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337) (2005). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. ISBN 978-0521301992. p. 484. chapter=Armenia and the eastern marches. "(...) a new dynasty was established on the Armenian throne, that of the Arsacids, a branch of the Parthian royal house."
Garsoian, Nina (2004). "ARMENO-IRANIAN RELATIONS in the pre-Islamic period". Encyclopaedia Iranica. "Except for the occasional princes imposed by the Romans, none of whom succeeded in consolidating himself on the throne, all the dynasties to rule pre-Islamic Armenia were of Iranian stock."
Russel, James R. Armenian and Iranian Studies (2004). Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University. pp 3, 704, 881. "(...) A branch of the Arsacid dynasty survived in Armenia for two centuries after the extinction of Parthian rule in Iran itself.";
Whittow, Mark. The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520204973. p. 204, "(...) and from the first to the fifth centuries AD the independent kingdom of Armenia was ruled by the Arsacid dynasty, a junior branch of the then Persian royal house.";
Erdkamp, Paul. A Companion to the Roman Army (2011). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1444393767. p. 252. chapter: Transition to the Late Empire. "Shapur's conquest of Armenia and the Caucasian kingdoms of Iberia and Albania in 251 fulfilled a long-standing Sasanid ambition to eradicate the last vestiges of the Armenian branch of the Arsacid dynasty (...).";
Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Volume 1 (1970). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520017023. p. 269. "Arshakuni is the name of the Parhian Arsacid dynasty, a branch of which ruled in Armenia from A.D. 54 to 428."

Regarding these diffs (Incompetent pov pushers, fanboy, POV pusher, incompetent people, and ignorant), they were perhaps a tad over the top as a referral, I will admit, and it was definetely not correct of me. However, the first four were directed towards a CheckUser blocked serial sock abuser, who is severely disrupting this project for a long period of time,[169][170] and, not meant to justify my own acts, but its not as if I'm the only editor who has ever made such referrals to sockpuppets/sockmasters. By far in fact. I can link several diffs of admins as well who have made such kind of referrals. The last referral pertained to another editor who I linked some time ago, and who even though I made a section on his own talk page to settle the dispute, as well as on the talk page of the template in question, ignored both, yet continued to revert/edit-war.
Its nice to see that EtienneDolet digged for more diffs that pertain to this very same CU blocked sockmaster bud of him, who he tries to protect as much as he can. See for more information the Arbcom case below. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"These are rules LouisAragon, and only LouisAragon, has contrived for himself."

-- Wrong. Again. You have two editors here basically agreeing with my stance as well. On top of the two talk pages in question.[171][172] They are not "rules", they are logical stances, which are maintained throughout many articles on Wikipedia that are, quality-wise in a good state, such as the Parthian Empire (FA-class), Byzantine Empire (FA-class), Roman Empire (GA-class), Greco-Persian Wars (GA-class), etc. Your "editorial mantra" on the other hand, which "states" that articles, specifically history-related articles must be labeled with totally anachronistic transliterations, has been baffled on numerous fronts, and is, as far as we can see, nothing more than something which you, unfortunately, seem to have fabricated by yourself throughout this time.
This entire AE case in general is nothing more than retaliation for having dared, in nothing but good faith, to improve heavily POV-loaded but low-profile articles especially pertaining to "Armenia" in an effort to improve them content-wise.
Throughout the time, I have created numerous history-related articles pertaining to Armenia. I have drastically expanded/rewritten numerous Armenia-related articles, and I have numerous Armenia-related articles on my watchlist where I perform anti-vandalism work every now and then. Yet this user tries to portray me as some kind of "anti-Armenian" editor, which is ridiculous at best. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kouhi

As an uninvolved editor, I believe LouiseAragon is fully right and those spellings were unrelated to the articles and they should be removed again. Unfortunately, many Armenian, Azerbaijani and Kurdish nationalists add unrelated spellings to the articles and this is only for propaganda/political reasons. These spellings are useless and unimportant from an encyclopedic/historical point of view and are pretty much useless for readers. For example, in the Urartu article, Modern Armenian spelling is fully irrelevant and useless, because first, they didn't use Modern Armenian alphabet to write their names, and second, the name is not supported by any primary source, most likely Armenians themselves borrowed that name from English, thus, Armenian spelling is insignificant from a historical POV, the same way Japanese spelling is insignificant for that article. But Old Persian spelling is relevant and could be mentioned in the article, because Old Persian name is mentioned in Behistun inscription and it is very important and significant from a historical/encyclopedic point of view and many scholars/readers need to know about the Old Persian spelling. Armenian, Azerbaijani and Kurdish nationalists try their bests to add these unrelated spellings to those articles because they want to connect themselves with those civilizations/kingdoms. Those users are using Wikipedia just for nationalist propaganda and everybody should fight with those users. For example, in the Seljuk Empire article, there's a long history of adding unrelated Turkish spelling, while Seljuks 1) didn't speak Modern Turkish language 2) didn't write their names with Latin alphabet 3) Modern Turkish spelling is not mentioned in any primary source and it is completely a made-up spelling. Same goes to Modern Persian spelling with Perso-Arabic alphabet and Sasanian Empire and Parthian Empire articles, those empires didn't use Perso-Arabic alphabet and Modern Persian spelling is irrelevant to those articles. But Greek spelling is relevant to Parthian Empire for example, because it was their official language. LouiseAragon is a very helpful in fighting with those nationalist/disruptive users who try to misuse Wikipedia for their propaganda. -- Kouhi (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

I want to say exactly the same here as for the EtienneDolet case. I think it is unfortunate that these two editors, who I have found contribute a lot of valuable content to articles, edit neutrally, and who actually know about the subjects they edit, have come into conflict in this way - I urge them to think whether there are really differences substantial enough for these two cases to be here.

I don't see justification for a claim that "LouisAragon has been pushing a Persian nationalist POV for quite some time now". In fact I would find it hard to believe accusations of sustained deliberate pov editing aims against either editor, and am disturbed that either editor would seriously want the other sanctioned. BTW, here is an example of LouisAragon doing the exact opposite of what a "Persian nationalist POV" would perhaps want [[173]], deleting material that argues to mention populations outside of Persia. I wish the issue of alternative names was clearer in Wikipedia article policies, it's going to always be a conflict-initiating issue until it is made clearer. I think both editors have become a bit careless with their editing and their reverting and their lack of use of talk on articles that they both know attract pov edit warring - they can get away with doing this when it just concerns pov editors, but not when it involves the two of them because each would naturally expect more consideration and respect. For example, EtienneDolet brings up the issue of LouisAragon's edit here [174], LouisAragon, in his point 9, says he did not contest its revert and essentially says he did the original edit without properly reading the content. It shows carelessness, and the result of that carelessness was edit warring by pov IP editors who continued to repeat [175], [176], [177] the edit made by LouisAragon. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EtienneDolet writes "1. Indefinitely blocked twice previously, despite getting unblocked per WP:ROPE the first time". Out of curiosity I looked into this. What I found was a disapointing (but not that unusual) display of administrator incompetence and arrogance and attempts to hide that incompetence and arrogance. I offer my condolences to LouisAragon for having to go through all that - I am surprised he stuck with Wikipedia after such sustained injustice. To be blocked as a sock puppet for no reason or investigation, to eventually be unblocked with wording that allowed administrators to admit to doing no wrong, to see that same wording later used as a way to impose yet another unjust block, to see the attempts at showing that unjustness misused as a way to make the block permanent, is all a bit of a horror story. EtienneDolet should also look into the events of those two blocks, and after doing that he will, I hope, immediately strike out the comment related to those blocks. The Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee that lifted LouisAragon's block acknowledged that he was not related to the editor he had been blocked for being a sockpuppet of. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I see one of the administrators involved boasting "Users blocked: 13959"! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cplakidas

I second Tiptoethrutheminefield's comments and sentiment. I have worked with both editors involved, and at no point did I get the impression I was dealing with hardened POV-warriors. LouisAragon in particular, with whom I have interacted the most, is interested in Iranian history, but bases his edits on sources and takes care to follow WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. I am inclined to believe that this is simply a case where bad motives have been attributed to him simply because these topic areas are indeed bedeviled by users and IPs who act out of bad faith. I cannot fault LouisAragon's reasoning, as he explained it, on the removal of Armenian names in the cases above; indeed this is often used as a sort of "tagging" of articles and "claiming" them for a specific modern nation, and I too have been forced to remove such cases, e.g. in Basil I. From the evidence above, I can fault LouisAragon for the edit war the Erivan Khanate, where he did not follow WP:BRD, but EtienneDolet did not do so either, and I suspect most editors are "guilty" of such behaviour now and then. Also, I don't see any evidence of attempts at discussing these edits beforehand, either at an article talk page or at the user's own talk page, before going to the nuclear option of WP:AE. Summing up, both sides to this need to calm down and start talking to each other, rather than throwing AE block requests at one another. Constantine ✍ 07:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kansas Bear

"LouisAragon has been pushing a Persian nationalist POV"

Yet LouisAragon has on numerous occasions posted on my talk page for my opinion on sources, reliability, wording, etc. Not exactly the actions of a "Persian nationalist". As for the "several tongue in cheek personal insults", lets look at the facts:

"Incompetent pov pushers", November 2015, directed at Steverci, which later is stated by Callanecc, "The evidence on my talk page (along with what I've seen from some of the IPs you've been using) shows POV editing. After coming off a topic ban I would expect that you'd ensure your editing was as good as it can be and I'm just not seeing that."[178]
"fanboy", October 2015, again concerning Steverci.
"POV pusher", November 2015, again concerning Steverci, even Callanec calls his editing POV editing.
"Incompetent peoples, November 2015, again concerning Steverci. According to Alex2006, "Hallo Louis, this guy (who is banned from editing articles about Armenia) did not even read the paper. At page 4 (2.1), it states that Armenia is European in each aspect, except geographically, and later ask the people to live with this aspect."[179]
"Ignorant", according to the edit summary, "removed per feigned ignorance of the adder (Eupator) and numerous attempts to have it discussed which he ignored and never backed up his claims with sources".[180] This shows that LA states Eupator "feigned ignorance", I see nothing showing LA saying Eupator was "ignorant".

I am curious. What is this really about? Restoring Steverci's(including socks) edits? Getting revenge for LA's comments about Steverci? It would appear to be more about Steverci's edits, LouisAragon's opinion of Steverci, and the continuing the edit warring POV Steverci and his sockpuppets started.

Just an FYI, on the usage of non-historians(Todd B. Krause, John A.C. Greppin, and Jonathan Slocum are linguists not historians) to push a POV, isn't this exactly what EtienneDolet is accusing LouisAragon of doing?[181] Sorry, but why should 3 linguists be given more weight than N. Garosian(Phd. Medieval history) and Richard G. Hovannisian(Phd History, professor emeritus at the University of California), and then call it "Restoring neutral version. Many historians emphasize that the origins of the Orontid dynasty is unclear."? Such editing is quite disingenuous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LouisAragon

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

This looks to me like a content dispute, which we do not decide at AE. If the two of you disagree about whether something belongs in an article, that's why we have talk pages and, failing ability to come to agreement between you there, dispute resolution mechanisms like a request for comments to have some previously uninvolved editors look at the situation. If there are behavioral issues here, please highlight just those without continuing the content dispute here, otherwise they get lost in the noise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is similar to the one I closed below, more heat than light and a content dispute at the core, one that needs an RFC. If someone does something you don't like, the place to start is the talk page, calmly. I recommend closing as primarily a content dispute and editors to start RFCs on these key points of contention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EtienneDolet

Not actionable. Recycling valuable edits from a sockpuppet isn't a sanctionable offense, and that seems to be a large portion of the claims here. While we often revert socks, it isn't required. Removing article content in good faith is part of editing. The wikihounding claims are not proven by virtue of you both editing the same content. Lastly, admin are asked to please stay on topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning EtienneDolet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAA2, WP:NOTHERE, WP:HOUNDING, WP:GAME :

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

This'll suffice for a start in this section;

Reinstating material by a CU blocked sockmaster + his sockpuppets on a definite structural basis

[182] (Hyrudagon is Steverci's CU blocked sockpuppet here)
[183] (idem)
[184] (idem)
[185] (idem)
[186] (Lasort101 is Steverci's CU blocked sockpuppet here)
[187] (idem)
[188] (idem)
[189] (idem)
[190] (idem)

Wikihouding

Blatantly removing sources + quotes + sourced content

[197] (sources removed; Babaie, Grigor (2015), Allsen, Thomas T. (2011), Sartre, Maurice (2015), Garsoian (2005)
[198]
[199]
[200]
[201]
[202]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

As far as I can see, no previous sanctions, but numerous warnings were given by numerous editors for his editorial pattern throughout the time.

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

Apparantly hasn't (?) received one in the past 12 months, but he posted one himself on someone else's talk page just some days ago, so I believe that he's still aware of them.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The merits are thus mainly based on, but not limited to;

The EtienneDolet - Steverci alliance. -- EtienneDolet has a well-recorded history of backing up and protecting Steverci (CU blocked sockmaster) and his numerous (eventually) CU blocked socks on articles falling under WP:ARBAA2 This is well recorded. Above, one can see a fraction of it. None of the articles in question had ever been edited by EtienneDolet before the sockmaster/sock made his edits. If I were to link every diff, it'd be a much larger and moreso cluttering list. Further examples of coordinated protection can be seen here at other locations, such as on talk pages,[203], or in an AE report against the sockmaster itself, amongst others. I believe that anyone with two pair of at least "nominally" working eyes can see that this all is clear, WP:NOTHERE editing by EtienneDolet. Regardless of how "good" or "bad" the edits by the sockmaster + socks in question are.

Wikihouding. After I questioned a WP at VillagePump, which EtienneDolet seemed/seems very particularly fond of to cite every single time in order to get the lede revision he wants, and solely in Armenia-related articles mind you,[204][205][206][207][208] no less than 10 out of the 12 edits he made on articles afterwards were to revert various edits of mine.[209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218] Notice furthermore that out of all these articles, literally none were never even touched (!) by EtienneDolet before, in the span of all these years that his account is registered on Wikipedia. And as one can see, most of these WP:Wikihound edits were complete reinstatements of edits made by, once again Steverci (!). More Wikihouding "sprees" can be seen here, on 28 January 2016, where he wrongly accused me of making "copyright violations" and here a few minutes later, here a few hours later as well. The so-called "source" EtienneDolet linked in these three edit summaries, from which I "supposedly" copied from, is in fact a Wikipedia mirror.

Blatantly removing sourced content, or simply removing clear WP:RS sources in general (often with unjustified edit summaries). See above.

More WP:GAMEing by EtienneDolet, such as misusing WP's, amongst which WP:NCGN (#2), on a structural basis,[219][220][221][222][223] in order to back up this tendentious editing in his niche, namely Armenia-related articles. That even though the WP literally states that"; "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus; but they are the consensus of actual experience in move discussions."[224]

It is very easy to make good edits on low-profile articles, as they say. It is also very easy to make bad ones, to POV-push deliberately, to knowingly follow an "unjust" agenda (e.g. protecting socks, removing sources by illegitimate means). I think the Steverci-EtienneDolet alliance™, as illustrated above, speaks on itself. Imagine you combine such a pattern with "nice words", a pretty polite overal behaviour as well, and write in proper English; you can actually get quite far and remain unnoticed. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[225]

"Steverci was a disruptive user and his/her socks have continued that path. I would never advocate replicating that user's behavior on this project."

-- Yet there's substantial evidence that you've been backing him up on plenty of talk pages, in AE cases against him, and have been fully reinstating many of his edits (even by the means of edit-warring, e.g.[226]).

"A lot of these diffs are really old"

-- The vast majority of them are just several months old, and are of the year 2016. Furthermore, just for a comparison, I didn't see you bothering about "old diffs" in the case above this one, where you posted numerous diffs of matters of the year 2015, and/or matters that were already dealt with.

"So there's times that these articles show up on my watchlist and I do revert to more neutral and improved versions, whether or not they are disruptive socks."

-- Yeah, that'd be a believable story, if only any of the articles where you reinstated this sockmasters' edits actually had been edited by you in the past...nine years that your account is registrated here. Before the sockmaster + his legio socks edited them, that is. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning EtienneDolet

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 EtienneDolet

Steverci was a disruptive user and his/her socks have continued that path. I would never advocate replicating that user's behavior on this project. However, I believe some of the edits that the socks have made actually improved these articles. A lot of these diffs are really old, so I will comment upon some of the recent stuff. LouisAragon's recent diffs involves him restoring text that uses the word "terrorist group" to describe ASALA. Now, I do believe that LouisAragaon made this edit in good faith when dealing with a sock, but the sock was right in removing that word (per WP:TERRORIST). That is why I reverted Louis. There's many other similar examples including this where the Armenian Genocide Wikilink was replaced with Armenian deportation. Or the restoring of WP:SCAREQUOTES around the word "Genocide" in this edit. I even pointed this out in my edit-summary here and mentioned that I do not question LouisAragon's good faith in reverting such a disruptive sock. So there's times that these articles show up on my watchlist and I do revert to more neutral and improved versions, whether or not they are disruptive socks. But this is far from an "alliance". As for the other edits, they're really old and involved removing copyright material. That issue has long been handled at the talk page of those corresponding articles. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

I think it is unfortunate that these two editors, who I have found contribute a lot of valuable content to articles, edit neutrally, and who actually know about the subjects they edit, have come into conflict in this way - I urge them to think whether there are really differences substantial enough for these two cases to be here. I wonder if the basis of the conflict is that they each actually know too much about the subjects they are editing and are suspecting the other of the sort of pov motives that they know is widespread in those subject areas.

Any editor can take ownership of a blocked editor's deleted posts by reinstating them. It is not a sanctionable act. I do not support the removal of posts made by socks just because they were made by socks. I think the actual value of the material needs to be examined first. Looking back, I find many of Steverci's edits, and those of his presumed socks Oatitonimly, etc., to be reasonable - so it is not unexpected that another editor would reinstate them if the only reason they were removed was for SP reasons. LouisAragon definitely has been deleting content for SP reasons alone, resulting in good content being deleted and seriously bad content being restored, such as here [227]. There is no inverted commas Armenian Genocide controversy, and such terminology is an inadmissible euphemism for denial of the Armenian Genocide. I fully support EtienneDolet's edit there and I would have done exactly the same. This edit removed an edit by SP Hyrudagon [228] but the removal added a load of nonsense. Pharasmanes I was not a king of Georgia, there is no such thing as "Georgian paganism", Iberia is not Georgia, and the writings of Tacitius are not equivalent to those of modern-era historians when deciding on events. I fully support EtienneDolet's edit there [229] and I would have done exactly the same.

I am also no fan of a flippant claiming of wikihounding; it distorts the actual meaning of Wikihounding. Both these editors edit in the same subject areas so they can be expected to come into contact. Despite the views of Drmies (who has encouraged and even prompted such distortions), there is nothing wrong in looking at editing histories to see where active editing is going on, and then going there. Doing it is not wikihounding. Every now and again I look at the editing histories of both LouisAragon and EtienneDolet - which is why I know about this case. Editing histories are public - anyone who doesn't like that shouldn't edit. I don't think anything EtienneDolet has done comes anywhere even close to the definitions or characteristics of Wikihounding. In other words, two out of the three diff sections set down by LouisAragon in his complaint are listing edits that actually did not break any policies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, no wrong name was typed. You are on record as saying that following another editor's edits and from that information then editing an article they have edited equates to wikihounding. You did it on my own talk page, so I should know. No such behavior is actually cited as equating to wikihounding on WP:hounding, so your viewpoint is a distortion of the definition of wikihounding. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

I agree with Tiptoe's assessment of the situation. I don't see anything objectionable in the diffs. A certain amount of contact is to be expected between editors whose interests overlap, but EtienneDolet is careful not to edit-war. Moreover the diffs are stale and the issues raised have been dealt in the past. On the other hand, I find an admin taunting someone they have blocked in the past about their block extremely unbecoming. Made worse that it is done at a WP:AE case. Athenean (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning EtienneDolet

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

Tiptoethrutheminefield, eh? Are you sure you didn't type in the wrong name? If not, you want to reread NPA and stuff like that. Just a thought. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a. that's a lie or at the very least a distortion and b. that has nothing to do with any of this. You thought you could get a shot in but you're only devaluing your statements here. But I see now where this comes from: your block log, which features such beauties as blocks for harassment and edit warring. No wonder you are trying to devalue these alleged offenses: it makes you look better. I had totally forgotten about that, but I guess you haven't. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wecarlisle

Premature for AE. Handled as a conventional administrative issue, short block issued by Bishonen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Wecarlisle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAP2 and active arbitration remedies on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

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

Repeated violation of 1RR by adding info that's being discussed on an RFC with serious BLP concerns.

22:42, 27 October 2016 added content about Jane Doe
02:09, 28 October 2016 undid removal
04:23, 28 October 2016 added info again
04:36, 28 October 2016 added info again

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Given before last linked edit.
Edit notices about active remedies on page visible to all who edit page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Wecarlisle

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 Wecarlisle

Statement by (username)

Statement by Mandruss

I posted this on their user talk page 47 minutes before item 2 above. Seems very straightforward. WP:CIR, especially in this situation. If this wasn't a case for a quick DS block, I don't know what would be. So I don't why we're here instead of WP:ANI. Still learning. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wecarlisle

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

Blocked without reference to discretionary sanctions. I agree with Mandruss. Also, to post a discretionary sanctions alert on the user and then take them to this board a mere 15 minutes later is not ideal, EvergreenFir. Therefore, I have given Wecarlisle an ordinary block, which does not invoke discretionary sanctions, for 72 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Ihardlythinkso

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 Ihardlythinkso

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS

The article in question is subject to 1RR. log. diff.

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

- October 31, 2016 2nd Revert
- October 31, 2016 1st Revert (falsely asserts WP:BLPREMOVE)
- October 29, 2016 2nd Revert (falsely asserts WP:BLPREMOVE)
- October 29, 2016 1st Revert (falsely asserts WP:BLPREMOVE)
- October 25, 2016 Revert of the same material. Falsely asserts BLP

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on August 2, 2016 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Warned - July 20, 2016
Warned - October 29, 2016 (The warning was completely ignored).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

IHTS routinely ignores consensus, makes false appeals to policy, and attacks those who disagree with him. As evidenced by the particular edit that he is pushing and the relevant talk page section: talk:Donald Trump#Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women, it appears that he is carrying on where a recently-topic-banned user left off.

He is not above insulting other users who disagree with him. In this case, MelanieN: [230] [231] [232]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[233]

Contrary to what IHTS wrote below ("Take a look at the Donald Trump revision history of minutes ago, to see Mr X reverting my simple & correct change, and accusing me of valdalism in his edit sum. "), I didn't accuse him of vandalism; I accused the user who made the edit before IHTS' edit of vandalism, thus the 'and' in my edit summary. The reason why I included IHTS' edit in the revert was because his edit seems to go against MOS:DATERANGE which says "A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC."

In any case, I think I violated 1RR also (although not intentionally). Please feel free to topic ban me as well if it serves the greater good.- Mr X 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Ihardlythinkso

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 Ihardlythinkso

I removed misleading & erroneous text indicating Trump said he *did grope* [a woman/women], when he merely asserted on the tape that he could get away with doing so if he wanted to by virtue of his star status. (An enormous difference. The former is tantamount to putting in the BLP subject's mouth that he confessed to committing potential criminal act[s], something only imagined or contrived/fictionalized by presumably hateful political detractors. A little objectivity for what he said, please. As thoughtful, conscientious WP editor it was/is my duty to immediately remove.) Thank u. IHTS (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting commentary slamming me in goofy ways from MelanieN, Drmies, Dennis Brown. (MelanieN made back-handed insult of the BLP subject on the Talk page, that he's a liar. I suggested the illogical arguments she posted on the Talk page, plus the back-handed insult of the BLP subject, make her unfit for contributing at the Talk page. And Dennis Brown says *I* was "unnecessarily rude", and Drmies interprets as a "dig". False.

An editor reverted my BLP text removal with editsum argument that Trump's "I don't even wait" applied "obviously" to groping women, when that is purely bogus, it applied to kissing women. I'm sick of you three, block me for that? (The "ugly behavior" is not mine, Fleischman!) And where has anyone at any time explained how WP:BLPREMOVE has been inappropriately used for removing assertions the BLP subject never made, being stuffed into his mouth, when said assertion can fairly be read to be admission to potential criminal act? Nowhere. (I've done what is duty for WP editor to do. Yet you three seem to support the other side--slanderous false assertions attributed to the BLP subject.)

The discussion here is to what level *I* warrant sanction, are you sure you have your WP caps on properly? And you are admin? You need to explain yourselves in simple English. (Impossible for Drmies, who seems to communicate only by innuendo.) IHTS (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dennis, you'd make a good judge (not), where your "I've been insulted!" dictates your rule of law. How shrimpy. IHTS (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And IHTS, the comment to Melanie was unnecessarily rude. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC). Excuse me, I forget you are "King of admins" and your opinion is sacrosanct. (Just how advanced an admin are you, when prone to antagonizing a pissing/cat-fight like this? Your brotherly love philosophizing all over he WP is apparently reserved for those whom you like, and for those don't bow to you, they receive the Brown treatment, including "WP:NOTHERE" encouragements for full WP ban at ANI from you [as I have]. You're irredeemable, Dennis.) IHTS (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Donald Trump revision history of minutes ago, to see Mr X reverting my simple & correct change, and accusing me of valdalism in his edit sum. (This s/ show you the quaility, prejudice, inattentiveness, and aggressiveness of the complainant, no?) IHTS (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

his edit seems to go against MOS:DATERANGE which says "A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC." - MrX 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC) From WP:DATERANGE: Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used [...] in infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column). IHTS (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting policy-free agenda: It'll cool down after the election hopefully, but temporarily removing some of the more invested participants from the article will also give everyone room to breathe and work collaboratively rather than competitively. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC). (So MelanieN, with her blatant illogic on the Talk, and calling the BLP subject liar, is not an "invested participant"?! And Nomoskedasticity's absurd rationale for revert here.) This smells. IHTS (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a tag applied by another user has stuck for awhile (Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women ^{[neutrality is disputed]}), which somewhat accomplishes the same thing as my copyedit, but in a different way. So I'm pleased with that, and anything I may have done that may have spurred it along. (Especially I disagree w/ word "forcibly", which is misleading, per user Adlerschloß "nonconsensually" is accurate, though I never made comment at Talk:Donald Trump about same, but happily the tag seems to cover that to some extent as well.) This is not the first time I've seen a stable result come out of the oven like this. (It happened with the current long-standing Trump profile image, that popped out from I think user GoodDay after an RfC I initiated to put an end to edit wars and an unpleasant disorganized debate between two other competing images. It also happened at Bobby Fischer after a user's lengthy sec add consisting of random quotations from lesser players designed to impugn Fischer that he was, w/ no existing diagnosis, mentally insane.) IHTS (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Fleischman

Guy, I think you might have misread the complaint since MrX listed the diffs in reverse chronological order. The latest 1RR violation was today, October 31. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, in my view your job should be not so much to minimize the force used, but to clean up the ugly behavior. I mean you seem to be effectively throwing up your hands and saying "anything goes" on the second-most visited article in the encyclopedia, one that has an impact on the election of the most powerful person in the world. An appropriate sanction of some sort--a tban, or maybe a short-ish block?--could at least have some deterrent effect. Frankly, between this complaint and the one I lodged above, I'm so frustrated by the current level of disruption at Donald Trump and admins' apparent unwillingness to step in and do anything about it that I'm about ready to give up until after the election. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose sanctions against MrX. They have been a civil and valuable contributor to the article, and we need more of those. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ihardlythinkso

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

This seems stale, but that's unambiguous edit warring and WP:CRYBLP so I could be persuaded that this is another one for the post-Dec 1 restriction as per Anythingyouwant. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with JzG except for the "stale" part. This is a pretty clear violation of 1R. The semantics here are really .... well find your own words. Editors are arguing over whether there was mention of forcible kissing and groping or just kissing. As for comments like this--well that dig is par for the course for this editor, I think. The question came up why this wasn't done at ANEW, as a clear 1R violation. One net effect of not reporting it there, but here, is that a block is unlikely, as this gets staler by by the minute. This board here should be used, in my opinion, for serial offenders; I don't know if IHTS is a serial offender in this topic area or not. If not, and I don't know if they are or not, then a topic ban is maybe too strong. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I haven't been supportive of topic bans in recent cases like this that I think are borderline. Yes violations, but I'm not sure it is crying BLP as much as not understanding that this won't qualify as a BLP exception, and not a serial issue. There are going to be more cases like this as election day approaches. If IHTS would voluntarily agree to avoid all post-1932 political pages until after the election, that would be acceptable to me. Otherwise, the "Anythingyouwant" sanction at the most. I'm not saying something stronger isn't within our authority, it's just that what is happening here is a mirror reflection of the country as a whole and we can't tban our way out of either. It is the ugliest election I've seen in my 50+ years, so it's no shock that some ugly behavior is going to happen here. Let's use the least force necessary to deal with the problem if we can, including future cases during this election cycle. And IHTS, the comment to Melanie was unnecessarily rude. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Fleischman, I'm not throwing up my hands, I am accepting the reality that there are going to be problems today and tomorrow due to the events bringing out passions from both sides. Both of the choices I have presented here would remove IHTS from that article and politics in general during this heated period. That is hardly throwing in the towel. No matter what we do, that article is going to be frustrating for editors until after the election. Admin can't fix that. At best we can patch here and there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my idea of not using sanctions at all after IHTS's reply, leaving me with suggesting the short term tban, as bizarre as that is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What, this again? Unsurprisingly, I find myself concurring with Drmies that this should have been sent to ANEW. However, it wasn't, and an edit-warring block would be punitive at this point. The diffs provided also show a tendency to stretch policy to breaking point to support their edits. As with Anythingyouwant, this sort of misuse of the BLP exception seems wilful, so I would also support the custom-made topic band we created for Anythingyouwant. If this were a one-off, I'd be willing to be lenient, but Lord Roem banned them from the Trump page for a month not that long ago, and it didn't seem to achieve very much. Vanamonde (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the text being removed, I think that WP:BLPREMOVE is valid. Those arguing against IHTS are probably going a little too far in inferring Trump's meaning for a BLP. So, no problem there. What I do have a problem with is the tone of the comments on the talk page. Some of them are borderline, but this one clearly goes way too far. For this reason I'm happy with Guy's suggestion of a restriction similar to Anythingyouwant's. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 2 November 2016 (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 1,454: / Line 1,454: @@
 :Interesting policy-free agenda: {{tq|It'll cool down after the election hopefully, but temporarily removing some of the more invested participants from the article will also give everyone room to breathe and work collaboratively rather than competitively. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC).}} (So MelanieN, with her blatant illogic on the Talk, and calling the BLP subject liar, is not an "invested participant"?! And Nomoskedasticity's absurd rationale for revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=747095934&oldid=747069272 here].) This smells. [[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 07:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
+:It seems a tag applied by another user has stuck for awhile ({{tq|Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and [[groping]] women {{pov-inline|date=November 2016}}}}), which somewhat accomplishes the same thing as my copyedit, but in a different way. So I'm pleased with that, and anything I may have done that may have spurred it along. (Especially I disagree w/ word "forcibly", which is misleading, per user Adlerschloß "nonconsensually" is accurate, though I never made comment at Talk:Donald Trump about same, but happily the tag seems to cover that to some extent as well.) This is not the first time I've seen a stable result come out of the oven like this. (It happened with the current long-standing Trump profile image, that popped out from I think user GoodDay after an RfC I initiated to put an end to edit wars and an unpleasant disorganized debate between two other competing images. It also happened at [[Bobby Fischer]] after a user's lengthy sec add consisting of random quotations from lesser players designed to impugn Fischer that he was, w/ no existing diagnosis, mentally insane.) [[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 08:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Dr. Fleischman====

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