Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:06, 25 October 2016

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Volunteer Marek

Request withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Volunteer Marek (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: Template:2016_US_Election_AE, "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."

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

In this edit at 16 October, 22:08, Volunteer Marek edited the lead of the Donald Trump article, and in particular he edited the last part of the lead dealing with sexual allegations. He replaced a text of 15 words with a text of 67 words (more than quadrupling its size). He added much of the material by reinstating verbatim from a prior version, including the last sentence, and his edit also reinstated various other parts of the prior version. When Volunteer Marek made this edit, there was an RFC ongoing at the article talk page about whether this material should exceed 15 words. Here is the talk page as edited by Volunteer Marek one minute after his big edit to the lead, showing that the RFC (section 23) includes three no's, one yes, and a maybe, and thus there was obviously no consensus for going beyond 15 words in the lead regarding the sex allegations (incidentally, Trump's denial of the allegations could be easily included while staying under 15 words, though editors such as User:MrX have tried to exclude the denial from the lead even though WP:BLP says, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported").

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

Prior notification of discretionary sanctions at article

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't like filing complaints and such at Wikipedia, and rarely do so. I think the system is all fucked up, and that Wikipedia should use a rules-based jury-like system instead of a centralized hierarchical system. I'm sticking my neck out when I file a complaint here, and have little confidence in a reasonable or fair outcome. 'Nuf said?

@User:SPECIFICO, I disagree with just about every word you wrote. If anyone wants me to elaborate on any particular point, please let me know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, calling something a consensus version does not make it so. I have already described (above) the consensus in the ongoing RFC, at the time you made the edit, and that RFC is even more against your edit right now. Check it out. If you revert soon, I'd be glad to withdraw this AE action.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, the RFC asks whether 15 words is insufficient in the lead to cover the sex allegations; calling such a simple question nonsensical is itself nonsensical, no matter how many people said so (or continue to say so). You say that the relevant discussion is in a talk page section titled "Removal of sexual misconduct accusations" but, actually, opposition to removal of the sex material from the lead obviously does not equate to supporting more than 15 words of it in the lead (my first comment in that talk page section makes clear that I was proposing removal of the 15-word version rather than removal of your later 67-word version). I have not analyzed whether this edit that you mention was done with consensus or not, and it's irrelevant anyway, because the question here at AE is whether you had consensus when you returned to a 67-word version (not at some previous time). As for your accusation that this edit of mine was somehow "POV", my edit summary clearly justifies the edit, and explicitly quotes WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, I have corrected the inadvertent formatting faux pas that you pointed out, thanks. You also said below "you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus." Absolute nonsense. I know it was done without consensus at the time it was done, though I do not know whether it would have had consensus at previous times (such as at the time when the text was originally inserted by someone else). I cannot make it any clearer than that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, you're critiquing stuff I said to James J. Lambden (e.g. "None of the former are mentioned in the article body"), which is fine, but please indicate when you're doing that for clarity's sake. And I will try to be clearer too. Notice that I'm not making up some venal motive here to attribute to you, and I'd appreciate the same if possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, I don't follow your further comments. The simple fact is that when you reinstated a 67-word paragraph in the lead about sex allegations, the consensus in the RFC clearly indicated that 15 words or less was sufficient. Fess up and all will be forgiven.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, you mentioned below that "The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act". Indeed, the allegations inserted into the lead now include "rape, child rape". None of the former are mentioned in the article body (due perhaps to retraction), and the latter (child rape) is now described in the article body as follows: "A 'Jane Doe' had charges brought forward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 10, 2016, for alleged forcible and statutory rape in 1994, when Doe was thirteen years old;[358] according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this 'Jane Doe' against Trump 'appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.'" So thanks for helping me convey that we're talking about jamming stuff into the lead that is about as sensitive as can possibly be in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, incidentally, the stuff in that quote after the semicolon was added by me a few minutes ago, and so the material in the BLP text about the child rape was even briefer when Volunteer Marek jammed it into the lead without consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, also incidentally, Volunteer Marek inserted "rape" into the lead, referring to the alleged child rape of "Jane Doe", and then someone else came along 50 minutes later and put "rape" into the lead a second time.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nomoskedasticity, I see that you have decided to replace the 15 words in the lead by reinstating over 70 words. All done without discussion at article talk, and without giving any hint that you care one whit about article talk. So, in the unlikely event that admins actually take some action here to enforce the discretionary sanctions as I've requested, then maybe you and I can engage further about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrX, you say "Hey Anythingyouwant, thanks for throwing me under the bus and not notifying me!". Anyone can see above that I pinged you, as was my intent. You don't gain any credibility in my eyes by starting with such an obvious falsity. I am busy and will respond more later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrX, you say that you were not pinged, but I took the necessary steps above to ping you. If Wikipedia software failed here (unlikely in my view), then that may explain things. The next thing you say below is also a falsity: "Anythingyouwant started a competing RfC a little over two hours later." No, I never started a competing RFC about this. Here is a diff of me starting the RFC at 21:47 on 15 October. Anyone can see that there was then no competing RFC at that time (I had previously made an edit just like this later one specifically to remove the impression that there was any competing RFC). Adding to this falsity, MrX (who has been a very involved editor at the Trump article which should have precluded closing an RFC per policy) has today purported to close the RFC I started (without mentioning it at this board), and his closing statement is as follows: "There seems to be consensus that this RfC is seriously malformed and based on the false premise that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus, which it does not." That is another falsity. I never suggested that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus; in fact, within four hours of starting the RFC I replaced those 15 words in the BLP with 12 words.[2] The very first comment in the RFC (written by me) said "Please note that if this RFC concludes that the number of words [15] is not insufficient, that would not decide whether this number of words is too much, nor whether the wording should be changed without lengthening the sentence". I wanted to keep the scope of the RFC narrow and binary, to reach consensus quicker, which we did. The RFC question itself says "At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, 'Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.' Is this number of words in the lead insufficient, for the time being, regarding this subject?" Obviously, this RFC question does not ask whether the current language in the lead should be retained (and obviously assumes that it may not be retained). Mr X adds below a bunch of further attacks unrelated to this RFC/ sex controversy, accusing me of "Wikilawyering over the term 'firm consensus'; using the presence of citations in the lead as a reason for opposing; asking the closer to consider a completely different version of the proposed content; and creating a competing RfC six days after the original one was created." If anyone seriously wants me to turn this proceeding into an utter mess by responding to these bogus unrelated charges, then please let me know and I will do so (though not gladly), and would then reciprocate with a whole bunch of equally unrelated (but valid) further charges against MrX.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. I have re-opened the RFC improperly closed by MrX.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANNOUNCEMENT: A mostly uninvolved administrator, User:AWilley, has now re-closed the RFC that I started. I emphatically disagree that the RFC was unhelpful, and I believe people who were complaining about it were mostly trying to undermine any effort to put a cap on how much sex stuff goes into the lead of this very high-profile BLP. But since AWilley disagrees with me, the RFC is done with, and the present request for enforcement is now moot. I therefore hereby withdraw it. I did not foresee such a thing happening, and I apologize to any bystanders who have spent time trying to sort this out. The behavior at the Trump article and talk page regarding sex allegations in the lead has been disgraceful, and I hope we can at least share consensus about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, if any admin would like to take action sua sponte (i.e. of his, her, its or their own accord), that is allowed: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." My complaint above was perfectly valid, but it is moot, and I do not want to devote the rest of October having my soul crushed by the asymmetry principle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

Huh? I restored the consensus version. I didn't edit war or revert or anything. This is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC you started makes no sense, as several commentators have noted. It's not clear what the point is. The relevant discussion [5] (which you started in addition to the RfC for some reason) does indicate a consensus for inclusion. Furthermore it's clear from the discussion, particularly your proposal for removal, that the text was there initially, having consensus, and then it was removed without consensus. The removal was here. You didn't go running to WP:AE all out raged and self righteous when that was done. No, instead you even POV-ed that already POV sentence even more. And I didn't go running to WP:AE when that was done either. Please stop treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Lambden, my comment (so far) is succinct so I have no idea what you're going on about. You, on the other hand, are bringing up the same ol' crap that you've brought up several times already, so long that you have to hat it, that didn't work the first three or four times you dragged it out. Might as well point out that you are in fact the editor who removed the consensus text here without discussion that Anythingyouwant DIDN'T file an AE report about. If I was following your and Anything's script I would've filed an AE report right there. But I didn't because, unlike you and Anything, I don't treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Anythingyouwant, please don't change your comments after I've replied to them as that makes it seem like I'm replying to something I'm not, as you did here. Make a separate comment please. Anyway, when you state "I have not analyzed whether [this edit] that you mention was done with consensus or not" you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus. I mean, if editor 1 makes revert X and then editor 2 undoes that revert, and you have no idea whether editor 1's edit had consensus then you clearly have no idea whether undoing of that edit had consensus. So you are admitting that this report you filed is spurious and just opportunistic "let me file another report against VM as soon as he makes an edit on a Donald Trump article". It's meritless and just shows that you are playing games, trying to abuse the DS/AE process (as Specifico above mentions) and treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

And that's giving your statement a generous interpretation - that you had no idea whether my edit had consensus or not but chose to file this spurious AE report anyway - and assuming good faith. A less generous, though more common sense, interpretation would be that you knew damn well that James Lambden's edit had NO consensus but supported him (by tweaking it to POV it even further) because it accorded with your POV then ran over here the minute someone tried to restore consensus (also in the meantime filed a nonsensical RfC that nobody can understand as a way of "protecting" the non-consensus version - sorry, filing an RfC isn't some magic pixie dust that you can sprinkle on an article talk page to protect POV non-consensus edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Anythingyouwant - "None of the former are mentioned in the article body" - that is clearly false if you are referring to the version at the time I made the edit [6]. Now since then you have made edits to the article, so that later it was changed. Seriously, this is blatantly dishonest: "the text Marek restored to the lede did not summarize article text... because I changed it later so that it wouldn't, even though at the time he made the edit, it did". What the hell???? But please, keep on digging.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, in fact, you JUST NOW (as in a few minutes ago) ran to the article to alter the text [7] and then ran straight over here to claim "oh look! That text doesn't summarize the article!". No shit. You. Just. Changed. It.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. My comment at 7:51 [8]. Anythingyouwant's comment at 7:54 [9]. I do like that "Incidentally". As in "oh this has nothing to do with the fact that it was just pointed out I edited the article just now and pretended that my edits had been there for a long time".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - please consider this an AE report concerning Anythingyouwant and James J Lambden as well Anythingyouwant, after making a show of making multiple edits to the article, the purpose of which appears to be solely so that he could come here and claim "the lede restored by Volunteer Marek doesn't summarize the article" (with those edits made AFTER the fact) has now completely erased all of these edits (I guess they didn't serve the purpose well enough, the attempt being fairly transparent) and has simply restored the earlier non-consensus version [10].

Just to be clear, here is the timeline

The text under discussion was added by long standing (since 2008) User:JJARichardson [11] on October 14, 20:15.
This was first reverted by a newly created single purpose account (I'm guessing - just guessing at this point - sock puppet of a recently topic banned User) [12] and restored by User:JJARichardson with a very accurate edit summary shortly after [13].
The text then remained in the lede unchallanged and also unmentioned on talk until October 15, 16:11, so basically a full day which is quite awhile for a hot topic like this article, until it was removed without discussion and a fairly ridiculous reason in edit summary by James J. Lambden [14] (do you really think the biggest story of the election is "UNDUE"???)
This was undone by User:Tataral shortly there after [15] who correctly noted that per discretionary sanctions James. J. Lambden needs to get consensus before making such controversial changes. JJ Lambden is aware of discretionary sanctions and how they work
The text was again reverted by James J Lambden on Oct 15 17:24 [16]
- This constituted a violation of the 1RR restriction by James J. Lambden.
- The edit summary by James J. Lambden falsely claimed that consensus was needed to undo his edit. Note that this is exactly the same tactic that recently topic banned User:CFredkin used to try and railroad his POV into the article.
This was again undone soon there after (17:55) by User:Steeletrap [17] who again correctly note that the actual consensus which is required is for removing the text.

Likewise, with his latest edit, Anythingyouwant here is edit warring to restore his preferred version and is making changes to the article which do not have consensus. At the very least, he could've waited for this AE report to get some traction or something, but rather they decided to go ahead and try to get their way.

The above 1RR violation by James J Lambden is way more serious than any single edit by any single user restoring or undoing what they thought was consensus (and I just have to point out that at least three other users made the same edit as I did, yet, Anythingyouwant did not file WP:AE reports on them, so yes, there is an element of a grudge stemming from previous disputes here).

I could file a separate WP:AE reports against Anythingyouwant and James J Lambden based on these edits but it could get taken as being "pointy" or simply retributive. It's not. But it'd probably be best if this report here also involved looking over these users edits (recent and not so recent). Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the edit I made which is the subject of this report, was also made by my count by SIX other editors. Exactly same edit or same substance. THREE of these other-editor-same-edit edits were made BEFORE my edit. I don't see Anythingyouwant filing WP:AE reports against them as well. I guess if he filed an AE report against six editors simultaneously that'd sort of give the game up - the text has consensus. So he picked me. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Yet again a battleground Trumpside POV editor files a specious AE against Volunteer Marek. Anythingyouwant is almost laughably tendentious in her contortions to contrive what she can plausibly pitch as content- and policy-based rationalizations of her POV edits across the range of American Politics related articles. I have stated previously that much of this appears to be an extension of her rabid pro-life editing for which she was TBANned. In my opinion the TBAN should be extended to American Politics because the two subjects are inseparable given the current Supreme Court vacancy with more expected to come. Anythingyouwant has repeatedly violated 1RR on American Politics related articles. There are many such warnings on her talk page.

In the present case, the Trump article has been hog-tied with convoluted confused and counterproductive hair-splitting that has come down to a minority theory that word count must be used to resolve content disputes. Within the last several hours, Marek sought to clear this colossal roadblock by reinstating the widely supported, succinct and innocuous version of some lede text that had been in the article. This enforcement request is an escalation of Anythingyouwant's tendentious refusal to accept reasoned, policy-based arguments and move on to other areas of this article that we all could work on improving. \ TBAN for Anythingyouwant and thanks to Marek for being the calm steady grown-up in the room on this occasion. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Anythingyouwant has withdrawn her complaint against Volunteer Marek, I urge Admins to consider TBANs for Anythingyouwant and James Lambden, as proposed elsewhere on this thread. Kudos to my friend Anythingyouwant for trying to get this thread closed before her behavior can be fully scrutinized here. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: A speedy close will just prolong and enable more of this tendentious POV warring by Anythingyouwant. Remember how solicitously Anythingyouwant seemed to be receiving your advice to back off and cease this kind of nonsense over a month ago[18]? She's very good at pushing it to the edge and then playing dead. Fool you once, etc... How many times do we want to sit through this movie? SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

Once again we see Marek's successful strategy: throw enough words with enough denial and misdirection into a paragraph and outside observers won't have the energy to sift through it; or if they do, the waters will be muddied enough they're reluctant to sanction. The final act is an appearance by My Very Best Wishes to defend his frequent accomplice.

The meat of this enforcement request is this, and don't let misdirection and equivocation obscure it:

The article is subject to Discretionary Sanctions under BLP and American Politics
Marek's edit summary indicates he was aware the content had been removed
At the time of his edit there were two active discussions concerning the content, neither showing consensus for restoration: 1 2
The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act

At the last AE Marek was involved in just over a week ago I made this statement:

Statement by James J. Lambden

In almost every political article our editing intersects Marek's turned the article into a battleground. This is simply a continuation.

Recent examples:

In Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy he removes a statement summarizing an article written by the former head of the IRS chief counsel’s Commodities Industry Specialization Team and published in the WSJ as "an off hand comment which violates due weight"

In Angel Makers of Nagyrév, he describes my assumption that husbands in 1930's Hungary were men as WP:SYNTH, and edit-wars to ensure it

Both instances involved blatant misrepresentation.

Another example comes from a 3RR report against Marek only 3 days ago. I comment that previous reports against him "show a number of established, apparently non-partisan editors concerned about [his] behavior." He responds: "they show nothing of the kind", forcing me to link the actual comments:

It's either that he's forgotten the number of cautions from administrators (in which case he shouldn't be editing sensitive articles) or he hasn't and was aware the claim "they show nothing of the kind" was untrue when he made it (in which case again he shouldn't be editing sensitive articles.)

As I said in that same request: How many different editors have to complain and how many reports showing the same behavior across multiple articles have to be submitted before an admin takes action? This disruption is long-term and ongoing. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That request was archived without comment. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek:'s well aware consensus is not required to remove text on BLP grounds. I immediately offered to remove the text added in my removal, but left it as a good-faith compromise between those who wanted no mention in the lede and those who wanted the paragraph Marek restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires consensus to restore removed material. The restored material in this case included the phrase "~~child~~ rape." Whether the RFC stays open or closed is irrelevant - if Marek can show consensus anywhere on the talk page at the time of his edit this AE should be closed. If not, he and every editor who restored it ignored the rules in one of if not the most visible BLP on the site. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I don't know whether your question was directed to editors or admins but if this request is withdrawn I intend to submit another with the same diff against the same editor. When an editor restores "~~child~~ rape" without consensus that is to me an open and shut case. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malerooster

Just for a point of order, doesn't there need to be consensus for INCLUSION of RECENTLY added material, NOT removal of such? The Trump sexual bru ha ha was added to the LEAD section of the BIO 3? days ago against any clear consensus, despite what others may say, see talk page. If clear consensus forms that this material belongs in the the LEAD, then fine, add it, otherwise don't.--Malerooster (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tataral

Volunteer Marek is one of a long list of editors who have simply reinstated the version that was agreed on by most editors in the relevant discussion, a version that is a neutrally worded, concise summary of the text in the body of the article. The RFC referred to by Anythingyouwant was widely dismissed as a nonsensical attempt to derail the issue on the talk page and is currently closed with the summary "There seems to be consensus that this RfC is seriously malformed and based on the false premise that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus, which it does not." --Tataral (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Hey Anythingyouwant, thanks for throwing me under the bus and not notifying me! What you neglected to mention was my documented reasoning for omitting Trump's trite denial from the lead.

Anythingyouwant continues to try to WP:GAME the system to gain an advantage in content disputes on Donald Trump-related articles:

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

I'm a little surprised that he would think coming to AE was a good idea, but since he's here, his conduct should be reviewed as well.- Mr X 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: You may have intended to ping me, but you did not in fact ping me. No such alert was received, so there's no falsity in my statement. You were wrong to try to discredit me in your complaint against Volunteer Marek.- Mr X 20:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Of course, there's no competing RfC if you make it disappear before starting your own.- Mr X 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buster7

User J.J. Lambden is right about not having the energy to sift through the dozens of daily diffs displaying changes to the article. I try to keep abreast of what is happening at the Trump article as an observer with very few edits to the article or comments on the talk page. The inconstancy of the article is not a magnet to participate. But the strategy to confuse with multiple RfC's is not Volunteer Marek's. Some editors are very adroit at obfuscation. Volunteer Marek is not one of them. Buster Seven Talk 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D.Creish

The banner at the top of the edit page for Donald Trump says in big bold letters:

You [...] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page

Unless VM can prove consensus he should be topic-banned from BLPs.

My last edit a month ago expressed concern over the apparent inability to sanction VM despite repeated requests and convincing evidence. When one editor is allowed to flout the rules others are held to the consensus model can't work. I have stopped editing as a result. D.Creish (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

User:Anythingyouwant now wants to withdraw this AE request, per his statement above. Does anyone object? EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a speedy close would be more conducive to people refocusing on content than trying to determine fault in what seems to be a messy dispute. ~Awilley (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this request should be closed as withdrawn. Otherwise I would have supported closing as no action required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant

The originally reported edits were good faith reverts as potential BLP problems and so were exempt from revert restrictions. Therefore, no violation of 1RR occurred from these edits. Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one. All editors are reminded that a clear consensus is required to revert an edit which notes it corrects a BLP problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Anythingyouwant

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29; see Talk:Donald Trump, where it is noted that WP:1RR applies to the page

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

00:59, 18 October 2016 - First revert
01:05, 18 October 2016 - Second revert

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After seeing two reverts, I went to the user talk page of Anythingyouwant to give them a friendly reminder of the discretionary sanctions active on Donald Trump. Instead, I found that they've been repeatedly reminded of these discretionary sanctions and have apparently chosen to ignore them. Here's a list of their talk page sections where other editors mentioned the WP:1RR restriction or discretionary sanctions in general.

Despite an active RfC, a lot of discussion on this issue, and a good deal of support for including this information, Anythingyouwant's most recent edit summary stated "See previous edit summary. This edit and my last one are pursuant to WP:BLP and I will keep reverting for the stated reasons", indicating that he plans to continue edit warring over this issue. I'm hoping a warning in a more formal venue will be all that's needed here.

(Note: I just noticed the kind-of-but-not-really related AE request above before hitting Save Changes. If anyone wants to somehow merge this, go nuts, but it's probably less messy to handle it separately.)

@Anythingyouwant: There's an ongoing RfC addressing this issue and there's been loads of discussion recently about it. There's a rather substantial difference between removing an obvious violation without waiting for procedure and removing something you think is a violation while substantial pre-existing discussion has not treated it as such. For instance, even those arguing against inclusion at the RfC have done so on the basis of WP:UNDUE representation in the lead, not a BLP violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/744884824

Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant

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

Statement by Anythingyouwant

@User:BU Rob13, there is a well-established exception to 1RR, and I quoted it at the article talk page without hearing any objection. Do you dispute that there is an exception to 1RR?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BU Rob13, are you prepared to say that putting "rape, child rape" into this lead was not a BLP violation? Yes or no? No one at the article talk page has suggested any such thing, and I started a section explicitly about it. Nor does the RFC address anything about rape: "Should the lede of this BLP include any summary of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump? If the material is included, to what extent should it be covered in the lead?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, I have made further BLP reverts. Regarding this edit of mine, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, the BLP edit that I just described has been reverted.[19] Rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault, the most common form of sexual assault on college campuses,[20] and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault.[21][22] According to the lead of our Wikipedia article about sexual assault, "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead is totally unnecessary and potentially very misleading, so I will continue to insist on the more specific language about forcible kissing and groping.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, I am done for now reverting the lead so that it uses specific language instead of rape-inclusive language. I await your decision as to whether I was right or wrong to make these reverts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, thanks for pointing out that I inadvertently split your comment. I fixed the error.[23] Sorry about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, please, if you want to insist that I not move your comment to a more pertinent section of the talk page, why do you think it's okay to move my comment without my permission?[24]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I think on this - the narrow edit in question - Anythingyouwant should get a pass on BLP grounds. If he had made this exact edit earlier - rather than removing a whole paragraph that contained this part - I would not have had any problem with it and that whole AE thing above would've been unnecessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, while the edits listed above can be excused on BLP grounds and do not constitute a 1RR violation, the same thing cannot be said for the following two reverts:

[25]
[26]

Here is the relevant discussion on talk [27] where it's clear that there is absolutely no consensus for Anythingyouwant's changes and he clearly knows this, but chooses to start another edit war regardless. Likewise there is a ton of sources using the language that ATW is reverting.

So while I don't think ATW deserves to be sanction for the reverts that were originally made and are subject of this report, these edits are a clear attempt to WP:GAME the rules, they do constitute a 1RR violation, and should be considered sanction able. Unfortunately it seems that with ATW "you give'em an inch and they try to take a mile". Which means that a block would be preventive not punitive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if this should be filed as a separate report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second, on this page, at 5:09, Anythingyouwant [28] says "I am done for now reverting the lead ". Uh, yeah, after violating 1RR and "getting his way". This statement shows that Anythingyouwant appears to be "testing the waters" and seeing how much they can get away with. Again, this means that a preventive block is justified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Now Anythingyouwant is editing my comments and moving them around on the talk page [29]. The way he moved my comment (without my permission) detached my comment from the sources I presented to back it up, making it seem like something it was not. Preventive block... come on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I'm sorry, this wasn't just two reverts but an all out "I'm gonna edit war to get my way" spree

So that's not just a 1RR violation but even a 3RR violation.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

BLP says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Mentioning alleged rape and child rape in the lead is undue, since they have not received substantial coverage. Note that there is currently wide coverage about allegations of sexual assualt against Trump, but none of them mention the rape or child rape allegations. Wikiepdia articles should not draw attention to matters that we believe the mainstream has overlooked or portray subjects in a more or less favorable light than one would find in mainstream sources. The edit made Trump appear even worse than he has been portrayed by his political opponents, which is a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

I have noticed quite a few cases of what I think is misuse of the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to enforce the removal of, or the inclusion of, content that editors want out or in for pov reasons. Alleging a connection to BLP policies when doing it also seems common, and is used a way of locking down any discussion of the matter. In reality the two things are completely separate, BLP policies always take precedence and they cover every article; short term sanctions covering a select subject area do not. The content deleted by Anythingyouwant clearly violated BLP policies and required immediate removal. I doubt the competence of any editor who could genuinely support the retention of such content, and to invoke American Politics 2 sanctions as a way of avoiding our obligations to follow BLP policies is very ill-judged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dervorguilla

Some background material about the child-rape allegation that Anythingyouwant courteously deleted: "A publicist calling himself 'Al Taylor' attempted to sell the videotape of 'Jane Doe' relating her allegations for $1m... When the Guardian quizzed 'Al Taylor' about his true identity, the publicist replied: 'Just be warned, we'll sue you if we don't like what you write. We'll sue your ass, own your ass and own your newspaper's ass as well, punk.'" I suspect that the editor who contributed that allegation to the article would benefit greatly from further discipline. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

I am recused from acting as an administrator in election-related articles, as usual. However, as an editor I do believe that the BLP exemption was valid grounds for going over 1RR. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Anythingyouwant

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

Comment I think its reasonably clear that those reverts are allowed under WP:BLP, which trumps any subject-specific sanctions, and this should be closed without any action. Number 5 7 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything in Number 57's comment, except perhaps his inadvertently ironic use of the word "trumps." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was clearly a good-faith action taken under BLP, and such actions have long been held to be exempt from revert restrictions. Since the first removal was clearly marked as a BLP removal, it was inappropriate for anyone to put it back at all, absent a clear consensus to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when "child rape" first appeared in the lead — the Wikiblame tool is being unhelpful, and we all know how bloated the article history is — but Steeletrap seems to have been the first to flesh it out with the addition of "rape" here. After Anythingyouwant first removed both phrases,[34] Steeletrap restored them here, thus pretty much forcing another revert by Anythingyouwant. I agree with my colleagues above that AYW did the right thing in removing an obvious BLP vio. I also propose that Steeletrap be warned. At least warned. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
If we close this with no sanction against User:Anythingyouwant we are endorsing the removal of the 'child rape' phrase from the article under BLP as poorly-sourced contentious material. The sources for the charge do appear to be flimsy, though the fact that a charge was made is reliably published, by the Guardian and by NBC News. Trump's campaign has stated this is a hoax. Excluding the child rape phrase could conceivably go against the local editor consensus, if they do come up with a complete RfC that supports including the child rape charge. At the moment the local editors have not done so. The closest they came to this is the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#Obvious BLP violation. However, the child rape charge is included in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Jane Doe (1994). I draw no conclusion from that, but it is a point that others might bring up in the future. For now, I recommend closing this AE request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're endorsing any particular result. For me, the question is not whether the material should be removed, whether for BLP reasons or others (which is ultimately a content decision not to be decided at AE), but rather whether a reasonable person could have believed that it should be removed under BLP. In this case, I think Anythingyouwant's concerns were reasonably well founded. What the article ultimately should look like is, of course, up to consensus of editors; if there's a consensus to put it back, back it'll go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above, it was reasonable that a person might remove these claims from the article given the obvious BLP concerns. I don't see any reasonable grounds to impose a sanction here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Md iet

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Md iet (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by Md iet

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

The articles are general articles covering all Islam/ Taiyabi Ismaili. Please analyze the edit mentioned. These are not affecting any status cu of these topics rather than helping Wikipedia users get properly directed/not get mislead. Information corrected was misleading in one case. The person already dead was presented as live. This I felt not proper of Wikipedia. In the second case, it was just like spelling correction, to felicitate reader further. --Md iet (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

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

Statement by Adamfinmo

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet

Result of the appeal by Md iet

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

Since the sanctioning admin EdJohnston is in favor of another chance, I think we ought to give one. Theoretically, he could just relax the sanction himself, since he imposed it, and I certainly see no reason to override his judgment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above and with EdJohnston's terms. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with EdJohnston's suggestion, but the two diffs showing he has actually broken the ban at least twice, albeit with small edits, should be noted. The topic ban on articles still stands, and if he edits another article directly this way, he will be fully banned again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant 2

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

Request concerning Anythingyouwant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am filing this per User:Seraphimblade's comment in closing the above AE request [39] Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one..

While I agree with the closure of the above request, and that THOSE two edits were justified on BLP grounds, THESE FOUR reverts are not. This appears to be a case of Anythingyouwant running wild and interpreting favorable comments on the previous issue as a carte blanche to revert at will. In this particular case, the edits being reverted are NOT a BLP violation as they are strongly sourced AND there is consensus for the wording on talk [40] (note that because Anythingyouwant started to move other people's comments around some of the flow of the conversation got compromised)

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant

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

Statement by Anythingyouwant

Will deal with this tomorrow, gotta get sleep.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Might I suggest tweaking the top-level header to distinguish it from the other identical header? I probably won't get to this until late tonight (it's now 1:46 PM where I am). In the mean time, please note that an almost identical complaint was brought up yesterday toward the end of the other Anythingyouwant section, and I wrote some responsive material there,[41] and that section was closed with this statement:[reply]

The originally reported edits were good faith reverts as potential BLP problems and so were exempt from revert restrictions. Therefore, no violation of 1RR occurred from these edits. Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one. All editors are reminded that a clear consensus is required to revert an edit which notes it corrects a BLP problem.[42]

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

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

I won’t repeat what I already said about this accusation when it was first made in the previous section here at AE, but I will add to what I already said (as briefly as possible). It is amusing that Marek has the chutzpah to bring this action after trying to get the word "rape" into the lead.[43] As noted above, that attempt was rightly deemed a BLP violation here at AE, though Marek somehow escaped sanctions. Someone else clamoring for sanctions against me here is My very best wishes who likewise sought to violate WP:BLP by jamming "child rape" into the lead of this BLP.[44] He somehow escaped sanctions too. Isn't it amazing? But I still hold out some hope, and therefore request boomerangs against them both.
Marek accuses me now of violating 1RR, and he provides four diffs. I suppose the third diff could technically be considered a revert, because I did not explicitly mention WP:BLP in my edit summary, though Marek did not (and cannot) provide any previous version reverted to. As for the first second , and fourth diffs, they all explicitly cite WP:BLP in the edit summaries which were all directed at pretty much the same thing, respectively:

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

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

@User:Drmies, you say "Equating rape with sexual assault and thus claiming the same exemption is not going to work." I emphatically didn't do that. As I said above: "I do not rule out use of the term 'sexual assault' in the lead, but it has to be used carefully (like I did here), in such a way as to not suggest or insinuate allegations of rape." Rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault generally, and the number one form of sexual assault on college campuses,[45] and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault.[46][47] According to the lead of our Wikipedia article about sexual assault (until it was just edited by a participant in the present case), "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead has to be done carefully so as not to suggest possible rape accusations. I would be glad to stop editing the Trump article until after the election if that will save me from a topic ban, but I think you're mistaken to green light deliberate insinuations of things you've already barred.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by MrX

Of the four diffs listed by Marek, at least three are unambiguous reverts within a 24 hour period. Doing so under the shelter of the WP:BLP policy is blatant gaming. Regarding this edit, numerous reliable sources have characterized the allegations against Trump's as "sexual assault".[48][49][50][51][52]

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

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

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

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

Here, he wants to change the simple fact that Trump bragged about sexual assaulting women, to Trump bragged about his capacity to grope and forcibly kiss women: Talk:Donald_Trump#Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women).
Sometimes he lobbies to add random material, apparently to dilute anything critical about the subject: Talk:Donald_Trump#Removal of sexual misconduct allegations.
Filibustering about a fringe point of view by cherry-picking sources: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_29#Our obligations when media sources differ
Misrepresenting sources: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_27#Description of donees from the Foundation Center
Wikilawyering to override the clear consensus from an RfC: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_24#Discretionary sanctions issue
Using WP:OR to make something bad sound better. [53] [54]

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

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

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

This case follows on almost immediately after a near identical case [55] that was also raised against Anythingyouwant. The initiators of each are attempting to misuse the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to usurp our common obligation to obey BLP requirements. As in the earlier case, the content deleted by Anythingyouwant violated BLP policies and required removal. He cannot be sanctioned under subject specific sanctions for doing this. MrX claims, above, that Anythingyouwant "escaped sanctions" in that earlier case, weasely insinuating a lucky escape by a guilty party. The reality was the exact opposite: the idea that Anythingyouwant had violated sanctions was conclusively dismissed and everyone agreed that the material he removed was violating BLP requirements. The nastiness and general slimyness seen in the Donald Trump article content is getting out of hand, and I think Volunteer Markek and his ever-present sidekick My very best wishes want that state of affairs to continue. The misrepresentation and distortion of sources is blatant - I have pointed out one example of it here: [56]. Does Fyddlestix, in his definitions of "sexual assault" given below, consider shaking hands with a fully clothed 15 year old counts as "sexual assault"? The article as it is currently worded does. Here is another example: obviously off-topic detail about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump, editorialising done for no other reason I am sure than to blatantly imply guilt by association - [57]. And this stuff is actually placed in a section of the article dealing with Trump's business interests! At best, the part dealing with Tyson's 2016 endorsement could be on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as part of a listing of celebrity endorsements. I also think this here [58] is a bad faith implied threat intended to be seen by all editors working on the article - article talk pages are about content discussions and are not for notices about cases raised against individual editors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Fyddlestix

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

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

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

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

Statement by SPECIFICO

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

Anythingyouwant recently ignored warnings from several editors. Here is mine, on her talk page: [59] SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Masem

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

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

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

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

Statement by My very best wishes

Here is edit by Anythingyouwant made in violation of 1RR rule on the page. This edit does not fix any BLP violations because (a) the material in question is well-sourced and included on the page itself [60] and other pages [61],[62] and (b) the material remains in the lede even after the edit by Anythingyouwant but became less visible (note that only poorly sourced materials are exempt from 1RR rule [63]). Actually, no one disputed that the information itself was well-sourced, and must be included on the page. The dispute was about including this info in lede. Moreover, Anythingyouwant made revert of material that is currently under discussion in an RfC and was warned not make this edit in advance [64], but still did it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by James J. Lambden

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

The sequence as I see it here is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tataral

As pointed out by others, Anythingyouwant is "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion). One of the main issues for Donald Trump and his party in this election, as one could expect, is abortion (often in connection with appointments to the supreme court), which was one of the key issues debated, for instance, in the most recent presidential debate, in which Trump said "I am pro life and I will be appointing pro life judges" and even more polemically that under current abortion law in the US "You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day".[65] The fact that abortion is one of the main issues for the Republican Party in presidential elections is very well known, and Trump has made it clear for a long time, and well before the edits in question, that he is an anti-abortion political candidate who uses strong anti-abortion language and who will appoint "pro life judges". It seems quite clear that the Trump article is within the scope of a topic ban covering "abortion-related pages, broadly construed." --Tataral (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dervorguilla

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by JFG

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

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

Statement by Dr. Fleischman

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

Statement by The Four Deuces

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

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

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

Statement by (Markbassett)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Given the unprecedented goings-on in the current U.S. presidential election it may be wise for any sanctions to continue until the outcome of the election is no longer a matter of significant dispute, or similar wording. The possibility of a drawn-out, acrimonious state-by-state legal challenge to the validity of the election is presently being discussed in high-end reliable sources.[66] These are strange times. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anythingyouwant

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

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

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

As am I. I'm almost of the view that the top 10 editors of the article and talkpage in the past month should be banned until after the election is out of its misery, but I don't think that's feasible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My frustrated comment above stands, but in terms of this specific issue I think at least 6 month ban from American politics is warranted. I wholly agree with Drmies' summary below. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgment Drmies, and I'm willing to go with something shorter. Also, to be completely clear my comment above was not a suggestion for responding to this specific instance; I wouldn't do something like that without all the proper notifications and statements at least. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of Anything vol. 1, which just closed; if I had seen that I would have agreed with closing that as a good-faith BLP exemption. However, I do not see how that applies here--I'm sorry, Anything. But the edit cannot be justified by way of the BLP exemption, since the allegations and their phrasing are well sourced and widely known, unlike the previous case's "rape". Equating rape with sexual assault and thus claiming the same exemption is not going to work. My colleague Masem says, above, "while it may be true that these are accusations put against him, they have no business to be highlighted to that great a detail in the lede"--this may well be true, and I am usually a fan of less rather than more, what Masem offers us is in no way a valid exemption. There is no significant difference in the level of detail, and how for instance UNDUE applies here is not clear, esp. since Anything's edits/tweaks do not materially shorten the lead. If the lead is too detailed or whatever, settle it on the talk page; the only question here is whether, for instance, changing "forcible groping or kissing" to "assaulting" is a BLP violation which can legitimately lead to an exemption. I think the answer is no. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything, I'm sorry, but I stand by what I said. If you like I'll modify and change "equate" to something much longer involving "is practically equated to ___ because in many cases the suggestion is that etc." In order to get some sort of exemption you simply have to accept that "sexual assault" was a BLP violation. I don't see that. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Six months is a long time. I am not sure if Anything has a block/topic ban log, but they're fairly reasonable, and if a topic ban comes to an end and the behavior hasn't improved, a new one is handed out easily enough. So as far as I'm concerned a month, no more than three months, is more than enough. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- JFG, if you have any good intentions here at all, please don't exaggerate by stating that the lead of his article practically reads "Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." Or, if you were trying to be funny, don't. Exaggeration without proof may provide a good soundbite, but it poisons the atmosphere because those claims can't easily be countered. Sound familiar? Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - JFG, If I took your words more literal than they were intended, which it seems I did, I certainly apologize, and I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree with Drmies here. While there is an exemption to revert rules for BLP enforcement, we also have to be mindful that it's easily abused. I think this has crossed over into abuse territory, given the high profile of the sexual assault allegations and their clear backing in reliable sources. Presenting well sourced negative information is not a BLP issue, it's a content decision, and that's subject to revert restrictions like any other content matter. Accordingly, I do believe 1RR was violated here, as these were not reasonable BLP concerns. BLP covers unsourced or poorly sourced content, not well sourced content. That being said, I also do agree with Drmies that any sanction should be a relatively short one, given that the US political season will be over shortly and these areas will likely cool off after that. I'd support a month long topic ban from the subject of Donald Trump, with the expectation that the sanction may be lengthened and/or broadened if issues like this occur again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These actions were technically 1RR I suppose, although I think it is defensible (but wrong) to say that they were legitimate per BLP. Either way, it's such a minor thing that under reasonable circumstances a quick discussion on the talkpage should have sorted it out, but partisans on both sides have dug in their battleground mentality so hard that that is not going to happen. To be honest, I am in agreement with User:The Blade of the Northern Lights here, and would not object at all to a topic ban for a number of editors on both "sides" of this dispute until at least November 10, at which point it will all hopefully be moot. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- I think six months for a topic ban is excessive, lets try for "until the winner of the election is declared", and see if anyone still wants to carry the flame after that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
This is a case of WP:CRYBLP in support of partisan editing by an editor already sanctioned for partisan editing, in an area that is strongly related to one where the editor has a ban already in place. I have great sympathy for the "plague on all their houses" view expressed above, but I think it is also unarguable that this is disruptive and tendentious editing and that a good case could be made for topic-banning Anythingyouwant from American politics until December. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these reverts were justified under the BLP exception to 1RR. That exception isn't supposed to be used for people to promote their sides of arguable issues through edit warring. The exact wording that should be used to describe the allegations can of course be discussed, but labelling them as "sexual assault" isn't the kind of clear BLP violation that would justify starting an edit war. Some kind of sanctions on both "sides" until after the presidential election, as suggested above, may be a good idea. Hut 8.5 12:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was drawn here by this dispute popping up on my watchlist. The points I would make have been made more clearly by folks above: so let me just say that the diffs presented strike me as willful misuse of the BLP exemption. Add to this a clear battleground mentality and an unwillingness to drop the stick, and a topic ban is very much in order. Personally, I do not see the mindset that drives this behavior changing quickly: but perhaps the level of motivation for it will change after the election. A month-long topic ban is the minimum I would suggest. Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying after reading Doug's comment: I, too, mean a topic-ban from post 1932 US politics. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Vanamonde here. At one point I was thinking "a plague on both your houses", but I've changed my mind in the light of various comments above. I'd support a topic ban for Anythingyouwant - not just until November 10th however. At least until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying my comment, I mean a ban from American politics post 1932, not just Trump. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've recovered from the ennui recorded in my original post and read up. Like the other admins commenting in "Anythingyouwant 1" higher up on this page,[67] I thought Anythingyouwant did the right thing in removing a clear BLP vio (accusations of "rape and child rape") from the lead of Donald Trump. The reverts in this present report are something else, and I agree with Vanamonde that they show a battleground attitude on one of the Wikipedia pages that least need it. Agree with a topic ban from American politics for Anythingyouwant. I like Doug Weller's careful formulation: "at least until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede", but I'll support any proposed ban length up to three months. I don't support any kind of 'ban the lot and let god sort 'em out' solution here. Too radical, and not fair. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't exactly agree with many of compatriots here, at least in part. I think Anything needs to be sent back with clear instructions that "sexual assault" is not synonymous with rape, but I've lived all over the US, and in many places, it is. In many texts it is. We can't escape that. That doesn't mean we are bound to that standard here, but it does offer some explanation. As for CRYBLP, most people editing these articles do have a strong bias one way or another. These political articles are already a handful, the last thing I want to do is affect the balance by topic banning someone under these circumstances. I prefer a warning and instruction to read the advice herein, and accept the consensus view on that phrase. This madness will be over soon enough, but not soon enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shy Twinkling

Shy Twinkling blocked 72 hours for blatant violation of the 500/30 restriction after multiple warnings and is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Shy Twinkling

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Shy Twinkling (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:ARBPIA3#500/30: " All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Shy Twinkling registered as an editor on 22 September
23 September Adding Israeli flag to List of wars 2003–10 (regarding 2006 Lebanon War with Hezbollah)
27 September Reverting an edit at B'Tselem concerning Israeli human rights abuses against Palestinians
28 September Two consecutive edits removing text at Hamas likening its platform to that of the governing Israeli political party
5 October Reverting an edit at Hamas that likened its platform to that of the governing Israeli political party and the settler movement
16 October Reverting an edit at Intifada because "IPs not allowed to edit per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"
21 October Editing List of wars involving Israel to change the "results" of the 1982 Lebanon War from defeat to "unilateral withdrawal"

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

27 September Edit at B'Tselem is reverted with edit summary "see WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"
30 September Edits at Hamas are reverted with edit summary "WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"
5 October Edit at Hamas is reverted with edit summary "ARBPIA500"
5 October Notified on talk page that ARBPIA3 does not allow her/him to "edit in the Arab-Israeli topic area" until completion of 500 edits
17 October Reminded on talk page of ARBPIA3
16 October Shy Twinkling reverted an edit at Intifada because "IPs not allowed to edit per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"
22 October Edit at List of wars involving Israel is reverted with edit summary "New editors are not permitted to edit this article per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not only is Shy Twinkling flouting the ARBPIA3 prohibition against her/him editing the articles listed above, she/he is letting us know she/he knows that—witness the fact that she/he reverted an IP editor for violating ARBPIA3!

My apologies if the dates shown above aren't all correct; my system is set up to show me dates in local time, not UTC. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Shy Twinkling

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 Shy Twinkling

Statement by Ryk72

I reiterate my earlier statement, that these issues are better handled by requesting page protection for the articles in question at WP:RFPP than by reporting users editing in good faith to this noticeboard; Page protection resolves not only any issues with editors reported here, but also any potential issues with all other editors who do not meet the criteria. I also note that Hamas & Intifada, for example, are both now ECP protected; it is somewhat bewildering that they were not previously so. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: On the question of a topic ban, do we consider that the edits are disruptive for reasons other than the editor not meeting the criteria for ARBPIA3#500/30? I've reviewed the edits, and, in good faith, cannot see that they are outside what is generally considered acceptable in this topic space. The first edit in the complaint (#2) is clearly helpful, reverting an edit which transcluded {{Hezbollah}} into a table. The second edit (#3) is misrepresented in the complaint. The third and fourth edits (#4, #5) remove material which might be reasonably considered WP:OR/SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, and should at least be attributed to the opining source. If the only issue is a technical breach of ARBPIA3#500/30, then I would be inclined to ensure the editor understands that ruling; and deal with edits which do not meet 500/30 through revert, protect, move on. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Shy Twinkling

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

It takes a special kind of gall to warn another editor about a restriction at the same time you yourself are violating it, and these are blatant violations after multiple warnings. Unless someone very shortly objects, I'll be closing this with a block. I'm also considering a topic ban from ARBPIA, this type of disruptive behavior is absolutely not what we need in that area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Seraphimblade's view above. This appears to be a Warrior for Truth™ in an area where such people are rarely helpful. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, and the block should be at least 72 hours. The actions documented above take some serious chutzpah in the Yiddish sense of the word, which to be quite mild is remarkably unhelpful in this topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad

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

Request concerning SageRad

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions : discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has continued that campaign in WP space:

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diff

Discussion concerning SageRad

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

Statement by SageRad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the process here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't even have time for this shit.

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

THE HYPOCRISY IS ABSLUTELY ASTOUNDING.

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

Get the hypocrisy, the irony:

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

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

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

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

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

See what's happening here.

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

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

This place is damned.

This place is gone.

This place is captured by an ideological crew. I hold strong and true to everything i've said through my time here.

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

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

Bishonen -- i just saw your comment in which you pinged me. I would like to request a month to get a defense together then. I would be able to process and not feel in jeopardy of a hammer coming down at any moment. The process has felt uncontrollable so far, with the sheer volume of Jytdog's long statement in which i'm described as a demon at all turns. It's far above the 500 word traditional word limit and it's too demonizing to make a simple statement about. It's too deep of a problem and needs some serious addressing. SageRad (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

SageRad has taken it upon himself to be arbiter of "integrity" on Wikipedia. The recent discussions on Jimbotalk showed that Sage rejects conflicting opinion as invalid, and considers that intergrity is measured by consonance with his ideology. On his user page he links to a website promoting an "ethical skeptic" agenda, which promotes Brian Martin (conspiracy theorist and supervisor of Judith Wilyman's substandard and anti-vaccine PhD) and the website where Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin and others rant against pesky science for not accepting their beliefs. He has adopted the rhetoric of Rome Viharo, who was banned for sockpuppetry while promoting Sheldrake and woo-meister Deepak Chopra (where he also had a COI, IIRC). Sage has used the name of Viharo's website, Wikipedia, we have a problem, as the title of at least one o his threads: [68].

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

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

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

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

@SageRad: You ask "What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?" Really? You can ask that still, after the recent discussions at Jimbotalk? I'd say that [69] and [70] contain a pretty complete answer to exactly that question. Your problem is as I state above: you seem unwilling or unable to accept that any conclusion other than yours could possibly be valid, and that anybody who states a conclusion other than yours is ill-informed, stupid, corrupt or some combination of the three. [71] followed by [72] set the tone, and I reckon the whole reason we are here is that if you took a straw poll of those who have spent time trying to work on articles alongside you, most of us would be of the opinion that left to your own devices you would make those edits again right now. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I have never seen any evidence of you even acknowledging that these are matters where reasonable people may differ, let alone being open to changing your mind. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Skyring

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

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

Statement by Alexbrn

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

[73]
[74]

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

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

Statement by OID

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SageRad

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

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

A. I don't see a problem with SageRad's posts on Jimbo's page. They're the kind of thing that page is for. But it's another matter to keep "adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are", as Jytdog puts it, to various article talkpages. I agree that is disruptive and time-wasting. To get the flavour, I've read through the Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 6, that Jytdog referred to and I see exactly what he means by timesink. (I admit I didn't read quite all of the archive, but a good chunk, maybe half, and it was one of my worst hours on Wikipedia.) SageRad's bandying of phrases like "witch hunt" and his assumptions of bad faith of editors like Johnuniq and User:Skyring are just depressing.[75] ("Thanks sir, who I have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion"... "another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past... the gang shows up.") The best thing might be a topic ban from going on about meta-issues on article talkpages, as well as the persistent accusations of people "ganging up" on and "bullying" him as soon as they disagree with him. But formulating such a ban properly and usefully is no doubt impossible. I see JzG too has a problem with what a ban might cover.

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

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

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

Comment I'm still reading through the copious amounts of content presented as evidence. I think there is probably a need for some sort of action here, though I'm not quite sure what the best course is yet. As a point of order, however, I would like to note that this board and its administrators do not have the power to issue a topic ban from "health content"; that would be something to be brought up at one of the conventional noticeboards. The most severe topic ban available to us would be "pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine" or some narrower subset of that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are empowered to implement any conventional sanction even though it is here at AE, treating it as a non-Arb issue without moving it to another board. OID raises some interesting points, and I have to admit only going through part of the evidence, yet this looks like one form of WP:Tendentious editing, albeit not a textbook example. He seems to be taking a singular position on a general theme (skepticism) and bludgeoning multiple pages and refusing to listen to consensus, to the point that it is disruptive to other editors that are simply trying to build an encyclopedia. It does seem to be a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single venue, which has gone well beyond spirited debate and to the point that it is hindering the building of the encyclopedia. Again, WP:TE. I would like to read more and will later today, but this is how it is shaping up in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WaunaKeegan11

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: WaunaKeegan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 72 hour block for violating the 1RR on United States presidential election, 2016 (Log)

Administrator imposing the sanction: Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: I am notified. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaunaKeegan11

"The consensus clearly states that anyone with access to 270 electoral votes or above is allowed in the infobox and a block is unjustified to fix this."
Copied from their user talk page per their request. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ks0stm

Original, Revert 1, Revert 2. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by WaunaKeegan11

Result of the appeal by WaunaKeegan11

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

On the face, it seems simple. Earlier in the day, information was removed. [76]. WaunaKeegan11 then reverted to add it back [77], it was removed by someone else [78] and WaunaKeegan11 instantly reverted a second time.[79]. From a technical standpoint, there is a clear violation. Violating the 1RR restriction is only allowed under very specific circumstances, such as an obvious BLP violation. Saying "but I am right and there is a consensus" isn't a valid exception, even if you are right. I would recommend declining the request to overturn or unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they promise not to make the same edit again, I would support their unblocking. They were clearly in the right making those edits and should not have been in a position where they needed to revert twice in one day to restore a consensus decision. It seems particularly unfair if the editors violating that consensus received no sanctions for their edits. Number 5 7 12:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Dennis says, being "right" isn't usually considered a reason not to block or to unblock. The unblock request shows no indication that the editor believes that it was wrong to violate the 1RR restriction and in any case promising not the make the same edit isn't the same as promising to abide by 1RR. Suggesting that it might be seems a bad precedent. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DerAnsager

Being handled as a conventional behavioral issue for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning DerAnsager

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DerAnsager (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons :

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

17 October 2016 Reverted unreliably-sourced claims.
17 October 2016 Same as above, after discussion initiated by another user.
24 October 2016 After subject came up on BLPN and more discussion resulted, simply reverted again.
24 October 2016 Again reverted after being told the sourcing was unacceptable. At this point, began simply revert-warring these unsourced attacks.
24 October 2016 Yet another stale revert of unreliably-sourced negative claims.
24 October 2016 Again reverted this poorly-sourced material - only stopping because an administrator stepped in to revert and protect the page after this request was filed.

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

Notified of discretionary sanctions here, with several previous non-template discussions of policy and advice to examine sourcing requirements.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User is persistently inserting poorly-sources, highly-negative claims about a living person (Markus Gabriel) into their biography - to wit, assertions that the subject has commited plagiarism. The only source cited for this claim is the personal homepage of the accuser and a letter from Markus Gabriel's university stating that an investigation found the claims to be groundless. Clearly, without a reliable secondary source commenting on the issue, it does not belong in the biography. Myself and other users have attempted to discuss sourcing requirements and policies repeatedly with his user, and are met with nothing but flat denials and blind reverts. The user has very few edits outside the topic area and seems to be on a personal mission to push these claims against policy and good sense. A topic ban seems warranted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to do this from a phone, which is rather more difficult than I expected. Thanks for your patience. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]; Debresser, as you can see from the user's talk page, repeated attempts were made to get the user to stop edit-warring poorly-sourced negative material into the article, to absolutely no avail. They are simply dead-set on believing they're right and nothing anyone says gets them to stop, until I filed this request which led to Drmies stepping in to revert and protect the page. If you have a suggestion for what I or anyone else could have done differently here, please let me know. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning DerAnsager

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 DerAnsager

Statement by Debresser

The user is active on the German Wikipedia. So he understands the principles of community editing. I see absolutely no reason or justification for blocking or banning people for behavior related to a what is basically a content issue on a single article. I am confident that a bit of explanation is all that is needed here. Talk about overkill. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DerAnsager

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

It seems to me that NBSB isn't quite finished with this report, but in the meantime I have reverted the editor, warned them, and fully protected the article for the time being. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the editor's only, or most important, interest here is adding that poorly sourced content to a BLP, I have no objection to an indefinite block. But I'll settle for a topic ban from this BLP, for instance. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DerAnsager has continued to respond at User talk:DerAnsager#October 2016 after Drmies made his warning. The material is defamatory and the sources are not good. But there is no sign that DerAnsager is going to take the message on board. I've gone ahead with an indefinite block as a conventional admin action, for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DevilWearsBrioni

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

Request concerning DevilWearsBrioni

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC :

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

DWB is a user with a history of WP:IDHT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:BATTLEGROUND that causes considerable disruption in Balkan related topics. A dispute at Expulsion of Cham Albanians that began months ago over DWB's unsubstantiated claims of WP:OR has been dragging on because DWB cannot concede that there is no case of WP:OR. The dispute has been ongoing since January 2016, and in August of this year DWB filed at WP:DRN [80]. The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB, but the outcome was 100% against him. DWB then goes to the DRN talkpage, alleging that the dispute was not handled properly [81] even though there are no grounds to support this. This also drags on for a while due to filibustering and again the result is against DWB. The dispute then moved to formal mediation [82], where the mediator, User:Anthony Appleyard has asked him to stay on topic and stop filibustering [83] [84]. All the uninvolved users that have interacted with DWB in these disputes seem to think that DWB is behaving disruptively: User:Iazyges [85] [86] [87], User:Robert McClenon [88], User:Anthony Appleyard [89]. It is quite clear from these discussions that DWB is not going to accept "no" for an answer or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Added to that is a WP:BATTLEGROUND type behavior of filing frivolous reports at AN/I against users that disagree with him [90] [91] (both reports a huge of waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed). Looking through this user's contribs, I see very little content creation and positive editing, and a whole lot of wikidrama. The disruption caused by DWB far outweighs any positive contribs. Athenean (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[92]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[93]

Discussion concerning DevilWearsBrioni

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

Statement by DevilWearsBrioni

Statement by Iazyges

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

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

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DevilWearsBrioni

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ה-זפר

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

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

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

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

Notification of that administrator: Admin notified - diff

Statement by ה-זפר

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

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

Statement by EdJohnston

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ה-זפר

Result of the appeal by ה-זפר

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 813: / Line 813: @@
 [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 16:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
+{{u|Bishonen}} -- i just saw your comment in which you pinged me. I would like to request a month to get a defense together then. I would be able to process and not feel in jeopardy of a hammer coming down at any moment. The process has felt uncontrollable so far, with the sheer volume of Jytdog's long statement in which i'm described as a demon at all turns. It's far above the 500 word traditional word limit and it's too demonizing to make a simple statement about. It's too deep of a problem and needs some serious addressing. [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 16:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 ====Statement by JzG====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards