Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Islington Bloor

Disallowed RfC comment struck, user blocked for a week for personal attacks.  Sandstein  17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Islington Bloor User who is submitting this request for enforcement Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Islington Bloor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#500.2F30 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 09/02/2017 Participating in RFC that new users shouldn't participate. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [1] Additional comments by editor filing complaint I probably don't think any sanction is warranted against a user(though some of the comments of the user raise the question if the user is really new) but I ask that EC protection should be applied on a Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy till the end of the RFC as new users can't participate in it per language of the restriction " This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [2] Discussion concerning Islington Bloor 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 Islington Bloor As I said when I restored the comment it's improper for an involved editor to remove someone else's comment. The closing admin can decide for themselves whether to accord my comment less weight becauee I'm a new editor. It's not for Shrike to, using a technicality as a pretext, ynilaterally remove a comment he coincidentally happens to disagree with. (responding to Laser brain's comment) I didn't edit the article. I contributed an opinion to the discussion on the talk page. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Iazyges: The absurdity of your position here is I would be able to comment on a deletion discussion but not in a name change discussion. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Laser brain: I guess I could take the easy route and say that I actually am an established user who lost his password a few weeks ago and opened a new account but I see that you've actually gone to the extent of crossing out my comments in the Talk page of the article. That act is such a magnificent monument to bureaucratic stupidity and officiousness that it would be a shame to remove it and, in any case, I don't have the patience and can't be bothered to jump through whatever bureaucratic hoops are required to prove that I had a previous account and besides, even though the other account has not been accessed in weeks and cannot be accessed and this new account was opened subsequently and has not edited concurrently with any other account I'm sure you or some other bureaucratic idiot would say oh, it's a sockpuppet and then I'd have to go through some tedious lengthy procedure to prove that no, I'm not a sockpuppet. So how about this laser brain. You can let it sink in that you are a manifestation of all the worst bureaucratic stupidity of wikipedia, part of the reason why so many editors give up and leave in frustration and why the number of active editors is on the decline and why Wikipedia is becoming more and more sclerotic and I'll simply disable my account and go off and do something more productive with my time like watch paint dry. Congratulations. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Iazyges: Schroedinger's Wikipedia Account? First you argue that I"m probably not a new user "suspicious for a new user" and now you argue that I obviously am a new user "your seeming lack of knowledge... seems to go against your claims"? Somehow, by your argument, I simultaneously am a new user and am not. Again, this is the sort of culture of bureaucratic stupidity and sophistry that drives people away from Wikipedia. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC) I've scrambled my password and am now logging off in order to do something useful instead of this nonsense. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Iazyges I don't think this breaks any DS, but I do think it should get sent to either SPI, or ANI. That they commented in an RFC (or even found one) is suspicious for a new user, considering they commented before even creating their own user page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Islington Bloor: please move your comment to your own section, per instructions on the top. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC) I can assure you that I have not commented already in that "vote" under any other name or edited the article but feel free to run an analysis. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Again, please comment in your own section. I would also say that regardless of if your claim of being a new account of an old user is true, you are REQUIRED to say so, unless you are taking a fresh start, which you obviously aren't given you outed yourself (which clean starters aren't supposed to do). Your seeming lack of knowledge in certain areas seems to go against your claims as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph I don't think any action is warranted, at this point. We can just strike the comment at the RFC. If the editor continues to unstrike or reinsert the comment, then further action can be taken. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Why not simply mark the comment as a new comment? The comment is civil and constructive, the content is not at all objectionable, is it? Islington Bloor (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Exemplo347 This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen an attempt by someone to get an Arb. Sanction widened because they're having a dispute with someone else. The standard methods of resolving disputes are more than sufficient to deal with comments in an RfC discussion - Dispute Resolution, AIV, SPI, even AN/I - those processes all work very well. Arb Sanctions aren't some secret weapon that can be deployed to shut users down, bypassing the usual processes that the vast majority of editors have to go through. Statement by (username) Result concerning Islington Bloor This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Islington Bloor: You're not allowed to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict until you reach 30 days and 500 article edits, per the banner on that Talk page. Consider this a final warning to that effect. I've applied EC protection to that page through the end of the RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC) The disallowed comment by Islington Bloor has been struck. The statement by Islington Bloor above contains personal attacks. For that, I am blocking Islington Bloor for a week. I think we can close this now, as further discussion is unlikely to yield something productive.  Sandstein  17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by dailey78

Appeal declined. Establish a solid track record of editing peacefully in unrelated and topic areas, and then try again in 6–12 months. --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user dailey78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Rod (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles talk Administrator imposing the sanction EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by dailey78 I have made numerous useful contributions to the various articles regarding Ancient Egypt. They have enriched the site and made it more encyclopedic. Three years ago, I received a topic ban for editing a highly contentious and controversial article, which is guaranteed to produce disagreement (hence the controversy). After three years, it seems unreasonable and unfair that this ban is still being enforced. Is it a murder conviction? I would like the ban lifted, because my contributions have and continue to enrich the site. In fact, a lot of what you read in various articles on Ancient Egypt, I contributed. Also, without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia. If you have not been involved in a topic ban before, I don't think a reasonable person would assume that the ban would last for 3 years. I was made aware of the violation today. I only read the fine print of the ban after Ed Johnston suggested that I reread it today. Yes, it's meant to be taken seriously. I have edited articles on mini dental implants and other dental implants. My primary interest in Wikipedia is history and specifically Egyptian history, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that most of my edits have been around A.E. Some of the articles on A.E. are not contentious and I've made many edits that were helpful and improved the articles without incident. I am essentially being given this multi-year ban for editing an article that is extremely contentious. Everyone that attempts to edit the article ends up in contentious discussions on the Talk page. It is extremely difficult to make any improvement to such a contentious article without offending someone. We've learned to discuss it on the Talk page and move on with our lives. At the end of the day, these articles are in much better shape after I started editing them than before my contributions (speaking as objectively as possible about my own work).Rod (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Laserbrain suggested that I post the following conversation from their Talk page: I'm three years older and wiser and should be given a chance to contribute. If it doesn't work out, just ban or block me again. We all agreed to discuss the highly contentious topics on the Talk page and then edit the article. It seems that I'm the only one being forced to follow that agreement, but I have followed it. The administrators are complaining about recent edits, but have you actually reviewed some of those edits. In one edit, a sentence said "authors said xyz", I added several citations so that readers would know exactly which authors made the statement and where they could read more about it. The article was enriched. What is there to complain about?Rod (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Dailey78: Thank you, and I do think it would be a benefit for you to post this to your AE request so the other commenting admins can read it. I'm willing to extend good faith generally and I believe you can make useful and productive contributions. When when conflicts occur, and they will occur, how will you react? --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC) All the editors of the highly contentious article(s) agreed to post contentious edits on the Talk page and discuss there, without edit warring the posts on the actual article. It's the only workable solution, because editors disagree strongly and often about this topic.Rod (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC) (Admin note: Statement exceeding 500 words removed.  Sandstein  21:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)) Statement by EdJohnston Statement by Doug Weller daily78 writes ": On Feb. 5, 2017 editor [Temple3] edited the article and removed the word "fringe" because it alters the balance and is not NPOV. Following the lead of [Temple3], I removed the word "fringe" three days later from a different sentence. That's two editors agreeing that "fringe" is inappropriate for the article. However, editor Doug Weller reverted us and reintroduced "fringe". What actually happened is that Temple3, with their first edit since 2012-05-21, removed the word fringe. I did not revert that edit or replace that instance of the word fringe. My edit summary clearly says "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk): Rv edits by topic banned editor." The first bit of that, "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk)", is of course not something I wrote but is what the software adds. I'm not going to get into the content discussion, but I'm disturbed by the fact that I obviously didn't revert Temple3 but am accused of doing so. All I did was revert the posts of a banned editor. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Rod, what I would suggest is that you spend six months editing in other areas that interest you. There must be some, and if you can find areas that do have issues that require careful work within our policies where you can show that you understand and can work within them well, I believe an appeal would be successful. Doug Weller talk 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by dailey78 Result of the appeal by dailey78 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. You weren't topic banned "for editing", you were topic banned for behaving poorly in that topic. For us to consider removing the ban, I'd like to see some indication that you understand your role in the disputes, why you were banned, and what you would do differently going forward. As far as I can tell, you are quite recently making potentially contentious edits and I think the probability of your getting into further conflicts is high. Getting into conflicts and disagreements is not problematic in and of itself, but how you behave in those conflicts is critical. --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Is this meant to be taken seriously? Dailey78 was topic-banned from "all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles" in 2014, yet as recently as yesterday they have been violating this topic ban by editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy (e.g., at [3]). It seems that they have never edited anything unrelated to this topic. Asking for a topic ban to be lifted a day after violating it is preposterous. I'm instead considering a lengthy enforcement block.  Sandstein  18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC) This is slightly complicated by the 12 month Wikibreak they took 2014-2015 and then the 18 month 2015-2017 break. But not much. I can extend a bit of good faith IF their current edits weren't disruptive and IF they stay stopped during the discussion, that they might legitimately not have understood the sanction was permanent / nonexpiring. Enough if both are met to withold sanction now and discuss whether they can address prior issues enough to consider some form of standard offer. But I have not yet reviewed the current edits enough. Reviewing now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC) This can't be serious. Arguing that three years is too long for a topic ban would make sense if you'd spent those three years editing other areas on Wikipedia but, instead, you merely left and then returned three years later to continue where you had left off. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this appeal, demonstrate that you can edit non-combatively by editing in other areas, and then, after a reasonable period of time, return with evidence that the ban is no longer necessary. Otherwise, I think we'll have to go with Sandstein's enforcement block suggestion. I'd also suggest not making statements like without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia, they aren't exactly reassuring. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC) I agree with Sandstein. Showing you can edit in other areas constructively is the solution to a TBAN. Rocking up after a long break (having not edited anything else) and editing where you have been banned is not a good formula for getting a TBAN lifted. I'm seeing nothing that makes me confident that the editor has the capacity to edit constructively. A six month enforcement block seems about right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Asilah1981

No action—incorrect venue. Please use WP:AN/I. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Asilah1981 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Asilah1981 (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:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it I require enforcement at breach of agreement after a long Incident discussion (see Incident link below) and continuous litigation and irregular editing by the editor in question, as well as successive incremental blocks and eventually an alternative, constructive sanction to a block, 3 month mentoring, that has eventually been equally breached by the editor, as detailed by the mentor User:Irondome [4] and [5] 06-01-2017 Incident closed with resolution to start 3-month-mentoring period; an archived discussion with all the details, diffs not available Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [6] I add all the block log, the last one being in late December / early January with two different incidents overlapping If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) I posted notice on the editor's talk page Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the areas of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint The editor has changed during mentoring the overall tone of his language. He has also blanked most of his talk page lately [7] for which he is entitled anyway. However, evidence of irregular editing has not change. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [8] Discussion concerning Asilah1981 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 Asilah1981 Statement by (username) Result concerning Asilah1981 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. the editing may be problematic, but that's a matter for ANI or other fora, not AE, as I'm not seeing an Arb case here needing enforcement. Relying on a block log is insufficient, at AE you must show that this editor needs to be sanctioned for actions covered by an Arb case. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident

Blocked for two months for topic ban violations.  Sandstein  17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Neptune's Trident User who is submitting this request for enforcement Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Neptune's Trident (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/GamerGate (topic ban) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (repeated violations): Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Edited Mike Cernovich on 29 November 2016, 2 December 2016, 8 December 2016, 17 December 2016, 9 January 2017 (and again), 29 January 2017, plus other dates. Check the history of that article and search for "Neptune's Trident", I'm seeing 72 edits, only a few of which are mentions by other editors Edited Vox Day as recently as 10 February 2017 but the history shows 36 edits and 4 mentions by other editors These were not simply uncontroversial grammar or punctuation changes, either. Some of these edits were reverted on 5 August 2016 and again 6 August 2016 after Neptune's Trident re-added unsourced content. When reprimanded 13 July 2015, Neptune's Trident was specifically told to "discuss the issue without repeating the claim". 10 February 2017 as unsourced Editor has been warned repeatedly about BLP-violating edits after the block: 25 October 2016 which was removed without reply 25 October 2016 (again) which was removed without reply 25 December 2016 which was removed without reply 10 February 2017 which was removed without reply Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 12 March 2015 DS alert for both GamerGate and BLP 12 March 2015 Blocked for 48 hours for violating BLP 12 March 2015 Blocked for 1 month for violating BLP while already blocked, and topic-banned from GamerGate 6 July 2015 Brought to AE for creating the article Giant Spacekat (company), a company cofounded by Brianna Wu. This AE was closed on 13 July 2015 and Neptune's Trident was subsequently reprimanded for violating topic ban 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 areas of conflict as noted above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint There was a brief discussion about potential topic-ban violations here and here, but it doesn't look like anything happened. Pinging @HJ Mitchell: as requested in that last link. @EdJohnston: I can't find a diff of someone directly telling him about the connections, no. He was alerted to a discussion at User talk:zzuuzz where the connection was discussed, but he did not join that conversation. It's entirely possible that he never read the discussion and that he didn't make the connection on any of the articles. That being said, even assuming a great deal of good faith, it's implausible. The articles mention GamerGate, as do Sad Puppies and Milo Yiannopoulos, both of which he edited on 25 October 2016 (SP, MY). On Vox Day, he filled in citation templates on articles that mention GamerGate (1, 2, 3) which suggests he read them, and he edited a paragraph mentioning GamerGate (1). On Mike Cernovich, he added a block of text from a New Yorker article that mentions the connection, which again suggests he read the article. Woodroar (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested User talk:Neptune's Trident#AE Request Discussion concerning Neptune's Trident 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 Neptune's Trident Statement by (username) Statement by Kelly If this user is under a topic ban regarding Gamergate-associated subjects, then the editing on Vox Day can be considered a violation - the article subject's blog contains the Gamergate hashtag in the header. On 25 October 2016, I also warned this editor about adding the category "Alt-right writers" to the BLPs of science fiction authors associated with Sad Puppies, which is also considered by many to be Gamergate associated. (See the Sad Puppies article for refs). These controversial edits to BLPs were frequently made without any reference to reliable sources. Kelly hi! 01:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: - Speaking for myself, I didn't specifically warn him these articles were Gamergate-related (I didn't know about his sanction at the time.) I did, however, specifically warn him that he was editing BLPs. Kelly hi! 04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC) The editor has removed the notification from their talkpage, indicating they are aware of this discussion. Kelly hi! 04:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning Neptune's Trident This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It is logical that Vox Day, Mike Cernovich and Sad Puppies should be covered by the Gamergate sanctions, but did anyone notify Neptune's Trident that these articles are included in his topic ban? He doesn't help himself by constantly deleting warnings from his talk page, which may suggest that he is up to something, and by hardly ever participating on Talk pages. But I'd like to see evidence that he continues with problematic edits after being notified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC) I don't believe for a second that this editor isn't aware of Vox Day and Mike Cernovich's connections to Gamergate. I'm willing to extend good faith a certain length, but not across the Grand Canyon. Recommend a three-month vacation. --Laser brain (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC) I agree with Laser brain about AGF here, but reckon a more substantial block needs to be implemented. Gamergate is linked in Vox Day and Mike Cernovich, so Blind Freddy could tell that they were included in the TBAN Harry handed him in 2015. I reckon a six month block would be more appropriate given this is not a one-off that could be explained as a mistake. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) It is clear that Neptune's Trident has violated their GamerGate topic ban by editing articles about subjects who according to their articles support the GamerGate "movement". This means we do not need to determine whether he has also violated WP:BLP. Neptune's Trident has declined to make a statement here. There have been four previous blocks of up to one month for various misconduct. In line with our practice of escalating blocks, an enforcement block of two months therefore appears appropriate. Closing accordingly.  Sandstein  17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub

No action taken.  Sandstein  12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Guccisamsclub User who is submitting this request for enforcement Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Guccisamsclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement :WP:ARBAP2, WP:ARBAPDS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 20:53, 11 February 2017 As an example of condescension toward other editors in the talk page environment Guccisamsclub says, "It's an "opinion"? Well duh." later in this same comment he says, "You also thought that the intel community did not conclude Iraq had WMDs, that the hacking findings are endorsed by 17 agencies, and plenty of other mind-bending stuff." This last phrase is applied as a rationale for saying this:"Frankly Steve, you are not in a position to critique any source on this topic." So here this editor is demeaning my editor capabilities based on an unrelated discussion on the talk page of another article. Hopefully my reply to that post will shed further light on this issue: [9] 21:41, 11 February 2017 This is an example of more personal insults and disrespectful behavior, which I characterized in my next post: 21:48, 11 February 2017 11 February 2017 Here Guccisamsclub mischaracterizes my post with "That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research..." rather than adding anything constructive to the conversation. By now it might be clear the he is attacking rather than contributing. Here is my reply 23:56, 11 February 2017, which essentially says "it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet." 4 00:02, 12 February 2017 and 00:04, 12 February 2017 he mis-characterizes my editing behavior with "or have you not read the article youre attacking" and adds to this "wouldn't be the first time". I am not attacking anything. And he denigrates my input into the conversation by saying I have not read the article and this wouldn't be the first time. In other words, rather than focusing on the editing and contributing he engages in WP:NPA behavior. Also at this point Politico was not part of this discussion, and he was the only one who mentioned it, but without any kind of reference as to why it was relevant. So, rather than providing rationale for how this is relevant, he would rather use this as some sort of stick to figuratively beat me over the head, or to show a weakness I might supposedly have. In any case, here is my reply, hopefully shedding some light on this 00:50, 12 February 2017. Also, this is the third time he brings up Politico, finally providing a rationale for referring to it after using it to engage in WP:Battlegound the previous two times. And this was not the reference under discussion by a number of editors - only him. 12:30, 12 February 2017 He mischaracterized my editing behavior by (I suppose) chastising me "If you talk without reading you are being disruptive. If you actively refuse to read, you are being intentionally disruptive," So here he is accusing me of disruptive editing or disruptive behavior, which is way off the mark, based on some sort of presumption or set of presumptions. 15:53, 12 February 2017 Here he is accusing SPECIFICO of being the only editor who is "consistently and successfully gaming Arbcom..." Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [10], [11]. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Guccisamsclub inexplicably appears to be consistently engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior while also contravening WP:NPA. Also. it appears that Guccisamsclub is too involved with the topic of this page, (2016 United States election interference by Russia), to be able to edit constructively on this talk page. I appreciate the feedback and outside perspective from the Admins. I am glad cooler (uninvolved) heads prevail. I am accepting your feedback as advice. Closing this with no action suits me. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC) However, had I seen what was happening in the main space per the diffs below, I probably would have added them to my complaint, if I thought these were DS violations. It appears there is reinsertion of what I would consider to be wp:undue re-inserinsertions. For instance, it seems Ritter is an outlier in the intelligence community according to his own opinion piece in the Huffington Post [12]. One instance Ritter cites he says he was "ultimately proven to be correct" but there is nothing to back that up or in what way he means he was proven right. The point is, by his own admission this appears to be a minority view (and so on), below Wikipedia "balanced view" criteria - and I would be against having this in the article. Anyway, my point is - if the diffs below are main-space DS violations, do the Admins wish to address this? These edits involve Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, MrX. Perhaps input from the editors would be helpful. I leave it up to the Admins to decide. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 20:22, 12 February 2017 Discussion concerning Guccisamsclub 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 Guccisamsclub What I said to SPECIFICO was in response to this: Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Steve himself seems like a polite enough guy, but I've seen him overreact to completely innocuous statements with threats: @Steve Quinn: You make a very good argument for inclusion of the word "alleged." As you say, reliable sources report that US intelligence agencies have alleged Russia interfered in the US elections. Going from the fact that US intelligence agencies have made those allegations to a statement that those claims are correct would, however, be WP:OR. You can have a personal view on whether or not the CIA, the FSB or any other intelligence agency in the world is trustworthy on any given issue, but unless reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) on the whole state something as a fact, we cannot do so here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC) @Thucydides411: please do not mischaracterize my post (what I said), and please do not do this again. This is considered disruptive editing and contravenes WP:NPA. I am not here to defend against mischaracterizatizing my words. Please do not be presumptuous enough to tell me what what I mean either. Please be attentive to the Arbcom DS restrictions template above This is fair warning. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Confused ... Here Guccisamsclub mischaracterizes my post with "That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research..." rather than adding anything constructive to the conversation. By now it might be clear the he is attacking rather than contributing. Here is my reply, which essentially says "it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet." So who was making the personal attack here? I'm confused. Why not read the source at some point? "Also at this point Politico was not part of this discussion, and he was the only one who mentioned it, but without any kind of reference as to why it was relevant. So, rather than providing rationale for how this is relevant, he would rather use this as some sort of stick to figuratively beat me over the head, or to show a weakness I might supposedly have. In any case, here is my reply, hopefully shedding some light on this. Also, this is the third time he brings up Politico, finally providing a rationale for referring to it after using it to engage in WP:Battlegound the previous two times. And this was not the reference under discussion by a number of editors - only him." Before complaining here, why not actually read the damn article from politiFACT, not CO, as I've already told Steve on the talk page. I've implored Steve read the immediately relevant source several times, to no avail. It seems he still hasn't done so. This was already retracted... "wouldn't be the first time" That was retracted and crossed out as potentially impolite, though arguably accurate. Why didn't he even mention that? The discussion on the page is pretty heated, though some editors have managed to be consistently polite. My impoliteness—or frankness—towards Steve has to do with the fact that he consistently posts unsourced patent nonsense to the talk page and does not respond to requests to read any sources. Steve's theories do not qualify as OR because they are not backed by research, which is why I termed his posts (NOT his person) "OH". Just read our two exchanges, the one on the Iraq war is hatted. Speaking without reading sources is profoundly disruptive behaviour. Saying over and over again—without any sources—that the intel community's conclusions were largely inconsistent with the claims made by the Bush admin in the runup to Iraq constitutes patent nonsense, which is also disruptive. There is no nice way to say to someone: "you are consistently unaware of basic facts and refuse to learn about them." If I am ignorant about a topic, I'll avoid talking about it. If another editor showed me a source and demonstrated that I had no idea what I was talking about, I'd promptly retract my statements and only continue the discussion after having thoroughly read all the relevant sources and then some. That's elementary circumspection. Anything else is disruptive behaviour under WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTFORUM. I actually haven't edited the article much at all (!), because I know that several editors will simply revert any edit they find controversial. Under 1RR and Abcom, this means that it's very hard to mount a counter-challenge. So what is actually meant by my "battleground attitude"? Refusing to agree with Steve on the talk page? Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Absolutely pathetic. All but the first one were reinstatements of apparently longstanding text. As for the first revert, it was immediately reverted with no action on my part. SPEC, VM and MRX have all violated 1rr and/or DS, btw. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO @Sandstein: There have been many instances in which Guccisamsclub appears to have violated the provision of DS that states, “Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).” For example, he reinserted text reverted by me, @MrX: and @Volunteer Marek:. [13] [14] here [15] here [16] here [17] here [18] here On Guccisamsclub's talk page, I asked him not to do this, but he declined here. Guccisamsclub appears to deny that these are violations, so as long as he is here at AE, I thought we could ask to have that question adjudicated. In the DS environment, various editors have said that it feels like edit-warring and it feels like he should not be editing in American Politics articles. I expect that I'll now face the customary barrage of off-topic attacks for appearing here, but I will try to step back and let the Admin process work. Statement by (username) Result concerning Guccisamsclub This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'm not seeing anything here to get excited about, to be honest. Sure, the snark and sarcasm could be dialed back on all fronts. If we start sanctioning people for such when discussing American politics, I'm not sure we'll have many editors left. --Laser brain (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Agreed.  Sandstein  22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Few people are very nice on pages about recent American political events. We will sanction actual persistent personal attacks and nastiness, but I don't see anything like that in the diffs offered by Steve Quinn. Steve's own tone on the talkpage isn't exactly warm either, as here. Suggest closing with no action. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC). Closing as no action regarding the diffs submitted as evidence per discussion above. The diffs submitted separately by SPECIFICO can, if they are actionable, be resubmitted as a separate enforcement request - in proper form, with dates and explanations.  Sandstein  12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO

Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time.  Sandstein  22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning SPECIFICO User who is submitting this request for enforcement JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBAPDS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 10 February 2017, 03:34 SPECIFICO deletes some content (that's fine), with rationale "Delete BLP smear unproven libelous allegation against James Clapper"; 10 February 2017, 19:21 I revert him, arguing "Opinion is attributed and grounded in facts, not a BLP violation"; 11 February 2017, 00:22 He reverts me, violating DS/1RR by reinstating a challenged edit, with comment "BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law"; 11 February 2017, 07:13 I start a discussion on the Talk page, providing a detailed rationale behind my restoring the deleted material, and I urge SPECIFICO to self-revert until the question is settled by a proper debate; 11 February 2017, 07:14 Thucydides411 restores the material, stating: "There's no policy saying that opinions that haven't been proven in a court of law can't be included" (which happens to be one of my 6 arguments for keeping the disputed contents); 11 February 2017, 13:21 SPECIFICO replies with "Alert! This text is not worded to state "opinion" or "commentary". Edit warring. BLP violation." without rebutting any of my 6 arguments. The disputed text is fully and repeatedly attributed as an opinion by its authors, cited in a reputable newspaper. The accused person is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, his false testimony is a matter of public record (see James Clapper#False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs) and he even admitted having (unwittingly of course) misled Congress. 12 February 2017, 20:28 SPECIFICO deletes a chunk of material from the same quote, while the discussion is ongoing between several editors, thus committing a second DS violation. The text is restored by Thucydides411, erased by Volunteer Marek and reinstated by Guccisamsclub : 12 February 2017, 21:02, 21:48 and 22:19 Just noticed this while preparing this report: Right after his first removal of material which refers to Clapper's false testimony, SPECIFICO discreetly goes sanitize Clapper's own article, trampling on longstanding content which undermines his position: 10 February 2017, 03:41 and 03:45. I'm not reverting those out of respect for the dispute resolution process, but wow, this does stretch the limits of good faith! If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Warned in May 2016 by Coffee, December 2016 by Sagecandor and January 2017 by Octoberwoodland. Participated in numerous WP:AE threads and launched some. I will take SPECIFICO's word that he never launched any AE proceedings; I must have confused him with somebody else; sorry. — JFG talk 03:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Not only SPECIFICO violates sanctions that he knows well, but he also neglects to self-revert when warned, ignores the arguments against his BLPVIO stance and only contributes to the ensuing editor discussion via vague innuendo against an imagined cabal of "freaks and geeks" who are "glued to their computers 24/7" in order to "edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over". After other editors on both sides of the argument have exchanged some detailed and reasonable views, SPECIFICO comes back to say unconstructive stuff like: since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases, which I must admit I have trouble parsing. His inflammatory comments demonstrate a failure to hear other editors or participate constructively in a civil discussion, in which 8 editors argue to keep the disputed material and 6 to remove it. — JFG talk 07:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Admin note: Removed text exceeding 500 words.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Filer's note: Removed extra material on the content dispute which I had provided in response to other editors' now-deleted statements. Reworded and shortened my further comments on the merits of the DS case vs BLPVIO claim. — JFG talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC) On the BLP argument Here is the disputed prose as it stood before SPECIFICO deleted the second sentence as a "BLP smear unproven libelous allegation": Writing in the Baltimore Sun, William Binney and Ray McGovern criticized the report published by the FBI and DHS on December 29, commenting that it "fell embarrassingly short" of the goal of proving Russian hacking. Binney and McGovern wrote that given Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's false testimony to Congress over NSA surveillance of Americans, and his involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking are warranted. Binney and McGovern proposed that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider, rather than hacked and exfiltrated by an outside group. A BLP statement can be removed on sight per WP:3RRBLP if it is libelous, biased, unsourced or poorly sourced. This paragraph is impeccably sourced and attributed no less than three times to the authors, at the start of each sentence. Absolutely nothing is stated in wikivoice. There is no libel, as Clapper's false testimony and his participation in the Iraq WMD story are a matter of public record. Here's Clapper admitting his "erroneous response" to Congress, as reported by The Guardian and cited in Wikipedia: On July 1, 2013, Clapper issued an apology, saying that "My response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize." If it is considered a BLPVIO to cite some intelligence experts who use this fact in their argument about another high-level intelligence controversy involving Clapper, then let's see the same dissenters purge Clapper's article from all such accusations, which are numerous. Given this situation, I maintain that I was well within policy to consider that SPECIFICO's BLP claim was unjustified and to revert him, and that he breached DS rules with his counter-revert. — JFG talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC) References What if we couldn't revert spurious BLPVIO claims? Welcome to The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia according to SPECIFICO and OID — JFG talk 02:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Removed editors' names from chart title, as one of them felt offended. — JFG talk 06:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Responses to boomerang claims against me @Laser brain: Nowhere in my report did I allege that SPECIFICO reverted more than once in 24 hours. Rather, I showed that he re-instated an edit which had been challenged by reversion (violation 1), and then cut the text again while the discussion among many editors was ongoing (violation 2), without participating constructively in said discussion. — JFG talk 07:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @Casprings: Your example is another case of me challenging the blanket removal of relevant material; it is perfectly legit, and you are the one who breached DS by reverting my challenge, although it would have been cleaner if another editor had done the counter-revert, for which I apologize. In today's case, several editors intervened on both sides of the argument, which unfortunately turned into a mild edit war. Had SPECIFICO abided by DS by leaving my revert alone, no warring would have occurred. — JFG talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @Only in death: You are ignoring the policy basis for my edits: SPECIFICO wrongly reverted challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page. His CRYBLP claim is untenable, as demonstrated above. — JFG talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: My report was in no way retaliatory, I wasn't even aware you had commented on another AE case when I posted it (took me a lot longer than 15 minutes!). My decision to file this followed from your second violation of DS (diff 7), according to administrators' interpretation of the "do no revert a challenged edit without consensus" policy, and the frivolity of your BLP claim. Note that I didn't jump here on the first violation (diff 3), and I gave ample justifications of my actions in my edit comments, on the article talk page and now here. To your other point: if you have specific complaints to justify requesting a 6-month TBAN against me, please open a separate case. Finally, my "alternate world" post is a sarcastic illustration of the sorry path that Wikipedia might take if we followed your interpretation of BLPVIO; it's pretty obvious that we should definitely not go there. — JFG talk 03:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC) @Steve Quinn: My sample chart of absurdity does not purport to show how wrong these two editors are (I have now removed their names to avoid offense); it just illustrates how wrong an extreme interpretation of BLPVIO would be for Wikipedia as a whole. This is the meat of the matter in this case; much more important than determining whether editor A or editor B has technically violated a DS restriction, or "who shot first" in unauthorized reverts. — JFG talk 06:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  Done [19] Discussion concerning SPECIFICO 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 SPECIFICO I want to keep this as brief and to the point as possible. I did not violate the DS on this article. The text in question constitutes an egregious BLP violation. I’m sorry to see CRYBLP mentioned here. It’s not at all applicable either to the content or to any of my behavior on WP. It’s not my bag. My view as to this BLP violation was supported by half a dozen editors on the article talk page. That doesn't happen when there's a disruptive or disingenuous CRYBLP event. On WP, I have learned that edit warring is pointless. I follow 1RR almost all the time on ‘’all’’ articles. If I see somebody undo a revert on a DS article, I ignore it or I go to their talk page and ask them to undo their error. That’s about as much as I engage with that behavior. Sometimes they thank me, sometimes they cuss. I don’t pursue it, and I don’t use such violations as an excuse to edit-war. I do cite wikilinks to policies in caps on article talk pages. I'm surprised to see that disparaged or mischaracterized as threats. I’m disappointed that JFG filed this groundless complaint, which appears to be retaliatory, coming 15 minutes after I cited some 1RR violations in Guccisamsclub’s recent case. Also, for the record, JFG states that I have initiated AE cases in the past. I have not. It’s a false and irrelevant aspersion responding to the simple question whether I know DS is in place. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I just looked at the article talk page to find more disparaging personal remarks about me and OID, deflecting BLP policy principles to personal remarks at this recent edit: [20] JFG then linked to this, amazingly, on this AE page. This casts false aspersions and attributes views that neither OID nor SPECIFCO has ever voiced. It also appears to misrepresent article text as if one of us had edited it inappropriately. As the subsequent thread indicates, JFG instigated numerous misrepresentations and personal disparagement with his post. Under these circumstances, I do think it would help the editing environment if JFG were given, a TBAN from American Politics. His attacks, deflecting policy discussion to personal remarks and false aspersions have been going on for quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC) At this diff on this AE page] JFG again misrepresents me, falsely claiming that I requested a TBAN for him, when in fact I was endorsing the possibility of a boomerang mooted by one of the Admins here. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Thucydides411 Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by OID Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) I can help you with diffs as to if a restriction was actually breached: First removal - not a revert 03:34 10th Feb. Second removal - 1st revert 00:22 11th Feb. Third removal - 2nd revert 20:28 12th Feb. More than 24 hours since last revert. Does not violate 1rr discretionary sanctions. And even if it did, unless there is consensus the raised BLP issue is not a BLP issue, revert-restrictions are exempt for BLP-related removals. On the other hand we have JFG: First revert 19:21 10th Feb Second revert 07:12 12th Feb. More than 24 hours since last revert but contrary to BLP policy for removal of material with a good faith BLP concern AND the discretionary sanctions which explicitly state "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." So Specifico has acted according to both policy and the sanctions and JFG clearly has not. And thats just the specific BLP issue, there is other material which has been discussed to be contentious which has also been reverted multiple times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Guccisamsclub Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Concerning Darouet's statement, I'm not removing it as I did the others because it has diffs and is mostly on topic. However, I find it unconvincing. I'm reputed to be the hardest of hard-liners in civility enforcement, but I can't find a clearly actionable incivility in the reported diffs. Making confusing and "edgy" statements is normally not enough for sanctions in individual cases. It may become actionable if it is a longterm pattern of conduct that inhibits or disrupts productive discussion My list of quotes and diffs from the editor was meant to establish precisely that: a long-term pattern of nonsensical, unfocused, unsourced, fringe and inconsiderate contributions. This has been erased, due to the fact that most quotes lacked diffs. If this is really an issue here, I'd be glad to provide the diffs (which would take a couple hours to assemble given the sheer volume of contribs). Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Darouet Prior to SPECIFICO's removal the paragraph clearly couched all content in terms of Binney's and McGovern's views: William Binney… has expressed doubt... In Harper's Magazine, he told Andrew Cockburn... Writing in the Baltimore Sun, William Binney and Ray McGovern criticized the report... commenting that... Binney and McGovern wrote that… Binney and McGovern proposed that... Sandstein, literally every sentence begins with attribution. A reasonable person would have easily concluded that the phrase "false testimony" remains a part of Binney and McGovern's voice, and many article editors thought the same. SPECIFICO did not rectify the problem by simply quoting from the piece directly (as I did here), but removed it wholesale, and made no post on Talk to explain themselves. When they finally did comment, their explanation was so brief as to be incomprehensible. Contrast that with MelbourneStar's clear description of the problem, which allowed us to improve the wording. Laser brain writes that JFG may be in breach of D/S by subtly but powerfully re-interpreting the D/S proscription: "it may be you who violated the provision not to restore challenged text without consensus." In fact the D/S text is, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The Binney and McGovern material was there for some time, and SPECIFICO's removal ("edit") was challenged. Guy: if SPECIFICO is in breach of D/S, I think the violation is trivial: realistically, it is very difficult to be certain of who is violating what when everybody is reverting. The more important issue is civility. The WP:ARBAP2 "Final Decision" states, "Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion… Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook…etc”’’ Now, consider this Talk comment made by SPECIFICO only yesterday, while they were simultaneously bringing an A/E request against Guccisamsclub: "Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all."[21] What is SPECIFICO saying here, except that all the editors who volunteer their time here but disagree with SPECIFICO are trolls? When I attempted to interpret their comments charitably, they rejected that interpretation, e.g. they really were referring to everyone else on the page. At one point on Talk SPECIFICO incorrectly accused me and other editors of breaching D/S: " "I shall..." shows admirable resolve -- but it is not apt to make any denials go more smoothly if there's an AE discussion about reinstating disputed text."[22] SPECIFICO repeated the same allegation on my talk page (as they have done several times to me and other editors, without ever, to me, providing diffs). When I responded on Talk, they extraordinarily chose to hat my comments in response to their allegations, writing absurdly, "words unrelated to article improvement." That is incredibly offensive. These kinds of behaviors are exactly what D/S are supposed to prevent. I think it would be foolish to sanction SPECIFICO for a revert when everyone is reverting, but the personal attacks and offensive behavior poison the tone of discussion and merit a strong warning. -Darouet (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: fair enough, but consider your reaction if I hatted the comment you made just now and replaced it with the text, "words unrelated to article improvement," especially if you were responding to an allegation against you. Further, while the phrases "disruptive editors... highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies" may be confusing, I fail to see why they are "edgy," instead of "personal attacks" and "assumptions of bad faith." -Darouet (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: Your interpretation of the text of DS is contrary to what it actually states, as MelanieN, an Admin, clearly explained only a week ago on the Talk page, and relies upon conflating "edit" with "text." You're putting us in a situation where sometimes removing text from an article is protected by DS, and sometimes reverting the removal of text is protected by D/S, and other times both actions are violations. Which is it? Anybody trained in mathematics will observe this is an impossible situation. -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Casprings The reporter, JFG, has a history of violating 1rr to support his POV. One quick example is here. [23], [24] Casprings (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @JFG: I think the problem is that you are putting something that was stated in an OP that accuses a living person of a felony. Moreover, it is something they have denied. It would be one thing if it was needed for the article and directly linked to the subject, but this is un-needed. One could simply stop the sentence and leave that part out. That said, this is something that could be discussed on the talk page or in further dispute resolution. To me, it just seems like you run rough shot over the concerns of other editors and turn around and cry foul. Casprings (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Steve Quinn 02:04, 14 February 2017. This was recently posted on the talk page by JFG The section title is "The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia according to SPECIFICO and OID". This is followed by a chart that describes sampled content in three high trafficked articles in the Amerian Politics 2 area. My interpretation is this edit is meant to be somewhat provocative, and I suppose, point out how wrong these two editors are. And an attempt to justify this edit is with WP:JDLI - which hardly supports such an edit. In fact, this type of thing is frowned upon. Here in Arbcom's GamerGate final decision under the "Battlefield conduct" section Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks... are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited... I am not characterizing this as Battlefied behavior - far from it. However, this seems to be in pursuit of a quarrel pertaining to a statement and source no longer in the article at this time. However, what possible outcome could be expected from this? I know things get snarky, but this is not that. Talk page guidelines WP:TALK essentially say everybody should try to get along, right? In any case, I think this should be considered when evaluating whether or not a boomerang is appropriate. Statement by Space4Time3Continuum2x I didn't log in at all yesterday and only just now found found a notification that I was mentioned on this page. I don't see my name in here and I'm not sure if my comment is (still) requested. I don't have any complaint against SPECIFICO, and I usually find myself on the same side of the issues as SPECIFICO and on the opposing side of JFG. If arguments on both sides get a little "spirited" at times, it's still no reason to go running to teacher. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning SPECIFICO This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @JFG: I need to do some more research tomorrow but on the surface, it looks like SPECIFICO did not breech 1RR in a 24 hour period. In fact, your evidence indicates that it may be you who violated the provision not to restore challenged text without consensus. You may want to purchase some protective headgear as a boomerang may be inbound. --Laser brain (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Waiting for a concise statement by SPECIFICO. Everybody else, please keep in mind that AE does not resolve content disputes and that we are not a discussion forum about the finer points of either US politics or BLP policy. Statements by editors who are not parties to the request should be limited to facts that help admins decide whether to act on this request - such as links to previous relevant sanctions or enforcement actions, or submissions of relevant evidence, in the form of dated diffs, of conduct by parties in connection to the request's topic.  Sandstein  12:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC) My initial assessment: The content removals by SPECIFICO in diffs 1 and 3 were justified by WP:BLP. Although the statement at issue ("James Clapper's false testimony") was attributed to a source, it was phrased in such a way that a reader could understand it as Wikipedia (rather than the source) asserting that Clapper falsely testified. It could be argued that rather than reverting the whole addition, SPECIFICO could have rephrased it in such a way as to avoid this ambiguity. However, the source is a newspaper op-ed, which is clearly an inappropriate source for BLP material because by its nature an op-ed does not pretend to assert facts, but to voice an individual opinion. (If it is uncontested that Clapper falsely testified, then there should be much better sources for that.). As to the remaining edits by SPECIFICO, their merits are a content issue and therefore outside the scope of this board, but I don't immediately see a policy or DS violation in them. I would therefore take no action here. I remain open of being convinced otherwise by collagues, though. I'm also looking forward to Laser brain's research regarding JFG's edits.  Sandstein  12:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Concerning Darouet's statement, I'm not removing it as I did the others because it has diffs and is mostly on topic. However, I find it unconvincing. I'm reputed to be the hardest of hard-liners in civility enforcement, but I can't find a clearly actionable incivility in the reported diffs. Making confusing and "edgy" statements is normally not enough for sanctions in individual cases. It may become actionable if it is a longterm pattern of conduct that inhibits or disrupts productive discussion, but that would need more and better evidence in a separate request.  Sandstein  15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Based on the evidence provided by Only in death does duty end, it does appear that JFG violated the restriction against reinstating any edits that have been reverted without consensus. I think that a brief topic ban from US-Russia relations might be appropriate.  Sandstein  13:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC) This probably does not violate the letter of the DS, but it plainly does violate the spirit. The use of WP:CRYBLP is common in such cases, of course. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Sandstein: I disagree that the edits were justified by BLP - this might not rise to the level of nine separate sources but it's clearly correctly attributed and any purported libel is not our problem, as we're only reporting what was said. WP:UNDUE might be a valid argument, I have no real view on that. However, both editors should have taken it to Talk. It is hard to see either as better than the other here. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC) ...I am having a hard time discerning whether either side breached enforceable sanctions, nor whether this rises to AE enforceable vs a content dispute gone slightly astray but with editors who have largely correctly retreated to talk page discussion. I think that edge technical violations of policy may be present on all sides but really? Come on, whyfor AE when normal editor discussion dealt is dealing with it? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC) I can live with closing this with no action, given that there seems to be somewhat questionable conduct on both sides but nothing that jumps out as immediately egregious. All parties should go back to resolving issues on the talk page instead of using AE as a battleground (I know, easier said than done). Without admin objection, I intend to close this accordingly sometime this (UTC) evening.  Sandstein  08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ranze

The appeal of the 3 month block is declined. Ranze (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely topic-banned from any page relating to (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Kyohyi (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 3 month block, imposed at User talk: Ranze Administrator imposing the sanction Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [[25]] Statement by Ranze Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on talk:Zoe Quinn asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that. Laser did not like the edits I made to people v. Turner and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something. I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made. This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Laser brain Note: Ranze does not consider People v. Turner to be covered by the "gender-based controveries" topic area, from which he was topic banned for a year. During his last visit to AE, The Wordsmith and I both advised him that People v. Turner is indeed in this domain and the only reason he wasn't sanctioned is because his TB had elapsed. The content of his edits at the time wasn't really examined. This piece of background is critical if it's to be determined whether the current sanction is valid. Ranze bumped around for a while doing other things but then decided to return to editing at People v. Turner. I advised him that his edits show an agenda and that he should stay away from that topic. The following edits are of concern: [26] - Removes mention that the victim was unconscious and intoxicated and adds text in another area stating both parties were intoxicated (only). [27] - Edit wars to keep it in after it's challenged and he's asked to discuss on Talk. [28] - Changes wording from "sexually penetrated ... with his fingers" to "digitally penetrated" which was wikilinked to fingering (sexual act), an article about a consensual sexual technique. [29] - Rewords a statement about Turner's sentence to say people called it light instead of it being light (he made a similar edit to Ethan Couch). My impression is that Ranze's agenda is to soften Turner's image and marginalize the victim. He may believe he's editing neutrally but I think he's pushing a POV against the consensus established at this article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: There's a bit of confusion going around about the TB so just for clarity: Ranze is not currently under an active TB in this area; it expired in 2016. However, it is my contention that People v. Turner is under DS as a "gender-based controversy". As others have pointed out, there is a strong argument for rape culture and campus rape falling under this topic area. So my administrative action is an application of DS for poor behavior, not a block due to a violation of a topic ban. I warned him to stay away from this topic after the above series of edits, and he returned anyway to continue pushing his POV. --Laser brain (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @The Wordsmith: I apologize for mischaracterizing your position—it was not intentional and I apparently didn't read your later comments carefully. I will note, however, that People v. Turner (and Zoë Quinn, where Ranze has also reinvolved himself) are eligible for DS under ARBBLP as well, so the question of whether it is a "gender-based controversy" isn't really as important as the question of whether Ranze is behaving poorly. I don't mean to play DS bingo here, but I think we owe it to the community for the focus to be on the behavior. If no one agrees he is pushing an agenda, then let's unblock and move on. --Laser brain (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kyohyi First, I think it is important to point out that three out of four of Laser brain's diff's are basically a content dispute. His comments here, his block rationale on Ranze's talk page [30], and his "warning's" [31],[32] demonstrate that his motivation for blocking Ranze was due to him disagreeing on content with Ranze's contributions. This is pretty clearly WP: INVOLVED behavior for an admin. Further, Ranze is not subject to any gender based topic ban at this time, the last topic ban expired April of 2016. [33] --Kyohyi (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Actually I would also like to add that all of the diff's provided by Laser brain date back to 2/4, and 2/5. Laser brain didn't block Ranze until 2/12. Ranze and Laser brain had discussion on Ranze's talk page until 2/7 when Ranze stopped editing until resuming on 2/12. What happened on 2/12 that warrants the block? The diff's provided from 2/4, and 2/5 shouldn't be applicable without something also from 2/12. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Since the scope of topic bans has come up again, (this was brought up the last time Ranze was brought to AE, though it didn't get resolved there) I'm going to link to our topic banning policy WP: TBAN and ask, is the article on the whole gender related, or are there just elements of the article that are gender related. Just because something is partially discussed in terms of gender doesn't mean the whole thing is gender related. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: Are you implying that administrators get to determine what content is neutral, and non-neutral and can sanction accordingly? --Kyohyi (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC) To the admins in the bottom, how are you not ruling on content? I recommend a good reading of WP: CONADMIN. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor MjolnirPants) This is just a quick interjection from someone uninvolved who has (probably stupidly) watchlisted this page. I looked through the edits in question and I agree that they demonstrate an agenda to minimize Turner's culpability, because the editor has made no edits to this page which had any other effect. The claim that these edits better reflected the sources does not account for the fact that we normally state uncontested claims from reliable sources in wikivoice to avoid stating facts as opinions. I'll recuse myself from sticking my nose further into this by unwatching the page, so please ping me if you have any questions or comments about my statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Guess who's back! I just wanted to point out that Ranze has responded to my comment above on their talk page by presenting an edit which shows (IMHO) that this POV pushing has been going on for several months, at least. I'm not going to say any more, but any admins who are interested can read my response at their talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by CIreland @Sandstein: You asked for it to be "made more clear how this is within the topic ban's scope" given that "The identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female, respectively, does not seem to have been an issue in the case, nor their views on gender, or the case's impact on women or men in particular, or anything like that." I think your premise here is mistaken. Much of the coverage of People v. Turner in the press and elsewhere focused on the incident as a consequence of rape culture and our article mentions this fact. Additionally, there has been significant analysis following Turner's release of how the case reflects a normalization of violence against women and have specifically cast both the incident and the case as a gender issue. Here are some examples [34][35][36][37]. I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate that Ranze's edits are within scope but there is a further point I wanted to mention: Sandstein, you seem to imply in your remarks that rape and sexual assault are not a gender issues. That is a reasonable and widely held opinion. However, there are also widely held opinions to the contrary. I think that you should weigh more cautiously this divergence of opinion on the matter and be careful not to base your decision only on your own perspective. CIreland (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth @Sandstein: In the event that you did remove Ranze's block, would you be doing so procedurally, because you believe Ranze's edits don't fall under the topic area of 'gender-related dispute or controversy', or would you be doing so because you truly believe that their actions were helpful to the goal of building an encyclopedia? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof I will note that previous AE consensus determined that the Gamergate topic ban covered any articles or topics related in any substantive way to rape or sexual assault, and that I was thus prohibited from editing such articles while under that restriction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden I don't see justification for any sanction here. Whether the topic is covered by DS or not, the only disruptive behavior is one (debatably bad) revert. If that standard were applied consistently we'd have no editors left in edit American Politics or any other DS topic. The rest is down to content choices which is not a subject for AE or administrative action. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Strongjam With regard to the discussion about whether the article falls under the DS topic. There was a previous clarification request regarding the GG sanctions and whether it applied to the Campus rape article which might be helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ranze The diffs provided by LB show no violation. Some of the edits were removing Wiki voice, such as the one where the sentence was referred to as light, is that Wiki's opinion or some people? And I do fail to see how that article should be subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Ranze This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Laser brain: Could you please indicate which specific edits you blocked Ranze for, and why?  Sandstein  15:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Ranze contends that People v. Turner is not related to a "gender-related dispute or controversy" and therefore not within the scope of Ranze's topic ban the discretionary sanctions topic area, and I tend to agree. The article is about a highly publicized case of sexual assault committed by a man against a woman. However, I don't see what in the article or the edits at issue is particularly related to the issue of gender ("the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity"). The identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female, respectively, does not seem to have been an issue in the case, nor their views on gender, or the case's impact on women or men in particular, or anything like that. Even the offense of sexual assault, while presumably most often committed by men against women, can be committed by and against people of either gender. Unless it is made more clear how this is within the topic ban's scope, I would accept the appeal and undo the block.  Sandstein  18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Amended comment to make clear that this block was apparently not a reaction to violations of a seemingly expired topic ban, but to the non-neutral edits by Ranze. I acknowledge CIreland's point that the article mentions that the case triggered discussions about rape culture, which certainly is a gender-related issue. I'm just not sure that the connection is strong enough to make the article as a whole covered by discretionary sanctions. What do other admins think? – If we were to conclude that this is within scope, I would probably consider the block within admin discretion, even if I myself might not have made it: contributors should edit neutrally, per WP:NPOV, and making edits only to advance one particular point of view violates this rule, even though it is sadly common.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks, Strongjam for linking to a clarification request establishing that campus rape is covered by the discretionary sanctions. The article People v. Turner is about broadly similar subject matter and therefore also covered. On that basis, as explained above, I would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Since my comments at a previous AE have been brought up, I need to clarify that Laser brain misrepresents what I said. While initially I agreed that this article was within the scope, after discussing with other admins and editors I revised my position. See my last comment during that AE thread, which reads in part "Furthermore, after thinking more about the issue, while the "gender-based controversies" is absurdly vague, I do not believe it applies here. This is an article about an court case prosecuting a rapist. Courts are not gendered, and rape is not a gendered crime. The fact that this one happened to involve a male and a female does not make it gender-based. Many in the public believe the judge is sexist (which has been picked up by some RS), but that is a very small part of the article and not, in my interpretation, sufficient to make the entire article a gender-related controversy. My position since then has not changed. I continue to believe that this article is not within the scope of WP:ARBGG, except for the snippets dealing with allegations of gender bias. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Sandstein, I've had to reach for the smelling salts at the idea of People v. Turner not being a gender-based controversy, and that the "identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female ... does not seem to have been an issue". The case was suffused with male and class privilege, like a flashback to the 70s—the light sentence; the judge's focus on harm to the convicted and not to the victim; that the victim was questioned about what she had been wearing; the father's attitude; the apparent importance to the court that the convicted man was a swimmer. It's the very essence of a gender-based controversy. Looking at just one of Ranze's edits, on 4 February he removed that the victim was unconscious. That she was unconscious, and therefore could not have consented, was the key factor in the case, so that was a highly provocative edit. SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC) I agree that P v Turner falls under gender-based controversy; rapes are nearly uniquely badly one such incident. I could live with a decision that commutes the block to a permanent topic ban and unblocks, but the edits seem inappropriate, the AE authority here clear enough, and the "that's enough" message reasonable under the circumstances. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC) I concur with the Boing! proposal below. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC) People v. Turner appears to me to fall with the scope of gender-based controversies, for similar reasons as SarahSV. On that basis I believe the block should stand. I'd also support the imposition of an indefinite TBAN from the area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC) People v. Turner clearly falls under the scope of "gender-based controversies" in my view. The block is entirely reasonable given the edit highlighted by SarahSV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC). While not every rape case may do so, People vs Turner clearly comes under the scope of gender based controversies because it was, as Slim Virgin says, centered around gender, race and class. If that was the primary motivation behind the block, then it is definitely justified. --regentspark (comment) 00:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC) I'm rarely moved to opine on an AE appeal, but I'm seeing insidious POV pushing here of a very nasty nature that I can't ignore, in an article that is clearly within the "gender-based controversies" scope. I think the block is good, the appeal should be declined, and we need to impose an indefinite topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Recommend that we decline Ranze's appeal of the three-month block and support Boing's proposal to impose an indefinite topic ban from ARBGG. The phrase 'gender-based controversy' is not as clear as we could wish, but in case of doubt we can't go wrong by accepting Arbcom's view that it includes campus rape. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411

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 Thucydides411

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAP2, WP:ARBAPDS :

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

• Violation of Limit of one revert in 24 hours: 2016 United States election interference by Russia is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). See the below diffs:

#07:14, 11 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO

1. 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting Space4Time3Continuum2x
2. 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO

#16:52, 13 February 2017 reverting Only in death

1. 20:33, 14 February 2017 Here it appears Thucydides411 reverts two edits by Space4Time3Continuum2x. These are the two prior edits by SpaceTime: 19:35, 14 February 2017 and 19:40, 14 February 2017.
2. 20:34, 14 February 2017 Reverts Space4Time3Continuum2x again. This particular material was earlier removed by Space Time 15:05, 12 February 2017.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on10 January 2017
• DS notify template on user talk page: 15:11, 23 January 2017]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rather than allowing talk page discussions to take their course Thucydides411 resolutely keeps reverting other productive editors edits to their preferred version. These talk page discussions include

• Space Time 15:01, 12 February 2017, 15:09, 12 February 2017,
• Neutrality 19:44, 12 February 2017,
• Only in death 16:13, 13 February 2017, 17:25, 13 February 2017, 13 February 2017,
• Volunteer Marek 21:50, 12 February 2017 and *SPECIFICO 02:40, 12 February 2017.

It seems these edits are meant to be a temporary improvement to comply with Wikipedia policies, while the material is being discussed. As has been shown by diffs in this section, these productive editors are highly experienced, articulate, and have more than aptly pointed out the deficiencies with material they have been adjusting to bring into compliance. Thucydides411 has demonstrated a rigidity and an IDHT attitude, eschewing any kind of helpful feedback. That is demonstrated by the diffs in the above section. Instead, this person has become a one person authority who overrides established policies and meaningful feedback, as demonstrated by the continual reversions. I had in mind slow motion edit warring when I started this. This occurs when a user reverts a number of editors in a reasonably short time, contravening the spirit of not edit warring, or in this case 1RR. However, it may be there are actual 1RR violations. Of course, that is for the Admins to determine.

• Sandstein I am in the process of attempting to amend my complaint per DS. This is not a rehash of Clapper.
• Sandstein I have amended my complaint per your request. See amendments and corrections above. If this is not clear then please let me know.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 07:38, 15 February 2017

Discussion concerning Thucydides411

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 Thucydides411

From the original complaint, it's unclear what, exactly, Steven Quinn is accusing me of. Steven Quinn writes that, "Thucydides411 has demonstrated a rigidity and an IDHT attitude, eschewing any kind of helpful feedback," and cites a few talk page diffs to try to support this argument. Interestingly, none of those diffs are of my talk page comments, but rather of various other editors. I'm involved in active talk-page discussion of the issues that Steven Quinn is worried about. For example:

• [38] Discussing the quote by Pierre Sprey.
• [39] Discussing the Binney and McGovern article.

I understand that working on contentious articles like 2016 United States election interference by Russia is frustrating, and can lead to a lot of bad blood, and that one side can get the impression that the other side simply isn't listening. But there are a number of editors working through the various issues raised in this complaint (and in OID's comment below) on the talk page. As can be seen in the above diffs (and in the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia), I've been very involved in those discussions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Timeline for Sandstein:

12 February 2017 Case against Specifico opened which includes explicitly that Specifico had removed content citing a BLP objection.

08:08 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 commented here in the previous case so was obviously aware it had been removed as BLP issue both from the article itself and that it was currently at an enforcement noticeboard.

11:32 13 February 2017 My first removal of material. (Note my removal was actually less than other editors at the article being concerned only with the BLP aspect, not the wider NPOV/UNDUE issue)

12:36 13 February 2017 You yourself noted here the removals by Specifico appeared to be good faith BLP concerns (in part).

16:52 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts me, despite there being clear BLP arguments on the talkpage, this enforcement page, and in previous edit summaries on the article.

So to sum up: Thucydides411 was aware at the time they were reverting there were BLP arguments as well as wider disputes over the entire section involving the Baltimore Sun opinion piece. They were also aware it had been raised here. So violating both the BLP policy as well as the discretionary sanctions on the page itself. While the above was closed with no action, Thucydides411 was still reverting *after the enforcement action had been opened* and after they were clearly aware multiple people, (including completely uninvolved editors like me) had problems with that specific material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

George, the article is already under a DS 1rr and the material was removed under a BLP rationale anyway.

Statement by JFG

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no new evidence in the form of diffs.  Sandstein  13:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet

I'll post more after midnight UTC (am at work till then), but Steve Quinn has erased most of their complaint and left only examples of two instances of two contiguous edits. WP:3RR clearly states, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Under that well-known rubric, these consecutive edits ([40][41]) are a revert, and so are these ([42][43]). How on earth do Thucydides411's consecutive edits, made within one minute of one another, become transformed into multiple reverts? Or is there another policy you're thinking of, Sandstein, which explains why consecutive edits are not counted as a revert (and could you link it, please)? The page has already seen plenty of contiguous edits, reverting others and with admins present, that nobody considered to be DS violations.

Thucydides411 has been perhaps the most active and constructive editor on the Talk Page, and consistently eschewed the bitter tone that has prevailed there: blocking in that context almost comes across like punishment of civility. It is furthermore inappropriate to treat WP:AE as a changing menu where if WP:BLP fails, WP:DS is invoked. This is especially ironic since from a purely technical perspective, Steven Quinn has themselves

• violated DS sanctions 16:14, 11 February 2017
• edit had already been challenged by reversion 19:21, 10 February 2017

by "reinstating an edit that had been challenged (via reversion)" (direct quote from DS) for the content that is the basis of their second complaint in days (first against Guccisamsclub). Steve was not reported for this but has no consensus for his edit. Instead of doing the obvious and demonstrating good faith by making a post at WP:BLPN (as anyone with a genuine BLP concern would immediately do - and as Guy pointed out there is no obvious BLP problem), Steve is attempting to use AE as a supervote in a content dispute. -Darouet (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Thucydides411

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

• Steve Quinn, didn't we just deal with this Clapper issue above? If this is something different, please amend your complaint to make it clear which specific restriction, such as a revert restriction, is alleged to be violated here, and add the diffs with which the material was added to establish that this is indeed a revert. – Everybody else, we do not need random opinions and comments particularly from people involved in the content dispute, so please limit any contributions to brief submissions of relevant evidence in the form of dated diffs, or your comments may be removed.  Sandstein  08:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• On first review, the talk page discussion is working and the edit warring on the article is staying short of 3RR. Contentious but it's working. I don't see anyone obviously violating normal standards. If it got worse I'd rather 1RR the article or full protect it than sanction any individuals; I think there's clearly multiple person support on both sides and if there is rule bending, it's bipartisan. Is AE the right venue? Is any admin action necessary right now at all? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• As amended, the complaint does establish that Thucydides411 violated the 1RR rule that, it seems, already applies to the article. Unless another admin objects shortly, I intend to apply a one-week enforcement block.  Sandstein  07:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• But Darouet correctly points out that the edits at issue are subsequent to one another, and therefore are treated as one revert. Per Georgewilliamherbert above, I now consider this report not actionable, and redundant to the previous one, I'm inclined to close it with no action.  Sandstein  13:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that Thucydides411 has not violated WP:1RR, but I am more concerned that he may have violated the discussion requirement: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)..." Though a reasonable discussion is taking place at this talk thread about Binney and McGovern, nobody is going to read that as a *consensus* to restore the claim that Clapper "gave false testimony regarding the extend of NSA collection of data". Thucydides411 made this article edit at 20:34 on 14 February, with the edit summary "Undid revision 765496263 by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) No consensus for removal". (Note that his key argument was No consensus for removal). If we are ever going to enforce the discussion requirement, now is the time to do so because the data is so clear. He is exactly backwards here: you can't restore material challenged by removal unless you have consensus for reinstating. I propose a block of Thucydides411 for violating the discussion requirement, though the length would be negotiable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)