Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:15, 23 January 2018

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

Al-Andalus

Blocked for 1 week. GoldenRing (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2018 (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 Al-Andalus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Al-Andalus (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 (1932 cutoff)

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

01:34, 12 January 2018: Al-Andalus added disputed content about the use of the term "collusion" in public discourse about the Donald Trump-Russia dossier; e.g., "Although the term 'collusion' continues to be used, in most cases mistakenly, by many people discussing the allegations in the dossier, including by profesional political commentators, it is widely acknowledged that no actual allegation of 'collusion' is alleged. Rather, 'conspiracy' is what is meant by most of those who mistakenly use the term 'collusion'. ... "
01:46, 12 January 2018: Al-Andalus was reverted by Volunteer Marek.
13:58, 13 January 2018: Al-Andalus reinstated nearly the same challenged text with some modifications; e.g., "Although the term 'collusion' has been used by many, if not most, when discussing the dossier's allegations of Trump's interactions and coordination with Russia, including politicians, media personalities and cable commentators, no actual allegation of 'collusion' is made by the dossier. The allegation has, in law, always been one of conspiracy ..." Al-Andalus did this while ignoring a related talk page discussion that found no consensus to remove "collusion" from the article and without engaging Volunteer Marek to better understand his objection.

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [1]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Al-Andalus has a history of disruption at this article, including restoring inaccurate claims about the dossier being funded by the The Washington Free Beacon to the lead multiple times from 1 November 2017 to 4 November 2017. Although I cannot produce the diffs because they have since been removed from the public logs, Al-Andalus's behavior resulted in this discussion and a warning from MelanieN: "PLEASE STOP re-adding this inaccurate material to the lede. I have invited you to the talk page to discuss this. I have warned you that the article is under special restrictions so that you can't just keep on re-adding your own version. I do not want to have to report you for violating the Discretionary Sanctions, but that will be the only recourse if you keep on ignoring messages and edit-warring misinformation back into the lede."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning Al-Andalus

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 Al-Andalus

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Al-Andalus

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

This seems a fairly clear-cut violation of the "consensus required" restriction. I would like to hear from @Al-Andalus: and perhaps also from @Coffee:. GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These were done on a mobile device which to my knowledge means the editnotice isn't visible (unless that has changed recently, which I've been hoping for), are we sure they were aware of the discretionary sanctions system when they made these edits? Was there a warning on their talk page? I'd be interested in hearing their statement here though. Also, if they continue without commenting here they should face an immediate block for refusal to cooperate with an Arbitration ruling. But, I'm willing to hold back the hammer here @GoldenRing: if they hadn't received proper notification. These areas always get tricky when dealing with mobile edits... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoldenRing: I messed up the original ping. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoldenRing: Looks like they actually were made aware very clearly by Melanie right here as is required to enforce the restrictions. With this knowledge, I'm for an immediate block. I see no need to wait for their input when they haven't responded to concerns about their edits in weeks, after a review of their contribs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Coffee: Yes, after looking into this a bit more I agree, the user has been asked not to repeatedly re-insert the same material on this article over a period of months. I've followed your suggestion and blocked (1 week in this case) but IMO the next sanction (should there be one) should be a long AP2 TBAN. GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @GoldenRing: 100% agreement here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @GoldenRing: One of these days I'll stop auto-pilot typing a space in your name when trying to make successful pings... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
~~Best practice is to~~ Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages ~~where appropriate~~, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and

There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.

Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or

They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or

In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or

In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or

In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

Sir Joseph

Seems pointless to keep this open when so many admin have made it clear that sanctions are not going to happen. BLP does apply to talk pages, but this particular incident is so minor as to not be a case for ANI or AE. The primary complaint here is a talk page entry being uncited and could have easily been corrected by requesting a citation, or asking that the person strike the comment. Using the sledgehammer that is WP:AE is simply overkill for such a small thing. When something can be handled on the talk page itself, it should, rather than dragging it to an admin or arbitration board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 19 January 2018 (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 Sir Joseph

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sir Joseph (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: Biographies of Living Persons

I'm filing this under BLP because it's a BLP vio, but it's also a [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 American Politics 2] issue.

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

15:28 January 18 2018 Accuses a living person of having been "caught lying" without a source.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20:16 January 12 2018 Recent related controversy and warning by User:MastCell
[3] Previous block related to American Politics BLPs noting "a pattern of disruptive behavior" along with a warning that if this pattern continues the user is "heading for an indef" [4]
[5] A (short) topic ban from another American Politics BLP, followed by
[6] a block for edit warring despite the topic ban

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

[7]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a straight up BLP violation, following shortly on the heels of related problematic comments at other articles and ANI and part of a long term pattern.

@Admins - last time I asked somebody to retract a DS violation I was accused of "threatening" the editor and threatened myself with a block "if I did that again". So hell no, I learned my lesson, I didn't ask him to retract first. Neither am I required to - he just needs to be notified of the discretionary sanctions, which he has been.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: - Dennis, you link to a ... google search. I mean, for funky sake, all you did is google "Durbin lies" and that's it. And claim that "finding a source is easy". Is it? The first source I get says "Someone is lying about that 'shithole' meeting. And I think I know who." The "I know who" is NOT Durbin. The second source I get says "Here's exactly how Dick Durbin destroyed Kirstjen Nielsen's 'shithole' explanation". Yeah, I don't think that source supports "Durbin lied" either. Third source says "Tom Cotton, David Perdue, and the Trap of Lying for Donald Trump" - that's not "Durbin caught lying" either. And that's putting aside that the "caught lying" remark was not in reference to Trump's "shithole" remark but supposedly happened during Obama administration. Sir Joseph was clearly saying that Durbin had a history of lying. Without backing it up (also, frankly, it's not your job to find sources for him). That's a clear cut BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the thing - pretty much all sources in that google search you posted Dennis, refer to SOMEBODY ELSE lying, not Durbin. You should have at least put the search term in quotes. Searching google properly is not hard. Now, there are a couple (two precisely) sources that say that Durbin has a history of lying. Guess what? One is a ... sports forum, 247Sports.com and the "lying" is just commentary from users. The other is a non-reliable source which routinely attacks individuals (Daily Wire). Jeez christ, I didn't think I'd have to say this to an admin but WP:COMPETENCE is required.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem - it was GoldenRing a few months ago. It will take me a bit of time to find it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis - which reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN & Number57 - the big difference is that MrX provides a source. Actually three. In his second comment he just refers to his first comment. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Sir Joseph

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 Sir Joseph

So the first I notice about this is an AE notice on my page, no questions or comments, especially since I posted the source on the same page before. In any event, here's the Politico source frmo 2013 where Durbin lied about a closed meeting and the White House had to shut him down. [8] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think this should be closed with a trout, VM should be sanctioned for bringing frivolous AE actions. This is not the first time he has done so. And he has shown himself to be not the most neutral editor, and he is being a little deceitful with the list of blocks (not that most of you care about those), he has listed a short block for violating a TBAN (none of which are BLP issues anyway) but he doesn't list that I was unblocked less than 5 minutes later because it wasn't a violation. Those are BLP violations against me and should be dealt with. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man

Just a quick question, did you ask him to (a) retract it or (b) source it, before launching the kitchen sink at him? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no evidence of any such request. This seems to me to be a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Trouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark I'm now curious, if he had said Lance Armstrong was caught lying, would the same BLP violation (as you perceive it) apply, and a warning be necessary? We're going to need to start high alerts on all talk pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the big deal here either. This is classic throw the kitchen sink behaviour which really needs to be stopped. Simple communication may have resolved this issue before any drama board, yet here we are, people saying individuals should be warned, sanctioned etc. For one statement which is generally held as true anyway. Wikipedia is tending to destroy itself, this just exemplifies that. This should be speedy closed, with a suggestion that Joseph cites or removes the claim, not with tepid warnings or sanctions. People must do more to resolve such trivial issues before resorting to this kind of timesink. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek you openly question the competence of some admin(s) here, yet like me, several of them would like to know why did you not request the edit be sourced or removed before opening such a drama festival? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Saying a BLP is lying is not a DS violation by any stretch of the imagination ..... As TRM says the best course of action would've been to ask them to either provide a source or retract it. I urge the Committee to Speedy Decline this case. –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add obviously saying "X is lying" should be avoided and could perhaps be considered a BLPVIO however IMHO it certainly isn't a DS issue, Also again just to add if this AE was about the shithole comments then it might be a different story but if we're judging purely on that one diff then I don't see a violation. –Davey2010^Talk 16:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Joseph has repeatedly violated DS and is a generally disruptive editor at the American Politics articles and associated talk pages. I think Admins here should focus on enforcement at whatever level is needed to prevent future disruption. I see no basis to hope that further warnings from Volunteer Marek would somehow change Joseph's behavior. Dear Admins: There's not enough patrolling of these articles by our volunteer Admins. Then when non-Admin editors take the time to report an obvious violation, their report too often ends up in a long drama thread at AE and extensive appeals and recrimination and deflection. I think a better model is simply for AE to carry out the escalating sanctions Arbcom mandated in the AP2 decision. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

Uninvolved comment This should have been resolved by asking for a source, not jumping immediately to AE. I don't see any attempts to request a source in that discussion or at Joe's user talk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I'm not entirely convinced that the daily wire is an unreliable source (with the necessary corollary; I'm not convinced they're not, either), and it does explicitly support this content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN

(Disclaimer: I am involved at that article, so I am commenting as an ordinary editor and not as an admin.) I would note that in the same discussion, on 18 January, User:MrX accused three people of lying under oath at 14:04 and again at 14:12 - in fact that was the very comment to which Sir Joseph replied, at 15:28. For some reason, VM didn’t find MrX’s repeated accusations to be reportable. I am not saying that MrX should be considered for sanctions too, not at all. My point is that 1) at talk pages (as opposed to articles) people are sometimes a little free with their comments about living people, and 2) VM seems to have been very selective in his outrage. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I'm somewhat confused by assertions above that one can use a talk page to abuse a living person on Wikipedia.

The banner at Talk:Hillel Neuer reads:-

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

Notwithstanding this, SJ repeatedly defamed a living person.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer The Hillel Neuer AfD , SJ repeatedly made wild, partisan remarks saying it was a ‘fact’ that Richard Falk, Princeton professor of international law, and a human rights specialist, was an antisemite. I thought that was a breach of the rule set down in the talk page banner. See

I told him to drop these serious BLP violations. Though his accusations completely skewed the known facts, and indeed defied the facts, he still persisted in calling on a talk page a distinguished international jurist an antisemite Whatever is done here, some clarification should be given regarding whether BLP applies to remarks editors make on a talk page. Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sir Joseph

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

I'm not sure I would be so quick to sanction someone over an uncited talk page comment when finding a source is so easy. [9]. I do not think this is the type of activity that our policy on BLP was designed to cover, as it isn't abuse in any way, just an absence of citation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- VM, my point was only that others are saying the same thing, and in reliable sources. I'm not claiming it is factual, only that at least some RSs are saying the same thing. He COULD have produced a citation had he been compelled. He should be more careful, but what he said could be WP:Verified in an WP:RS, at least the fact that some people DO think he has lied before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess I could have just linked [10] from that list, or one of the others [11]. That doesn't mean I agree, only that his statement is verifiable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto both TRM And Dennis. Sir Joseph should have been approached first to ask to redact or quote/source the statement before AE. And I would agree this is less an AE issue and more an AN/ANI issue related to behavior rather than sanctions. (see "shithole"_countries the recent ANI related to editors' behavior over Trump's "shithole" comment which shares similar aspects here). Suggest no action (though caution SJ when using BLP Claims on talk pages, and trout VM for rushing to file). --Masem (t) 16:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Volunteer Marek: last time I asked somebody to retract a DS violation I was accused of "threatening" the editor and threatened myself with a block "if I did that again". Diffs please for review. --Masem (t) 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the least a caution is warranted here. BLP applies to talk pages as well and making generic negative statements about a person should not be acceptable. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I don't see the big deal here. Should one say, without sources, that an individual has been caught lying? I'd say no. Is doing that worthy of a sanction, probably not? Should we caution the editor to be careful how they make negative unsourced information about a living person? I'd say yes. Lance Armstrong is not the issue here. --regentspark (comment) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a tempest in a teacup. I'm not seeing anything that justifies AE involvement. I think even ANI would be a stretch. While I believe they were acting in good faith, VM probably should have taken a deep breath (or two) and considered other options before bringing this here. I suggest we move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ad Orientem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem is probably right, although I would also caution Sir Joseph, given his experience in these areas, to not make such statements without backing them up with a RS. If sourcing is so easy, just do it, save us all some trouble. Because, as RegentsPark points out, BLP applies everywhere and it is never acceptable to throw around statements that "X is a liar" without proof. For example, I can say "Donald Trump has frequently lied" but only when I supply a RS, it is OK per WP:BLP. Regards So Why 17:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment were any of the other editors who accused various public figures of lying brought here or warned? On the same talk page I see accusations that Trump, Nielsen, Cotton, and Perdue had all lied. Number 5 7 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of discussing article content in which alleged lies by politicians are an issue, discussing alleged lies by politicians is admissible. Of course, as regards WP:BLP it would have been better to phrase the comment as "[Source] has accused Senator Foo of lying", but at least on a talk page I think that this is not conduct particularly worth sanctioning. Especially if one considers that the accusation or indeed the practice of lying, in current top-level US politics, doesn't seem to carry much of a stigma any more, but has become part of everyday political discourse. I would take no action. Sandstein 18:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VolunteerMarek: I've just been through all my edits since august trying to find where I said that to you. I found instances of me giving exactly the opposite advice, but the only time I can find where I suggested blocking you was for calling another editor a liar. So, can you provide a diff, please? GoldenRing (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greggens

Greggens topic banned for one month from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Also topic banned for six months from topics involving Elizabeth Warren, broadly construed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 19 January 2018 (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 Greggens

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Greggens (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_(1932_cutoff) and WP:BLPDS :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

18 January Added lengthy entry on Elizabeth Warren to "List of impostors" after being warned that future edits in this vein would result in an AE filing
17 January Does not listen to editors explaining policy to him, instead declaring that it doesn't matter what the sources say, because Either one is an impostor or one is not. In this case, she clearly fits the definition of impostor. Why can't we call a ♠ a "spade?"
17 January When this edit is reverted and challenged, declares that based on the reports from the above-named sources, it seems clear that, by definition, Elizabeth Warren is indeed an impostor, for the same reasons that Rachel Dolezal is an impostor and that It should also be noted, BTW, that even to this date, she has yet to have her DNA tested for Native American ancestry, to settle the questions once and for all.
17 January Added Category:Impostors to the BLP of Elizabeth Warren

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 for American politics and biographies of living persons here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user is apparently deeply convinced that Elizabeth Warren is an impostor, and absolutely insistent that Wikipedia must factually describe her as an impostor. This is despite the fact that reliable sources do not do so, and thus we cannot. They have come up with a million and one excuses and demands, and have ignored multiple editors explaining to them why they cannot do what they seek to do. I am asking that this editor be topic-banned indefinitely from anything have to do with Elizabeth Warren, as their edits are contrary to basic content policies and are wasting the time of other editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Discussion concerning Greggens

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 Greggens

Recently, one of my good faith edits has been reverted based on one user's opinion of what constitutes a "violation" of Wikipedia policy. User: NorthBySouthBaranof has been telling me lately that Elizabeth Warren does not belong in Category:Impostors based on his/her interpretation of WP:SYNTH. While I respect this person's point of view on the matter, I have not ignored what he/she or any other editors have told me about this subject. I have merely offered rebuttals, listing reasons why I believe my original edit adding the Warren article to "Impostors" was not a violation of policy. The edit in question was based partly on information written in sources already cited in the article, and partly on common sense definitions of the word "impostor." NorthBySouthBaranof's opinion is based solely on personal interpretation of policy, not on concrete fact. For example, this user claims that putting the article in the Impostors category would be inappropriate because "No reliable source here calls her an impostor." Since when does the media have to use a term on a given politician before Wikipedians can have permission to use that exact same term on that exact same politician?

For the record, I have not attempted to restore the disputed edit; rather, I have sought consensus as to what should be done. Also, I have not made any edits to any page which I have been explicitly told not to edit. If I believed that an edit I was about to make was against Wikipedia policy, I would not make that edit.

So far, the only comments that I see are from those involved with the "Impostor?" discussion on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. By rule, results concerning me are only to be made by uninvolved admins.

These charges are frivolous, unfounded, and unwarranted. Please rescind them. If you don't want me to categorize this article under "Impostors," then fine. I won't put the article in that category. No need to impose any sanctions. Greggens (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Greggens

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

Unless any admin objects, I am preparing a one month topic ban for Greggens from American Politics and six months from Elizabeth Warren. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KU2018

Blocked as a sockpuppet. Discussion about enforcing discretionary sanctions can continue elsewhere if desired. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 20 January 2018 (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 KU2018

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KU2018 (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:ARBAPDS :

(Note Breitbart News is subject to editing restrictions. See Template:Editnotices/Page/Breitbart News

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

January 15, 2018 Removes "Far-right" from the lead, ignoring the hidden comment advising not to do so.
January 19, 2018 Removes "Far-right" from the lead, ignoring the hidden comment advising not to do so.
January 19, 2018 Restores the challenged edit against consensus

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

This editor is also repeatedly adding poorly-sourced content to BLP Alex Jones. See recent history and warnings: 1, 2.- Mr X 🖋 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite of multiple warnings and being reviewed at WP:AE, this user continues to insert the same content that violates WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:RS: [12][13][14][15]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning KU2018

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 KU2018

I first removed the text, which I shouldn't have done. However, I realised when going on to the talk page that I was wrong to do this. Earlier today I put in a compromise - putting the 'far right' label further down the page. This helped restructure the sections of the lead. I did not remove the far right label on the second and third edit, as stated in this request.This was consistent (Breitbart talk archive 3) with the previously agreed consensus as this stated quite vaguely that the far right label could be used in 'some circumstances'. I reverted this once as the text was removed even though it was consistent with the consensus. I did not revert a second time as I was aware that the 1RR was there. I would not have chamged the far right wording if it was against the consensus of the discussion. I will not be editing until monday. KU2018 (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

It is worth noting that KU2018 had previously agreed to stop pushing for this change to the article, in the face of unanimous opposition and a large opposing consensus. See this edit, dated Jan 15th. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:Your proposed TBAN sounds like the best possible solution. I get the impression that KU is not incapable of becoming a very productive editor, but that their involvement in politics has the potential to ruin that. I had been trying to provide some mentorship on their talk page, which seemed to be helping, right up until I saw this report and realized they'd gone back to edit warring at Breitbart. The three months stipulation is a good one, as it gives them the opportunity to resume their primary area of interest within the foreseeable future, provided they demonstrate a good ability to contribute elsewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Fleischman

While we're on the subject of administrative sanctions... not an AE issue specifically, but KU2018's username, which refers to Kingston University per their user page, appears to be a violation of our username policy. I mentioned this on their user talk, got no response. Their user page raises meatpuppetry-related issues as well, though I see no evidence of bad faith here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KU2018

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

I'm of the view that page-level restrictions should be enforced by the administrators who impose them, in this case, Ks0stm (talk · contribs). Sandstein 14:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, the edit-warring to include unreliably sourced WP:BLP material in a US politics-related article, The Young Turks, is immediately actionable. As political advocacy or state propaganda websites, Breitbart and RT.com are not reliable sources for controversial BLP material related to US politics, much like their counterparts on the other side of the ideological spectrum would also not be. Edit-warring such material back in after it was removed is also prohibited. KU2018 has made only 86 edits so far and has only edited controversial US politics-related articles. It is apparent that they lack the Wikipedia editing experience to do so competently and reliably. I intend to impose an indefinite topic ban, to be lifted after they demonstrate at least three months of productive editing in other topic areas. Sandstein 15:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To stop the immediate edit-warring, I have blocked KU2018 for 24 hours as a normal admin action. Sandstein 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandstein. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. @Sandstein:, are you suggesting that page level sanctionss should be enforced only by the person who added them? I don't think there is anything in policy that supports such a restriction or that your suggestion reflects current practice. I could of course be wrong. @NeilN: were you agreeing on this point or just on the topic ban? Doug Weller talk 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I was agreeing with the topic ban. As to the other matter, most page level sanctions should be enforced by any admin. Some custom sanctions can be confusingly worded (I'm guilty of that too) and clarification should come from the admin who added them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear. Although of course any admin may take enforcement action on another admin's sanction, I think that whoever imposes sanctions should also take the responsibility of enforcing them. I don't like it when admins drop a lot of sanctions on pages and then count on others to do the enforcement work. But that's just my view. Sandstein 17:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Doug Weller, I don't believe that admins imposing page-level restrictions should be the only ones to enforce them, though as a practical matter they are often the admins most familiar with the subject and therefore in the best position to assess complaints. Otherwise, Sandstein's suggestion seems good to me. GoldenRing (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I will enforce my page level sanctions when I've been asked to do so, but I also think it is often better for an admin who isn't the sanctioning admin on the pages to be the one who does the enforcing. Separation of powers or something like that. No views on this case, but saw it mentioned at ANEW and then thought the meta discussion was worth weighing in on. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page level sanctions can be problematic, and I agree with Sandstein in that the admin that imposed special restrictions on a single page should be pinged and given the opportunity to adjudicate the case. It was their restriction, they know *why* it was restricted to begin with while we may not without doing some homework. And yes, often the restriction can be confusing, so the most fair thing for the editor in question is have the person who imposed the restriction do the enforcement, when possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, when KU2018 was pointed towards an RfC on Breitbart which I closed in 2016, they pinged me [17] to complain about the close (to which my obvious answer was "Er, I don't think so"). Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of a indef TBAN in AP2 topic area, reviewable after three months with good consensus-building interactions in other topics, makes sense here. KU2018 appears to be a novice editor and while I can understand the desire to improve articles on American Politics, it is not a good first area to a new editor to start in, by any means, particularly at the present time in real-world politics. Actions here show a problem with consensus building that is better handled if they get better skilled in any of the other non-AP2 topic areas we offer. We don't want to force new editors to learn the ropes (that goes against WP's open spirit) but sometimes we do need to ask them to lurk and learn. --Masem (t) 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Sandstein's view on which admins can enforce page restrictions is a minority view, and while I can't speak for the Committee as a whole, I would be surprised if we clarified otherwise were that question brought to ARCA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser shows a connection to the blocked User:Oscar248, and the edits from Oscar do show the same inclination as those of KU2018's. I'm going to block them indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Greggens

Appeal declined. There is a general feeling among admins that the sanction was if anything too mild. Greggens is urged to be less combative in the sensitive areas of American politics and BLP, and to make more of an effort to listen to the concerns of other editors. Bishonen | talk 11:36, 21 January 2018 (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: Greggens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Greggens (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic bans from the subject of post-1932 politics of the United States and topics involving Elizabeth Warren, "broadly construed," imposed at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Greggens, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2

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

Notification of that administrator: Notified here

Statement by Greggens

Statements that are crossed out have been withdrawn by the appellant

I have always been a proponent of WP:BLP, adhering to its instructions as best as I possibly can. In fact, one of the things that I enjoy is, when I find something that is unsourced, I find a source to back it up and insert it into the appropriate article. As for my recent attempts at inserting a category or adding to a list, I misread the policy and thought I had all my ducks in a row each time. That's my bad. With respect to these edit attempts, even if there had been no sanctions imposed, I would not have restored the edit, anyway, since there was no consensus in favor of it (I believe that gaining consensus for restoring such reverted edits is one of the things that WP:BLP mentions, in WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE). To prevent future misunderstandings of WP:BLP, I'd be happy to talk with other admins about how to clarify the letter of the policy.

In the meantime, I'll be more careful when exercising the liberties granted to editors, and I'll continue, as I always have, to follow the rules with respect to WP:BLP and also encourage others to do so as well.

On January 17, I added Category:Impostors to the page Elizabeth Warren, after which it was immediately reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof. This same user then posted a vague warning on my talk page, telling me to stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced information…to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. (diff) I then explained to this user the reasons why I believe my original edit is not a violation of that policy. (diff) I then went to Talk:Elizabeth Warren to open a discussion on the subject to get consensus on what should be done. (diff) NorthBySouthBaranof then claimed that my original edit violated WP:SYNTH. I then assured this user that I would not restore my original edit unless and until consensus in favor of such was established on the article's talk page. (diff)

When NorthBySouthBaranof submitted the request for enforcement, it was only after I had edited another page that wasn't a BLP (or recently-deceased person). It was merely a list article, and even then, my edit followed this user's guidelines for referencing information. (diff) But NorthBySouthBaranof reverted that edit too, and then filed the AE request, accusing me of making a "lengthy" edit on that other page (it was only one line long). Besides that and the original edit I made, the only other diffs that this user provided to make the case against me were excerpts from Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Those excerpts only show me making honest arguments as to why WP:SYNTH does not apply here. (diff) Just expressing honest beliefs on a talk page is not grounds for sanctions.

I refer you now to WP:NOTSYNTH, to demonstrate how NorthBySouthBaranof's interpretation of WP:SYNTH is too broad and ubiquitous, namely, that SYNTH is not: a rigid rule, nor an advocacy tool, nor mere juxtaposition, nor summary, nor explanation, nor presumed, nor a catch-all, nor a policy, nor just any synthesis, nor unpublishably unoriginal, nor ubiquitous. As is says in one section of WP:NOTSYNTH, "If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH." I was merely stating an obvious conclusion when making my original edit.

In addition, NorthBySouthBaranof exaggerated the extent to which I allegedly ran afoul of policy. (diff) For example, only two editors told me about policy pertaining to BLM and such on the article talk page, and I never once "ignored" anyone in that thread; if anything, I responded to them quite eloquently and civilly. (diff)

As for the imposer of the sanctions, NeilN, he didn't even wait an hour after the enforcement request was filed to impose sanctions, nor did he allow a discussion to take place among other uninvolved editors. (diff) The sanctions imposed are, therefore, too hastily imposed, too severe, and unwarranted.

I request that all sanctions be lifted immediately. ~~In the meantime, I also request a stay of sanctions until a final decision is reached in this matter.~~ Thanks. Greggens (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Edited by Greggens (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

Greggens is not new editor. In the past, their editing has almost exclusively focused on American highways, reality shows, and celebrities. This past week they've made edits to a variety of American Politics articles on controversial subjects, all problematic.

This prompted the one month AP topic ban. An editor who has been here since 2014 and with almost 3,500 edits should know better. If they don't, then they need to take the time to see what the community expects in this area. The six month Elizabeth Warren topic ban was prompted by NorthBySouthBaranof's evidence, specifically [18], [19], and [20] coming after discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This filing at ANI also shows that despite being warned and notified, Greggens does not understand our BLP policy. "Eventually, NorthBySouthBaranof submitted a request for enforcement against me, anyway, but only after I had edited another page that wasn't a BLP (or recently-deceased person). It was merely a list article..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at Greggens' edits on other BLPs when developing the sanctions and they seemed for the most part gnome-work and uncontentious. Major expansions like this have minor sourcing issues at first glance but they are understandable. The Warren edits were unusual for this editor as the few major BLP edits Greggens has made are more like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Greggens, you ignored those warnings by duplicating the objectionable edit on List of impostors. BLP applies to all content about living people anywhere in the encyclopedia. You cannot evade its requirements merely by moving a BLP-violating edit to some different page. This is why myself and other editors have urged you strongly to review our policies before editing in these areas — you clearly do not understand how our policies work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH." The fact that you desperately want it to be "obvious" that Elizabeth Warren is an "impostor" does not make it true. It is not, in fact, "obvious" - the reliable sources cited go into great detail to explain that there is no proof of her ancestry either way. Stating that someone is an "impostor" is a statement that someone has knowingly lied about their identity. Given that no reliable source states that she has done any such thing, we cannot use such a label. Your continuing failure to understand this obvious fact is the primary reason why you have been appropriately topic-banned. I again hope you take some time to read and understand how our policies work and how we write about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Greggens

Comments from EdChem:
- I have closed the discussion at talk:Elizabeth Warren as the proposals made by the appellant are clearly prohibited by policy.
- Greggens has posted at ANI, a thread closed as retaliatory by Swarm, who offered some sensible advice that Greggens has not appreciated.
- Greggens, take some advice and a hint... when you have dug that deep, try changing directions. You are wrong here about policy and your proposed and reverted edits are unquestionably in breach of policy. You are adding negative statements about a living person without acceptable sourcing. If you don't want to have your bans lengthened or becoming broader, you need to develop a far better comprehension of policy and learn to listen to others, even when you disagree. Consensus against you on this one is close to unanimous.
  - An example: your appeal states that ... I had edited another page that wasn't a BLP (or recently-deceased person). It was merely a list article ..., but what you were adding to it was a negative statement about a living person. The WP:BLP policy applies to edits about living people on any page, not merely on biographies in article space. It applies to talk page posts, to Wikipedia space, and everywhere else, and anything else would be absurd. As an example: what would be the point of WP:BLP if it prevented editors posting "Politician X is a total [insert derogatory term] and is guilty of [list of serious crimes]" on X's biography but not from adding it anywhere else X's name was mentioned?
  - Another example: It was pointed out to you that your ANI thread was a topic ban violation, a statement with which you did not agree on the grounds that your post was about user conduct. However, your post was about user conduct in the area from which you were topic banned, posting diffs of edits in the area from which you are topic banned. Thus, your posts were very much talking about Warren and your views, even though you did not use the words "Elizabeth Warren." You could have been blocked for that ANI post, easily. You were fortunate that the thread was closed and your topic ban violation allowed to stand. Even in this appeal, you do not have unlimited scope to discuss the topics from which you are banned... the extra scope that you are allowed goes as far as is necessary to make your appeal and no further. A ban from a topic covers that topic on all pages, and discussions of it in all forms beyond making appeals permitted by policy.
- Recommendation to uninvolved admins... if Greggens doesn't change directions and fast, something less subtle than what NeilN has already used will be needed. EdChem (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Greggens

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

The original report supports the sanctions imposed. Honestly, given that the problems spread farther than the Warren article (such as posting masses of maintenance tags without dropping the slightest hint as to what the problem might be, even in the edit summary, let alone on the talk page, and the huge undiscussed removals), I see more than enough disruption to justify them. Greggens is clearly capable of making valuable contributions in other areas, so I'd advise to use the time off from American politics to do that, and if you return to this area, reconsider the bull meets china shop approach and be much less combative. They're sensitive areas and require careful and thoughtful editing and a willingness to hear others who disagree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Greggens objects to the speed with which the AE report was closed. It's common for people to not entirely understand how that works, so I suppose that should be clarified. An AE discussion isn't required at all before an uninvolved administrator imposes discretionary sanctions, nor is it required to run for any given length of time if it does take place. As soon as an admin sees something they believe to clearly justify sanctions, they may place those sanctions. The entire point of discretionary sanctions is to enable a rapid response in areas that see a lot of problems. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Seraphimblade - the sanction is not only within discretion but richly warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Seraphimblade and GoldenRing. The actions leading to the topic ban, and the actions since both clearly demonstrate the need for the topic ban. BLP should really be understood as "Biographical content about Living and recently deceased People" rather than literally applying only to biography articles, and a ban from all BLP content rather than just Elizabeth Warren would not have been an excessive reaction to your actions. When you find yourself in a deep hole and other people confiscate your spade, it is recommended to take the time to understand why they have done so before resuming digging. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sanction is clearly merited. This appeal would even be a basis to extend it. I would also decline the appeal. Sandstein 11:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexatious litigation. A mere half hour after appealing here, Greggens also took the matter to ANI (where it was promptly thrown out as a "bad faith, retaliatory report") in an attempt to get NBSB sanctioned for "harassment". Clearly they don't understand why that was a bad idea. Also, they still don't seem to understand how egregious it was to take their BLP violation to "merely a list article" after being warned off Elizabeth Warren's bio. That's all quite worrying. Also, Greggens complains that Neil "didn't even wait an hour after the enforcement request was filed to impose sanctions, nor did he allow a discussion to take place among other uninvolved editors", and thinks the sanctions imposed are, therefore, "too hastily imposed, too severe, and unwarranted." No, they're not; in an obvious case, there was no need for Neil to wait for discussion; that's not how it works, as others have pointed out. Now, somebody who's not at home on the noticeboards can certainly be excused for not knowing how AE in particular works; but why didn't Greggens ask/complain to Neil directly about that, rather than run straight here? Their quick appeal here is misuse of AE, IMO, just as their ANI attempt to get NBSB sanctioned was misuse of ANI. It's unfathomable that they would assume they understand AE practice better than Neil, to the point of not even bothering to ask him before coming back here. I hope a ban from American politics + Elizabeth Warren is sufficient, but I wouldn't object to a stronger sanction, especially for conduct after the sanction was given, per Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

At the least he should be banned from both AP and BLPs (ie a BLP ban which includes all BLP material) for six months, and given that his topic ban from Elizabath Warren, which he broke, was already six months perhaps longer. I can see no excuse for his List of Imposters edit unless he is truly unable to see the problem, in which case he may need to stay away from these topics completely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 12:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Seraphimblade. The speed and type of sanction was proportionate to the issue. He could have justifiably used harsher sanctions, so from my perspective, he showed restraint. Dennis Brown - 2¢
Especially given the contents of this appeal, I'd have gone for an indefinite topic ban so that we can get some reassurance that the behavior won't recur before lifting the ban. That said, decline. T. Canens (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal has no merit. The sanction was more than within the discretion of the imposing administrator, and was highly justified based on the editor's actions. This appeal should be declined forthwith, and the current sanction should be extended at a minimum to a year in length and broadened to include the BLP topic space. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal has no merit and indicates an absence of clue on Greggens' part. Accordingly, the sanction presently in place is the minimum that should be applied. This is a textbook example of why we have this AE process. The retaliatory complaint at ANI is a topic ban violation and an aggravating factor. I also note that tag-bombing articles without a corresponding discussion on the relevant talkpage is usually considered disruptive, and apart from the current, justified sanction I would advise Greggens to be prepared to offer thoughtful explanations for their actions and to make an effort to listen to the concerns of other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso

Ihardlythinkso blocked for 1 week for violation of topic ban. MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 22 January 2018 (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 Ihardlythinkso

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:02, 21 January 2018 (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

Wikipedia:ARBAPDS

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

January 21, 2018 Violates topic ban by posting several comments at an AfD directly related to American politics
May 14, 2017 [21][22] Edit warring on an article closely related to American politics. Warned by several editors: [23] and [24]. His final response: "fuck me!"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 10, 2017 (notification) indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American Politics
January 31, 2017 Blocked for personal attacks
November 7, 2016 AE sanction
August 2, 2016 Topic banned
August 2, 2016 Blocked for personal attacks

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 May 10, 2017 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The purpose of the May diffs was to show that restraint was exercised by not reporting him for those violations, even those he displayed vulgar disdain for the explanations he was given.

Dennis Brown I'm perplexed by your comment on several levels. I'm not aware that there are technical topic van violations and non-technical topic ban violations. Also, IHTS's comments in the AfD exhibit a profoundly-shallow, if not obtuse, understanding of what race is commonly understood to mean. When an editor starts referring to respected Journalists and fellow editors as ignorant and uneducated, the quality of the discussion goes right off a cliff.

Given IHTS's colorful history of personal attacks, I think a week duration block is insufficient, but of course, that's not my department.- Mr X 🖋 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

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

Thx for your comments, Dennis. But I don't know what the Q(s) are to "respond" to. It's clear I feel an encyclopedia s/ not use sources that are demonstrably uneducated/ignorant, no one else seemed to see those flaws at the Talk. It's embarrassing. I added some education there at my own risk, to improve the encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the mission. So shoot me. --IHTS (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC) (moved here from wrong section below. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
"Mexican", "Latino", and "Hispanic" are not race. (They are not even ethnicity! Look it up.) Apparently MrX wants to redefine the word "race" according to popular misconception. One w/ think that's below standard, for an encyclopedia. --IHTS (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

So I trawled through his edits and I found these two diffs in September among the thousands of minor chess edits - "was only "shocking" to Hillary supporters, was "delightful" to Trump supporters, so tell me this isn't typical liberal WP bias, duh!" and this on Dina Powell, the U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy to President Donald Trump. I don't know how much relevance it has being months old; just thought I'd add here, being blatant violations (and showing a pattern of violations). There's also another edit to Shooting of Kathyrn Steinle here in July. (later addendum: probably not really a violation as not editing the part of the article related to politics, though toeing the line) There's four edits to the talk page of illegal immigration in the united states (marked as being under AP2 DS) in June. first diff (another addendum: not Those are essentially all the edits that could be violations of the t-ban since June. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know what Dennis Brown is on about - Ihardlythinkso's statements definitely added some hostility to the debate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding those edits to Talk:Illegal Immigration - incivility of Acts like yours is one reason WP sucks.. I would say those diffs are violation of the restriction. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think for repeatedly violating t-ban (blatantly too) with incivility a longer block is necessitated Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 21 January 2018 (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 looks like a clear topic-ban violation. I suggest a week-long block, followed by escalating blocks if the breaches continue. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dennis Brown: This comment by IHTS specifically references a particular politician. Regardless of them referring to a reference as well, they clearly violated the topic-ban. A 1 week block is what is in order, and I don't think I see that in any way as a "drastic" measure. Regardless, I too would like to hear from Ihardlythinkso as soon as they are online. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is nearly as plain as violations come. I'd support a one-week block but won't impose one until IHTS has had a little time to respond. GoldenRing (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absent a compelling defense from IHTS, a block seems to be in order. I would go with 72 hours but one week is acceptable too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2017 edits, though undoubted violations, are too old to worry about much, but the comments at the AfD are recent and are certainly violations. One week seems reasonable. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The May diffs are too stale to consider. The January diffs are violations, but I can't help but notice his focus was on the accuracy of the sources (or lack thereof), not about the politicians, so the violation is really a technical one. Not that it matters, but his points raised interesting questions about the sources, so it added to the discussion rather than disrupt, although he still needs to not do that since a topic ban IS in place. I don't think anything drastic is required, but it would be good to hear from IHTS, if he chooses to participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I don't agree that IHTS's argumentative comments in the AfD are merely 'technical violations'. They're actual violations. See for instance the comment about NYT's supposed bias, or about Paul Ryan's (and Mr X's!) "level of education". Bishonen | talk 16:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I said "The January diffs are violations", so I'm not taking away from that. My comment is on the disruption causes and the content, so I'm not arguing against sanction (Coffee), I'm merely stating I don't we need drastic sanctions. A short block wouldn't be drastic. A month would. I read the comments in detail, so I'm quite familiar with the content. I think too much is being read into my comment, which were a comment on the case, not on other admin's comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram

Doncram is formally warned to focus on himself and the contributions he can make on the site, casting aspersions or antagonizing other editors in any form will not be tolerated. There is no further action required at this time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:17, 22 January 2018 (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 Doncram

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Doncram (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: [26] (time to re-impose the interaction ban suspended by this announcement); also see below

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

In response to the announcement about the suspension of the Doncram case's interaction ban, Doncram promptly proceeded to attack the other party in the ban, as well attacking the same party in the discussion about case names versus numbers. When I left a note saying "this is precisely the kind of behavior prohibited in the announcement", he proceeded to attack me. Note the complete lack of evidence: you can't get a better example of WP:WIAPA point #1, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. We routinely issue first-time blocks to editors who make this kind of attack, but Doncram's been significantly sanctioned for this precise kind of behavior in a past arbitration case, but he's still bringing up issues from five years ago to attack multiple editors. After this long, it's obvious that he'll not decide to comply with NPA. It's time to lock the door and throw away the key.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

New announcement, which started the discussion
Doncram's block log
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram remedy 2.1

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Doncram

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 Doncram

Statement by Mendaliv

Honestly I think part of this is post-litigation frustration, kind of like how blocked editors are sometimes given some leeway for sounding off in ways that would otherwise be sanctionable. Considering this is 100% Doncram, I am hopeful that the outcome here is just with respect to Doncram. Maybe a block, maybe a short one-way IBAN until Doncram calms, but not immediately reversing the Committee's decision to let the IBAN lapse. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively this could be kicked to ANI to let the community handle it as a general NPA situation. My hope at the ARCA that got the IBAN lifted was to terminate Committee oversight of a very old case. Frankly, I believe Doncram's conduct here is objectively indistinguishable from an attempt to force the reinstatement of the IBAN by triggering the reinstatement provision of the Committee motion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: My mentioning the age of the case is intended as a reference to my arguments for suspending the IBAN that I made at ARCA. The short version is that I believe people should be expected to exit the arbitration sanction system at some point, and that the duty to handle problems should revert to the general community processes. The Committee has a pretty strong abstention doctrine with respect to case requests, but when it comes to relatively penny-ante stuff like this, which would swiftly get handled at ANI if not for the previous case, the Committee tends not to release its jurisdiction. One of the reasons I gave to support the lifting of the IBAN is that getting caught up in Committee processes is extremely burdensome, and in most cases much more so than an ANI thread. Half the point of getting the IBAN lifted, frankly, is to not have to worry about getting dragged to AE over something debatable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: I generally concur with your assessment, with a couple caveats. First, I don't think the admins here are estopped from taking admin actions that would be otherwise appropriate even in the absence of a Committee sanction. Inasmuch as the comments Doncram made constitute personal attacks, and Doncram has a history of such conduct, an admin could take action on it. Perhaps a one-way IBAN isn't obviously authorized, but I think it would be a creative alternative to an indefinite block. This doesn't mean it would be a good idea to do either; I believe this is more in the nature of "blowing off steam" and does little actual harm to the project or to Sarek. Second point: I don't think Doncram's complaints are "legitimate inquiry" into the nature of the ruling. In the case of this comment, which rolls a bunch of complaints about the ruling into a comment about a completely different Committee procedural change, I don't see any inquiry, and I question the venue. Similarly, this comment directed at Nyttend at the Committee noticeboard has nothing to do with the ruling and simply consists of unsupported accusations of misconduct. I don't see either statement as legitimate or appropriate, and believe they could be grounds for sanctions. But, as I said, I don't think sanctions are so necessary at this point in light of the facts. The best option, in my view, is to give Doncram a stern final warning that his comments were disruptive and objectively indistinguishable from someone gaming the system to get the IBAN reimposed, and that continuing to do so would result in sanctions very likely to include an indefinite block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

Three points:

Given the timing, a trout is more appropriate per Mendaliv. The rush to AE so soon after ARCA is unfortunate.
The comment was made to ArbCom about a motion that affected them and perceived harassment. ARBCOM is well equipped to deal with this and really has no place here. The diff is part of the proceeding, not an attack. A trout for the editors and admins thinking to punish a legitimate inquiry at the appropriate venue. If ARBCOM wishes to amend their ruling, they are able to do so. This proceeding is inferior to the one that took place and should not presume to overturn that motion. Good faith dictatesthat ArbCom will act to patrol their own space.
The proposal of a 1-way IBAN is not a discretionary sanctioned allowed per the ruing. The ARCA request was clear that the ARBCOM remedy of a 2-way IBAN could be re-imposed but didn't contemplate a 1-way IBAN as part of the motion. A one-way IBAN was not part of the ARCA or original case. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: I don't disagree with your characterization of the comments, rather the venue was in ArbCom space about arbcom actions concerning him (obviously the IBAN motion is directly related while the naming of his case is related to case naming - when a remedy is a two-way IBAN, I can see the concern with a case name listing only a party). The Nyttend attacks are more concerning but that's not covered by AE AFAIK. Since all occured in ArbCom space patrolled by both clerks and arbcom members, it's one of the areas of wikipedia where virtually all participants can handle disruption. ArbCom is a heated space and it's just a bad idea to have AE move in those spaces. For the same reasons it would be bad for AE to drag editors that comment in evidence/Workshop/proposed decisions, I think AE should be reluctant to sanction in any ArbCom space. My 0.02 --DHeyward (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Doncram

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

I think what is warranted here is a short block (1-2 weeks is my initial thinking) for the attacks against Sarek and Nyttend, and an indefinite one-sided interaction ban regarding Sarek of Vulcan. I don't think a two-way ban would be fair on Sarek at this time as one has just been suspended and they have not made any comments (that I am aware of) that would come anywhere close to being actionable in other circumstances. I would also strongly caution Doncram that any future breaches of the iban or personal attacks against other editors will result in lengthier blocks. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mendaliv: Why is the age of the case relevant? Either restrictions are warranted or they're not. It seems to me that they are regarding Doncram but Sarek has done nothing wrong since the Committee made their decision hence I'm explicitly proposing a one-way ban. Sarek's ban will remain suspended and hopefully expire, but if Doncram's fears do come true then I'm sure he'll be brought here (or to ARCA) quick-sharpish and appropriate action will be taken. I don't have faith in AN/I's ability to quickly or reliably separate wheat from chaff in cases like this. Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to let Doncram off with a vigourous trouting here, mostly for the reasons suggested by Mendaliv. With an additional warning that if there's even the slightest hint of another breach I will advocate coming down hard on Doncram. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think any action other than re-instating the IBAN would have to be a normal admin action, as DS are not authorised here. And I agree with the thought of others that this hasn't risen to that level - yet. I'm not sure that Doncram (as others have suggested) is making a deliberate attempt to have the IBAN reinstated, but if it becomes obvious that this is the case, I would argue for an indefinite (but not infinite) block as a normal admin action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: some empathy is needed here. Take a look at what Doncram has been saying, and try and empathise. He said I don't want this (in the edit summary) on 17 January, and then edited for a couple of days and then was absent for a couple of days between 19 and 21 January (the ARCA motion closed on 20 January and I can understand that this caught him off guard as that is very quick, only four days). He then said this, which includes statements that he was 'depressed', finds this 'unpleasant', that he is 'apprehensive', and that the situation is 'depressing and demoralizing'. As far as I know, things were OK with this situation, and the ARCA filing has had the unfortunate effect of stirring things up again (this looks like a case of a new arbitration committee wanting to be efficient and not stopping to consider the human impact of their actions). The impression given is that you and Nyttend are following the letter of the law here, and not seeing the human effects of the ARCA request, and the effects of your actions and proposed actions. Please also look at the comments here (WT:AC/N permalink) where the tone seems to be against imposing immediate sanctions. By all means warn Doncram, but please take into account his feelings. Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the "attacks" I do not find them of high enough severity to warrant arbitration enforcement action at this time. @Doncram: is reminded that he is still within the 6 month window where AE admins have the discretion to re-levy the recently rescinded IBAN if they are found to not act in a manner consistent with our community norms, especially in their dealings with other editors. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's forgotten that. GoldenRing (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can not speak to another editor's current memory. I can however state what the reality of their situation is. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see some drama-mongering and venting but not something that requires the ban stick. A warning is due, but reinstating the iban or changing it to one way is premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a note on the idea of a one-way IBAN, admins cannot impose that at AE under the current motion. On the other hand, if uninvolved admins at AE determined a one-way IBAN was appropriate rather than restoring the two-way IBAN and recommended that to the Committee at ARCA, the Committee could consider that. Alternatively, all usual non-AE possibilities are available, including blocks and initiating a community discussion about a one-way IBAN. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: why the focus on the legalese and what is appropriate in the strictly limited sense of AE? What is really going on here is that of the two parties to a two-way interaction ban, one of them asked for it to be lifted (SarekOfVulcan) and one of them asked for it not to be lifted (Doncram) or at least made clear he was not happy with it being lifted. ~~SarekOfVulcan saw the interaction ban as an impediment to any future RfA (at least he thought that way in 2014 and the arbitration committee didn't ask if that was still the case).~~ Doncram sees the interaction ban as protecting him from harassment. Regardless of who is right or wrong about that, those differing perceptions are a massive problem. The question here should really be why the Arbitration Committee did not see this problem that was right there under their noses and went ahead with suspending the interaction ban when it was clear that suspending it would lead to problems (at least that seemed to be clear to Callanecc, DeltaQuad ~~and Newyorkbrad~~). It was also clear to the arbitration committee that declined the previous ARCA in 2014. Read what Salvio and Seraphimblade said back then. If this does come back to ARCA, the committee should consider whether they need to re-examine their initial decision (the one in January 2018), and whether the decision was made too quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan has pointed out (by email) that he re-passed RFA (in 2015, I had forgotten that), so I've struck that bit. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I supported the motion to suspend the interaction-ban after five years, I did not believe "it was clear that suspending it would leave to problems." I supported the motion because I thought that suspending and eventually lifting the interaction-ban would most likely not lead to problems. In my comment, I asked SarekOfVulcan to maximize the chance that things would go smoothly. I still anticipate, and hope, that Sarek will not do anything that could reasonably be understood as targeted at Doncram. Similarly, I hope that Doncram can move on from this matter—raising any genuine issue that hypothetically might arise about Sarek's behavior in the appropriate forum, but otherwise doing his best to put this chapter behind him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have struck that bit now as well. I don't envy you all having to deal with this. Hopefully it will work out. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should not take action here, irrespective of what one thinks about the conduct of Doncram. The remedy reads in relevant part: "this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator". But I think that it is not appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to delegate this kind of case management authority to random admins who (like me) may know nothing about this apparently longstanding case and the parties. The arbitrators themselves are, by virtue of their familiarity with these elements, much better suited to take any action that may be necessary - either collectively or by delegation to one among their number. The matter should therefore be referred to WP:ARCA. Sandstein 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Avisnacks

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: Avisnacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Avisnacks (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Appealing sanction for restoring my original edit by posting my new edit

I added a new subsection called "Is Trump a racist?" to the "Analysis" subsection. Under "Is Trump a racist?" I added a "No" subsection and a "Yes" subsection and populated them with direct quotes from sources (opinion writers of major news publications, Trump himself, and Ivana Trump) that either specifically called Trump a racist or defended him from the accusation. That edit was reverted because of "non-encyclopedic SYNTH and OR". I posted a new edit with much of the same source material and was sanctioned for this post.

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

Notification of that administrator: [28]

Statement by Avisnacks

In my new post, I restructured the information (which is well-sourced and as yet unreverted) in order to integrate it organically into the content of the article. My original edit was reverted because I had created a new subsection called "Is Trump a racist?" which purportedly violated the SYNTH policy. I therefore remedied the issue by integrating the material (the material itself was never an issue because it was clearly notable, relevant, and well-sourced) within the preexisting article structure.

Additionally, in my new edit, I only updated the article with some of the content from my original edit.

If anything, the editing process worked the way it was supposed to with the two of us editors working in concert to achieve a better article.

Regardless, I have certainly learned to be more careful with edits on pages that are subject to sanction. As an editor, I have always tried to ensure that my edits draw no independent conclusions, but rather summarize conclusions reached by multiple, reliable sources. I will continue to endeavor to do the same.

Statement by Coffee

This was a clear violation of the consensus required restriction; what's worse is that just hours before violating the restriction, they had been directly notified on their talkpage that DS applied in the area. The editnotice was clear as it could possibly be (and they were not editing on a mobile device, so they undoubtedly saw it): consensus is required before reinstating any challenged edit. The user even here states that they reinstated challenged material; I don't think they could have made it any clearer that they deliberately refused to follow the sanctions system in place. Therefore, I strictly oppose any lifting of this sanction. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sanction is not hard to understand. Edit means literally edit Sandstein, not identical edit nor exact edit nor pasted data nor similar edit, just edit. I find it hard to believe that after over a decade of editing on this site this user didn't comprehend the word edit. Their editing history shows a deliberate continual re-addition of material with no regard for using the talk page, even after several users had undone their edits. If an editor can't be expected to comprehend the word edit (defined as: A change to the text of a document.) then they surely shouldn't be considered competent enough to be active in such controversial areas. If they're being honest about their intent to not repeat this behavior, and we give them another chance, I'd suggest at most a reduction in the block something like 24 hours. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Avisnacks

Result of the appeal by Avisnacks

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

I take it this appeal concerns the one-week block recorded on Avisnacks's talk page. I would grant the appeal and lift the block. The applicable restriction prohibits "reinstating any challenged (via reversion) edits" (my emphasis). Because it uses the word "edits" rather than, say "text", "material" or "content", a reasonable editor could have understood it in good faith as prohibiting only repeating the exact same "edit", i.e., a specific set of changes to a page, that was previously challenged. It appears from their appeal that this is what Avisnacks understood the restriction to mean, and attempted to avoid it by rephrasing their (admittedly quite daft) contribution in a slightly less daft form. But the merits of that contribution are a content issue and outside the scope of AE. Because the restriction lacked the necessary clarity, I think that it should not have been enforced in this manner. Sandstein 19:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If Avisnacks were a new user or was otherwise somewhat naive about editing restrictions then I would agree that they might have interpreted it that way, however a for an editor who has been here since 2006 and isn't new to the topic area (they've been editing American politics articles since at least August last year) it is just rules lawyering. I do think a block is justified for this, but a week is excessive for a first block especially for an edit that was misguided rather than deliberately disruptive, so I'd reduce the length to 24 hours. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anythingyouwant

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: Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: "You are hereby topic-banned until 18:59, 27 January 2018‎ from editing any page that could be broadly construed to be about, regarding or related to Donald Trump". The sanction was imposed here and logged here

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

Notification of that administrator: [29]

Statement by Anythingyouwant

Requesting that sanction be lifted because the imposing administrator (User:Coffee) sanctioned me not for any edit I made, but rather for mere edit summary language that I used. That edit summary language was not unreasonable much less sanctionable. Coffee acknowledged at my user talk: "You are correct that I have no issue with the edits themselves, it is the connotation that the summaries carried with them."[30] A week-long topic ban for a connotation?

My first edit summary: "Revision as of 06:40, 20 January 2018: Per talk age discussion, I am going ahead and challenging the recent insertion of this material by reverting it."
My second edit summary: "Revision as of 06:41, 20 January 2018: Per talk page, inserting profile info lower in BLP. Feel free to revert this particular edit, but consensus would be needed (per DS) to insert it elsewhere in the BLP."

The net effect of the two edits was to move a new BLP section to another spot in the BLP. Please feel free to consider it as a single edit if you like, instead of two separate edits (I did it in two separate edits because it was easiest, selecting and cutting the whole section, saving, then going elsewhere in the BLP to paste). My edit summaries simply expressed my opinion that no one should put the material back in the original spot without consensus, because the discretionary sanctions for this BLP say "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." I felt that I was challenging the placement of this section by reverting it, given that, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."[31] User:Coffee disagreed that consensus would be needed to put the material back in the location from which I removed it, and I am more than happy to abide by Coffee's interpretation in the future (despite disagreeing with it), but I don't see why merely giving my honest opinion in an edit summary warrants a sanction. I am grateful, however, that Coffee reduced the sanction from a month to a week. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrX, you apparently disagree with Coffee that the edits in question were perfectly appropriate. Coffee is correct about that. Contrary to your blatant misrepresentation here, there was absolutely no talk page consensus about where the material should go, at the time I made the edits. See the pertinent talk page discussion titled “Moving the ’Public profile’ section”. Please correct yourself. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrX, you dismiss the link I just gave (to the talk page section titled “Moving the ’Public profile’ section”) as irrelevant, and instead link to a version of that section long after I made the two edits in question. You are being disingenuous at best. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, do you dispute that this topic ban is for a "connotation" in a mere edit summary, and not for any edit I made? That was Coffee's conclusion following discussion with me at user talk, updating his initial perception before the discussion took place (you very inappropriately avoid that entire discussion between Coffee and me and you instead seek to emphasize what preceded it). Moreover, Coffee said "I fully understand using the two edits to have to copy then paste", but you attribute the two separate edits to conniving and scheming on my part. Would you have done it in one edit or two? Obviously, it was much easier to do in two edits. Please, I have no problem considering them as one single edit for purposes of retrospective analysis, in which case my same rationale justified the edit summary: I was reverting the insertion of this new material by moving it, given that "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Please, a week-long ban for a mere connotation via edit summary? I can't believe you seriously think that's appropriate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee

The topic-ban was shortened by 3 weeks as I believed from my conversations with the editor that they actually understood how the edits they made were an attempt to game the page restrictions in effect. I can see now that was a fruitless choice, and that they in no way have changed from the mindset that got them banned. - Anythingyouwant is mischaracterizing the reason for his current topic ban as if I had only ever blocked him for making an edit summary. Let me state emphatically: This is not true; he was banned for making disruptive edits (which happened to contain misleading summaries, if not purposefully so, about the content of said edits). The page restrictions and the WP:ARBAP2 ruling allow for administrators to choose sanctions based on their discretion which the administrator finds will remove or deter disruption in all pages relating to post-1932 American politics. These sanctions are not limited to only the 1RR restriction nor the consensus required restriction, and in this case the offending edit fell under neither. The offending edits were the cause of a sanction because the editor was clearly attempting to game the page restrictions in effect by attempting to make a move of data (via two consecutive edits) be considered a challenge of the data (something only available via reversion), which no reasonable person could construe the edit to be, as it did not revert nor remove any data that had been added in any previous edit. Their choice of a misleading edit summary was only part of the evidence, it was not the entirety of it. Their ban notice states the following even: You have been sanctioned For gaming the page restrictions system, by using a move of data in an article and claiming it was a revert protected by the challenge clause of the active page restrictions. To see that they'd try to misrepresent that fact, even after I reduced their topic-ban as a gesture of good-will, is just completely disheartening. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

This appeal should be declined. Anythingyouwant's edit appears to have been engineered to circumvent page editing restrictions while forcing his preferred edit over consensus. Several editors, including myself, believe this is but another example of Anythingyouwant attempting to WP:GAME the system. Coffee has already agreed to reduce the sanction out of what I assume is an abundance of good faith. It's pretty brazen to ask for it to be completely lifted.- Mr X 🖋 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. Here is the discussion in which consensus was reached: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_71#Where to put the "racial views" coverage. Here is the later discussion confirming that the consensus was actually the consensus:Talk:Donald Trump#Survey: location of the "Public profile" section - Mr X 🖋 00:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN

(Disclosure: I am involved at that article, and was involved in this very issue, so I am speaking as a regular editor and not an admin.) I can’t believe Anythingyouwant is appealing Coffee’s generous reduction of the topic ban from a month to a week. Here’s the incident that triggered things: At the Donald Trump article, there was a discussion about moving the “Public profile” section to a different place in the article. Anything favored moving it. Two days into the discussion, with consensus not reached, Anything pulled what I described as a “cute trick”, a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions. First he deleted the “Public profile” section from the article, with the edit summary Per talk page discussion, I am going ahead and challenging the recent insertion of this material by reverting it. One minute later he reinserted the section into the position where he wanted it to go, with the edit summary Per talk page, inserting profile info lower in BLP. Feel free to revert this particular edit, but consensus would be needed (per DS) to insert it elsewhere in the BLP. The removal was obviously not a real challenge to the material, since he restored it to the article immediately. Based on his edit summaries, he apparently thought he could make his move irreversible, by claiming that no one else could restore material he had deleted - but HE could. SPECIFICO called it to Coffee’s attention. Coffee told him to self-revert both edits or face sanctions for gaming the AE restrictions.[32] Anything said he would revert the second edit but not the first.[33] Coffee then issued a one-month topic ban for “your refusal to understand the proper use of the page restrictions, and for a clear attempt to game them”.[34] Anything’s various conflicting explanations for what he was doing and what he intended can be seen on his talk page, along with his appeal to Coffee, who ultimately decided to “give him the benefit of the doubt” and reduce the topic ban to 1 week.[35] And here we are. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything, I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would doing: “deleting section preparatory to a move”, “moving”. I would not have claimed that the first one was challenging content by reverting it, as you did. As a matter of fact, in discussion at your talk page you doubled down on that claim, insisting to me that your “main objective was to remove disputed material”,[36] because it was “riddled” with “biased POV-pushing” that you would rather have removed from the article.[37] One minute later you restored that horribly biased section back into the article, while proclaiming that nobody else could restore it because … well, because one minute earlier you had challenged the content as so biased and POV that it shouldn’t be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

This appears to be a misunderstanding. The wording on the template is that "edit" must be challenged by reversion. Coffee has interpreted that to mean content rather than placement. It appears that Anythingyouwant and Coffee have come to a mutual understanding and Coffee has given him the benefit of the doubt of their interpretations. That should mean lifting the sanction completely since understanding is what protects while leaving it shortened just punishes. A short sanction doesn't really serve the purpose if there is understanding by all parties. Really, all it does is provide "blood in the water" that attracts adversaries advocating punishment. If retained, I expect at least 1 AE request to appear here if Anythingyouwant edits anything as the criteria for complaining is extraordinarily low and unlike ANI, there is never a boomerang. --DHeyward (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anythingyouwant

Result of the appeal by Anythingyouwant

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

[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 619: / Line 619: @@
 ===Statement by MelanieN===
 (Disclosure: I am involved at that article, and was involved in this very issue, so I am speaking as a regular editor and not an admin.) I can’t believe Anythingyouwant is appealing Coffee’s generous reduction of the topic ban from a month to a week. Here’s the incident that triggered things: At the Donald Trump article, there was a discussion about moving the “Public profile” [[Talk:Donald Trump#Moving the "Public profile"|section]] to a different place in the article. Anything favored moving it. Two days into the discussion, with consensus not reached, Anything pulled what I described as a “cute trick”, a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions. First he deleted the “Public profile” section from the article, with the edit summary ''Per talk page discussion, I am going ahead and challenging the recent insertion of this material by reverting it.'' One minute later he reinserted the section into the position where he wanted it to go, with the edit summary ''Per talk page, inserting profile info lower in BLP. Feel free to revert this particular edit, but consensus would be needed (per DS) to insert it elsewhere in the BLP.'' The removal was obviously not a real challenge to the material, since he restored it to the article immediately. Based on his edit summaries, he apparently thought he could make his move irreversible, by claiming that no one else could restore material he had deleted - but HE could. SPECIFICO called it to Coffee’s attention. Coffee told him to self-revert both edits or face sanctions for gaming the AE restrictions.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anythingyouwant&diff=821476923&oldid=821472848]  Anything said he would revert the second edit but not the first.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anythingyouwant&diff=821478202&oldid=821476923] Coffee then issued a one-month topic ban for “your refusal to understand the proper use of the page restrictions, and for a clear attempt to game them”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anythingyouwant&diff=next&oldid=821478356] Anything’s various conflicting explanations for what he was doing and what he intended can be seen on his talk page, along with his appeal to Coffee, who ultimately decided to “give him the benefit of the doubt” and reduce the topic ban to 1 week.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anythingyouwant&diff=821708818&oldid=821640310] And here we are. [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 01:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
+:Anything, I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would doing: “deleting section preparatory to a move”, “moving”. I would not have claimed that the first one was challenging content by reverting it, as you did. As a matter of fact, in discussion at your talk page you doubled down on that claim, insisting to me that your “main objective was to remove disputed material”,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anythingyouwant&diff=prev&oldid=821487669] because it was “riddled” with “biased POV-pushing” that you would rather have removed from the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anythingyouwant&diff=821489687&oldid=821488026] One minute later you restored that horribly biased section back into the article, while proclaiming that nobody else could restore it because … well, because one minute earlier you had challenged the content as so biased and POV that it shouldn’t be in the article. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 ===Statement by DHeyward===

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