Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:40, 15 December 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	332

TheTimesAreAChanging

TheTimesAreAChanging is admonished and strongly warned that there is a reason why articles on American Politics are under Arb restriction. You are at the edge of getting topic banned or blocked. I would remind you that Arb restricted areas have little rope and you just used yours up. Discuss before reverting when you know it is going to be contentious. Being "right" is meaningless here, everyone thinks they are right. Unquestionably, if the problematic behavior continues, you will be topic banned, so I hope you use this one last chance wisely. If you want to argue about what NPOV or other policies demand, fine, do so using the talk page and not the revert button. There isn't a consensus and the interest has cooled down, so I'm taking this action to end this, using the least amount of force. Don't get used to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 12 December 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 TheTimesAreAChanging

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MelanieN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheTimesAreAChanging (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

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

Nov. 21 Added a sentence to the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
Nov. 23, 00:14 Re-added the sentence after it was deleted as controversial. They quickly reverted themselves, but then
Nov. 23 00:16 added it back, describing the removal as "vandalism". This violated the prohibition against restoring controversial material.
Nov 21 removed longstanding material from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as a "hoax"; not supposed to remove longstanding material without consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Oct. 17

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See their talk page for recent previous incidents/warnings:

User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Be careful about your editing at articles under Discretionary Sanctions from Nov. 5-7
User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Friendly Reminder (which refers to this edit of Nov. 22)

Reply to User:Soham321: You argue that it is better to warn a person than to threaten sanctions, and that a warning can allow the situation to be "easily resolved". I agree, and that is what I do, for a first offense. See the link just above in this section, where I did just that. The reason for this report is that the problematic behavior recurred after that warning. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soham321, I hadn't noticed previously your "clarification" of items #1-3, which you seem to feel exonerates TheTimes. It was not necessary to cite here, although it may have been necessary at the time to clear things up for BullRangifer. Your explanation of what happened tallies exactly with mine. #1, he added something to the article: good faith, no violation. #2, he re-added it but immediately self-reverted, so again, no violation. #3, he then re-added it knowing it was controversial, and for good measure he described the previous removal of it as "vandalism", even though there had been a content-based edit summary with the deletion. Restoring content which had been challenged was a violation; arguably so was calling the removal "vandalism". Only after restoring the material (Nov 23, 00:16) did he start a talk-page discussion (Nov. 23, 00:55). (That discussion in itself is a piece of work, misquoting/distorting the edit summary that had been given for the deletion, and adding that the whole article would not exist "If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society."[1] ) --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I deliberately kept my report here focused on technical violations of the DS by TheTimes, and so far I have not explicitly commented on the very strong partisan bias in his editing. But that bias is affecting his whole outlook toward Wikipedia. I bring this up because I just noticed a comment[2] by TheTimes on Hidden Tempo's talk page. In expounding on his theory that AE sanctions are enforced in a discriminatory and partisan manner (or to use his words, "the exercise of administrative power in the area of American Politics is likely to be extraordinarily arbitrary and capricious"), TheTimes asserted that "Mighty close to 100% of the admins that voted almost certainly voted for Clinton." Another user then pointed out that most of the involved admins are not American, but TheTimes did not retract his characterization of the admins and their motivation, or his conclusion that "the fix is in for both of us." It appears that TheTimes is still interpreting everything through a partisan filter, even when that approach has no basis in fact. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: A minor correction, but since you have now brought this up twice: You say "did you notice that TTAAC had indeed started a section on the talkpage, as you suggested he should have done?" As I noted above, TheTimes actually started that talk page discussion only AFTER they restored the controversial content. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging

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 TheTimesAreAChanging

I will respond to Melanie's statements in reverse. The child rape lawsuit against a living person was indeed a hoax and dropped prior to the election, hence why it was largely ignored by the media and not currently included (for lack of consensus) in the main Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. Clearly, the mention of that lawsuit in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (which is already far too long and COATRACKY) reflected no "longstanding" consensus, but was merely an oversight. With regard to the "contentious" material I twice added to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations: If it had lasted longer than one day before being removed, would it then have gained the presumption of "consensus"? At least with regard to the "Miss Teen USA" content, it is quite clear that SPECIFICO and BullRangifer are gaming the system: Every single source on the topic notes that of the fifteen girls to comment on the matter, eleven—the clear majority—"were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy" because, e.g., they were surrounded by chaperones at all times. By declaring it uncontroversial to quote the four girls that accused Trump, but "contentious" to mention the other eleven from the same source, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, and now Melanie are in effect arguing that Wikipedia policy actually requires us to intentionally misrepresent our own sources and mislead readers. That is an absurd and untenable position: If "consensus" dictates that the former recollections are within the scope of the article, by definition the same must be true of the latter. Moreover, if that is not the case—if there is no reasonable limit to obstructionism—then why can't I simply refuse to assent to the very existence of an article on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, per WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS/ect.—or blanket delete the "Miss Teen USA" subsection, given that no sources describe Trump's alleged actions as "sexual misconduct" and the whole paragraph thus contravenes WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK? (If I were to do so, would the WP:ONUS then switch to my opponents, or would I be immediately reverted?) In sum, if a source or claim is included in an article, then I don't see how it could possibly violate the spirit of any Wikipedia policy to accurately quote the source and disclose all of the viewpoints it deems credible; in fact, that is exactly what WP:NPOV demands.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to her latest collection of accusations, SPECIFICO reported me directly to two admins and filed this ANI report urging that I be topic banned (which failed to gain any traction with the community because it was obviously retaliation for an ANI report I filed against one of her comrades, since indeffed): She should really stop forum shopping. SPECIFICO purports to monitor and police every aspect of my behavior, including the ideas I express on my userpage, but she still tends to leap to conclusions unsupported by the diffs in question. For example, the "battle cry" in which I supposedly "boasted" about "besting" my "opponents" actually read: "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents." In the same way, Doug Weller warned me not to refer to another editor as a "Nazi," but when I pointed out that the editor in question was an actual unironic Nazi with a userpage devoted to Holocaust denial, he conceded: "Ok, I see why but there were better options that would have led to attention paid to that editor's userpage." Ect. Ect. Ect. Of special interest is SPECIFICO's version of the Dinesh D'Souza conflict documented in the ANI report: "He tries to enlist @Oshwah to assist him in continuing his edit war ... supposedly because 'his' version was 'stable'." (Why is "his" in quotes?) The notion that I advocated restoration to "my" version is simply an absurd caricature of my request; in fact, I urged Oshwah to consider reverting back to a version predating any edits by yours truly! SPECIFICO should be very careful before she accuses anyone of "straw man arguments" or "misrepresentation of other editors."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soham321: Yes, I am aware that my penchant for colorful, even vituperative language has gone too far and gotten me into trouble on occasion. Sometimes I have treated Wikipedia talk pages more like an online forum; now and then, I have even apologized. I have always tried to draw a sharp distinction between talk page rhetoric (or edit summaries, or my userpage—which SPECIFICO has mined for oppo-research) and edits to actual articles—hence the "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously" message SPECIFICO cites as evidence of the opposite—but I can see how my combative persona can be more of a liability than an asset, particularly when editing articles related to American Politics (where, I have now learned, content disputes are usually resolved by gaming and drama boards rather than substantive discussion). As a character witness, I point to the following comment by Guccisamsclub—an editor with politics well to the Left of my own, and whose opinion of me has fluctuated over time and may well continue to fluctuate, but with whom I have been able to collaborate constructively despite our disagreements: "You might want to stop throwing around terms like 'far-left', 'activist' and 'communist' ... it makes you sound like a shrill regular from Free Republic, Little Green Footballs or worse. Now I've had enough contact with you to know that's not true, but you could easily give the wrong impression to someone else and thus derail the conversation. You had me fooled for some time." (In my defense, Pol Pot considered Elizabeth Becker sufficiently Left-wing to invite her on a guided tour of Democratic Kampuchea, so referring to her as a "far-Left author" on my talk page—while poor form—is not much worse than SPECIFICO's recent attempts to smear Stefan Molyneux as a Nazi, possibly in violation of her Mises Institute topic ban.) @Bishonen: Edit summaries are necessarily snappy and may not include room for nuanced discussion. See here for my detailed thoughts on the "Founder of ISIS" soundbite:

"To be fair to the peoples of the Middle East, there have been many real conspiracies by Western powers in that part of the world (see, e.g., 1953 Iranian coup d'état), and there is obviously some element of truth underlying even the more outlandish allegations (such as the claim that Baghdadi is secretly an Israeli actor named Simon Elliot). Israel, after all, has a well-known policy of providing medical aid to any Syrian rebels that request it, in return for quiet along the Syria-Israel border; there may also be some military assistance and intelligence-sharing—and there is no doubt jihadists have benefited from Israeli largess. Meanwhile, there is far more evidence that "moderate" rebels backed by the United States and its partners tolerated the rise of Islamic State than there is to support the theory that Assad is somehow to blame for the Syrian uprising turning Islamist. When we include ridiculous claims such as John Kerry's assertion that Assad "purposely ced[ed] some territory to them [ISIL] in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow the protector against them," it's worth considering that the Western press may be more sophisticated than the Arab press but both can be guilty of propaganda."

Why did I allude to Trump's inflammatory quote? Because, despite all of the "fact checkers" that tow the government line with one voice, nothing I wrote above is controversial to experts on Syria: I urge those laughing at Trump's crude rhetoric (or all the "backward Arabs" that think ISIS is a CIA-Mossad conspiracy) to consider first whether the official U.S. government position they are defending has any more factual merit.

I never suggested SPECIFICO is "a paid Democratic party shill"—don't put words in my mouth. I have profound problems with the way SPECIFICO conducted herself during a recent edit war at Dinesh D'Souza, and my description of her as a "hack" cannot be divorced from conduct such as the following:

Case in point: SPECIFICO's "good faith" ally User:Oneshotofwhiskey leaves comments such as "Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda" and "You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations"; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write "Oneshotofwhiskey's blatant vandalism continues. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Arbitration is now necessary, and probably a topic ban to end the disruption"—and SPECIFICO partially redacts it as a "personal attack." Can you say double standard?

This should tell you two things: 1. I don't attack editors because I am "angry," but because when I am attacked I have found it expedient to hit back twice as hard. (Given that that's no longer true with SPECIFICO stalking my contributions, I promise to cut it out.) 2. SPECIFICO is not a neutral arbiter. More importantly, SPECIFICO already brought these same diffs to another forum in a failed effort to topic ban me from Dinesh D'Souza; this thread has devolved from analyzing a specific DS violation that caused minor disruption into a witchhunt and personal attack on me, based on every unpopular idea I so much as expressed on my userpage. (Of course, my userpage also makes clear that I would be considered Left-of-center on issues like gay marriage, abortion, ect., but that's neither here nor there.) No editor would hold up perfectly under such scrutiny by a dedicated stalker and forum shopper.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely floored by SPECIFICO's behavior, to the point where I have no idea how to respond. As documented above, SPECIFICO brought her list of diffs directly to two admins before trying her luck at ANI and now AE—yet she accuses me of "stalking" her? It's simply surreal! I made a mistake and called her a "hack" because she wouldn't leave me alone on my own talk page, mostly out of frustration because I don't know how to deal with such an unpleasant editor. I wish I could take it back, but compare that to her vicious personal attacks just here at AE: In full view of the community, SPECIFICO has accused me of "lack(ing) ... emotional maturity," "mansplaining," promoting "paranoid conspiracy theories" (over an SPI, of all things!) and "being obsessed with animus and revenge." (She has made far worse personal attacks elsewhere, such as accusing me of "grotesque OR" ... (for) the insinuation that it's OK to punch a woman in the face"—of course, I never suggested "that it's OK to punch a woman in the face," and am deeply offended that SPECIFICO would portray me in such terms!) Combined with the BLP violations and threats against other editors noted by Soham321, I submit that while I am guilty of violating DS one time with the revert mentioned by Melanie, SPECIFICO's conduct here should WP:BOOMERANG. I now realize just what an enormous mistake it was to allow her to bait me with a seemingly never-ending series of drama boards and personal attacks, and will do my best to avoid her.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO recently tried to walk back her "paranoid conspiracy theories" personal attack; rather than admitting error, she added a link to this conversation in which she claims I admitted to being "paranoid," as if that makes me an open target for abuse. Of course, this is very misleading: User:Oneshotofwhiskey was indeffed as a result of the socking I exposed, so it obviously wasn't a figment of my imagination. The conversation in question involved me pointing out a suspicious IP to an admin, then deciding based on the evidence that it wasn't another Oneshot sock: If SPECIFICO wishes to imply that I file SPIs lightly, this is actually very strong evidence of the reverse. Finally, my self-deprecating comment "All the socking has made me paranoid" was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, nor did I admit to promulgating "conspiracies theories." (Does one person abusing multiple accounts even constitute a "conspiracy"?) Context matters; SPECIFICO's personal attacks are uncalled for.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, for the record: Did none of you notice that, in the the very next edit following my now-infamous "vandalism" quote, I was reverted by BullRangifer, who in turn implied I was guilty of vandalism?: "Whatever games are being played, just stop it." It's not exactly unheard of to refer to large deletions of content with vague edit summaries as "vandalism," though the term should be reserved for the clear-cut cases. But is that really more serious than SPECIFICO baselessly accusing Soham321 of violating DS, then refusing to explain how Soham had done so and moving on to "the butler's bias and apparent senility" when she failed to elicit the desired self-revert by means of threats alone?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the innumerable personal attacks above aren't bad enough, SPECIFICO's assertion that I am "canvassing" merely because I responded to anonymous allegations against me here is way over the line. WP:CANVAS has a specific meaning; accusing someone of "canvassing" is accusing them of a serious violation of WP policy—it's not just an insult to throw around indiscriminately at editors you personally dislike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: We've clearly gone beyond the realm of legitimate criticism into blatant misrepresentation. There are technical reasons why CU could not be performed. In the SPI, however, DoRD confirmed that the IPs "are also likely this user (i.e., Oneshot)." So I was right! Maybe you've never filed an SPI before, but this was no "battleground taunt" (in fact, I have no reason to suspect Oneshot ever saw it): If you file an SPI against a user, you must notify them on their talk page. I've provided similar notifications to everyone I've ever accused of socking, and no-one has ever suggested it was somehow inappropriate until now. Moreover, I would not have bothered commenting on the talk page of an indeffed user who would likely never see the message if it were not for the fact that I was required to do so. Between this and your continued insistence that "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents" should be read as a POV battle cry, it is apparent that you are not honestly representing my edits. Maybe you should take a step back and ask why that is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been informed that unlike ANI, there is no rule saying you must notify someone of an SPI. In fact, "it is often counterproductive to give such notices." I thought it was courteous to give those accused a chance to defend themselves, but if an admin feels it is "counterproductive," who am I to argue?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Later in the same userpage, I refer to "Guccisamsclub—a Leftie that not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges." Allow me to break that down, so I'm not misrepresented again: While I do call Gucci a "Leftie," there is no implication that I'm "obsessed with animus and revenge" against him; to the contrary, I acknowledge areas where he has corrected me, noting that he "not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges." Sorry—that's just how I talk! (Although not how I write articles.) Now, I can fully understand how an editor digging through my userpage for dirt with which to indiscriminately attack me might latch onto that and say it is "uncivil" to call another editor a "Leftie." To that I ask: Have we lost our collective mind?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I persuaded SPECIFICO to create an account, she edited as an IP. One of her first edits was to ask me "TIMES: What is your relationship to Schiff?" because I disagreed with an edit she made to Peter Schiff. That was a bad first impression; I am terribly disappointed that after four years editing under a named account, she is still resorting to these kinds of personal attacks—only on a much larger scale, as documented above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: I'm glad you brought that up, even if you didn't quite do my argument justice. I do suspect that the vast majority of admins supported Clinton rather than Trump, although I have no way of proving this. Crucially, if American Politics is being policed primarily by non-Americans that is unlikely to reduce the problem of bias; to the contrary, I would speculate that a more "international" (or—let's be honest here—Eurocentric) perspective on Trump would be more Left-leaning and negative, perhaps seeing Trump as the ultimate distillation of every "Ugly American" stereotype. (As an example, you're an American, and yet—despite our differences!—I consider you to be easily the fairest and most level-headed admin I've encountered in the area. Maybe it's in part because you are upfront about any biases you might have.) Idle speculation aside, the data compiled by James J. Lambden doesn't lie: Not only are editors perceived as "pro-Trump" more likely to be reported to AE than editors perceived as "pro-Clinton" (by a factor of 3:1), but there is also a very different rate of conviction. By my count, 100% of "pro-Clinton" editors avoided any form of sanction, whereas 94% (17 of 18, not counting Anythingyouwant twice) of pro-Trump editors were sanctioned (only Marteau narrowly avoided punishment). If you believe this is because admins are infallible and "pro-Trump" editors are just vastly more disruptive, then I would have to ask why there is such a disparity between the admin comments and the comments of regular users both in the request against me (5:1 regular users against sanctions; 3:0 admins leaning towards sanctions) and Hidden Tempo's appeal (regular users split 5:4 against topic ban; admins supporting it 3:1)—and why no admin overruled Boing! said Zebedee's ridiculous decision to block Hidden Tempo for accurately describing Hilary Clinton's "trustworthiness" numbers as "feeble" (Cf. Merriam-Webster: "Business is suffering because of the feeble economy"). As for "the fix is in": To me, that 94% is a sobering harbinger of things to come.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I did respond to Bishonen; you can see my full response above. In brief: Two of the three diffs concerned uncivil edit summaries I made in reference to SPECIFICO. I previously documented a much longer list of personal attacks SPECIFICO levied against me, but obviously two wrongs don't make a right, so I can't defend those remarks. The fact that SPECIFICO and I strongly dislike one another might be reason for an IBAN—although I am not advocating for that solution since I believe it would only cause more drama—but the edits in question were on my own talk page and only tangentially related to American Politics. With regard to my misappropriate of the President-elect's "Founder of ISIS" soundbite, that was just supposed to be a snappy edit summary. Of course I don't literally think Obama founded ISIS, but—as I explained—U.S. policy towards Syria may have inadvertently helped created the power vacuum that allowed the terror group to expand in size and influence. The source I cited, Seymour Hersh, may be controversial but he's notable and certainly not WP:FRINGE; indeed, he's previously been considered a hero to the American Left for his role exposing, e.g., the My Lai Massacre.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: So you're saying I should be topic banned for one revert without consensus? No-one here was suggesting anything like a topic ban until SPECIFICO—who has been following me around with a dogged persistence—attempted to caricature me as a POV warrior with a long series of diffs that largely failed to support her highly creative interpretation (as TParis noted). In particular, an edit summary in which I sarcastically referenced Trump's "Founder of ISIS" meme with full quotation marks is considered so shocking and inflammatory that TParis recommends a formal apology in addition to my repeated statements clarifying my intent—as well as a request that the edit summary itself be stricken from the record—in the hope that this might spare me. If this is just about the one revert—where I have admitted making a mistake and would have self-reverted had it not been quickly undone—then I would like to know why a full topic ban is a proportionate response to the disruption that one revert caused.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexEng

I am entirely uninvolved in this matter, but I am the author of the Friendly Reminder banner on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page. I just want to be clear that this was in fact a friendly reminder and not an indictment of the user's behavior. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I don't see why this is at AE. There's little or no disruption and plainly looks like a content dispute.

FWIW, I think TTAAC is making a good case here and on the talkpage for their edits. However, "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: good-faith but wrong-headed edits aren't vandalism - so the term should be avoided. "Hoax" is also imprecisely used; there are questions about the case, but it has not been definitely ruled a hoax AFAIK. We all have opinions about political matters, but it's usually best to make arguments and keep the normative opinions out of discussions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather surprised by the reaction in the admin section. The focus should be on disruption; apparently, one revert is now considered sufficiently disruptive to take action now? If such standards were applied uniformly, I wonder how many of the people working in politics areas will remain? I only give the example of another case on this very page, concerning My very best wishes (here). Please tell me what would have been the result if one re-insertion before clear consensus means that admins should take action.

I know this: I certainly won't be able to work in the I/P area using these standards. There has been no refusal to discuss the matter on the talkpage by the parties, so why are the admins getting involved? Are we now children that we can't work out such minor things among ourselves and need to go running to mommy?

For the record, I have yet to find a single edit which I have agreed on with TTAAC in my time here, or with MvBW. So this is not about content; it is about using common sense and fair standards. A tight leash is sometimes appropriate, but Wikipedia has a thousand policies and a million ways of running afoul of them. The election is over; most of the disputes have already, or will cool down significantly.

I reiterate my solution above. TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms. No other action should be taken. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen's latest comment is about TTAAC's general conduct, not the points raised in the OP (which is fine, if one is looking to establish a broad pattern). I will try to disentangle the valid from the invalid points. I suggest that the focus be firmly on disruption.

Bishonen gives three diffs and says that they demonstrate an unwillingness to collaborate, a battleground mentality and attacks upon other users. Of these, only the third diff is to an article. As far as I can see, the third diff displays no attacks on any editor. It cites an article by Seymour Hersh in London Review of Books for the content. (I don't like the thesis advanced by Hersh, but it is definitely a notable viewpoint.) The edit summary is not helpful, to put it mildly, but the edit itself is defensible. The other two diffs are from TTAAC's own talkpage. It is clear that TTAAC does not like SPECIFICO.

Now I will evaluate the diffs and people can decide whether my evaluation makes sense. Spend some time in any political topic on Wikipedia and you will encounter editors who you think are fools or worse. I certainly do not like many editors here and probably the sentiment is reciprocated. But one does not need to broadcast one's thoughts to the world; nobody cares whether you like editor X or not. In the same vein, keep your brilliant insight about Obama and ISIS to yourself. Again, nobody cares; just make the edit and give a reasonable edit summary. So, as I said before, TTAAC should avoid this behaviour. However, and this is the main point, I do not see any evidence of disruption, either on article pages, or on talk pages. To the contrary, I see reasonable arguments made in defence of reasonable edits, mixed together with some heat which should not be present but commonly is present all over political topics in Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: You wrote: The appropriate thing to do at that point was to take it to talk, not revert and call it vandalism as cover. Did you see this section on the talkpage started by TTAAC? If you did not, does it change your evaluation? And if you did, do you think a single revert is disruptive enough to entail sanctions?

I have already said that the edit should not have been called "vandalism", but I fail to see how this kind of standard can be enforced in any political area. Why was this matter not thrashed out on the talkpage before bringing it to AE? I am opposed to this kind of intrusive enforcement which is untenable both in practice and in theory. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Perhaps you have misunderstood, but there is no WP:1RR violation alleged in the complaint, because it didn't happen. TTAAC reverted themselves once (I'm guessing, to redo the edit with an edit summary -- which is ironic since the edit summary seems to have gotten him into trouble). Also, as I asked in my last comment, did you notice that TTAAC had indeed started a section on the talkpage, as you suggested he should have done? If you did not notice this fact earlier, does it change your view of the incident? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: I am aware of the sequence of events; I thought it was clear from my statement, but if it was not, I accept your clarification. TTAAC opened a section on the talkpage less than half an hour after the edit on the article. There were no intervening edits to either the talkpage or the article page by anyone else. As I said, the revert was not ideal (nor was the edit summary) - but I do not see this as disruptive, but rather in the spirit of WP:BRD. My own routine practice is to make an edit and simultaneously post on the talkpage. See the edit I recently made on the page as an example of what I typically do. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions by My very best wishes

A couple of general suggestions

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

This subject area is going to be very difficult, and for a good reason. I have two practical suggestions.

Please cancel editing restriction about "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". That restriction has been heavily misused by some contributors to unilaterally remove well-sourced materials they do not like, which goes against consensus. If someone edit war against consensus or without talking, this is sanctionable per se. One does not need additional editing restrictions.
Please enforce guidelines on article talk pages. If anyone is talking not about improvement of the corresponding article on these pages, this is already a violation, and especially if one is talking about another contributor (request just above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I interacted with TTAAC on a few occasions including disagreements. I think he does good content work on pages related to US history and politics. As about his overall editing behavior, I think he is just as "difficult" as all other typical long-term contributors to political subjects. Based on that, I would suggest no action, and certainly no topic ban in the wide area of US politics. Maybe a 3-month topic ban from anything related to US elections 2016 at most. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soham321

Agree completely with Kingsindian. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Specifically, with respect to Melanie's four points, i see nothing wrong in the first edit of TheTimesAreAChanging. With respect to the second and third points of Melanie, i have offered a clarification here: diff. TheTimesAreAChanging has agreed that my assessment about his edits was correct. With respect to the fourth point of Melanie, note that there is an ongoing RfC about the Jane Doe allegations taking place at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations and any material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations is not being permitted to be inserted into the main article. I see nothing wrong in removing material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations from a different WP page pertaining to Trump until this RfC has been resolved. Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is inevitable that some 'heat' will be generated when editing contentious WP pages. The way to deal with this, almost always, is to tolerate it rather than to seek sanctions on editors one has content disputes with. At the top of the page it says that if you post a comment here then your own behavior can also be scrutinized. So let me scrutinize SPECIFICO's behavior for edits pertaining to the same Trump page from which Melanie has given three out of her four diffs. SPECIFICO warns me on my talk page (TP) and again on the TP of the main article that i am liable to face Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions (DS). What had i done? I had only added a sentence to the butler's testimony from a reference already present in the main article, and given another reference which was corroborating what the reference already present said. Diffs of her 'threats': diff1 and diff2. When i tell her on the TP that i do not believe i am in violation of Arbcom sanctions she responds by claiming the butler is 'biased' and liable to be senile: diff3. Since the butler is still alive i believe this is a violation of WP:BLP and i point it out to her. And giving frivolous threats to another editor about facing Arbcom sanctions is disruptive behavior, plain and simple. I am mentioning all this not because i seek sanctions against SPECIFICO but because i believe the threshold for giving sanctions has to be considerably higher than some of us seem to imagine. Soham321 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting discussion taking place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo (be sure to check the edit history of the page to see a recent edit of Melanie that has been reverted by Hidden Tempo). The relevance of this discussion is that this is again stemming from a content dispute related to the 2016 US Elections which can easily be resolved by giving a warning to the editor to tone down their language; instead we are seeing the editor being threatened with sanctions. Soham321 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN I have seen the two links you gave to the previous warnings. The one where he called the editor who had introduced an edit in the lead of the Ronald Reagan page, from a self-published blog, an 'idiot' is mitigated by two things. First, removing that edit from the lead of the Reagan page contributed to improving the quality of the article. Second, when he called the person 'idiot' he did not name anyone and it seemed he did not even know who the person who introduced this edit was (probably the edit had not been introduced recently) and this makes his comment less inflammatory than it would otherwise have been. Still he appropriately received a warning about using the word 'idiot'. The person who gave this warning has clarified in this discussion that this was only a friendly warning, not an indictment of the user's behavior. He did not protest against being given the warning, and we have to give him the benefit of doubt and accept that he agreed he had made a mistake by using the word 'idiot'.

With respect to the first link you gave, he explained he introduced the disputed edit back into the main article on the basis of a 4-2 consensus, since he had seen disputed edits placed back in main articles on even weaker consensus. Of course, he is wrong and Bull rightly pointed out to him on his talk page why he is wrong. But i don't see him protesting when Bull tells him he is wrong meaning, again giving him the benefit of doubt, that he agrees with Bull.

Nothing here deserves sanctions. Not his previous edits, because of which he was warned, and not his more recent edits because of which sanctions have been sought against him. This much said, i think we can ask him to tone down his language, specifically in edit summaries. I agree with Kingsindian's suggestion: "TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms." The problematic words used by TheTimesAreAChanging, in my opinion, were 'idiot', 'hoax', and 'vandalism'. TTAAC, do you agree with the assessment of Kingsindian and myself? Do you agree to do what we are suggesting? Soham321 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MelanieN's comment and request TheTimesAreAChanging to strike out the comment Melanie has referred to immediately. I will note that I was the "another user" Melanie refers to and by not arguing with me on what I was saying he, to give him the benefit of doubt, expressed agreement with what I said. Nevertheless I urge TTAAC to strike out the problematic comment immediately as an act of good faith to everyone here.Soham321 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed with TParis's decision to retract his comments in this discussion. I thought they were very appropriate. Soham321 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67's objection seems to be to a single edit of TheTimesAreAChanging in which the edit summary "rv vandalism..." was used. This edit, which was a revert, resulted in the insertion of some text in the main article. That text is still currently present in the main article which vindicates TTAAC's editorial judgement although I agree that the word 'vandalism' should not have been used in the edit summary by TTAAC. The other point is that TTAAC violated the 1RR restriction through this edit but given that TTAAC's editorial judgement pertaining to this edit has been vindicated, and TTAAC has expressed regret for violating the 1RR restriction on several occasions, does it really deserve a lengthy T-ban from all articles pertaining to US politics? I have one other concern. Given that this is an AE appeal pertaining to US politics, with several underlying content disputes, as is evident by reading the now retracted comment of TParis, I was disturbed to read Peacemaker67's comment in the 'Result' section of this discussion that "American politics in general is something that is just unfathomable to me." Soham321 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian (KI) has now deleted the material TheTimesAreAChanging had re-inserted into the main article in which TTAAC had used the edit summary "rv vandalism...".KI explains on the article talk page for why he is removing this material. Nevertheless, my point about TTAAC having essentially sound editorial judgement still stands because this material was only removed a short while back (on December 7) while TTAAC's re-insertion took place on November 23 and there have been six other editors who made intervening edits to that article (after TTAAC's re-insertion, and KI's removal of the material). The material was removed in the intervening period by BullRangifer on the basis of what seems to have been a misunderstanding, and re-inserted by Angelsi 1989. I am leaving a message on the talk page of one of these two editors about this AE discussion since I am not able to ping him properly to this discussion (because they don't have a user page); I have pinged the other editor. Soham321 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67's new argument is that TTAAC called a journalist "insane" and this makes it a BLP violation which contributes to justifying a topic ban. The edit in which the "insane" word was used pertained to this comment: "According to Ben Tarnoff, writing in The Guardian, a key element of Trumpism is that it holds "the notion that people of color and women are less than fully human", and does so explicitly, unlike other elements in the Republican Party." (TTAAC removed the views of Tarnoff from the Trumpism article; the 'insane' word was used in the edit summary when he removed Tarnoff's comments.)

Of course the word "insane" should not have been used. And in fact the edit summary in which this word was used has been revdeled. But can the usage of this word in that specific context justify a topic ban or even justify any kind of sanctions. Let's consider the relevant jurisprudence: diff1 and diff2 Soham321 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (SPECIFICO)

@Soham321: @Kingsindian: -- Most Arbcom violations arise from "content disputes". The issue here is whether this user violated ARBAP2 Sanctions that have been put in place to ensure orderly and respectful discussions and resolutions of those content disputes. TheTimesTheyAreAChanging had been editing disruptively on politics-related articles for some time now. He narrowly avoided a block at a recent AN3. Instead of discussion, he launches into straw man arguments, equivocation, misrepresentation of other editors, and personal attacks. Until recently, His user page read like a battle cry, starting with boast that he bests his "opponents" which he removed after I referred to it at his AN3 thread. His entire user page is a bizarre political rant of the sort I've not seen on any other user's page. This user seems to work constructively on articles relating to video games and other innocuous topics, but he lacks the emotional maturity to work on these difficult politics-related articles. I recommend a topic ban from American Politics. Let's see whether this user can refrain from yet another round of personal attacks on me here. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to collect some diffs on this editor: Here is a long talk page thread in which he launches into repeated personal attacks on editor @NYCJosh: [4]' Some of the many battleground edit comments -- and these are just from the past few weeks! [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here he removed a DS notice from his talk page with the edit comment "not interested, pal" He subsequently denied that he edits articles related to American Politics! He's been warned repeatedly by various users,and recently by Admins: @DoRD: here. Then, here, he tries to enlist @Oshwah: to assist him in continuing his edit war after Oshwah protected a page on which TheTimesAreAChanging was edit warring, supposedly because "his" version was "stable." @Doug Weller: warned him here and the attacks and disruption have only gotten worse. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bishonen: Sorry, I forgot the link. It's here and @Oshwah: observes that TheTimesAreAChanging has violated 3RR here that he's received the DS notice, and that he will be blocked for further edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope that y'all are reading all the comments and links before commenting. 4 Admins warned this user. Other editors politely asked him to stop edit warring on numerous American Politics articles (the ones he claims, in one of the links that he does not edit). Ad hominems, mansplaining, personal attacks and disparagement should not be OK in any article. Under DS users should know that such behavior will surely lead to a block. Actions have consequences. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to notice this gratuitous smear of me as a co-conspirator of one of TTAAC's "opponents." I had posted on this user's talk page before he was banned, so TTAAC's message came up on my watchlist. I also had TTAAC's talk page on my watchlist for the same reason, and I saw him straightforwardly tell an editor that he's had a feud with me from 2012 -- a mind-boggling statement, considering that when I checked I found two articles on which we'd both edited that year. On one, Paul Ryan he was page-banned for disruption. On the other he was edit warring unsourced content into an article with typical disparaging and accusatory edit comments and talk page notes. Of the thousands of editors with whom I've shared various pages over the years, I cannot imagine being obsessed with animus and revenge like that. I would like to request, in addition to a TBAN from American Politics, that the Admins also impose a one-way interaction ban so that TTAAC will stop stalking and harassing me. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here, TTAAC is tendentiously canvassing Admin @Hut 8.5: about another piece of TTAAC's paranoid conspiracy theories about one of his "opponents." Then, another battleground taunt on the target's talk page [11] is removed (see edit comment) by Admin @DoRD: here after a TTAAC's second Checkuser request against his "opponent" was declined at the SPI he launched. Then, here, he goes to DoRD's talk page to misrepresent the taunt as a "notification." Another example of hostile misrepresentation is found here: Here, he casually refers to "SPECIFICO's forum-shopping" -- which apparently refers to my having commented on this AE and on his AN3 thread, neither of which I initiated, and which related to two distinct infractions. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be ample evidence for enforcement here, so this thread may be ripe for closure. Sadly, however, there's a fresh post on another AE thread at this page here that shows TTAAC first denying the evidence here, saying that his own linked contributions have been "used to caricature me as some sort of POV warrior, which couldn't be further from the truth". This is followed by yet more of his political soapboxing, in this case about "Wikipedia's predominant liberal thesis" and lack of "pro-Trump Admins". This was accoompanied by some window dressing to his user page so that the current version contains somewhat less of the battleground and soapbox stuff railing against Wikipedia's mainstream representation of history. See here. I hope this editor grows out of his behavioral issues, but at this time, it's clear that a substantial TBAN from American Politics is called for, to prevent ongoing drag that poisons the efforts of the vast majority of editors who are trying to stick to NPOV, engage in rational discussion of editing and policy application, and are dedicated to observing the restrictions of ARBAP2 for the good of the Encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New violation -- A jaw-dropper, given TTAAC's having appeared to control himself for the duration of this AE thread: See the edit comment on a Trump related article here -- a violation not only of ARBAP2 but also a violation of ARBBLP. TTAAC states matter-of-factly that a respected living author and political commentator is "insane". That kind of BLP smear is beyond the pale. A short-term block or TBAN is not going to change TTAC's behavior. The remedy must address the scope of the problem. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem with TTAAC's behavior on WP. WP:Competence is required. Mature collaborative editors do not have "opponents" -- we have discussions and occasionally we have disagreements, and we follow behavioral norms and proven process to resolve them. Where would TTAAC get his view that SPECIFICO "doesn't like" him. I never said anything of the sort, so where does he get the impulse to feel everything personally and to project that attitude onto others? I have no opinion at all about him or 99% of the other editors here, because we're all strangers trying to work together on this Project. I have never personally attacked Mr. TTAAC, but he's apparently unabile to understand that, to understand the meaning of "vandalism" here, or even to keep his opinions under his hat when they're off-topic and inflammatory. These are among the behaviors that make it impossible for TTAAC to edit without dragging the project down. After his BLP-smear edit comment on the Trumpism article, I posted the standard BLP DS template on his talk page. He immediately deleted it with this edit comment. The reason I have devoted time to this thread is not that I "don't like" this person TTAAC whom I've never met and know little about. I'm here because disruptive editing is a huge drain on the resources of this Project and on all of our time and effort. It's the one thing that's worth the little extra time and distraction needed to quash it. There's a reason for ARBCOM sanctions. A brightline violation such as the one MelanieN documented, coming after so many prior warnings, has clear consequences. It's not something to be argued away with theories and charts of "left" and "right" editors and Admins. That is the kind of relativism that undermines a policy-based collaborative system such as WP. If we ignore violations, the result will be that the thousands of other editors who are trying to work constructively and respectfully will continue to suffer the deadweight loss of this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by shrike

I never edited this topic area (as far as I can remember) and I don't see here anything beyond content dispute.--Shrike (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

Hi. Uninvolved editor here. A suggestion: kick the entire topic area to ArbCom. The constant ructions been a constant thorn in the side of AE for months. It is too much of a battleground now for something not to be done. None of the current editors have clean hands, and a mass cross-partisan topic-banning of most of the current editors may well be in order. Only ArbCom has the will to do that.

Some observations from clicking through the random diffs supplied in this case:

Poor behavior like that TTAAC is accused seems to be universal editing practice among editors in the topic area.
This "must-get-consensus-first" discretionary sanction is being exploited in bad faith by anti-Trump editors to retain potentially BLP-violating material aginst Donald Trump.
The article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is ripe for BLP violations of the WMF-gets-sued variety. I see that certain anti-Trump editors have attempted to remove material that casts doubt on several of the allegations, leaving potentially false allegations undiluted.

It is not enough that this material is "sourced": it must be accurate. Donald Trump has expressed a willingness to sue those who have made unfounded allegations against him, and this is of no help whatsoever to WMF's legal team if WMF is named as a defendant alongside the New York Times, Huffington Post, etc. A look through the talk page makes it clear that much of this is not a "good faith" reporting of mainstream news sources; several of the editors clearly have it in for Donald Trump. Kick this to ArbCom. Kick this to ArbCom. Kick this to ArbCom!

Administrators: It is quite clear that many of you favored Hillary Clinton for president over Donald Trump. And it is clear to me that several of you are partial against those editors whose editing has favored Trump over those whose editing has been against Trump. I am quite certain that if TTAAC had been an anti-Trump editor you'd be looking for excuses to WP:BOOMERANG the reporting editor. I am not going to point fingers, but I am of a similar mind to that expressed by User:TParis elsewhere on this page. I have no confidence in your collective impartiality. Retain some dignity for AE, and kick this to ArbCom! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging

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

This does look like inappropriate behaviour to me. TheTimesAreAChanging added some content which was removed by another editor who didn't think it was appropriate. At that point the issue should have been taken to the talk page, both per usual practice and more importantly the active sanction requiring that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Instead TheTimesAreAChanging chose to put it back calling the removal "vandalism" (which it clearly isn't). This is a pretty clear breach of the active sanction. Hut 8.5 12:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging:: you really aren't doing yourself any favours with your responses here. If you do have a "combative persona", perceive other editors as "attacking" you and try to "hit back twice as hard" then you really shouldn't be editing in this topic area. Wikipedia is not a battleground and you should be working together with other editors rather than spending your time here fighting with them. This is particularly important in articles involving very divisive issues some editors care deeply about, such as this one. I can see how this style of conduct would explain your behaviour in regards to the edits which prompted this request - when one of your edits was reverted you perceived that as an attack and retaliated by reverting again, disparaging the earlier revert as "vandalism" and leaving this rather aggressive talk page comment. If that is the kind of thing you do habitually when editing articles about recent American politics then I suggest you try editing somewhere else. Hut 8.5 20:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a straightforward violation of the discretionary page restrictions on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. A few weeks ago, Melanie specifically pointed out on the user's page that they needed to be careful about editing U.S. politics articles under page restrictions.[12] This was in regard to TheTimes' reinstating challenged edits on another article (Political positions of Donald Trump), but you'd think they'd be able to keep the general, and specifically Trump-related, warning in mind. Also I think it's pretty egregious for an experienced editor to play the tired "vandalism" card here in order to justify their revert. New users can be excused for claiming anything they disagree with is vandalism, as they often do, but it won't fly in this case. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Adding note: SPECIFICO, do you have a link to the ANI discussion you mention, where you say TheTimesAreAChanging narrowly avoided a block? (Minor point: you refer to him as "TheTimesTheyAreAChanging", but that isn't his name. It could be argued that it ought to be — that your version does more justice to Bob Dylan, and to rhythm — but that's the user's business.) Bishonen | talk 00:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
More: Thank you, SPECIFICO. (That's an AN3 thread, not ANI; you may want to change that in your post). I was aware before in a general way of TheTimesAreAChanging being embattled on Am Pol pages, and I had even looked at his userpage — it reminded me of User:EEng's, mutatis mutandis and without the wit. But I hesitated to act, even to warn, simply because there's so much unpleasantness on those article talkpages overall that it takes much study to be sure one person sinks below the general level. Anyway, I'm interested in your diffs, and note from them especially TheTimesAreAChanging's tendency to put personal attacks and BLP violations in edit summaries. Examples:

13 Oct 2016: "RV patronizing warning from hack editor. I have every right--indeed, obligation--to rollback a sockpuppet attack on a BLP; SPECIFICO has yet to engage the issues on talk, instead lecturing me about "edit wars." Come off it!" Not sure what a "hack editor" is. In the context, perhaps a paid Democratic party shill?

27 Oct 2016: "Under no obligation to make these archives easily accessible for oppo-research by SPECIFICO or others." That's like taking every opportunity for a battleground stance, even for something as anodyne as removing his own archive links from his own page.

19 Nov 2016: "Classic NYT propaganda. Flynn was forced out for warning Obama—the "Founder of ISIS"—to stop!)" Calling Obama the "Founder of ISIS". It has quotes round it, and yes, we all know it's a quote and from where, but why is it there at all?

If TheTimesAreAChanging has some explanation of these edit summaries that will make them sound remotely decent, collaborative, etc, I'll be interested to hear it. If he doesn't, I'm not sure he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry. I see him editing computer games and related pages in a pleasant and constructive manner (AFAICS); stick to that, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Having had a good look through this report and the diffs, I agree with Bishonen. Given an apparent ability to edit in other areas without exhibiting this type of behaviour, a topic ban on American politics seems the most effective remedy at this point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Hut 8.5: Defending oneself to a character assassination is not a indicative of a "combative persona".--v/r - T P 00:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- I've reviewed the LENGTHY section written here, whew, and I really can only conclude that my predecessors here could not have read TheTimeAreAChanging's section to come to the conclusion that they have. Perhaps I am biased. I believe in the last years, I've made it known that I hold the perception that Wikipedians lean left and that is exemplified in the execution of AE complaints. However, I find SPECIFICO's latest example, here, concerns the removal of an opinion blog calling Trump racist and sexist. I know a lot of people here, and in the world, consider that to be unambiguous truth and I may be inclined to believe it. But I question whether that kind of opinion piece would be acceptable on HRC's article. But, that's getting too deeply into the politics of it all.
  I've seen mudslinging coming from all sides on this issue. Specifico characterized this as a "gross smear". Specifico claims that in this diff, TTAAC claims to "best" his opponents. What the diff actually says is that he believes he does a better job adhering to a NPOV. Specifico's portrayal of that is misguided...at best. Specifico claims that TTAAC is making a paranoid conspiracy theory in this edit which is actually TTAAC saying that the proven socking has left them paranoid about more socking.
  The other respondents in this AE report all say this is a content dispute. How the other admins in this thread come to "action needed" is beyond me.--v/r - T P 00:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Bishon's comments are more convincing than Specifico's. I'd like to see TTAAC's response to that.--v/r - T P 00:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Part of the problem with the atmosphere of this project is that its nearly impossible to express a dissenting opinion on these topics without appearing to be allowing personal politics to influence an opinion. Meanwhile, those that hold a certain persuasion can speak their mind unafraid of being called partisan. Call it an unintentional chilling effect caused by either the real or my perceived leaning of my fellow sysops. I'd rather not comment than leave someone with the impression that I am trying to influence the discussion to go my way. I admit this is self-censorship and no one's fault, but I've reread my comments and I just don't feel comfortable with, nor have faith in, how others may read them.--v/r - T P 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint is not about TTAAC's political views or original research about alleged political bias among admins. As an Australian, I couldn't care less about TTAAC's political views as American politics in general is something that is just unfathomable to me. I am about as uninvolved as one could be with this situation. What is relevant to this discussion is whether TTAAC breached the consensus requirement that they were clearly aware of with this edit using the edit summary "rv vandalism...". It clearly wasn't vandalism, and the use of the term was obviously intended to try to get around complying with the consensus requirement, because reversion of vandalism is allowed under the sanctions regime. The appropriate thing to do at that point was to take it to talk, not revert and call it vandalism as cover. I am more familiar with ARBMAC than this area, but it seems possible that enforcement hasn't been very consistent in the American politics space. We have sanctions for a reason, so that people comply and disputes are managed appropriately. If we don't enforce them, why have them? TTAAC didn't comply with the consensus requirement, and to ensure they do in future, I stand by my view that action is required. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already sticken my comment, what made you feel compelled to retort?--v/r - T P 03:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a retort, and has little to do with your stricken remarks, so perhaps I shouldn't have threaded it off yours. Sorry about that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my hostility, then. It appears to have been a misunderstanding.--v/r - T P 05:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about poor editing behaviour, not American politics. An understanding of the latter isn't necessary to accurately identify the former. I'll add that the BLP violation by TTAAC about a certain journalist being "insane" (noted by SPECIFICO) adds fuel to this, demonstrating failure to abide by community rules (even while TTAAC's editing is being subjected to greater than usual scrutiny). In conjunction with the 1RR violation and using the "rv vandalism" edit summary, it gives the impression that TTAAC doesn't think the rules apply to them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are making too much of this, which may explain why it has dragged on so long with no action, with no admin willing to pull the trigger. I empathize with TParis's frustration above. As a community, it appears (to some) that we are more aggressive in policing one side of politics more than the other, which is not surprising given the nature of the project. Unquestionably, TTAAC screwed up but the type of mistakes beg the question whether or not this requires we use the heavy tools granted to us by Arb here at AE. From my perspective, the problems seem rather run of the mill and not really what AE was set up for. Calling someone insane is indeed a BLP violation, for example, but we seldom act on it other than to warn. Reverting good faith edits with the summary "vandalism" is certainly wrong, but it happens at least at least once per minute somewhere at Wikipedia. All of this is a big stale. All of this happened in a topic area that still has people carrying signs in the street. I don't want to excuse bad behavior but I don't see where taking action here is going to actually improve the encyclopedia. Much of this is content dispute, much of it has already settled itself. I would rather see a strong warning given to TTAAC and move on. Anything more may be seen as punitive at this point, and it wouldn't be preventative and he seems to have been right on some of the facts in question, even if he was too aggressive in the way he edited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I basically agree with Dennis — I'm not sure we need to use power tools here. Compare my comment above, with emphasis added to the hesitations: "I'm not sure he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry... stick to [computer games], perhaps?" How about we close with some advice? Together with a request that he show some respect for the newest recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature and for melody, and change his username to TheTimesTheyAreAChanging, or even AChangin'? (The name part is not serious, I don't think we should request it. It does get on my <redacted>, though.) It's not like TTAAC looks like a hopeless case, is it — surely the comments here will have some effect. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Abbatai

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 Abbatai

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abbatai (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:AA2

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

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 19 May 2016 by Coffee. Received a block for violating topic ban on 27 May 2016 by Coffee. Topic ban extended to 6 months on 27 May 2016 by Coffee.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is one of the shortest reports I've filed simply because the POV is self-evident and the user's history is so disruptive that it just had to be reported. Abbatai removes the word 'Nazi' in this edit when it comes to Azeris, but adds it in the lead of an Armenian article a few minutes later. A bit of a history lesson here: the Armenische Legion and the Aserbaidschanische Legion were both foreign units of the Wehrmacht. Armenians (like Dro) and Azeris all fought alongside the German Army during those days. However, according to Abbatai, the Azeris should not be designated Nazis, but the Armenians should. It can't get any clearer POV pushing than that. Given this user's disruptive POV pushing history, there should be serious consideration as to whether he should be topic-banned once more.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [13]

@My very best wishes: Yup, and the "should be fixed" part is where AE comes in. While one ethnic group retains the characterization of fighting for the SS and the other for Nazi Germany, that must have a consequence in terms of POV-pushing edits, especially considering the user's disruptive history. I guess he hasn't learned his lesson. Even you had to admit it by saying "it should be fixed". Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: it looks like Mvbw corrected his mistake...and so should you. This user has an obsession with adding the word Nazi to Dro's article for almost a year now [14]. Oh yeah, and other Armenian articles too [15][16]. And the fact that he removed the word Nazi from the Aserbaidschanische Legion should ring some POV alarm bells. Also, with his most recent edit, the user has added repetitive information about the Armenische Legion. I'd like to ask Abbatai, how many times should the fact that Dro fought for the Nazis/Wehrmacht be included in the lead, or better yet, throughout Wikipedia? Above all, these edits may seem reasonable if his motives weren't disingenuous, hence making them not so reasonable. After all, we're trying to decipher a pattern here, a pattern that has continued for quite some time now. Fresh off of a lengthy topic ban, Abbatai hasn't learned his lesson and goes back to the same POV pushing. In other words, we're not dealing with merely two edits here, but a disruptive show of events stretching back for years. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: If these diffs were the only two disruptive edits this user has done in his Wikipedia career, I'd agree with you. But the fact of the matter is that Abbatai has been POV pushing for quite some time now, and these two edits are just part of a much larger problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I'm not telling you to go fish. I've provided you two diffs that when contrasted reveals quite obvious POV editing. If we believe that it's POV, which seems to be the case by most users' opinions on this thread, that would mean this user is continuing the POV pushing editing pattern that has gotten him in trouble too many times before. So why should these problematic edits be treated any different from the others that got him sanctioned? After all the bans and blocks, we should be more critical of his problematic behavior, not less. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Abbatai

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 Abbatai

In my both edits mentioned above the intention was to give clearer and more precise additional information about certain issues here It is more appropriate to put "Azeri SS Volunteer Formations" instead of a broad description like "Nazi Azeri troops". And this edit as well clearly done to give sourced information to avoid any confusion since Drastamat Kanayan led another Armenian Legion during WW1.--Abbatai 12:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield I believe you and EtienneDolet confuse Iğdır Province with Iğdır city. The province is quite a new thing its history starts from 1992. However the Russian Census was on Iğdır City. The boundaries and demography of Iğdır Province and city are different. It has been stated on the talk page of EtienneDolet and history of the page. Your claims about my edits on 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt are off-topic and not true considering WP:AA2. However feel free to fill a complaint or edit the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt if you still have doubts. --Abbatai 10:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean the long time ally of EtienneDolet, backs him/her every means possible (see [17]), shows up here too. I will not respond him at regarding his personal attack calling me "fascist" below. I expect admins to take necessary actions needed as it is clearly an insulting word. Or should I fill another complaint regarding his edits and latest personal attack?--Abbatai 18:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

diff #1. Including info about the legion of the Wehrmacht seems be appropriate. However, trying to "over-explain" it, i.e. saying "Wehrmacht, the armed forces of the Nazi Germany" was excessive and should be fixed. But this looks to me as a minor content dispute.

diff #2. Telling "SS Volunteer Formations" means basically the same as "Nazi troops", but more precise. Therefore, I think that was actually an improvement by Abbatai.

I do not see any reason for sanctions based on these two diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the text prior to this edit (diff #1) already tells that "he led the Armenian Legion". Now, the user adds exactly the same information second time in intro, but with conjunction to "Nazi". At the first glance, this look like typical nationalistic POV-pushing. Given previous editing history, some sanctions might be appropriate, although this particular edit alone I think would hardly be sufficient to justify any sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Étienne Dolet. I agree with Dennis and Peacemaker67. Single edit is not enough, and the edits must be recent. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject, but I can tell that no, these two edits are not necessarily problematic, even when taken together. My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

The edits [18] and [19] -- when contrasted with each other as noted by the original poster -- is definitely problematic. The topic ban by Coffee was only back in May 2016. Then a block [20], then an extension of the topic ban [21]. Last topic ban was 6 months, suggest one year. Sagecandor (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

When they taken together (as they should be, given the subject similarity and that there was only a short time period between each edit) the editing aim looks dubious. The first chronologically [22] was, by itself, innocuous, indeed reasonable - it simply removed a pipe and revealed the name of the actual article. But the second [23] does not remove the pipe, it retains it and then overeggs it. There are other recent diffs suggesting pov editing - here is a removal of content mentioning the existence of Armenians living in the Igdir valley before its annexation by Turkey, plus content mentioning that Kurds are the current majority population: [24]. The Kurdish majority vs Azeri majority claims seems to be an ongoing edit war. Abbatai has jumped in to continue it - which is strange, given that Abbatai in the talk page appears to be agreeing that the source being advocated for the Azeri majority claim is not rs. The deleted Armenia-related content has been done under the guise of agreeing with those who are disputing the Kurdish majority claim. The last talk page discussion regarding the region's former Armenian population was back in 2007 - if there is an issue with what exactly the Russian population statistics are referring to (the city or the region) and where in the article it should be mentioned then that should be addressed in the talk page and not be used as an excuse to blank mention of Igdir's Armenian past. Here is another troubling edit [25] - the deletion of Kemalist-related material from 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. The edit summary justification "there is not even one single source claiming Kemalists were behind coup attempt" misrepresents even the article's own content, which from its start has had sourced content explaining that the coup group's name, Peace at Home Council, was derived from Kemal Atatürk's saying 'Peace at Home, Peace in the World', and that choice of name together with their statement either indicated actual Kemalist involvement or a misdirection attempt to imply Kemalist involvement. The edit mentioned by ED that initiated Abbatai's recent block for topic ban violation also involved pov editing - again it was the deletion of a mention of Armenians - [26]. Adding Urartu was a valid addition to have made, but not as an excuse to delete the equally valid mention of Armenians. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

While the number of diffs here is small, the issue is one quality rather than quantity. The Igdir diff [27] is particularly problematic. He removes perfectly well-sourced material simply because he doesn't like it (Abbatai is somewhat obsessed with minorities in Turkey), with a misleading edit summary. In my book it doesn't get any worse than that (except edit-warring over it). Then he files a frivolous, retaliatory AE report against EtienneDolet, clear evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Most importantly, Abbatai has already been topic banned, for exactly this kind of behavior. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. He was topic banned, then given another chance, and now he is engaging in exactly the same behavior that got him topic banned in the first place. Enough. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abbatai

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

There may or may not be POV concerns, but looking at these two edits together, I'm hard pressed to sanction. I looked at this yesterday before My very best wishes commented here, but he sums up my feelings well. If they are POV problems, they aren't obvious and I think it might be reaching into someone's head and trying to figure out their motives on what seems like reasonable edits. That doesn't mean they are "correct" or he has no POV, just that I don't see the problem with the evidence given. The second edit in particular seems good faith given that the term is used throughout the article. I can't see issuing sanctions here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- EtienneDolet it is up to you to present enough evidence to make a determination, not just a claim and tell us to go fishing. Based on the evidence presented, I agree with Peacemaker67 that there is probably an issue but not enough to use the ban hammer. A strong warning is likely a better solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There just is not enough here for a sanction. I agree that differentiating between two lots of opportunistic client groups of Nazi Germany is probably POV-pushing, but I'd want to see a lot more diffs before I'd be convinced there is enough here to take action on. I suggest a stern warning to Abbatai to edit neutrally especially when dealing with Armenians and Azeris. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, the reporting editor has the responsibility to provide diffs, two marginal diffs and ambit claims about past behaviour are not enough. On the basis of what has actually been provided here, there is not enough for a TBAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further clarification. I believe that (given the report below and looking the editing history in more depth) there is evidence of battleground behaviour and that an admonishment to that effect would probably be the best approach at this time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would agree. I think there are problems on both sides, even if more so on Abbatai's side. If only one side is addressed, you setup a situation where it can be gamed, which these types of articles are famous for. They bludgeon each other until one gets banned, which doesn't help the neutrality. They both need to talk more, edit less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EtienneDolet

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 EtienneDolet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: EtienneDolet (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:ARBAA2 :

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

[28] Drastamat Kanayan, 11 December 2016
[29] Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, 11 December 2016
[30] Iğdır Province, 1 December 2016
[31]Iğdır Province, 11 December 2016
[32] Erzurum 4 December 2016
[33] Yerevan 4 December 2016

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

S/he has been varned several times by different editors.

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

The user is aware of the discretionary sanctions as S/he is currently reports any user S/he disagree.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EtienneDolet has long history of deliberately POV-pushing and anti-Azeri sentiment. Lastly in the article Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II changed the wording "Azeri SS Volunteer Formations" to a very vague and problematic one "Nazi Azeri troops". On the other hand s/he removes sourced information from one of the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany about his leading of the Armenian Legion a military unit of Nazi Germany.

What's more on December 1 2016 EtienneDolet added misleading information to Iğdır Province about the demoraphy of the article which is completely irrelevant to province. EtienneDolet included the Russian Empire Census in 1897 Iğdır to the article. However, Iğdır became province in 1992 and its boundaries changed quite a lot compared to the times it was under Russian rule. Therefore, Iğdır Province has nothing to do with Russian Population Census on Iğdır City from 1897. The edit reverted by a user and another user warned EtienneDolet about the province in his/her talk but s/he hasn't engaged any collaboration and reverted the page once again. Although three editors disagree with him/her EtienneDolet ignores incorrectness of the edit just to insert Armenian Population wherever s/he can.

The editor interestingly adds Armenian name to the Turkish city of Erzurum however removes Turkish language etymology from Armenian capital Yerevan on the same day. Similarly removes the sourced information about contest of origin from the article Lavash.

EtienneDolet is a single-purposed editor and only here on Wikipedia to protect his Armenian POV, and does whatever he can to protect these Armenian related articles from whatever Turkish/Iranian/Azeri/Kurdish influences.

Armenian/Turkish examples:

[34] Adding Armenian population data from 1897 Russian census to a province has history back only to 1992.

[35] Removing POV tag from the article which is quite biased; most sources are presenting Armenian side of the story and written in a nationalistic tone.

[36] Guenter Lewy who is a genocide scholar and worked on different genocides. The user adds only his views on Armenian Genocide to the lead of article.

Armenian/Iranian examples:

[37] adds Armenian name to the article about a king from Orontid Dynasty whose origin is disputed whether Armenian or Persian.

[38] again deleting sourced Persian name of Urartu and adding Armenian name.

Armenian/Azeri examples:

[39] removes the massacre category from Guba Genocide Memorial Complex although it is clearly stated the mass burials were during March Days massacres.

[40] Removing Azerbaijani name from Erivan Khanate where Azerbaijanis had sizeable population.

Armenian/Kurdish examples:

[41] The article clearly has no 3rd party source and was written in a Armenian Nationalistic tone claiming Armenians killed only men did not touch women of Kurdish Mazrik Tribe and the chief of the tribe escaped by wearing women's clothing. The only reliable internet source (In Turkish) from a left wing newspaper Radikal that has a different version of the story deleted by EtienneDolet. Again a very clear vandalism and sign of him her being pro-Armenian anti-Kurdish.

EtienneDolet has also a long history of personnal attacks. Even in this thread he calls me and another user hypocrite and bold. --Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy (Help!) I really value and appreciate your comment on the issue. However before jumping the Kurdish-Azeri issue which I have no idea why you brought it here can you please make any comments on the actual issue.

Any comments on how and why the user adds twice the population statistics of a city from 1897 to the province which is a geographic region and has history dates back only 1992 is not POV? The user clearly putting his Armenian POV to the any article without any concern or regarding the Iğdır City/Iğdır Province difference. Thanks--Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies How come Iğdır is unproblematic? The user is clearly an Armenian POV pusher. Adding the 1897 Iğdır City census to Iğdır Province article whose history starts from 1992 and has different borders and demography from the city is revealing EtienneDolet's intentions very well. It is like inserting a particular group's population data to New York City census from a century ago to New York State to favour the certain group. The collaboration edit is also clearly POV and disruptive. In the article there are the pictures of both Azeri and Armenian soldiers. EtienneDolet change the wording to Nazi Azeri Troops from Azeri SS volunteers but left the "Armenian Soldiers" as it was. In this edit I cannot see much obvious evidence that the user is Armenian POV pusher.--Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean the long time ally of EtienneDolet, backs him/her every means possible (see [42]), shows up here too. I will not respond him at regarding his personal attack calling me "fascist". I expect admins to take necessary actions needed as it is clearly an insulting word. Or should I fill another complaint regarding his edits and latest personal attack?--Abbatai 18:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean seems very well informed about Wikipedia policies however rules applied to all he neglects WP:NPA and WP:ADHOM.--Abbatai 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the interfernece of user Tiptoethrutheminefield and Athenean it is important to mention those three editors WP:SANCTIONGAME behaviour on this and numerous other AE. They repeatedly back one another in various disputed areas see user compare results: [43] [44]. Both users has no mention of EtienneDolet's Armenian POV push here, instead they are gaming to put all blame on me for the EtienneDolet's disruptive edits. Even Athenean went too far to defend ED. He personally attacked me and brought off-topic edits of mine here.--Abbatai 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning EtienneDolet

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 EtienneDolet

@Dennis Brown: my goodness Dennis, what white-washing are you talking about? Can you please be more specific and refrain from drawing to conclusions so early? I'm sure you realize your commentary as an admin has influence in what users or admins think about this case. So I'd suggest you look into it more, then comment. So are you talking about my revert at Yerevan? If so, let me break it to you: it wasn't "white-washing". In fact, I reverted POV-pushing WP:SYNTH material. The source, a Turkish etymological dictionary published by the Turkish Language Association, provides absolutely no linkage whatsoever to show that the word Yerevan comes from Revan. To be more clear: there's NOTHING about Yerevan in the source. Beshogur went so far as to put an etymological entry of the word Revan in the article Yerevan under his own wild presumption that the word Yerevan probably comes from the Persian/Turkic word Revan because...it sounds similar? Hell, I don't know. But what I do know is that what Beshogur did was a textbook SYNTH and POV-pushing edit to somehow demonstrate that Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, is a Turkic/Persian city. But to say that I'm the one white-washing things here is very very misleading. My edits at Erzurum are also in line with how the article was since at least 2008 ([45]). I don't understand why I'm being scrutinized when Beshogur removed the Armenian name of Erzurum at least 6 freaking times in that article in the past month or so! And it's not as if he's removing the Creole name of the city, he's removing its Armenian transliteration. A language associated with a people who lived in that town long before the Turks did and whose tragic end to their existence in that city in 1915 shouldn't merit its removal under WP:NCGN standards.

The stuff at Iğdır Province can be easily dealt with at the talk page. I have yet to have heard Abbatai raise these concerns regarding Province/City demographic statistics. Not even his sole talk page comment raises that issue. The first time he raises that issue is at this very moment at this very thread. If he feels that adding stuff about the Armenian population in Iğdır is problematic, let him express his concerns at the talk page first, rather than use that as ammunition to have his "opponents" banned when the time is right. In fact, Abbatai's revert deserves much more scrutiny. He removes reliably sourced information about the Kurds of that town, effectively reducing the Kurds, who represent the majority of the population in that province, to mere non-existence. And the source he uses is nothing but electoral results from the last Turkish election. And he knows that.

But the almost laughable diffs are the ones of Drastamat Kanayan and Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Here, Abbatai is actually implying that his own edits are disruptive. After all, as I laid out in my report against him just above, it was Abbatai who removed the word 'Nazi' in this edit when it comes to Azeris, but adds it in the lead of an Armenian article a few minutes later. And those two edits, when juxtaposed, have been considered disruptive in his own report by at least 3 admins. So the baffling part about Abbatai's accusation here is that my edits are disruptive when, put under his own logic, is nothing but the opposite of his. I remove the word Nazi for Dro and add it back to the Azeri which should make it POV, but when he places Nazi for Dro and removes it for Azeris, it's not. That's hypocrisy at its finest and merits no praise at all.

This is a retaliatory report and merits a boomerang. Abbatai's presentation of my reverts at Kanayan and WWII collaboration proves, in a rather obvious sense, that he actually believes that such an editing pattern is disruptive, but only when it's flipped and against his POV. Abbatai has removed information about Armenians and Kurds whose population was (in the case of the Armenians) and still is (in the case of the Kurds) a majority. And my goodness, this is straight off of a fresh six month topic ban. I must say, Abbatai's pretty bold. A bit too bold. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Wow, Mvbw. Do you really think you're going to get away with telling half the story? I reverted that edit because of the intent behind it, as related in my edit-summary. The whole Nazi for Armenians, SS for Azeris is simply POV and disingenuous, and admins at Abbatai's own AE report just above concluded that those edits, when contrasted with one another, are problematic. On that note, I'm sure you don't have the effrontery of accusing me of reverting material that you yourself have called "typical nationalistic POV-pushing"? Better yet, would you also have the same effrontery to provide just one diff and daresay that that is "not good" when you yourself have said: "Single problematic edit is not enough" for Abbatai just above, then come around and somehow say that I should be sanctioned for battleground? And your most hypocritical accusation yet is that of my supposed battleground behavior, when all I did was file a report, which really wasn't retaliatory in any way, concerning a user who has a proven track record of a disruptive editing pattern in the AA2 topic area. But you, on the other hand, have no history of editing in this topic area but sure do have a heck of a lot of history pushing your grudge against me, going so far as to admin shop in order to reopen closed AE cases against me here. If that's not battleground, I don't know what is. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: what was so vindictive, retaliatory, and battleground-like when it comes to my reverting of edits that you, yourself (and several other admins), have said "is probably POV-pushing"? What would your suggestion be in this case? Just leave these edits to be and have these articles replete with such POV edits? I'm at a loss for words here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

So, Abbatai made this edit. That was arguably an improvement to a more precise title, but something really really minor. In response, ED reverted [46]. That was arguably not an improvement, but emphasizing something everyone already knows (SS were Nazi, but wait a minute, they also happened to be Azeri!). This is not good, but hardly a serious reason for sanctions. What is actually problematic? The fact that ED brought his content opponent (Abbatai) to AE for making this very innocent edit (diff #2 in his request just above), obviously to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. And of course Abbatai brought precisely the same request about ED. The real problem is WP:BATTLE, and it was started by ED by bringing this to AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ED. I do not suggest any sanction, but only tell that you and Abbatai are engaged in WP:BATTLE. This is something obvious: two contributors filing poorly justified complaints against each other on AE. And thank you for additionally confirming my point. Your latest comment here is just another example of WP:BATTLE. Yes, sure, I do not edit this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean. You tell [47] that user Abbatai is a "nationalist-fascist". "Nationalist" - OK, maybe, but why fascist? My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

Ok, first of all, this is clearly a retaliatory request by Abbatai, since EtienneDolet reported him earlier (see above). This in itself is evidence of battleground behavior and merits a WP:BOOMERANG. Second, I very strongly suspect Abbatai is not the author of this report. Abbatai's English is best described as atrocious ("and accuse me every means possible" "I believe article is heavily biased from name to not exclusion of 1914 revolt." [48]). He rarely can string more than 5-6 words in a sentence. Yet here we have an report in flawless English, with long, elaborate sentences. Clearly Abbatai is not capable of this level of English. There is foul play here. But most importantly, to suggest any sort of equivalency between ED and Abbatai, as Peacemaker is doing, is incredibly ill-informed. ED is an incredibly valuable contributor, who has created an immense amount of content (262 articles created, and counting), with a spotless record. By contrast Abbatai is nothing more than an obsessive Turkish nationalist-fascist SPA who contributes nothing but POV-pushing and disruption: From attempting to whitewash Kemalist involvement in the 2016 coup attempt [49] [50] (notice how he lies about "moving" the content - he didn't "move" it, he deleted it), and Ergenekon affair [51], to the typical Turkish xenophobic removal of any mention of minorities [52] (again notice the misleading edit summary), to petty trolling of Armenian users [53] [54] (note the bad English in the edit summary), it's all very familiar. He has a long block log [55] and has already been topic banned from this area, for exactly this type of battleground behavior. Abbatai contributes nothing to the topic area, and is a textbook example of a minority-baiting, Turkish nationalist POV-pusher with a severe case of WP:BATTLE mentality who is clealy WP:NOTHERE. I am amazed he isn't topic banned yet. This frivolous retaliatory report should be the final straw. Athenean (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatai's latest outburst is yet further evidence that he is WP:NOTHERE. The fact that he considers problematic adding the Armenian name to the article of an Armenian King, or that mentioning that Guenter Levy has been dubbed a genocide denier by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, shows the problem is with Abbatai, not ED. I also note that Abbatai continues to lie through his teeth: For example, he claims that in this diff [56] ED removed the Azeri name. This a brazen lie, the diff itself shows ED only rearranged the order of the names, nothing was removed. The fact that this user thinks it ok to lie so brazenly in an AE proceeding speaks volumes about his intentions. How is it possible to reach a good-faith agreement with a user who employs deception so easily and casually (not to mention clumsily). I repeat, it is beyond clear that Abbatai is WP:NOTHERE. Athenean (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

This is just a tit-for-tat response by Abbatai for the case raised against him. The barrel scrapings of diffs alleging misdeeds reveal nothing of the sort. For example, "adding Armenian population data from 1897 Russian census to a province has history back only to 1992" - then why is Abbatai happy to allow population statistics from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s, etc., to remain in the article? There is nothing wrong in removing [57] an unjustified pov tag (this [58] is NOT a proper tag justification); this [59] is sourced content and was added as a result of talk page discussions, this [60] restored alternative names that had been deleted without justification and deleted a reference that was actually not a reference for the tagged for sources content; this [61] removes an unsourced category assertion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning EtienneDolet

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

Looking briefly, there does some to be some concerns about whitewashing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said more in the case above, but there does seem to be a problem with both sides. ED might be the lesser of the two problems, but there is still a battleground problem with both of them. We need to address both sides (strong warning is my pick) not just one side, or we end up interfering with the balance of the articles. They need to talk more, edit less, and I do mean both of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing evidence of problematic editing by EtienneDolet. I am seeing evidence of problems with Abbatai, whose editing, while sporadic, seems pretty focused on presenting Kurds in a bad light and Azeris ina good light. With only a dozen or edits in the last month, including filing this complaint, that suggests that Etienne is not the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A mixed bag. The Iğdır and Erzurum diffs seem unproblematic to me; the second of the Iğdır ones removes what appears to be a dissertation, and bases text on a reliable source. So that's an improvement by ED. The Yerevan edit also is fine with me, since the text they removed only dropped a factoid into an article without saying anything about what it means. However, I don't understand the Kanayan edit or the Collaboration edit. In the case of the Kanayan edit, the information is verified by the cited book source, and ED's edit summary, "Azeris fight for SS, but Armenians fight for Nazis?" makes no sense to me--and if they have to explain it, it wasn't a good summary in a contentious topic. (One can quibble and say that the source says "created" and not "led", but that's another matter.) But to start an ARE discussion over those edits, I don't see the purpose, and to make the case that this fits a larger pattern or something like that requires much stronger evidence. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Drmies the diffs are a mixed bag and not all put ED in a bad light, but the main problem I see here is battleground behaviour and failure to edit neutrally, which applies to both of them. I suggest they both be admonished for battleground behaviour and warned that any future examples are likely to result in a TBAN covering the problematic areas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For ED's benefit, I will say that the appropriate action to take when faced with what you consider is POV-editing is to discuss on talk and if no consensus can be gained there in a reasonable amount of time, the appropriate action would be to use a dispute resolution method like RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

The Rambling Man is warned that continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked. No further action is taken. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:06, 14 December 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 The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Rambling Man (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/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited : "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."

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

13 Dec 2016 "Another case of an admin without the full briefing ... Jeez, you guys need to sort your shit out." Seems to be insulting and belittling.
13 Dec 2016 "...way to read the history ... if you're that sensitive ... Another "admin" edited the blurb and fucked it up ... Don't get all over the top ..." Seems to be insulting and belittling.
13 Dec 2016 "If you don't know what you're doing, (a) don't do it and (b) don't use admin tools until you do know what you're doing. Maintaining the main page is a complex business and not one suited to drive-by so-called admins." Seems to be insulting and belittling.
13 Dec 2016 "FFS, you and Katie need to grow a pair, neither of you have added constructively here ... If you actually want to do the job of an admin, do it, don't complain about it." Seems to be insulting and belittling.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Rambling Man resigned their admin status during the Arbcom case in October. They now seem to be increasingly agitated about the performance of other admins. No doubt it is frustrating that they are no longer able to perform such tasks themselves. But comments of this kind do not seem civil and seem to be what Arbcom had in mind when when placing this sanction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification of The Rambling Man

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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

Statement by The Rambling Man

Messing with the main page should not happen. If admins aren't fully commensurate with how to do this, they should leave it to others. Admins who have been asked to respond to questions, in particular relating to accusing editors of lying, before then blocking them need to be held accountable for their misbehaviour. Everything else I have to say has already be said at either my talk page, AN or ANI. P.S. I still want MikeV's previous enforcement notice to be redacted too. And given the block has clearly been deemed "premature" if not downright "incorrect" and/or "involved", we need to make sure MikeV doesn't make such mistakes in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bencherlite

We have Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:In the news for a reason - to help admins know what to do / what not to do. Apparently the big red capital letters used for "ATTENTION" and the flashing image, File:Blinking Stop hand.gif, that it uses are not enough to draw some admins' attention to the three simple warnings underneath. Suggestions for how this edit notice can be improved would be welcomed, I'm sure. Perhaps the link to Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions and Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection need to be even bigger?

In the meantime, admins not understanding that the main page is not the place to allow unprotected images *is* a big deal, given previous experience with unprotected images there and the instructions on how to do things, and I don't blame TRM for getting annoyed about this - particularly as this is not the only instance of unprotected main page images at ITN from the last few days. Nor do I blame TRM for getting annoyed about admins indicating that it's OK for admins who "don't know how do it" (not TRM's words) to make edits to the main page templates that need fixing by others who do know what they're doing. Robust and justified criticism of admins who edit our most high-profile page without following the long-standing instructions designed to help them is *not* the same as insulting or belittling. I'm commenting here rather than in the section for uninvolved administrators given my long-standing WP friendship with TRM. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

I agree with Bencherlite. I am far more concerned about an admin having apparently added an unprotected image to the main page than with TRM for being forceful in pointing out the gaffe. We need admins to be careful editing the main page. That said I made the same mistake once - a fellow admin was kind enough to replace the unprotected image on commons with a photo of a piece of paper on which he'd written something along the lines of "Which idiot forgot to protect this image". I learned my lesson. I'm sure everyone involved in this incident has too. WJBscribe (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 331dot

I think it should be noted that TRM resigned his admin powers under threat of them being stripped from him.

I don't see any insulting or belittling here, as Bencherlite and WJBscribe also state. I see annoyance, perhaps, but if TRM is going to be punished for being annoyed, then we all should be. Being annoyed is not the same thing as being insulting. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accept that MikeV is not involved, he concedes that he wasn't aware of this discussion, and I think that was enough of a reason to reverse his block. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

This may be a bit off-topic, but can't someone just write a script or edit filter that would automatically prevent unprotected Commons images from being added to the main page, and thereby prevent that aspect of the problem from recurring? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng

I share the concern about TRM's difficult mode of interation, but I'm almost as concerned about Mike V having interposed his own (not-always-unclouded) judgment even while this process is underway – six minutes, in fact, after the one admin who had commented here opined that action was inappropriate. Too often I've seen him lay his heavy hand on the block button from on high (including imposing a block – quickly overturned – on me). E Eng 05:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Patar knight

I'm not an uninvolved admin because I reverted Michael Hardy's addition of the unprotected image at ITN. Keeping unprotected images off the Main Page is very important and is repeatedly mentioned in the editnotice, ITN admin instructions, etc. It seems unfair to block TRM for expressing frustration at other people's inability/unwillingness to follow clearly those laid out directions. I think an exception to the arbcom remedy, so that TRM is allowed to reasonably criticize other users for clear failures to follow procedure, should be read in. At best the last comment deserved a warning. Blocking this quickly seems like jumping the gun.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I don't believe that TRM is forbidden to "criticize other users for clear failures to follow procedure" or any other reason, he's "prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." That's an entirely different animal, since one can criticize without insulting or belittling. I'm not making a judgement about whether TRM violated his sanction or not, just pointing out a relevant distinction.

Concerning EEng's point, I think considering the recent dust-up between TRM and Mike V apparent on TRM's talk page, Mike V should probably have passed on blocking TRM, as his block raises the impression that it might have been motivated by bad feelings between them rather than by TRM's action, and this discussion was already open. It might be a good idea for Mike V to consider lifting the block and allowing the admins at AE to determine what action, if any, needs to be taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

Discussion started at WP:ANI#Admin accountability and involvedness. Basically (independently) mirroring BMKs points above. Fram (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dweller

This would just be a waste of time if it wasn't for the bad block that has come of it. Move to close. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrew D.

This is just the latest incident as, since the Arbcom case, TRM has shown no contrition, does not appear to accept the Arbcom rulings and his aggressive language seems just as bad as before. I agree with Lankiveil that telling KrakatoaKatie to "grow a pair" was quite unacceptable, especially as she is a woman. Her response to this tirade was "Well. I tried. Nice. Way to chase your new helpers off. – I'm out". This demonstrates the effect of such language – it drives people away. Sanctions are therefore appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)I prev[reply]

Statement by Katie

I wasn't pinged when TRM went on his little tirade, nor was I pinged about this AE request. If one is going to tell me to do the anatomically impossible, the least one can do is notify me.

For the record, I didn't do anything wrong at the ITN template. I saw the call for assistance at ERRORS several days ago and, with a couple of other admins, decided to try to help. I fixed the blurb and declined to change the image because I wasn't sure if there was consensus to change a blurb as significantly as what was proposed. Before I made the changes, I pored over the ITN instructions for hours – hours, because I didn't want to make a mistake. I previewed the template about eight times before I saved it. I marked the items done/not done, and kept the tab open so I could refresh the page to make sure I didn't screw up. I don't use the watchlist (haven't for years and years because it got to be several thousand pages), so when someone comments under me and whines about a mistake, I assume they're talking to me. If I had made a mistake, I would expect to be told in civil terms. I've made lots of mistakes across this project and I've almost always been notified in a calm manner. I don't think that will happen while TRM is patrolling that page, so I won't edit there again. I have other areas in which I can work where I know my contributions are valued.

As tantrums go, this isn't very bad. My children have done better. I get rape threats, so TRM really needs to up his game if he's going to make me lose sleep. I don't care if he's blocked or unblocked. I suggest, however, that he not come to AN shouting about the lack of admins at ERRORS again. He's not likely to find many takers. Katie^talk 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

The remedy invoked states that TRM "is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." I agree that Andrew Davidson's diffs show examples of The Rambling Man violating that remedy, and the remedy dictates that TRM "may be blocked" (emphasis mine). We ought to consider Andrew D.'s first two examples to be constructive criticism delivered by a frustrated editor (as other commenters have noted) in a matter of importance. The third example probably also qualifies, though the phrase "drive-by so-called admins" is belittling and does seem directed at particular users. Those three comments violate the letter of the remedy, but I can't imagine any other editor would earn a block for such mild comments and nor should TRM.

However the fourth example, telling a female editor to "grow a pair" would be a borderline personal attack by any user. TRM, with an active remedy specifically prohibiting such comments, should earn an AE block for this comment. The purpose of that block does seem to have been served by Mike V's action, however.

A note of clarification: if the committee determines that Mike V's (now overturned) block serves the purpose of a block that would have been warranted from this enforcement request, please specify whether Mike V's block counts as a first block under the remedy, or if in the committee's view TRM has not been blocked under the remedy. It's going to come up again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm going to ramble on a bit about WP:INVOLVED, if you'll indulge me. It's important that administrators be seen as neutral, for the good governance of the project, however we sometimes apply INVOLVED too liberally. It appears to me that Mike V is considered involved because he posted an administrative warning on TRM's talk page. I'm sure there's more to it judging by the number of commenters, but if that is all there is to it, Mike V is not involved. Furthermore, and this is more to my upcoming point, if any genuinely neutral administrator would have come to the same action, then an involved administrator's action is justified notwithstanding INVOLVED, and I think that that is the case here. So we're saying that TRM's block should be overturned only because the blocking administrator was involved, not because the rationale behind the block was wrong.

We currently have only 526 active administrators; this year there have been 62 fewer promotions than demotions, and that gap is widening. The number of administrators available to be "uninvolved" in any particular issue is rapidly declining. If this trend continues of procedurally reversing administrative actions not because they are wrong but only because they were done by involved administrators, we will very soon be facing a situation where there are no administrators capable of acting against certain users and in certain topic areas. I encourage the committee and the community as a whole to consider this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

trimmed for word count Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayron32

I'm not sure, at this point, if we can or should do anything further here. This particular AE filing has been tainted by the bad block (which has recently been undone by consensus at a WP:AN discussion). Whether or not TRM should or should not have been blocked stopped being the issue when the blocking admin jumped the gun and blocked him unilaterally and in contravention of the early stages of this discussion. It may have played out that consensus would have eventually been that TRM was in violation, and that a block would have been merited, but we'll never know. Officially, IAR is the only rule I follow 100% of the time, and I've never been accused of following policy for policy's sake, but pragmatically, when one oversteps policy in THIS way, it muddies the water and makes just enforcement impossible. It seems to me that the only thing to do is to let this go at this point, don't re-block TRM regardless of whether he did or didn't merit it. Per WP:ROPE either TRM will abide by the terms of his sanctions, or he won't. If he does, than this block was unnecessary. If he doesn't, then another block will be coming. But the current CF in no way is resolvable, and we should just shut this down and call it a day. Let WP:ROPE be our guidance here... --Jayron 32 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

I'm of opinion this is similar to the examples I originally cited in the case request, and if this had happened prior to my filing the case I would've cited it as well. When the person you're talking to responds with "Welp. I tried. Nice. Way to chase your new helpers off" that must be a sign of going too far.

Seriously TRM do you have to act like this ... your behavior on ITN improved to the point I was thinking of nominating you for adminship in a year's time, and then this happens ... as long as Katie and Michael Hardy fit WP:HERE, they, like the rest of us, are on your side. Do you really, really, have to bash them for trying to help? Banedon (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I find the 4th diff to be a violation of TRM's sanctions against insulting or belittling others. In light of MikeV's block and the subsequent unblock, I would suggest that we call this "time-served" and issue a strongly worded warning against future behavior. TRM has requested additional admin support at these main page venues, but insulting and belittling those who actually attempt good faith edits there does not seem like a sustainable way to improve involvement. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

IMHO the 4th diff was a violation however because of the INVOLVED block I see no point in reblocking over it, Ofcourse like Jayron says had Mike not jumped the gun consensus may or may not have been to block but IMHO as it stands it's stupid to block someone, unblock them and then a few weeks later block them again ....., I would suggest we give TRM some rope (and a stern warning if it helps), close this and all move on. –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

Involved only in so much as that I participate frequently at ITN. I think we all need to recognize editors are human and can make mistakes, even experienced ones. Yes, mistakes related to the main page are potentially more problematic, and editors are cautioned to avoid touching those templates if they are not sure on the process. But there is no need to chastise editors for a single mistake (its when it becomes a pattern after being toled about it before that we must become concerned), we're working collaboratively. I'm a bit worried about some of the above commentators putting the importance of the "sacred" nature of the main page over civility given the goals of this project.

I would not say that the first three diffs are problematic on their own (others have shown the 4th being one of concern), but speaking as an ITN regular, TRM's attitude has started to creep up to where it was prior to the ArbCom case; it's not close, but the trend is very clear now. Otherwise ignoring the fourth diff, TRM should be TROUTED and reminded about the Arbcom case; but as to that 4th, I do feel a stronger statement should be made to caution TRM, but I don't have opinion if that should be anything more than a statement of concern to TRM. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

TRM is clearly frustrated by what he considers to be sub-par performances by some admins in maintaining the main page. I am assuming that TRMs criticisms are at least partly justified, ie there have been screw-ups. I know enough about the main page to know that it is not a place you edit unless you are sure about what you are supposed to be doing. IMO, most of the comments in the diffs are aimed at the sub-par actions of the admins concerned, rather at the admins themselves. The comment "grow a pair" is, IMO, insulting, and I strongly suggest TRM tones down his language when referring to other editors, but I'm not sure a single insult is enough to justify anything other than a warning to watch his language when referring to other editors (whether they are admins or not). I'd be quite happy to revisit if there are any further insults, but this seems a bit light on to justify sanctions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I notice thet TRM has already been blocked for 72 hours over this, probably rendering this moot. For the record, I think that the block is a fair call; the fourth comment especially is insulting and crude, and there was no exception made in the original decision for cases where responses were being made to mess-ups on the main page. For most users, this wouldn't be worthy of a block, but then most users haven't been sanctioned for hostility towards other editors at ArbCom. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Short comment to note that Mike V's arbitration enforcement block was overturned after appeal on AN as "hasty" and "WP:INVOLVED", and Mike himself has pointed out he was not aware of the ongoing AE filing. This was specifically to allow the AE filing to reach its conclusion. I am not commenting on the substance of the present AE filing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to comment last night, but I got tied up. Peacemaker67 pretty much says exactly what I was going to say. The 4th example is the only one that really bothers me and that clearly crosses the line. The others are rude, this is true, but it takes more than rude to draw a sanction. Considering the block/unblock and such, I would suggest a strong, final warning. TRM really does need to dial it back a couple of notches. He's often right on the merits but horribly wrong on the delivery. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The unblock is procedurally out of order. The remedy at issue is explicit that an appeal lies only to AE, which prevails over the part of the general appeals and modification provision allowing an AN appeal. Contrary to some assertions in the AN thread, the general appeals and modification provision was enacted by a motion of the committee and is no more policy than a remedy in a particular case. This wording of this remedy is no accident, either - the original version (in the GGTF case, decided while I was on the committee) was intentionally written to exclude non-AE appeals. The other argument raised, that the protection only attaches to the action of "uninvolved" administrators so that question of involvement can be raised elsewhere, is equally without merit given the presumption of validity that attaches to enforcement actions. That said, because it appears likely that an AE appeal would have reached the same conclusion, I don't think we need to take further action on the appeal venue.
On the merits, I find fourth diff to be particularly unacceptable and more than sufficient to justify a block under the remedy. However, in light of intervening events, I'm tentatively of the opinion that a reblock is not necessary in this instance and a strong warning along the lines suggested by Dennis would be sufficient. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I don't understand is why the response to Katie wasn't "Sorry, I can see how it looks like I was talking about you, but I wasn't. My bad." Once again, just like the RFAR itself, we're at a point where I would normally just ignore the whole mess and let whatever happens happen, except that the person filing the report and the person doing the knee-jerk blocking are both more damaging to the situation than TRM is.

So, I actually have no strong opinion on whether to sanction TRM further, and can be ignored by both the pro- and the con- sides when trying to determine if there's a consensus. But I wonder if a possible outcome of a discussion among uninvolved admins would be that Mike V no longer be allowed to block TRM, and Andrew D no longer be allowed to tattle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that I am considered an involved administrator. I have only interacted with TRM in an administrative capacity and the policy states that, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." I believe this policy is being misconstrued. It's intended to prevent an admin and an editor from engaging in say, a topic discussion, and then blocking that editor for 3RR. I have not interacted with TRM in his topic areas, such as Errors or main page content. @Floquenbeam: I think your proposal does not show proper judgement. Instead of addressing the issue, placing such restrictions would only allow us to pretend that there isn't an issue with the conduct displayed. "Less damage" would have occurred if TRM maintained a more civil composure. Finally, I stand by the merits of the original block. The edits were insulting and directed towards other contributors, which was a clear breach of the arbitration remedy. Mike V • Talk 16:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis Brown and T. Canens on a "strong, final warning" as an appropriate outcome. As Dennis said: "TRM really does need to dial it back a couple of notches. He's often right on the merits but horribly wrong on the delivery." Some allowance does need to be made for editing in a difficult and important area, and TRM does do some thankless work at ITN/ERRORS/DYK etc. But "grow a pair" and similar remarks are unambiguously abusive/belittling and unhelpful. Neutrality^talk 18:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO

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

Request concerning SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS/WP:1RR:

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

14:25, 14 December 2016: SPECIFICO reverts this edit of mine.
14:28, 14 December 2016: SPECIFICO reverts this edit of mine.
20:49, 14 December 2016: I warned SPECIFICO to self-revert, but they have ignored the message.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23:12, 22 April 2014: SPECIFICO is topic banned from the Ludwig von Mises Institute; see evidence of misconduct.

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

22:13, 3 May 2016: SPECIFICO is notified of DS by User:Coffee.
SPECIFICO routinely leaves DS notices on the talk pages of other users, usually after a disagreement, (see, e.g., [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]), but lashes out when the shoe is on the other foot.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's almost certainly not a coincidence that SPECIFICO reverted my edits in particular. Other users have noticed SPECIFICO's pattern of "misguided...at best" misrepresentation of my words and requesting "retaliatory and unwarranted" sanctions against me; shortly before the reverts, SPECIFICO told another user "TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned." SPECIFICO's only other revert at 2016 United States election interference by Russia was of material I expanded. (SPECIFICO's interest in baiting me into a ban appears to be motivated by SPIs I filed against User:Oneshotofwhiskey; they were all vindicated and Oneshot was indeffed, but SPECIFICO characterized them as "paranoid conspiracy theories about opponents," after having previously opposed a topic ban related to Oneshot's conduct at Dinesh D'Souza and complimented Oneshot's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments"—like this and this, presumably.)

SPECIFICO previously broke 1RR on November 22 with these reverts (again of material I added) at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, though it did not occur to me to report them at that time.

I am also concerned by SPECIFICO's penchant for immediately threatening others users with sanctions on dubious grounds—which SPECIFICO has done twice just within the past several hours; User:Soham321 previously criticized SPECIFICO's proclivity for "frivolous threats" here at AE. (Note that in none of these three instances did SPECIFICO actually follow through and report the user they threatened, while SPECIFICO now denies "that's a violation of ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful" was intended as a threat.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

00:03, 15 December 2016: I notified SPECIFICO that I had filed this AE report, having given them the chance to self-revert.

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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

Statement by SPECIFICO

Statement by Sagecandor

SPECIFICO and I were able to work things out [70], and I assume good faith that the notification is just a notification with no ill intentions. As for this arbitration enforcement report itself, I agree with the analysis by Dennis Brown at [71]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

@Dennis Brown: This is where I plead ignorance. Recall that I did not report these reverts for the very reason you describe. However, SPECIFICO recently filed a frivolous 1RR "report" against me on your talk page, even though they never explained what I had supposedly "reverted" in the first diff cited. User:Volunteer Marek—who later struck out his comment after realizing I did not make the revert in question—attempted to draw a distinction between what you call "a single revert that used two edits" and what he dubbed "two different reverts." In that case, SPECIFICO seemed content to threaten me merely for making more than one edit to an article, and continues to insist that a second, unspecified revert occurred. (Obvious Oneshot socks have had no luck finding anyone that agrees with SPECIFICO's assessment; as User:Hut 8.5 remarked: "If you're going to accuse people of 1RR violations then you need to show that the edits in question were reverts, that is they undid something someone else did. There's nothing necessarily wrong with editing the article twice in 24 hours if the edits aren't reverts.")

I confess to being frankly baffled by the DS on American Politics, because there seems to be no consistent criteria for how they are applied in practice. SPECIFICO has twice reverted two distinct edits of mine in two different sections of two articles and faced no penalty—but that same user pushed hard to have me topic banned not for violating 1RR, but rather the additional stipulation "You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus" (which has been consistently abused by WP:BATTLEGROUND editors)—and, in your telling, came very close to succeeding (although non-admins were almost unanimously opposed). If I had made these reverts, it seems almost certain SPECIFICO would have reported me—after all, they've reported me for much less—and there's a very good chance I would not have escaped sanction.

(Of course, the thrust of the complaint against me soon became a handful of uncivil edit summaries; should I add an appendix on uncivil remarks by SPECIFICO? Do you think I could get away with casually threatening editors the way SPECIFICO does, as documented above? How about the time SPECIFICO accused me of "tendentiously canvassing" another user by informing them of an SPI I had initiated against the IP they were interacting with? WP:CANVASS has a specific meaning, though I've never heard it applied to SPIs: Should SPECIFICO be allowed to use the word as a random insult if they have no intention of pursuing what would be a serious violation of Wikipedia policy? SPECIFICO has clearly been skirting on the edge of what is acceptable for a very long time now, and failing to warn against that sort of conduct will only encourage more of it.)

So, you tell me: If these edits had been made by two different users, would SPECIFICO then have violated 1RR? What if SPECIFICO had reverted three or four edits of mine in quick succession? (Would that be "a single revert that used three or four edits"?) I'm deeply concerned that consistent standards are articulated here—not least of all because the total lack of consistency has allowed SPECIFICO to plausibly threaten users and coerce self-reverts even when the underlying policy rationale is far from obvious. (If SPECIFICO had asked me to self-revert rather than immediately running to you, I would have done so, even though I did nothing wrong.) It's as if the rules only apply to the outgroup, not the ingroup or the Wikilawyers; editors know where they stand and act accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

Two sequential reverts are generally considered a single revert, as it isn't easy to make two changes in one edit without editing the page as a whole. From my perspective, this is a single revert that used two edits. There was no back and forth going on. I think I just closed an AE on you, TTAAC, in as gentle a way as I could given the support to topic ban you. I don't recommend climbing on a high horse here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already explained it, there is no need to try to drag it to an illogical extreme. This isn't new, and is in fact, standard operating procedure. If it were three or four, the result would be the same if the intent is clear. You can discuss the merits on the talk page of the article, but for the purpose of AE, it is not a 1RR violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The rest of this is meandering and not really AE specific. What happened on my talk page is meaningless and was worked out before I even saw the page. You brought the case, you were mistaken in how you interpreted 1RR. It isn't automatically intuitive, but if you think about what I said, it should make sense. He committed ONE act of reverting, it just took took two edits because they weren't in the same section. His intent was clear, demonstrated by only 3 minutes between edits. Had it been an hour, then it could be argued it wasn't a "singular" act, but was two acts. The rest isn't helpful to answer here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly with Dennis. Try to step back from the drama. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This report is frivolous. T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As my name's been invoked, I'm going to have to agree with Dennis above. Hut 8.5 07:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tlroche

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 Tlroche

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tlroche (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 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons :

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29
WP:BLPBAN as superseded by motion.

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

01:36, 15 December 2016 Adds info related to multiple WP:BLPs to source that fails WP:RELIABLE -- at page currently under 1RR arbitration restrictions.
03:08, 15 December 2016 Reverts to add back in, against strong talk page consensus not to do so. All users in that discussion except the party himself were in agreement not to have this material in the article.
04:44, 15 December 2016 Violates the 1RR arbitration restriction, adds back material again to same article.
04:38, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:No legal threats, calls a talk page comment where I warned him about using someone else's signature without their permission as "slander".
05:00, 15 December 2016 Does same, again.
01:20, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:BLP, adds material to sources that fail WP:RELIABLE about multiple living persons, example source Consortiumnews.com, reasoning why unreliable at [72].
04:33, 15 December 2016, same, with edit summary of: revert vandalism, undo unreliable Fox News quote (retaining link)
05:35, 15 December 2016 Same, same article, same edit summary. Unfortunately, this version of WP:BLP-violating material to unreliable sources is in the article at present.
05:39, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:NPA, violates WP:AGF, with: I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal.
06:27, 15 December 2016 Disruption at the BLP noticeboard itself.
06:39, 15 December 2016 Same, again.
06:59, 15 December 2016 Same, again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

20:59, 13 December 2016 Large notice of discretionary sanctions placed at top of talk page.
02:22, 14 December 2016‎ Big red edit-notice warning of 1RR per arbitration discretionary sanctions. Template created by EdJohnston before edits to the page by the user.
02:27, 15 December 2016 Discretionary sanctions alert.
03:13, 15 December 2016 Notified via edit summary by MrX: Unacceptable source and READ THE EDIT NOTICE: Don't restore material that has been reverted uness there is consensus to do so.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was aware of the discretionary sanctions. [73]
User was aware of the 1RR restrictions. [74]
User was aware of talk page consensus against him, that the source in question that mentioned multiple WP:BLPs violated WP:RELIABLE. [75]
User chose to add the offending material back in and violate the 1RR restriction, WP:BLP, and WP:RELIABLE, anyways. [76] [77]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

05:18, 15 December 2016 Notification given. Sagecandor (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Tlroche

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 Tlroche

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tlroche

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 346: / Line 346: @@
 :::: User Athenean the long time ally of EtienneDolet, backs him/her every means possible (see [http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Athenean+&users=EtienneDolet&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki]), shows up here too. I will not respond him at regarding his personal attack calling me "fascist". I expect admins to take necessary actions needed as it is clearly an insulting word. Or should I fill another complaint regarding his edits and latest personal attack?--[[User:Abbatai|Abbatai]] 18:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
+:::: User Athenean seems very well informed about Wikipedia policies however rules applied to all he neglects [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:ADHOM]].--[[User:Abbatai|Abbatai]] 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
+:::::Regarding the interfernece of user Tiptoethrutheminefield and Athenean it is important to mention those three editors [[WP:SANCTIONGAME]] behaviour on this and numerous other AE. They repeatedly back one another in various disputed areas see user compare results: [http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Athenean+&users=EtienneDolet&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] [http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=EtienneDolet+&users=Tiptoethrutheminefield&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki]. Both users has no mention of EtienneDolet's Armenian POV push here, instead they are gaming to put all blame on me for the EtienneDolet's disruptive edits. Even Athenean went too far to defend ED. He personally attacked me and brought off-topic edits of mine here.--[[User:Abbatai|Abbatai]] 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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