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

JFG

No action taken (content dispute).  Sandstein  07:50, 26 July 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 JFG User who is submitting this request for enforcement Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:AC/DS (post-1932 US politics and Eastern Europe both apply to this article's topic): Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: Block, or topic ban, at discretion of administrators. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 22:09, 22 July 2017 - Violation of WP:SYNTH, adds info not explicitly stated in source, with "but provides no example of use from that period." (Noted by BullRangifer as editorializing at DIFF) Adds another source that does not explicitly mention subject of article, to advance a point, during ongoing Request for Comment. (BullRangifer notes this at DIFF). 23:27, 22 July 2017 - Violation of WP:No original research policy, adds primary source to advance a point, "The first documented instance of the term..." -- when in fact the source itself cited does not say anything about "first documented instance of the term". 07:17, 23 July 2017 - Violaton of WP:SYNTH, again, adds a source that does not explicitly mention subject of article, to advance a point, during ongoing Request for Comment. (Removed by BullRangifer, with rmv OR.) 07:27, 23 July 2017 - Warning by BullRangifer - "disruption needs to stop. Be satisfied with the RS." 07:38, 23 July 2017 - Violation of WP:No original research. Adds blog post by Lucas to advance a point about "used the word".... Cannot use a source this way unless source explicitly reports Etymology of the word. 08:36, 23 July 2017 - Violaton of WP:SYNTH, again, adds a source that does not explicitly mention subject of article, to advance a point, after having been notified about this AE request itself. Edits are now WP:Disruptive editing, with multiple ongoing reverts, reverts that add back the WP:SYNTH violations: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 09:26, 22 April 2017 - "You are restricted to 0rr (including manual reverts) on post-1932 US politics articles that already have the 1rr restriction - You have been sanctioned for violating the 1rr restriction on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections after multiple warnings." by admin Ian.thomson. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) 14 December 2016 - Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months. 25 February 2017 - Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 25 February 2017 - Participated in AE request filed by Steve Quinn. 22 April 2017 - Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 22 April 2017 by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint 02:14, 21 February 2017 - Warning by Geogene for "content that you added to an article that was completely lacking in secondary sources". 04:19, 23 July 2017 - Analysis at the WP:No original research/Noticeboard by Eperoton: "Yes, synthetic claims which are not explicitly stated in RSs can also be viewed as violations of WP:SYN." 04:28, 23 July 2017 - Analysis at the WP:No original research/Noticeboard by The Four Deuces: "We should only use secondary sources and avoid original research." 05:13, 23 July 2017 - Analysis at the WP:No original research/Noticeboard by The Four Deuces: "It is original research." Note: This is NOT a content dispute. These are violations of WP:No original research policy and WP:Disruptive editing, as noted by BullRangifer at "This disruption needs to stop." [5]. I reported here after gaining feedback on WP:No original research/Noticeboard that it was original research violation, and after the user continued the same behavior. [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @GoldenRing:I'm quite willing to use Wikipedia site policies including Wikipedia community consensus and Request for comment to help resolve disputes. There is an ongoing issue here with JFG ignoring site policy of WP:No original research and WP:Disruptive editing, per comment by BullRangifer at "This disruption needs to stop." [7]. As this is explained as original research by Eperoton [8] and The Four Deuces [9] -- please, help advise, me, what's the best way to deal with such violations of the WP:No original research ? I'll gladly and happily defer to your judgment about what to do here? Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @GoldenRing:Please, this statement, "The repeated, apparently deliberate, confusion of the OED with Oxford Living Dictionaries" is a false assumption about me. I genuinely thought at the time it was the online edition of the OED. I was wrong. That does not itself make Oxford Living Dictionaries an unreliable source. It is still a reliable source. If the OED had an entry that contradicted Oxford Living Dictionaries, for sure, I agree with you, the OED would be the much stronger source in that case. Sagecandor (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein:You are correct that WP:No original research is a policy about content, but it's repeatedly being violated here, as determined by Eperoton [10] and The Four Deuces [11] and BullRangifer [12]. Sandstein, I'll gladly take your input, what is the best way to deal with such repeated reverts and violation of site policy? Sagecandor (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @Masem:Thank you, this is indeed related to WP:NOR/N#Can a Wikipedia user cite what they feel is the first usage of a word to state that is the first documented usage ?, where I received helpful feedback from third-party previously uninvolved editors Eperoton: "Yes, synthetic claims which are not explicitly stated in RSs can also be viewed as violations of WP:SYN." [13] and from The Four Deuces: "We should only use secondary sources and avoid original research." [14]. Masem, what is the best way to deal with repeated violations of the WP:No original research policy, as noted by BullRangifer that is disruptive per "This disruption needs to stop." [15] ? How best to address this concern ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 07:54, 23 July 2017 - notification posted to user's talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Discussion concerning JFG Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by JFG This is forum-shopping of a content dispute. No time to reply in detail to the allegations right now, however I will note that discussion is ongoing on Talk:Whataboutism, including an RfC that I opened, and after a long and repetitive exchange over the last few hours, Sagecandor proceeded to forum-shop the underlying content dispute to WP:NOR/N in addition to this AE filing. — JFG talk 08:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Sorry for not answering more fully yet, had some real-life work to do. Please give me 24 hours before passing judgment on the merits. I see that Sagecandor bailed out for health reasons, hope s/he gets well soon, and let's put this report on hold until then. — JFG talk 22:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Finally I have some time for a detailed reply. Although I'd like to keep it short, it may need to be longer due to the multiple comments and sub-threads that appeared since the filing. Sorry to bother admins with excess prose… First, let's look at the direct allegations of policy violations. Please bear in mind that we were editing and discussing the "Etymology" section of the article, so obviously editors were looking at dictionaries and dated examples of the word appearing in the written record. Edit 1: Among a discussion on various dictionary sources, I replaced a false statement "traces the origins of the word back to the 1990s" (the OLD source does not "trace" the origins of the word) by "asserts that the word originated in the 1990s, but provides no example of use from that period". The goal was to clarify what each dictionary says or doesn't say; in the same edit I noted that the OED never included the word, citing both the 1989 print edition and the 2017 electronic edition. At the time of the edit, the talk page looked like this:[16] with lots of back-and-forth about OLD vs OED confusion, which my edit sought to clarify (editsum: "Distinguish OLD vs OED, clarify dates"). I admit that the second part of my sentence "but provides no example of use from that period" may be delving into OR, by talking about the source instead of only reporting what the source says. It's certainly not SYNTH (synth with what? deducing what?). When BullRangifer later removed that part, I accepted that it should not be there.[17] I see this as normal BRD process, not sanctionable. Edit 2: I added details about the documented sequence of three publications by Lucas in late 2007 and early 2008 which are the first archived instances of the word "whataboutism" said to describe a Soviet tactic. This series of posts was acknowledged by lexicographer Ben Zimmer for the Wall Street Journal in 2017 as the seminal event that propelled the word "whataboutism" into mainstream use. Zimmer did not say it was the "first documented use" and I shouldn't have phrased it that way. When Sagecandor pointed out my error, I changed the formulation to "Lucas used the word whataboutism in a blog post of October 29, 2007."[18] Again, good-faith run-of-the-mill BRD, nothing sanctionable. Edit 3: I restored the WP:Verifiable fact that the Oxford English Dictionary does not list "whataboutism" either in its last print edition of 1989 or in its current electronic edition of June 2017. I did not make any SYNTH deduction from this, just laying out an extra piece of evidence for readers to be better informed about historical use of the word. Edit 4: That's BullRangifer accusing me of disruption in the middle of a discussion about being asked to prove a negative. I replied that he got it backwards regarding the proof of a negative, and that deflecting and lawyering by Bull and Sage was itself getting disruptive.[19] Edit 5: That's the edit I made in reply to criticism of edit 2 (see above). Apparently that was not enough to satisfy Sagecandor. Can't see any OR violation there, just stating a sourced fact. Edit 6: Restoring my edit 3, specifically in reply to assertions by Sagecandor and BullRangifer that this edit was SYNTH. I explained how it was not SYNTH and restored it, with edit summary "Restore statement of fact, after answering SYNTH claim on talk". Not a 3RR violation either, that's my second revert of this phrase, and it was made after taking into account the other editors' remarks on the talk page. All of these edits revolve around a content dispute, with mild edit-warring about including or excluding some dictionary sources, all happening while editors were engaged in rapid back-and-forth discussion on the talk page, in several threads that were becoming hard to follow. I was the one stating that discussions had stopped being productive,[20] while Sagecandor went filing two NOR/N requests[21][22] (without notifying me) and finally this AE thread that really left me puzzled. Due to real-life commitments, I did not take the time to pursue the discussion at NOR/N and I asked for a delay to defend myself here. There were several active editors on each side of the debate: Sagecandor, BullRangifer, SPECIFICO and Binksternet on one side, Jack Upland, TheTimesAreAChanging, Power~enwiki, Ryk72 and myself on the other. Both groups made valid comments and edited while discussing; the article was being gradually improved by contributions from both sides. There is an ongoing RfC that I started a few days ago. I don't see why this content dispute should have been escalated to AE. NOR/N was indeed an appropriate forum to gather more input after the discussion was deadlocked at the talk page. Some editors from NOR/N and possibly from here came to make further comments about the article, that's surely a good thing and I hope we reach consensus on the article's scope as a whole. — JFG talk 23:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Regarding my previous sanction, I would like to stress that I had made a honest mistake (a second revert after 17 hours on a 1RR article) and the sanctioning admin agreed to limit my 0RR restriction to three days on that article only, instead of indefinite on all articles. The original sanction had been imposed due to a series of unfounded accusations by a specific editor. Read the appeal for details. — JFG talk 23:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Now the delicate issue, as some commenters have talked about wielding the proverbial boomerang here: is there a problematic pattern to Sagecandor's editing? I have crossed paths with this editor on several articles related to Donald Trump, who is a common area of interest for both of us. While Sage is a prolific content creator, for example single-handedly creating well-sourced articles for every book ever written by or attributed to Trump, s/he tends to behave defensively when fellow editors disagree with statements that s/he wrote, and the conversations can quickly take an WP:IDHT turn. In those situations, Sage tends to behave as article WP:OWNER, to bludgeon discussions by repeating the same point over and over again, and sometimes to lose track of WP:CIVILITY. This happened on Whataboutism recently: Sage called my contributions "bullshit"[23][24], opened rapid-fire threads in reply to comments by other editors, made incoherent statements[25][26], talked to dissenting editors in the third person and in a disparaging tone,[27][28][29] and finally forum-shopped the content dispute, presenting a one-sided case at NOR/N and calling for sanctions on a flimsy basis here at AE. Already a few days before recent events, seeing some tension build up on the Whataboutism article, I reached out personally on Sagecandor's talk page[30], but s/he deleted my post within minutes[31] and continued with battleground-style discussions. Some days Sagecandor is mild-mannered and a joy to work with constructively, some others s/he is trigger-happy and aggressive on what should be benign content issues to be discussed and resolved in a collegial way. S/he even managed to get upset at me[32] after I closed a discussion about an article title, Trump Tower (novel), with unanimous consent to which s/he agreed. Not for me to judge, just adding my limited perspective on this editor's interaction style for consideration. — JFG talk 00:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Power~enwiki This is clearly a content dispute; Sagecandor's claims are puffed up egregiously. Based on a pattern of behavior, I request that boomerang sanctions be considered against Sagecandor, possibly a TBAN for post-1932 American politics. I filed a complaint at ANI against Sagecandor approximately 1 month ago [33] regarding his behavior on Malcolm Nance and his edits continue to be both single-purpose and with a clear intent to ensure that content reflects his personal views. Recently on Talk:Whataboutism and Talk:Elijah Daniel, he has antagonized multiple other editors, and generally refuses to engage in back-and-forth discussion at all. I have warned him several times regarding his behavior but it appears to be continuing. [34] [35] As far as User:JFG's behavior, he should drop the stick; there are clearly multiple other editors concerned with Sagecandor's ownership attempts here. Power~enwiki (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by IP This does seem to be a content dispute, not behavioral. The forum shopping by the OP is somewhat concerning as well. I have seen Sagecandor on the wrong side of the admin boards a few times lately, and would agree a short topic ban to American Politics (no more than 3 months) may be beneficial. 87.140.35.118 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by BullRangifer Policy or content dispute? I'm not going to parse that here. The controversy of relevance is that JFG, backed by Jack Upland (and now a mysterious one-edit IP above!), insist on an OR/editorializing type of content based on their LACK of sources. Normally that should engender a LACK of comment in an article. Editors are not free to state in Wikipedia's voice something not explicitly stated in a RS. They must not use an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, partially (there could be myriad other reasons) because that "absence of evidence" is based on their own inability to "find" (OR!!!) some evidence/sources. Failing in that OR mission, they should not write anything about it in the article. To then add unsourced commentary on their failure is OR editorializing, and that's what JFG has done with this addition. This content says otherwise anyway. If JFG was right, we'd have a pure content dispute, but because of their error, it is also a policy violation. The noticeboards seem to say that Sagecandor has interpreted policy correctly. Note that Sagecandor has received support and justification in these noticeboard threads. Sagecandor is right that OR violations are happening at Whataboutism: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is it original research to cite a source as evidence for the absence of something ? Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Can a Wikipedia user cite what they feel is the first usage of a word to state that is the first documented usage ? BullRangifer (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC) GoldenRing, I'm not sure, but I suspect part of your objections below apply to JFG, not Sagecandor, so if any sanctions are applied, they must also share the blame. Since the noticeboards say that Sagecandor is right, they should not be sanctioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC) DHeyward, this is not the place to bring up old grudges or things that are not relevant to this case. Your comments are simply personal attacks which have no bearing on this case. It's just nasty piling on. That's not fair. Sagecandor may have had problems in other areas and in the past, but this case should be judged on its own merits. You have not addressed any of the issues in this case, just made an unfair series of personal attacks which have no bearing on this case. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC) DHeyward, maybe "grudges" is the wrong word, so I have stricken that. I don't know your history with Sagecandor that well. Thanks for pointing that out. I want to be fair to you. Otherwise, my pointing out your accusations against Sagecandor is not an ad hominem attack. Take a look at what you've written. It's a long list of nasty stuff. If it were on-topic, IOW about ONLY this case, it would be a whole different matter and such criticisms would be justified and not personal attacks. They could even be seen as evidence. Because they have zero bearing on THIS case, they aren't just criticisms, but ad hominem personal attacks because they do not address the CURRENT situation at all. For those reasons, your use of others' similar errors doesn't help. They too are wrong to demand a boomerang reaction while they are ignoring the CURRENT issues. I will point you to others' remarks: * (1) "But I am puzzled by the admins' responses thus far, not dealing with the actual behavior of JFG here, who has edit warred to add policy-violating content on a topic with DS. That is the issue here. And similar to their appeal, what they wrote above is simply an attack on other editor. Unlike their appeal, they do not acknowledge their double-layered problematic behavior, on a topic where they should be editing very conservatively. Jytdog"; * (2) "I haven't read through the entirety of the debate yet, but I'll put on the record that my initial impression of the situation is diametrically opposite to that of GoldenRing. The policy violations and IDHT behaviour are, as far as I can tell so far, fully on the side of JFG. Fut.Perf.". I have nothing against you in any way. It's just unfair to criticize Sagecandor for other behaviors and at other times while not addressing the CURRENT issues. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward Sagecandor has a history of weaponizing 3RR, AE and ANI as well as a history of stalking behavior. I think it's about time he take a break from American politics for a bit. He should get at least a 30 day topic ban to stop the stalking and sanction abuse against editors he perceives as ideological opponents. Diffs on request if any admin at AE is unfamiliar with Sagecandor's behavior or his technique of forum shopping for sanctions. It's not surprising to see him here after ANI failed to gain traction. I've personally experienced his overzealousness at AE [36] and when it failed, ANI [37] and it was only his apologies that saved him from being sanctioned on a boomerang at ANI. Even after all the "mea culpas" at AE and ANI, he launched a false accusation of 3RR violation not 4 days after admitting he was wrong and promising to move one. There are other editing practices that are fairly easy to see but remedies for that may be unnecessary if he completes a topic ban while still contributing to the project. --DHeyward (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC) JFG should not be sanctioned in any way for having to deal with a problematic and overzealous behavior. Apparently, SageCandor has shopped this to 3 forums, just like he did to me so he should know better. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC) BullRangifer, your statements are classic ad hominem attacks. Others have already suggested a boomerang for SageCandor's forum shopping. He has a history of it and it's very relevant here because this is one of the noticeboards he has shopped. His behavior does not support the end goals of the project as forum shopping these boards is a way to stifle participation. I agree with the boomerang sanction because of his history of this type of behavior despite his statements that it would stop. And no, pointing out poor behavior is not a personal attack but casting aspersions about "grudges" is. If you think complaining about editor conduct is a grudge, kindly direct your grudge comments to SageCandor as we are once again here at AE because of a complaint filed by SageCandor. Kindly strike your unsupported aspersions. --DHeyward (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC) BullRangifer thank you for striking "grudges" but you are still characterizing my remarks as personal attacks. They are not. They discuss SageCandor's behavior regarding prior use of multiple forums and wikihounding that escalate conflicts he becomes involved in. Editors that can't devote 16 hours a day to Wikipedia can't keep up with complaints in multiple fora for the same behavior. It's an abusive behavior with a shotgun approach looking to silence those that disagree with him. JFG is now defending himself up in three noticeboard discussions where sanctions could possibly be imposed. Being a normal editor, that would greatly consume his WP article editing time. GoldenRing's first response was boomerang which I support. The behavior has been noted as problematic for millenia as told by Aesop in The boy who cried wolf and there comes a time when when we need to discuss the behavior of the boy and not just look for wolves. Your request that I address this "wolf" without discussing all the other cries misses the whole point. I certainly not alone with the observation of his behavior. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Propose Close w/ no action Masem Sandstein GoldenRing Dennis Brown Part of this was closed at ANI as Masem noted [38]. It now appears SageCandor is ill so, as a practical matter, their dispute with JFG has ended. Also, SageCandor seems unlikely to be able to respond to whatever statement JFG supplies nor would he be able to clarify anything JFG questions. If other editors come in conflict with JFG, they can certainly file their own requests but it appears this complaint is moot and the meat of the content dispute is being resolved elsewhere. If SageCandor returns and the dispute is resurrected, this can be refiled. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO Regarding the statement of @Power~enwiki: above, the ANI thread cited against Sagecandor was rejected and closed by @Black Kite: as a personal dispute with no action taken. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC) I endorse @Jytdog:'s comments. I may not be able to do so myself due to real-life conflicts, but I urge anyone with some spare time to scrutinize JFG's participation in American Politics articles over the recent past. I won't say more here unless I have time to assemble diffs. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Jytdog This AE was filing was inexpertly done. With regard to "diffs by JFG showing the violation" section: 1 -3) the first three diffs are relevant; diff #3 should have stated more clearly that this was re-adding the OR added in the first 2 diffs. 4) diff 4 is not by JFG and should have been with comments below 5) diff is not relevant 6) diff is on point - this is again adding the OR The explanation with regard to diffs 1-3 and 6 is also badly done. In all of them OR is introduced - this notion that the term is not in the OED, or that some use was the "first use" The valid diffs demonstrate: a) edit warring (the initial introduction in #1, then reverts in #2, #3, and #6 b) in order to introduce policy-violating content c) in a field where there is very clear DS and on the topic within the field Trump/Russia, where JFG was sanctioned before. In case it is not clear to admins, the article as it is currently constructed says that "whataboutism" is a propaganda technique used by the Soviets and then Russia, which Trump has also adopted as well - it is part of the Trump/Russia narrative. To add some nuance here, I'll note that JFG appealed their prior 0RR sanction for violating the 1RR limit on a specific Trump/Russia article, acknowledging the mistake and requesting the 0RR sanction be limited to 3 days. The admins responded by admonishing JFG for making the appeal mostly an attack on other people, but accepted the request to reduce it to three days, a standard length of sanction for edit warring where there are no DS. To add further nuance, I agree generally with JFG that the article is kind of a recentist mess and am in discussions at the talk page about how to dissolve it, which puts me in opposition with the OP who has mostly built the content. But I am puzzled by the admins' responses thus far, not dealing with the actual behavior of JFG here, who has edit warred to add policy-violating content on a topic with DS. That is the issue here. And similar to their appeal, what they wrote above is simply an attack on other editor. Unlike their appeal, they do not acknowledge their double-layered problematic behavior, on a topic where they should be editing very conservatively. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC) I appreciate KingsIndian's statement, but I remain even more puzzled that neither he nor the admins here see the behavioral problems here, which are laid out clearly above. Somebody should not be allowed to edit war policy-violating content into an article with DS, especially when they have been sanctioned before for this in the very subtopic within the field of the DS, and when they do not even acknowledge that what they have done is unacceptable, but instead attack the filer. This is how things run amok, and what AE is meant to identity and stop. Not sanctioning means inviting future behavior along the same lines. That is good for no one. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian This is mostly a content dispute, with some edit-warring. I will address both in turn. The main point at issue is whether the word "Whataboutism" is of long-standing usage, or whether it is a relatively recent phenomenon. The concept behind the word (tu quoque) is well-known and ubiquitous. JFG is arguing that the word was hardly used prior to 2008 or so when it was popularized in an Economist article, while Sagecandor is arguing that since the article only popularized the word, it must have been used before. Each is trying to build up their case on the talkpage, and there's an RfC on the matter. This is how it should be, in my opinion. Let me now come to the behaviour. The first three diffs of JFG, all violate WP:OR in various degrees. For instance, JFG was incorrect in writing "the first documented use of the term...", because that would be WP:OR. They accepted the removal of the phrase here. There are still some disagreements about whether the phrasing JFG used is appropriate. I am not taking a position on who is right, and to what extent, but it does not violate WP:OR, in my opinion. Diff 4 is filler, diff 5 is not a problem, diff 6 is a mild case of WP:OR (using some source to prove a negative). WP:OR disputes can be easily handled on the talkpage or the WP:NORN board. Are these diffs so egregious that they demand WP:AE action? I do not think so myself, since JFG seems amenable to rephrasing, compromise, discussion, RfC and so on. Admins can disagree, of course. I have found this kind of behaviour many times in my own arguments on Wikipedia. As an aside, I am somewhat sympathetic to JFG's point that the pattern of word usage (almost all the references connecting the word to Soviet propaganda are relatively recent) is suspicious. I suspect there may be some citogenesis going on, or it could be just that the Economist article was very popular and the word was popularized rapidly. However, Wikipedia is only as good as its sources, and one can't enter one's theories into Wikipedia. It would be good if they made their case on the talk page, rather than the article. I can point out that they have an uphill battle: there are a LOT of sources (media usually) which use the term. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Politrukki This is a content dispute and not actionable. Filer has not specified which remedy or sanction JFG supposedly violated. Filer has supplied no evidence that JFG is aware of Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions or that they have been warned in this topic area by an uninvolved administrator. I fail to see how JFG's edits – judging by diffs provided as evidence – are related to American politics, even broadly construed. Filer's post at WP:ORN seems like an attempt to canvass editors to the RFC [39] – and on the article's talk page they tried to canvass an editor who expressed certain point of view in ORN discussion [40]. Filer has canvassed editors to this forum, by pinging them in their enforcement request. Politrukki (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning JFG This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Comment This may be related to this recent ANI issue: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sagecandor as it seems to involve the same article. Also here WP:NOR/N#Can a Wikipedia user cite what they feel is the first usage of a word to state that is the first documented usage ? --MASEM (t) 13:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC) This does look like a content dispute to me, which arbitration (enforcement) does not resolve. WP:OR is a policy that is about content, not conduct. As such, I think that disputes about the alleged violation of this policy normally are content disputes. There are certainly cases where the repeated, intentional violation of important content rules can be considered misconduct and therefore sanctionable at AE, but given that all diffs are about one article, Whataboutism, and are from within a few days, I don't think we're at that stage here.  Sandstein  13:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Having spent a half-hour reading the whole talk-page, I am very much minded to wield the boomerang here. The repeated, apparently deliberate, confusion of the OED with Oxford Living Dictionaries; the repeated insistence that a secondary source be provided for the verifiable fact that the OED doesn't include a word; the insistence on believing what a source says when it is plainly, trivially wrong; and the justification of not providing further citations in support of that source by primly saying that to do so would be original research seem to me plainly disruptive. I'm not taking a position one way or another on JFG at this point - I'm still thinking about that - but I'm pretty certain everyone would benefit from SageCandor taking a break from that article. I'm thinking probably a two-month page ban. I don't think a wider tban is warranted at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I haven't read through the entirety of the debate yet, but I'll put on the record that my initial impression of the situation is diametrically opposite to that of GoldenRing. The policy violations and IDHT behaviour are, as far as I can tell so far, fully on the side of JFG. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Note that SageCandor has left a note at their talk page saying they are going inactive due to health issues. I'm in private communication with them as well and would not recommend action against them at this time. GoldenRing (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC) It looks like no admins want to take action here. Without admin objection, I'll close this thread in 24 h as no action taken.  Sandstein  08:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC) No particular objection. I'd probably go for a "All participants are reminded that..." sort of close, if you can think of some words to fill in the ellipsis that aren't completely trite (I can't). GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Yeah, I don't like long paternalistic closing statements. We just need to decide whether or not to sanction somebody.  Sandstein  07:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Banner

Melbguy05 and The Banner have been clearly notified of the restrictions in Troubles related articles and are both warned that future breaches of 1RR or other restrictions are likely to draw stiff sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:08, 29 July 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 The Banner User who is submitting this request for enforcement Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested The Banner (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:TROUBLES (I am not sure if this is the proper link or not for this): Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 18:53 26 July Reverts Melbguy05 own revert 19:49 26 July Reverts several of Melbguy05's edits 20:58 26 July Reverts the exact same edits again after Melbguy05 restored them Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [41] shows The Banner has been blocked several times before for edit-warring and battleground behaviour without engaging in proper discussion, the same as in this edit-war. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) This comment by The Banner on their talk page shows that they have read the Troubles restriction seeing as they were able to provide a direct quote from it in response to Murry1975's comment about that specific restriction. They also fail to deny knowledge of it when I mentioned it to them within the past hour. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Melbguy05 is also at fault here for continuing to restore their edits despite being reverted and have been notified by The Banner of the 3RR rule, to which Melbguy05 hasn't violated but only just. They have however violated the 1RR in place on Troubles related articles yet do not appear to have prior knowledge of this and I have duly notified them of it. As such I do not know whether they should also be reported here or not due to this. The Banner has also engaged in what could be classified as uncivil battleground behaviour with unfounded allegations such as this. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Editor notified [42]. Discussion concerning The Banner 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 The Banner Mabuska is referring to a post out of 2015. Sorry, but I do not remember that. It sounds like a feeble excuse, but ill health - depression - played a part in that. The Banner talk 22:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC) And yes, I apologies for my indiscretion. The Banner talk 23:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mabuska Thank you for the input. Melbguy05 as already detailed above has been notified that they violated 1rr and if you excuse their non-knowledge of it, also now know of 3rr. I did state I was not sure what was to be done in regards to Melgbuy05 hence why I explicitly stated such above so there is no prejudice in the case, and an admin can easily take action against them if deemed neccessary. Both were guilty of edit warring, however only The Banner knew of the 1rr which they ignored. The mention of The Banners previous block history is because the open a request thing asks you to add in previous blocks that may have relevance and they may have had relevance. Only doing what is requested. Anyways if nothing is to be done, The Banner is sure to be able to remember the restriction from now on, however with an editor that experienced in Troubles articles I don't know how they can forget about it. Mabuska (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Will notify Melbguy05 now. Mabuska (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Result concerning The Banner This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I do not think [43] is incivil. It is a statement of opinion, and he has to be able to express a concern. The evidence for the claim lies in the diffs themselves, so the evidence is apparent. If you think someone is whitewashing an article (a problem we have all over the wiki), I think saying so is fine as long as you don't pad the comment with a lot of hyperbole or ad hominem, and in this case, The Banner did not. Editing isn't always pretty. As for the reverts, both parties were equally to blame, so I wouldn't be inclined to sanction one more than the other. Technically, the request for sanction should be against both, not just The Banner, which prejudices the case a bit. Previous issues in 2015 are meaningless here. Not excusing his behavior, but I don't think it would be fair to single him out. Everyone has been leaving civil and sufficient edit summaries, just not using the talk page. In a perfect world, Melbguy05 and The Banner would just agree to stop it, use the talk page and get past this. You should probably notify Melbguy05 of this discussion as he reverted three times in 24 hours as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC) This seems a bit hard to believe, but as far as I can tell, The Banner has never been properly notified of DS regarding WP:TROUBLES. The diff provided might be construed to show awareness, but doesn't count under WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. So I think we need to close this with a warning not to edit war. GoldenRing (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC) This is a bit of a technicality, as I'm quite sure The Banner knows about DS in TROUBLES, but I'm not sure about Melbguy05, who may or may not be aware. To prevent a lopsided situation, a warning to both is probably a safe way of dealing with this issue today, so I agree. I have left the standard Arb template on both editors pagesThe Banner's page (Mabuska had just left one on Melbguy05's), so both this discussion and that template will serve as a very clear indication that they are aware. Any future problem won't have the same limitation. I'm leaving this report open a bit for comment, but my opinion is that both editors should be warned in the closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning

Obviously invalid request. The diffs presented are for another editor entirely and the page is not in the topic area of the case listed. See WP:AN3 perhaps. ~ Rob13Talk 04:47, 30 July 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 MBlaze Lightning User who is submitting this request for enforcement <redact> User against whom enforcement is requested MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Special:Diff/792927623 Removal of sourced content (revert). Special:Diff/792933072 Second revert Special:Diff/792933871 Third revert Special:Diff/792946912 Fourth revert Special:Diff/792947736 Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [44] Concerned user was previously blocked for 1RR violation and also for socking. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Additional comments by editor filing complaint MBlaze Lightning is a disruptive editor. The above diffs present a violation of 3RR. The users with whom MBlaze Lightning edit warred are now sockblocked also.[45] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning USERNAME 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 USERNAME Statement by (username) Result concerning USERNAME This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

MBlaze Lightning

No action. Technically this is a 3RR violation, but the edit war has been sorted out through page protection (which MBlaze Lightning requested). GoldenRing (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning MBlaze Lightning User who is submitting this request for enforcement Sardeeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User against whom enforcement is requested MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it User made 4 reverts within 24 hours on the same page. 3RR violated. [46] [47] [48] [49] Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any User has an extensive block history over edit wars and socking. [50] [51] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [52] Discussion concerning MBlaze Lightning 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 MBlaze Lightning Statement by (username) Result concerning MBlaze Lightning This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. On the face of it, this is a 3RR violation. I'm not sure I'm ready to hand out sanctions for it though, since the material reverted includes the claim the ISI controls the Afghan Taliban, sourced to what looks a pretty rotten source to me. I'd be interested in the views of User:Samsara on this, who has since applied page protection to end the edit war. GoldenRing (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC) I don't see the need to entertain requests from someone whose edit history screams "autoconfirmed sleeper sock". T. Canens (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3

Not actionable. The restriction quoted has been revised. GoldenRing (talk) 14:33, 30 July 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 Kautilya3 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Sardeeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [53] User reverted without talkpage explanation as is required on all Kashmir Conflict related articles as is stipulated by an admin.[54] Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Additional comments by editor filing complaint This user previously broke 1RR on a Kashmir Conflict related page and got let off lightly here with a warning.[55] Secondly an admin clarified the ARBIPA restrictions on a talkpage where Kautilya3 was active. [[56]]. 2 IPs on the page List of massacres in Jammu and Kashmir also broke the restrictions. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [57] Discussion concerning Kautilya3 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 Kautilya3 RegentsPark has amended the edit restriction here. So, there is no violation. Further, RegentsPark has never brought this page under the edit restrictions anyway. Perhaps it should be, and semi-protected at the same time? This is extremely disruptive (not withstanding the fact that an account registered on 3 July 2017 is citing evidence from 2016.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sitush I notice in one of the diffs provided by the filer that in September 2016 RegentsPark intimated that he would be revisiting the 1RR restriction that he had imposed in April 2016 (again, the filer provided the diff for that). Did it happen? What was the outcome? - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde Not actionable. As Kautilya points out, the restriction has been amended. No violation here. The article probably does come under the restrictions, but that is not relevant. Vanamonde (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Kautilya3 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Not actionable. The actual restriction has been modified here and no longer requires a first revert to be explained. As a very new editor, I'd advise the filer to slow down a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser

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

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Debresser (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

3-day block

Administrator imposing the sanction

GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I sent him an email, which is all I can do in my current blocked state. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

I was apparently blocked for this edit, making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, and as I said very clearly in the edit summary of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far.

If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! And to those who will say that these kinds of "arguments" do not help, or even may be detrimental to my main argument, I say: I will say the truth as I see it. I see no reason why your opinion about Wikipedia is more true than mine, just because you are an admin. I have edited here almost ten years and have almost 100,000 edits on my name, and am entitled to my opinion, and to express it. Now you do whatever you think is right. At most you will disappoint me once more. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

I'm very happy to have my enforcement action reviewed here and to reverse it if there is significant opinion that I have erred.

I'm on a tablet at present so this will be quick notes to which I will add diffs tomorrow morning.

Debresser was topic-banned for two months, by me, which he appealed unsuccessfully. He started collecting notes on his talk page for things to do once the ban was over. Someone pointed out that this was a ban violation, so Debresser asked me for clarification. I think I was unambiguous in my response that such edits are not allowed. He continued making his list, including an article that very clearly falls within the scope of his ban, so I blocked him for 72 hours to enforce the ban. GoldenRing (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Debresser writes "when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area".

I strongly disagree with this statement. Debresser was topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine for calling me "anti-Jewish", without any proof whatsoever. That Debresser still doesn't see that his behaviour is troublesome, is very worrying. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

Just a comment that I think bans should never apply to a user talk page. It's not disruptive and nobody is forcing anyone to read it.

Result of the appeal by Debresser

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

• GoldenRing's block was clearly valid. Editing or commenting anywhere on the site about a page within the topic area, including in userspace or on user talk pages, is a topic ban violation. However, I'd be willing to support unblocking early if Debresser clearly stated that they understand they cannot comment (generally or specifically) about any page falling within the topic area or any edit related to the topic area anywhere on Wikipedia until the topic ban is lifted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)