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

Niteshift36

No violation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2018 (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 Niteshift36 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Cinteotl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Niteshift36 (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/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 11:23 5 April 2018 Personal attack, failure to work toward agreement 11:19, 5 April 2018 Incivility, failure to work toward agreement 14:25, 4 April 2018 Ignoring a reasonable question. I asked 3 times if he could provide a reliable source. He evaded the question, failing to work toward agreement. 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, on 00:11 26 February 2018, see also log 20521221 Additional comments by editor filing complaint From what I've read of Niteshift36's behavior, I could argue that he should be permanently topic banned. But let's keep it simple this time: Please give him a slap on the wrist, and tell him to stop chasing away editors with whom he disagrees. Reading Niteshift36's response, it appears he's set on counterpunching without providing the necessary diffs. I'm not going to defend myself against groundless complaints, not am I going to turn this into a boomerang game. So I'll go on record that I will be willing to subject myself to the same sanctions that are placed on Niteshift36 in this matter, irrespective of whether I've done anything wrong. Cinteotl (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Let me clarify that my concerns regarding incivility are secondary to my concerns regarding other more objective violations of WP policies. Update: I asked Niteshift36 a fourth time for a reliable source which ranks the deadliest mass shootings. 12:56 6 April 1918, and finally, he proffered a source (CNN), but not a citation. This might not seem significant, except that CNN does not publish the information in question. In the above diff, when explaining how he/we could add our own rankings (something that should raise alarms about original research), Niteshift36 referred to this CNN article [1], saying "we could use the CNN listing as the basis to start with." So, there is no doubt that Niteshift36 knows that CNN isn't a source for ranking information, and isn't a responsive answer to my question. The following facts are indisputible: I asked Niteshift36 at least 4 times to provide a reliable source for rankings of the deadliest mass shootings, in support of content he is seeking to include in the Mass shootings in the United States article. He has, to this moment, not not provided a responsive answer. "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it."[2] "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors." [3] "Does not engage in consensus building...repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". [4] Cinteotl (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC) GoldenRing - Please do me the courtesy of properly citing and explaining any concerns you may have with my conduct, so I have the ability to respond in a meaningful way. Cinteotl (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Usr Notified 02:47 6 April 2018 Discussion concerning Niteshift36 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 Niteshift36 The reporting editor has been intentionally obstructive in this particular article. While he alleges a PA here [5], Cinteotl has been arguing in another thread that putting things in numerical order is "synth", then favors creating an addition to the table that has us adding numbers. I pointed out the inconsistency in that position. In his second example [6], he has repeatedly refused to address the simple point that putting numbers in order (or letters in alphabetical order) is not SYNTH. Another editor has even told him that's not an incorrect position, yet he repeatedly makes the same response. Was I getting irritated with it? Yes. Is in "incivility"? Probably not. And I've certainly been working towards a solution. In his third example [7], Cinteotl engages in a little "not the full story". He posts an exchange from 2 days ago, claiming that it is failing to work towards a solution. What he fails to add is that the next day, a very workable solution was presented [8]. This same editor has cast aspersions about advocacy. In short, some of the exchanges may have been terse, but there's no refusal to work towards a solution. Despite his assertion, I've been involved in a number of discussions that resulted in successful conclusions.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Cinteotl, unlike you, I'm not filing a complaint. You really don't have to "defend" the aspersions you cast [9] or the workable solution that was presented [10], despite the allegation of not trying to work towards one. Since this series of answers [11] happened after this discussion started, it's obvious why they weren't included. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Dr. Fleischman Uninvolved editor here. That's typical Niteshift36 snark, but I don't see any personal attacks or any other actionable conduct. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Niteshift36 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I can't see a single thing here rising to the level of enforcement (or even close to it). Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Per Black Kite. To the degree there is anything wrong with that thread, it is evenly spread. GoldenRing (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by iantresman

Appeal is declined. There is not a clear and substantial consensus to overturn the sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2018 (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 iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Iantresman (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the subject of "plasma physics and astrophysics", imposed at Iantresman logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2012#Pseudoscience Administrator imposing the sanction Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [12] Statement by iantresman I would like my topic banned to be considered for lifting. Since my ban in 2012: I have had one appeal declined over a year ago, and this is summarised in my deferred appeal in Dec 2017 (described in the "Amendment request: Pseudoscience, Notes to @Newyorkbrad ). I have received no other sanctions from over 4000+ edits I have upheld the 1RR restriction on me[13], and will continue to do so I have also endured the current 4202 day topic ban without further penalty, despite being on a self-imposed 0RR at the time, thought that I had followed Discretionary sanctions guidance at the time to "adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches" in my editing[14] and discussed the matter on the WT:IRS noticeboard I have made efforts to improve my editing, reaching out to Timotheus Canens for advice [15], and to the Help Desk[16],[17], and the Teahouse[18] (all without success) I am still open to suggestions on how I can improve my editing behavior, should there be a disagreement. Since my time as a Wiki editor I have made over 21,000 edits, of which 96.8% are still live[19] a retention rate that is as good as all but two active members of the Arbitration Committee I appreciate ban avoidance more than most, having endured a 1,515 day Community Ban[20] (given without a single diff in evidence, and with such short deliberation that it contributed to the banning of the Community Sanctions Noticeboard[21] that was instigated by an editor who was described as having misled the community[22] by using multiple socks abusively.[23]) I have also uploaded over 60 files to Wikipedia[24], over 100 images to Commons[25] created over 900 new pages[26], edited over 4000 pages (on average 5 times each)[27], and have been directly involved in the attainment of 4 good articles (one subsequently reassessed) I am always open to discussion with any editor regarding my editing Notes @Sandstein: I don't know what the reasons were for my ban, as they don't appear to have been stated in the "Result concerning Iantresman". The original poster mentioned (a) Wikilawyering, [28] (b) that I "continued to argue", (c) "no consensus", (d) "Pushing", (e) "civilly POV push this fringe science", (f) "adding a burden on other editors". The banning editor mentioned that "I think the complaint has merit", but it wasn't clear to me whether he was referring to all criticisms, or whether there was something specific. I am happy to "address these concerns", but I don't think you want me to comment on every accusation against me, so your guidance would be appreciated. I would like to contribute to articles on plasma and astronomy which were covered by my topic ban; I have University Certificates in Astronomy, Cosmology and Radio Astronomy from UClan and Jodrell Bank at MU (scans available on request). I also want to contibute to more contentious articles, such as the one on Plasma Cosmology. The evidence suggests I am a good editor in these subjects, eg. I am the top contributor (even after a five year absence) to the article on Plasma Physics[29] Wolf Effect[30] and Pinch (plasma)[31] Birekland Currents[32] Critical ionization velocity[33], the 3rd top contributor to Dusty Plasma[34] and Plasma Cosmology[35] and the 2nd top contributor to the article on Redshift[36]. --Iantresman (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: Not impressed. I asked you for extra guidance as I could find no such "clear" conclusion, and indicated I was "happy to address these concerns"; I had also solicited advice from other editors, I even mentioned fringe science as one possibility, but was unable to pick it out from any of the other options. --Iantresman (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC) What is disappointing, is that no-one is prepared to work with me, and provide the guidance that I seek. --Iantresman (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC) @Timotheus Canens: My 2007 CSN appeal was not rejected. Admins voted 3-3 (and one abstention) which shows no consensus. There was no "full knowledge" (page Permission Error) of the Mainstream Astronomy account being one of several socks. This is clear from the "Statement of JoshuaZ" who repeats that the user is new. I wonder whether the views of other editors, and the votes would have changed, if this false statement were not perpetuated. And while the CSN discussion was left opened after my community ban, editors who bothered to look noted: (a) "I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here."[37], and (b) "nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented."[38], and later another editor supported my unblocking "on the grounds that the user has apparently done little or nothing wrong,"[39] And while you are right in mentioning the AE case that I was cautioned in (and had forgotten), if you recall, I recently asked you if I could edit articles that were also covered by my ban[40] to which you gave tacit approval to the advice here[41], and then you decided that some subsequent edits in the topic area were the wrong shade of grey[42]. It's no wonder I don't know the rules, but it's not for want of trying to find out from you,[43] and in other places. --Iantresman (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Timotheus Canens I'm not inclined to lift this topic ban. As Sandstein explained, the appeal does not indicate that [Iantresman] recognizes that his editing at the time was problematic, and why, and how he would now edit differently. Given the lengthy history of fringe/pseudoscience-related sanctions here, I'd want to see an exceedingly persuasive demonstration that the concerns leading to the ban will not recur. This appeal falls far short. To the extent that the appeal is based on trouble-free editing, it resembles the October 2012 ARCA request that led to the topic ban being lifted, and we know how that one turned out (note that this topic ban was also reviewed at ARCA immediately after it was imposed). Not that the editing was entirely trouble-free: I recall at least one appeal to me that I declined after finding topic-ban violating edits, and a search of the AE archives showed at least one other instance of topic ban violation for which they were cautioned; while these are relatively minor, the failure to mention them - and the carefully chosen "penalty-free" wording - do not really inspire confidence. In a similar vein, the appeal also contains a rather misleading and incomplete characterization of the CSN discussion that led to the original ban: that discussion was kept open for a substantial period of time after the block took place, and an appeal was rejected by the 2007 arbcom with full knowledge of the identity of the "Mainstream astronomy" account. T. Canens (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by iantresman Of course iantresman has not indicated that he recognizes that his editing at the time was problematic, and why; he doesn't think the ban was a good ban in the first place. When he asked for it to be lifted on those grounds, he was told to go away and that what the committee would really like to see is an appeal on the grounds that the ban is not presently necessary, with none of this stuff about contesting the original merit of an ancient sanction. Now he's back with the requested evidence and his appeal is being attacked because... it's too focused on trying to say the ban isn't presently necessary, and doesn't spend enough time addressing the original merit of the ancient sanction. I know there's no overlap between the individual arbs commenting on the two appeals, but iantresman is really getting the runaround here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Result of the appeal by iantresman This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Iantresman: Please describe what the reasons for the topic ban were and how you would address these concerns in your future editing in the topic area if the ban is lifted. Please also describe in general terms which articles you want to create or which contributions you intend to make if the ban is lifted. Sandstein 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC) I would decline to lift the ban. Iantresman writes that "I don't know what the reasons were for my ban". However, according to the link he provides, it is very clear that the reason was that Iantresman was considered to have been advocating the inclusion of fringe or pseudoscience content in violation of policies and ArbCom decisions applicable to such content. Given that the ban has remained in force without successful appeal for some 6 years, I must assume that these concerns were valid. In this appeal Iantresman does not indicate that he recognizes that his editing at the time was problematic, and why, and how he would now edit differently. It therefore appears to me that the ban is still needed to prevent the recurrence of the concerns that led to the ban being imposed in 2012. Sandstein 17:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC) This is starting to languish. I'm inclined to lift the ban on the basis that reimposing it if there is trouble will be very cheap indeed. There's been six years of trouble-free editing; not as high volume as before the ban but still apparently solid and trouble-free work. I would like to hear whether Timotheus Canens agrees first, though. GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Decline per Tony. GoldenRing (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC) I would lean towards provisionally rescinding the ban, under the same conditions outlined by User:GoldenRing. The lack of understanding about why the ban was imposed in the first place is seriously unimpressive, but most of the problematic behaviour seems to have been quite some time ago. If there is any problems around disruptive pseudoscience related edits, it could be re-instated rather quickly and easily. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC). I agree with Sandstein, and think we should decline to lift this. I am seeing no reason to lift this ban and "it has worked at preventing disruption" is not a good reason to lift it either. Related to the last point, I also find Tim's statement compelling, and I generally trust his judgement on these matters and see no reason why we should go against the sanctioning admin who opposes lifting the appeal at this time.TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Dagduba lokhande

Blocked for one week with a warning that future violations may lead to an indefinite block --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 16 April 2018 (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 Dagduba lokhande User who is submitting this request for enforcement Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dagduba lokhande (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:ARBPAK : Topic banned from anything related to B. R. Ambedkar (including family members), Buddhism, Caste in India, politics related to Dalits, broadly construed, applicable across the entire English Wikipedia, including but not limited to articles, templates, categories, images, user pages, drafts, portals, and their respective topic pages. Diff of the notification of above topic ban, and this action was logged too. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Clear violation of topic ban from 11 April: [44] [45][46] Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [47] a block of 48 hours 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) [48] Additional comments by editor filing complaint I don't believe that he understands he is topic banned, despite having been told too clearly. Capitals00 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Diff of topic ban notification and log entry added above now. Capitals00 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC) @RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff: Given that he edited nearly 45 days after his block on 26 February and he did nothing but violate his topic ban, it seems that one week block won't do anything because whenever Dagduba lokhande returns to Wikipedia, he violates his topic ban despite it has been clarified to him very clearly. His talk page messages show he is capable of understanding what is being told to him[49], yet he continues to intentionally violate topic ban. Just like the recent block on संदेश हिवाळे, I believe Dagduba lokhande should be indeffed too. Capitals00 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [50] Discussion concerning Dagduba lokhande 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 Dagduba lokhande Statement by (username) Result concerning Dagduba lokhande This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Please add the diff with which the topic ban was imposed. Sandstein 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC) That would be [51] by @SpacemanSpiff:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Looks like a clear violation. Second violation, I suggest 1 week block. --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC) This is actually the third set of violations (set because there are always multiples). I let off with a warning the first time. A one week block seems appropriate now.—SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Agreed that a one-week block is appropriate. Sandstein 15:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey

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 Scjessey

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835905480 (initial addition of "hate group" by Scjessey)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836208995 (initial addition of "anti-immigrant")

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835955264 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835970094 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836162209 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836259284 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant")
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836399003 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant" and "hate group")
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836399003 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant" and "hate group", removing sources)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 23 December 2017 "blocked 24 hours for not gaining consensus before restoring an edit that was challenged, via reversion, in violation of DS at Presidency of Donald Trump."
   • 2 January 2018 AE log was later striked by blocking admin, no further explanation

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, on 30 March 2018.
• Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14 April 2018
• Discretionary sanctions notice was placed on the talk page of the affected article on 14 April 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I ran across this edit war somewhat in progress. Several editors were tag-teaming with an aggressive IP user (who has already been blocked), but I identify Scjessey as a particularly aggressive participant who exacerbated the edit war and repeatedly reinserted challenged material. I attempted to quell the situation by adding three additional sources and removing all the contentious language that these sources didn't all agree on, and noted this on the talk page as a way to deescalate the edit war. I also contacted Scjessey on his talk page. After a short break, today Scjessey removed our discussion on his talk page, calling it "BS". He then edited the article to remove the additional sources and restore the contentious labeling. This last revert, in particular since it removes the three additional sources, demonstrates that Scjessey is not interested in presenting this item in a WP:VERIFIABLE nor WP:NPOV manner (aka cherry-picking). His edit summary, claiming to be putting back a "consensus text" demonstrates that he sees consensus not as a process, but as the result of having a simple numbers advantage in an edit war. His follow-up Talk: page comment "It is important that we include this context (emphasis his) demonstrates that he sees this action more as a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As to Scjessey's claim below of not knowing this article was under the broad discretionary sanctions which apply to all post-1932 American politics, I find that groundless. His previous report against another user was within that area, and he certainly cannot claim to not be aware as his previous block was within this area also. I reminded him about the discretionary sanctions in our Talk: page conversation also. I think that he is trying to skirt his poor behavior by feigning ignorance is, frankly, insulting to this forum and to anyone involved. He has also just now taken to the article's talk page, seemingly just to notify the other participants in this edit war of this enforcement request. -- Netoholic @ 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Added: Starting his statement below with "Sigh" continues the trend of not treating this process with the due care and respect it deserves. Nothing about his statement indicates genuine acknowledgement of the problem and gives me no confidence his actions will change. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: - the article itself has not special restrictions, but all editors are bound by the general expectations listed under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors, which include the requirement to comply with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The chief complaints in this request are failure to adhere to policies WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (RIGHTGREATWRONGS). -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey and MrX (who also participated in this edit war) have asked about "boomeranging". My response is that I have made only 2 changes to the article - one to remove a section of a sentence that contained phrasing which was the direct cause of an active edit war, and the second was to remove the entire line to put the article back to a pre-edit war consensus version prior to its recent inclusion. I am not involved in this edit war in any way other than to see it end. I feel like asking for a "boomerang" on such flimsy reasoning is itself gaming the system, which also goes against Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&diff=836768687&oldid=836716845

Discussion concerning Scjessey

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 Scjessey

Sigh. To be honest, I did not realize the article in question was under Arbcom restrictions until I noted so here. My bad. I own that, and if administrators believe a sanction is warranted, I will not complain. Prior to that, I made edits consistent with what I believe were appropriate, and I did not violate 3RR (although it is hard to see from the incorrectly formatted diffs above). I explained myself by creating a talk page section (diff) and discussing it with other editors, most of whom agreed with my rationale either explicitly, or in the form of affirming edits to the article. I even checked myself with another editor (diff) to make sure I wasn't on the wrong track. A consensus has formed around this version of the text, with the only dissent coming from the editor with the creative revisionism presented above. I don't have much else to say, other than it wouldn't surprise me if the reporting editor got whacked with the proverbial boomerang. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I noticed it has a little warning template at the top of the talk page that says:

"The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully."

It does not, however, have the "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" I would normally look out for. That is why I did not realize until later that the article (or perhaps parts of the article?) was included. I did not think to check the DSLOG. Thank you for giving a better explanation of the circumstances than I could. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

Scjessey has not violated any editing restriction nor is his conduct violative of the principles or finding of the underlying Arbcom case. Contrarily, Netoholic has edited against consensus, and failed to accept a clear consensus established on the talk page. (See recent article history and recent talk page history). Netoholic is the only editor arguing to omit material, against four editors arguing to include it. That is, if you discount the IP sock who uses web host proxies to avoid scrutiny.

Boomerang? - MrX 🖋 23:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: The article is not under any editing restrictions. It lacks the required edit notice and is not logged at WP:DSLOG - MrX 🖋 23:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic, your explanation of how the edits violate the sanction or remedy (not expectations or guidelines), are "reverting to restore challenged material". There is no restriction on reverting to restore challenged material. You're conflating several unrelated things in what appears to be an effort to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.- MrX 🖋 00:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Scjessey

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