Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ranze

The appeal of the 3 month block is declined. Ranze (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely topic-banned from any page relating to (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Kyohyi (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 3 month block, imposed at User talk: Ranze Administrator imposing the sanction Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [[1]] Statement by Ranze Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on talk:Zoe Quinn asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that. Laser did not like the edits I made to people v. Turner and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something. I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made. This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Laser brain Note: Ranze does not consider People v. Turner to be covered by the "gender-based controveries" topic area, from which he was topic banned for a year. During his last visit to AE, The Wordsmith and I both advised him that People v. Turner is indeed in this domain and the only reason he wasn't sanctioned is because his TB had elapsed. The content of his edits at the time wasn't really examined. This piece of background is critical if it's to be determined whether the current sanction is valid. Ranze bumped around for a while doing other things but then decided to return to editing at People v. Turner. I advised him that his edits show an agenda and that he should stay away from that topic. The following edits are of concern: [2] - Removes mention that the victim was unconscious and intoxicated and adds text in another area stating both parties were intoxicated (only). [3] - Edit wars to keep it in after it's challenged and he's asked to discuss on Talk. [4] - Changes wording from "sexually penetrated ... with his fingers" to "digitally penetrated" which was wikilinked to fingering (sexual act), an article about a consensual sexual technique. [5] - Rewords a statement about Turner's sentence to say people called it light instead of it being light (he made a similar edit to Ethan Couch). My impression is that Ranze's agenda is to soften Turner's image and marginalize the victim. He may believe he's editing neutrally but I think he's pushing a POV against the consensus established at this article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: There's a bit of confusion going around about the TB so just for clarity: Ranze is not currently under an active TB in this area; it expired in 2016. However, it is my contention that People v. Turner is under DS as a "gender-based controversy". As others have pointed out, there is a strong argument for rape culture and campus rape falling under this topic area. So my administrative action is an application of DS for poor behavior, not a block due to a violation of a topic ban. I warned him to stay away from this topic after the above series of edits, and he returned anyway to continue pushing his POV. --Laser brain (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @The Wordsmith: I apologize for mischaracterizing your position—it was not intentional and I apparently didn't read your later comments carefully. I will note, however, that People v. Turner (and Zoë Quinn, where Ranze has also reinvolved himself) are eligible for DS under ARBBLP as well, so the question of whether it is a "gender-based controversy" isn't really as important as the question of whether Ranze is behaving poorly. I don't mean to play DS bingo here, but I think we owe it to the community for the focus to be on the behavior. If no one agrees he is pushing an agenda, then let's unblock and move on. --Laser brain (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kyohyi First, I think it is important to point out that three out of four of Laser brain's diff's are basically a content dispute. His comments here, his block rationale on Ranze's talk page [6], and his "warning's" [7],[8] demonstrate that his motivation for blocking Ranze was due to him disagreeing on content with Ranze's contributions. This is pretty clearly WP: INVOLVED behavior for an admin. Further, Ranze is not subject to any gender based topic ban at this time, the last topic ban expired April of 2016. [9] --Kyohyi (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Actually I would also like to add that all of the diff's provided by Laser brain date back to 2/4, and 2/5. Laser brain didn't block Ranze until 2/12. Ranze and Laser brain had discussion on Ranze's talk page until 2/7 when Ranze stopped editing until resuming on 2/12. What happened on 2/12 that warrants the block? The diff's provided from 2/4, and 2/5 shouldn't be applicable without something also from 2/12. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Since the scope of topic bans has come up again, (this was brought up the last time Ranze was brought to AE, though it didn't get resolved there) I'm going to link to our topic banning policy WP: TBAN and ask, is the article on the whole gender related, or are there just elements of the article that are gender related. Just because something is partially discussed in terms of gender doesn't mean the whole thing is gender related. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: Are you implying that administrators get to determine what content is neutral, and non-neutral and can sanction accordingly? --Kyohyi (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC) To the admins in the bottom, how are you not ruling on content? I recommend a good reading of WP: CONADMIN. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor MjolnirPants) This is just a quick interjection from someone uninvolved who has (probably stupidly) watchlisted this page. I looked through the edits in question and I agree that they demonstrate an agenda to minimize Turner's culpability, because the editor has made no edits to this page which had any other effect. The claim that these edits better reflected the sources does not account for the fact that we normally state uncontested claims from reliable sources in wikivoice to avoid stating facts as opinions. I'll recuse myself from sticking my nose further into this by unwatching the page, so please ping me if you have any questions or comments about my statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Guess who's back! I just wanted to point out that Ranze has responded to my comment above on their talk page by presenting an edit which shows (IMHO) that this POV pushing has been going on for several months, at least. I'm not going to say any more, but any admins who are interested can read my response at their talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by CIreland @Sandstein: You asked for it to be "made more clear how this is within the topic ban's scope" given that "The identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female, respectively, does not seem to have been an issue in the case, nor their views on gender, or the case's impact on women or men in particular, or anything like that." I think your premise here is mistaken. Much of the coverage of People v. Turner in the press and elsewhere focused on the incident as a consequence of rape culture and our article mentions this fact. Additionally, there has been significant analysis following Turner's release of how the case reflects a normalization of violence against women and have specifically cast both the incident and the case as a gender issue. Here are some examples [10][11][12][13]. I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate that Ranze's edits are within scope but there is a further point I wanted to mention: Sandstein, you seem to imply in your remarks that rape and sexual assault are not a gender issues. That is a reasonable and widely held opinion. However, there are also widely held opinions to the contrary. I think that you should weigh more cautiously this divergence of opinion on the matter and be careful not to base your decision only on your own perspective. CIreland (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth @Sandstein: In the event that you did remove Ranze's block, would you be doing so procedurally, because you believe Ranze's edits don't fall under the topic area of 'gender-related dispute or controversy', or would you be doing so because you truly believe that their actions were helpful to the goal of building an encyclopedia? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof I will note that previous AE consensus determined that the Gamergate topic ban covered any articles or topics related in any substantive way to rape or sexual assault, and that I was thus prohibited from editing such articles while under that restriction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden I don't see justification for any sanction here. Whether the topic is covered by DS or not, the only disruptive behavior is one (debatably bad) revert. If that standard were applied consistently we'd have no editors left in edit American Politics or any other DS topic. The rest is down to content choices which is not a subject for AE or administrative action. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Strongjam With regard to the discussion about whether the article falls under the DS topic. There was a previous clarification request regarding the GG sanctions and whether it applied to the Campus rape article which might be helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ranze The diffs provided by LB show no violation. Some of the edits were removing Wiki voice, such as the one where the sentence was referred to as light, is that Wiki's opinion or some people? And I do fail to see how that article should be subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Ranze This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Laser brain: Could you please indicate which specific edits you blocked Ranze for, and why?  Sandstein  15:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Ranze contends that People v. Turner is not related to a "gender-related dispute or controversy" and therefore not within the scope of Ranze's topic ban the discretionary sanctions topic area, and I tend to agree. The article is about a highly publicized case of sexual assault committed by a man against a woman. However, I don't see what in the article or the edits at issue is particularly related to the issue of gender ("the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity"). The identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female, respectively, does not seem to have been an issue in the case, nor their views on gender, or the case's impact on women or men in particular, or anything like that. Even the offense of sexual assault, while presumably most often committed by men against women, can be committed by and against people of either gender. Unless it is made more clear how this is within the topic ban's scope, I would accept the appeal and undo the block.  Sandstein  18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Amended comment to make clear that this block was apparently not a reaction to violations of a seemingly expired topic ban, but to the non-neutral edits by Ranze. I acknowledge CIreland's point that the article mentions that the case triggered discussions about rape culture, which certainly is a gender-related issue. I'm just not sure that the connection is strong enough to make the article as a whole covered by discretionary sanctions. What do other admins think? – If we were to conclude that this is within scope, I would probably consider the block within admin discretion, even if I myself might not have made it: contributors should edit neutrally, per WP:NPOV, and making edits only to advance one particular point of view violates this rule, even though it is sadly common.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks, Strongjam for linking to a clarification request establishing that campus rape is covered by the discretionary sanctions. The article People v. Turner is about broadly similar subject matter and therefore also covered. On that basis, as explained above, I would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Since my comments at a previous AE have been brought up, I need to clarify that Laser brain misrepresents what I said. While initially I agreed that this article was within the scope, after discussing with other admins and editors I revised my position. See my last comment during that AE thread, which reads in part "Furthermore, after thinking more about the issue, while the "gender-based controversies" is absurdly vague, I do not believe it applies here. This is an article about an court case prosecuting a rapist. Courts are not gendered, and rape is not a gendered crime. The fact that this one happened to involve a male and a female does not make it gender-based. Many in the public believe the judge is sexist (which has been picked up by some RS), but that is a very small part of the article and not, in my interpretation, sufficient to make the entire article a gender-related controversy. My position since then has not changed. I continue to believe that this article is not within the scope of WP:ARBGG, except for the snippets dealing with allegations of gender bias. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Sandstein, I've had to reach for the smelling salts at the idea of People v. Turner not being a gender-based controversy, and that the "identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female ... does not seem to have been an issue". The case was suffused with male and class privilege, like a flashback to the 70s—the light sentence; the judge's focus on harm to the convicted and not to the victim; that the victim was questioned about what she had been wearing; the father's attitude; the apparent importance to the court that the convicted man was a swimmer. It's the very essence of a gender-based controversy. Looking at just one of Ranze's edits, on 4 February he removed that the victim was unconscious. That she was unconscious, and therefore could not have consented, was the key factor in the case, so that was a highly provocative edit. SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC) I agree that P v Turner falls under gender-based controversy; rapes are nearly uniquely badly one such incident. I could live with a decision that commutes the block to a permanent topic ban and unblocks, but the edits seem inappropriate, the AE authority here clear enough, and the "that's enough" message reasonable under the circumstances. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC) I concur with the Boing! proposal below. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC) People v. Turner appears to me to fall with the scope of gender-based controversies, for similar reasons as SarahSV. On that basis I believe the block should stand. I'd also support the imposition of an indefinite TBAN from the area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC) People v. Turner clearly falls under the scope of "gender-based controversies" in my view. The block is entirely reasonable given the edit highlighted by SarahSV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC). While not every rape case may do so, People vs Turner clearly comes under the scope of gender based controversies because it was, as Slim Virgin says, centered around gender, race and class. If that was the primary motivation behind the block, then it is definitely justified. --regentspark (comment) 00:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC) I'm rarely moved to opine on an AE appeal, but I'm seeing insidious POV pushing here of a very nasty nature that I can't ignore, in an article that is clearly within the "gender-based controversies" scope. I think the block is good, the appeal should be declined, and we need to impose an indefinite topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Recommend that we decline Ranze's appeal of the three-month block and support Boing's proposal to impose an indefinite topic ban from ARBGG. The phrase 'gender-based controversy' is not as clear as we could wish, but in case of doubt we can't go wrong by accepting Arbcom's view that it includes campus rape. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411

Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) is blocked for one week for violating the page restrictions in effect at 2016 United States election interference by Russia, by reinstating edits that had been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining or seeking consensus first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Thucydides411 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBAP2, WP:ARBAPDS : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Violation of Limit of one revert in 24 hours: 2016 United States election interference by Russia is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). See the below diffs: #07:14, 11 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting Space4Time3Continuum2x 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO #16:52, 13 February 2017 reverting Only in death 20:33, 14 February 2017 Here it appears Thucydides411 reverts two edits by Space4Time3Continuum2x. These are the two prior edits by SpaceTime: 19:35, 14 February 2017 and 19:40, 14 February 2017. 20:34, 14 February 2017 Reverts Space4Time3Continuum2x again. This particular material was earlier removed by Space Time 15:05, 12 February 2017. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on10 January 2017 DS notify template on user talk page: 15:11, 23 January 2017] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Rather than allowing talk page discussions to take their course Thucydides411 resolutely keeps reverting other productive editors edits to their preferred version. These talk page discussions include Space Time 15:01, 12 February 2017, 15:09, 12 February 2017, Neutrality 19:44, 12 February 2017, Only in death 16:13, 13 February 2017, 17:25, 13 February 2017, 13 February 2017, Volunteer Marek 21:50, 12 February 2017 and *SPECIFICO 02:40, 12 February 2017. It seems these edits are meant to be a temporary improvement to comply with Wikipedia policies, while the material is being discussed. As has been shown by diffs in this section, these productive editors are highly experienced, articulate, and have more than aptly pointed out the deficiencies with material they have been adjusting to bring into compliance. Thucydides411 has demonstrated a rigidity and an IDHT attitude, eschewing any kind of helpful feedback. That is demonstrated by the diffs in the above section. Instead, this person has become a one person authority who overrides established policies and meaningful feedback, as demonstrated by the continual reversions. I had in mind slow motion edit warring when I started this. This occurs when a user reverts a number of editors in a reasonably short time, contravening the spirit of not edit warring, or in this case 1RR. However, it may be there are actual 1RR violations. Of course, that is for the Admins to determine. Sandstein I am in the process of attempting to amend my complaint per DS. This is not a rehash of Clapper. Sandstein I have amended my complaint per your request. See amendments and corrections above. If this is not clear then please let me know. @Sandstein: and @EdJohnston: These edits termed "the same edit" by Darouet are not the same edit 21:02, 12 February 2017 (revert Space Time), 21:02, 12 February 2017 (revert Specifico). These are two edits that happened within the span of a minute of each other. I know this because, I noticed these two edits appeared to have occurred within the same minute. This just means that Thucydides411 was fast. It doesn't matter that these happened during the same minute, it only matters there were two edits - two reversions. If you look at the ending of the urls each one is different - here is the first: one:oldid=765136639; here is the second: next&oldid=765142779. These are different urls because each diff has unique url. @Sandstein: and @EdJohnston: Likewise, the next two in the sequence above are different edits. First, as previously stated "20:33, 14 February 2017 Here it appears Thucydides411 reverts two edits by Space4Time3Continuum2x. These are the two prior edits by SpaceTime: 19:35, 14 February 2017 and 19:40, 14 February 2017. 20:34, 14 February 2017 Reverts Space4Time3Continuum2x again. This particular material was earlier removed by Space Time 15:05, 12 February 2017. Again unique urls apply. Here are the ends of the diff urls. First is: next&oldid=765502899. The second is: next&oldid=765510434. Also, keep in mind, two edits by Space Time were reverted with this one the above first edit in the second sequence - so how does that add up under DS 1RR restrictions? I noticed this while I was filling out the form for the complaint - it stands out in my mind. It just means Thucydides411 was fast, doing these edits in under a minute during the first sequence, as well as the second sequence. Take a look at the diffs in this editing window - the urls are different. For clarity see this: Here is diff number 1 of the first sequence: 21:02, 12 February 2017 Here is diff number 2 of the first sequence: [21:02, 12 February 2017 Here is diff number 1 of the second sequence: 20:33, 14 February 2017 Here is diff number 2 of the second sequence: 20:34, 14 February 2017 Also, notice the second sequence actually shows one minute difference between each edit. It appears that Darouet doesn't have the complete picture. First I was unaware of any history with that edit, if there is any (16:14, 11 February 2017). Then, I opened up a discussion right away (16:23, 11 February 2017). Third, it was restored rather quickly by James J. Lambden (20:53, 11 February 2017). Also, please take a look at how many edits have I recently made to the article main-space compared to other editors. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @James J. Lambden: Thanks for the 3RR clarification - I guess Darouet pointed this out earlier. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 07:38, 15 February 2017 Discussion concerning Thucydides411 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Thucydides411 From the original complaint, it's unclear what, exactly, Steven Quinn is accusing me of. Steven Quinn writes that, "Thucydides411 has demonstrated a rigidity and an IDHT attitude, eschewing any kind of helpful feedback," and cites a few talk page diffs to try to support this argument. Interestingly, none of those diffs are of my talk page comments, but rather of various other editors. I'm involved in active talk-page discussion of the issues that Steven Quinn is worried about. For example: [14] Discussing the quote by Pierre Sprey. [15] Discussing the Binney and McGovern article. I understand that working on contentious articles like 2016 United States election interference by Russia is frustrating, and can lead to a lot of bad blood, and that one side can get the impression that the other side simply isn't listening. But there are a number of editors working through the various issues raised in this complaint (and in OID's comment below) on the talk page. As can be seen in the above diffs (and in the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia), I've been very involved in those discussions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: As MelanieN explained on the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia (in this comment), removal of long-standing content requires consensus: "Removal of longstanding material actually counts as an 'edit', which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus". I'm simply following this interpretation. If that interpretation is in error, let me know. Apparently, that interpretation of policy comes from a discussion between a group of admins on MelanieN's talk page: [16] [17]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC) What SPECIFICO is claiming is that I've violated policy on reinstating a potential BLP violation. First, based on DS policy, as explained by MelanieN to us, this would not be a 1RR violation, because removal of long-standing content requires consensus. So let's look at the BLP question. At first, the idea that mention of a famous incident involving a public figure (James Clapper) would be a BLP violation struck me as implausible. Even at the James Clapper article, there is an entire, well-sourced section on this incident, which would seem to argue against this being a BLP violation. I explained my rationale [18] in detail. The person who brought this AE complaint against me, Steve Quinn, even told me they appreciated my "well articulated" response ([19]). But after Only in death insisted on the talk page that mention of the Clapper testimony incident was a BLP violation and reverted my reinstatement of the text ([20]), I did not attempt to reinstate it again, but rather continued discussing the matter on the talk page (and it's been a long discussion now). I and several other editors think these claims of a BLP violation are spurious, and we've urged the editors who think there is a violation to go to the BLP noticeboard with their concerns, but we're still discussing the issue on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @Coffee: If I read your comment correctly, you're proposing giving me a block for editing in exactly the same manner as numerous other editors on the page - in a manner that MelanieN, an admin, explicitly told us editors working on that page was consistent with the 1RR policy. If I'm handed a block, it seems that consistency demands the following editors, who James J. Lambden showed below (with diffs) have edited in the same manner, receive equivalent blocks: JFG FallingGravity Volunteer Marek MelanieN James J. Lambden Neutrality EvergreenFir Finally, the user who brought this case also violated the exact same restriction, according to your reasoning, as Darouet has shown below (with diffs): Steve Quinn It would seem to me that at the very least, whatever decision is reached should apply equally to all editors who have edited in the same manner, including the user who brought this complaint. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: The interpretation of "longstanding" as referring to a length of time that a given text has been in the article comes from MelanieN's comments on the talk page ([21]), and the discussion of 1RR that she directed us to: [22]. Specifically, NeilN referenced a timespan of 4-6 weeks for heavily edited articles: [23]. If you feel there are valid BLP concerns, you should bring them to the BLP noticeboard, as several editors have asked you to do. But you haven't gone to the BLP noticeboard, and you've responded to requests on the talk page that you clarify your concerns with personal attacks ([24]), giving several editors the impression that you're using WP:CRYBLP to try to shield yourself from having to comply with 1RR. You should worry about WP:BOOMERANG as much as anyone here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by OID Timeline for Sandstein: 12 February 2017 Case against Specifico opened which includes explicitly that Specifico had removed content citing a BLP objection. 08:08 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 commented here in the previous case so was obviously aware it had been removed as BLP issue both from the article itself and that it was currently at an enforcement noticeboard. 11:32 13 February 2017 My first removal of material. (Note my removal was actually less than other editors at the article being concerned only with the BLP aspect, not the wider NPOV/UNDUE issue) 12:36 13 February 2017 You yourself noted here the removals by Specifico appeared to be good faith BLP concerns (in part). 16:52 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts me, despite there being clear BLP arguments on the talkpage, this enforcement page, and in previous edit summaries on the article. So to sum up: Thucydides411 was aware at the time they were reverting there were BLP arguments as well as wider disputes over the entire section involving the Baltimore Sun opinion piece. They were also aware it had been raised here. So violating both the BLP policy as well as the discretionary sanctions on the page itself. While the above was closed with no action, Thucydides411 was still reverting *after the enforcement action had been opened* and after they were clearly aware multiple people, (including completely uninvolved editors like me) had problems with that specific material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC) George, the article is already under a DS 1rr and the material was removed under a BLP rationale anyway. Statement by JFG Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no new evidence in the form of diffs.  Sandstein  13:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC) EdJohnston's comment of 16 February 19:11 UTC notes that Thucydides411 reverted Space4Time3Continuum2x arguing "No consensus for removal" and that Thucydides "had it backwards" because he should get a consensus for re-inserting instead. This reasoning ignores prior edits in this sequence whereby the original sourced and attributed statement, included for over a month, was first removed by SPECIFICO (BOLD) and reverted by me (REVERT), upon which SPECIFICO deleted the text again (violating DS but claiming a BLP exception) and I opened a discussion (DISCUSS). Subsequently, several editors chimed in on both sides of the central argument: deciding whether Binney's statement about Clapper's false testimony to Congress qualifies as a BLPVIO (and that discussion is not settled yet). Thucydides has been an active participant in the discussion, and accordingly should not be sanctioned for "violating the DISCUSS requirement". The unfortunate thing is that several editors also removed and restored the contentious material back and forth while the discussion was ongoing, prompting me to later open a DS/AE case that was just discussed and dismissed above. The DS behavioral question boils down to "who shot first", with Thucydides411 and others trying to enforce "return to status quo ante until consensus is obtained" per DS notice and guidance from admins NeilN [25] and Awilley[26], while SPECIFICO and others try to enforce removal of what they perceive as a BLP violation. Given lack of consensus on this question after a good week of comments and no less than three AE cases (Steve Quinn vs Guccisamsclub, JFG vs SPECIFICO and Steve Quinn vs Thucydides411), I agree with some other editors that the appropriate venue to settle the underlying dispute would be WP:BLP/N. — JFG talk 09:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I also would welcome official guidance to clarify whether NeilN and Awilley's interpretation of DS wording — You […] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article — can be considered authoritative. This would discourage slow-warring as happened here and nip several similar disputes in the bud. — JFG talk 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC) A similar sequence just happened again: SPECIFICO deletes some longstanding content [27] I revert him [28] Geogene counter-reverts, violating DS [29]. Geogene did open a discussion but he should have left the restored text alone until such discussion reaches consensus. Even independently of a DS-restricted article, this should be basic BRD practice and courtesy. I don't want to open a fourth AE case and we really need strong admin guidance on whether removing longstanding text is a challengeable edit or whether only text additions are challengeable (which would imho be an unbalanced restriction). — JFG talk 09:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Darouet I'll post more after midnight UTC (am at work till then), but Steve Quinn has erased most of their complaint and left only examples of two instances of two contiguous edits. WP:3RR clearly states, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Under that well-known rubric, these consecutive edits ([30][31]) are a revert, and so are these ([32][33]). How on earth do Thucydides411's consecutive edits, made within one minute of one another, become transformed into multiple reverts? Or is there another policy you're thinking of, Sandstein, which explains why consecutive edits are not counted as a revert (and could you link it, please)? The page has already seen plenty of contiguous edits, reverting others and with admins present, that nobody considered to be DS violations. Thucydides411 has been perhaps the most active and constructive editor on the Talk Page, and consistently eschewed the bitter tone that has prevailed there: blocking in that context almost comes across like punishment of civility. It is furthermore inappropriate to treat WP:AE as a changing menu where if WP:BLP fails, WP:DS is invoked. This is especially ironic since from a purely technical perspective, Steven Quinn has themselves violated DS sanctions 16:14, 11 February 2017 edit had already been challenged by reversion 19:21, 10 February 2017 by "reinstating an edit that had been challenged (via reversion)" (direct quote from DS) for the content that is the basis of their second complaint in days (first against Guccisamsclub). Steve was not reported for this but has no consensus for his edit. Instead of doing the obvious and demonstrating good faith by making a post at WP:BLPN (as anyone with a genuine BLP concern would immediately do - and as Guy pointed out there is no obvious BLP problem), Steve is attempting to use AE as a supervote in a content dispute. -Darouet (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: the DS wording reads, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." As plainly described by MelanieN [34], the understanding on Talk page has been that the removal of longstanding article text, if challenged by reversion, requires consensus if it is to be removed again (see also [35] and [36]). Otherwise, almost every editor on the page (myself included, but also JFG, James J. Lambden, Guccisamsclub, Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO) are guilty of the very same thing in the same or related contexts. All of us are trying to argue about what content should be in the article or not, while observing the DS restrictions. But it would be bizarre to enforce a particular vision of DS policy against one editor for one edit. It is also highly problematic to change the interpretation of DS after the edits have already been made. In the United States, most constitutional protections for editors/citizens are found in the Bill of Rights, but one was so important - the proscription against Ex post facto law - that it was included in the original document. It is not reasonable to demand different standards after the fact, and then apply them selectively. -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Much might be said in response to your comment, but suppose for a moment we apply your particular interpretation, ex post facto. Right now, the OP Steve Quinn has removed material with a majority of editors opposed, when that removal had already been contested by reversion [37] (twice in fact). Are you going to propose a WP:BOOMERANG against Steve Quinn? What is your view on that? Sandstein, would you also support a Boomerang? -Darouet (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @Coffee: Can you be a little more specific in your reasoning? The link you provided does not clarify why longstanding article text can be repeatedly removed without consensus, but that restoring that text violates DS. In fact it appears to state, per Callanecc that the restriction applies to "some specific content that cannot be added or removed." The point is, why is the OP Steve Quinn allowed to carry out a third revert to remove longstanding text, but a majority of editors cannot restore it? This does not follow either from the DS wording or from the link you've given, unless I'm reading the wrong section. -Darouet (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden @EdJohnston: There's a difference between: WP:BLP, which prohibits reinstatement of challenged content without consensus and the warning you reference: All editors must obtain consensus ... before reinstating any edits, which prohibits reinstatement of challenged edits without consensus The edit in this case - according to admins MelanieN [1] and NeilN [2] - would have been Space4Time3Continuum2x's removal of content, which Thucydides411 reverted, in line with the policy. Was the intent of the language to prohibit restoration of content? If so it really needs clarification because in some cases they mean the exact opposite and it's managed to mislead even experienced admins. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: The issue is: (c) a revert of someone else's change if there is a clear talk page consensus against their change As Darouet says almost every editor in the article has restored longstanding text without first gaining a clear talk page consensus for restoration. Just from a quick search: JFG FallingGravity Volunteer Marek MelanieN myself Neutrality EvergreenFir Including an interpretation as part of the close would be very helpful. Your interpretation would make it easier to remove contentious material, which I think might improve the article but it's not the interpretation we've been operating under. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC) This is getting too confusing. @Steve Quinn: See WP:3RR which defines a revert as: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions Whether Thucydides411 hit the submit button once or a dozen times as long as his edits were sequential with no intervening edits, for the purpose of reverting they count as a single edit. @Coffee: In the ARCA case (if I'm reading it correctly) Callenecc describes your restriction as a: "revert restriction which enforces WP:BRD" Both diffs in this complaint - and there are only two per the definition of revert above - show Thucydides411 as the "R" in "BRD" meaning they comply with your restriction. But in your comment below you say he's violated your restriction. Have I misread the case or your comment? We have a number of editors (and admins @MelanieN: @NeilN:) genuinely confused about what behavior the restrictions mandate. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO I'll present a single incident of Thucydides411's edit-warring and smug disregard for the DS consensus requirement. I removed a BLP violation at 00:22, 11 February 2017 here: [38]. Thucydides411 ignored the BLP violation and instead of seeking consensus to restore the text, he reinserted it at 07:14, 11 February 2017 here: [39] Another editor, seeing the BLP violation, removed it. Then, on the talk page, @Only in death: warned not to reinsert it. However Thucydides responded by falsely accusing OID of a 1RR violation. OID's warning was at 16:13, 13 February 2017‎ here: [40] Thucydides reinserted the BLP violation for the second time after Only in death's warning. The reinsertion is at 16:52, 13 February 2017 here: [41] Thucydides then went to the talk page to post a denial of the violation he had just made at 17:03, 13 February 2017 here: [42] I hope this is clear and to the point. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Now we're seeing a fog of somewhat imprecise claims about alleged ambiguity in the DS restrictions, as if any such ambiguity would permit an editor to aggressively edit within the circle of confusion rather than to stay extra far from the line or to seek clarification at Arbcom. The fact is that Thucydides reinstated a BLP violation after half a dozen editors warned him not to and after several editors had removed the violation in various forms under which it was edit-warred back in. And of course the comments on Thucydides' behalf on this AE thread are from a who's-who of those who, like Thucydides411, reinserted the content. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Most of the excuses for Thucydides' edit-warring are now based on equivocation about "longstanding..." But none of the text under discussion was longstanding in the sense that it had been discussed on talk and a consensus demonstrated. Many articles have a set of issues that have come up on talk over an extended period of time during which active editors have commented and addressed any concerns. That is simply not the case with this article. It's not credible to claim that text that's escaped challenge for one month is "longstanding" -- when editors are poring over the deep dense thicket of references, many of them cherry-picked obscure opinions. It would go against the purpose of ARBAP2 if editors were only able to remove all this bad content immediately, otherwise it's "longstanding". Contentious articles need more editors and a diverse set of editors, not ideologues who are obsessed with the topic, with their POV, or who deny the mainstream view and seek out marginal media snippets, UNDUE opinions, and the like. The "longstanding" thing is a straw man. Many editors warned about the BLP violation. Why did Thucydides think it so urgent that he disregarded this so as to re-insert the disputed text into the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @Thycydides411: I do not see a definition of "longstanding" at the link to @MelanieN:'s talk page. If you have a definition that refutes my statement above, please provide the link. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Guccisamsclub Do administrators agree that an edit can be either deletion of long-standing text or insertion of new text? If we agree on that, then: SPECIFICO made the initial edit (claiming, falsely, that the falsity of Clapper's statemetn is "uproven"), Was reverted/challenged by JFG (who claimed, correctly, that Clapper's testimony has been proven false in reliable-sources) Was reinstated (so much for seeking consenus) by SPECIFICO—in violation of 1RR and AE just a few hours later, who claimed that an official's testimony can be considered "false" only if the official has been convicted in court, reliable sources and facts be damned. Was reverted again, this time by Thucydides411, who objected to SPECIFICO's understanding of BLP policy. Was [reinstated again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=764885686] by Melbourne star. Finally, even this reinstatement was not enough (just removing mention of Clapper), and Steve Quinn removed the entire source without consensus. Eventually it was reverted again by JFG, reinstated, reverted again by James J. Lambden, reinstated, reverted again by Thucydides411, and reinstated again by Volunteer Marek, and reverted again by Guccisamnsclubs ... and was reinstated/reverted a couple more times, all in the space of a few days. The only excuse for SPECIFICO's behaviour is the putative BLP concern, which the editor failed to adequately justify in her edit summaries. Sanctioning Thucydides411 here is akin to yelling thief. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning Thucydides411 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Steve Quinn, didn't we just deal with this Clapper issue above? If this is something different, please amend your complaint to make it clear which specific restriction, such as a revert restriction, is alleged to be violated here, and add the diffs with which the material was added to establish that this is indeed a revert. – Everybody else, we do not need random opinions and comments particularly from people involved in the content dispute, so please limit any contributions to brief submissions of relevant evidence in the form of dated diffs, or your comments may be removed.  Sandstein  08:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC) On first review, the talk page discussion is working and the edit warring on the article is staying short of 3RR. Contentious but it's working. I don't see anyone obviously violating normal standards. If it got worse I'd rather 1RR the article or full protect it than sanction any individuals; I think there's clearly multiple person support on both sides and if there is rule bending, it's bipartisan. Is AE the right venue? Is any admin action necessary right now at all? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC) As amended, the complaint does establish that Thucydides411 violated the 1RR rule that, it seems, already applies to the article. Unless another admin objects shortly, I intend to apply a one-week enforcement block.  Sandstein  07:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC) But Darouet correctly points out that the edits at issue are subsequent to one another, and therefore are treated as one revert. Per Georgewilliamherbert above, I now consider this report not actionable, and redundant to the previous one, I'm inclined to close it with no action.  Sandstein  13:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC) I agree that Thucydides411 has not violated WP:1RR, but I am more concerned that he may have violated the discussion requirement: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)..." Though a reasonable discussion is taking place at this talk thread about Binney and McGovern, nobody is going to read that as a *consensus* to restore the claim that Clapper "gave false testimony regarding the extend of NSA collection of data". Thucydides411 made this article edit at 20:34 on 14 February, with the edit summary "Undid revision 765496263 by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) No consensus for removal". (Note that his key argument was No consensus for removal). If we are ever going to enforce the discussion requirement, now is the time to do so because the data is so clear. He is exactly backwards here: you can't restore material challenged by removal unless you have consensus for reinstating. I propose a block of Thucydides411 for violating the discussion requirement, though the length would be negotiable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC) That makes sense. No objection.  Sandstein  20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC) See later comment below.  Sandstein  11:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC) User:James J. Lambden: The discussion requirement seems to allow (a) first-time addition of *new* material without discussion, or (b) first time removal of material without discussion (if nobody removed it before), or (c) a revert of someone else's change if there is a clear talk page consensus against their change. Do you think any of these three exceptions applies to Thucydides411's restoration of the charges against James Clapper, that had previously been removed by someone else? We observe that (a) doesn't apply because it is not being added for the first time, (b) doesn't apply because it's not a removal, and (c) doesn't apply because there is no obvious consensus for adding the material (after a lengthy discussion that has not reached any result). EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Replying to User:Darouet: Nothing prevents other admins including User:MelanieN from joining this discussion if they want to. If my proposed interpretation of the discussion rule is accepted as part of this closure and if it differs from what others thought, we can close this with a warning rather than a sanction, I will leave a ping for User:Bishonen who is the admin who imposed the discussion rule on this page in December 2016. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC) One option is to close this with a warning to User:Thucydides411, and to leave a general warning on the talk page that a large fraction of all the active editors are breaking the discussion requirement. The current behavior of most editors and the sanction are not compatible. Some ideas to consider when this dispute comes to AE again: (a) abolish the discussion requirement, or (b) we could start giving out short-term page bans (one month) to everyone who breaks the discussion requirement after today. We would still keep the 1RR in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Your interpretation of the consensus required restriction is correct. Just so you're aware, when I originally created that templated restriction (which Bishonen applied to this page) it went to ArbCom for a full review where the wording ended up being tweaked to its current state. You can read through the entire ARCA here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I agree that the consensus required restriction has been violated here, and also agree that a block (negotiably from 24 hours to 2 weeks) is the appropriate course of action here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) This really isn't that hard to understand. Above I said that EdJohnston's interpretation is correct, and he spelled it out quite nicely. But, I'll simplify it once more: The consensus version of the article always stands. If there has not been any consensus established for a particular edit, and that edit is challenged (via reversion or otherwise), that edit may be removed until consensus is established. Edits made to revert to an established consensus version, do not count against the WP:1RR restriction (see this discussion for more information). The end. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Coffee: "Edits made to revert to an established consensus version, do not count against the WP:1RR restriction" What??! No, I completely disagree with this. --NeilN talk to me 04:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Add: Unless that is explicitly spelled out in an edit notice, talk page notice, or other special restriction. But that's not how the general WP:1RR works. --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @NeilN: I was referring to the system in place at Donald Trump, which is why I used the word "established" before "consensus version" and then linked to the relevant discussion explaining this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, okay. I assume that was tweaked after August of last year? Might want to add something to the talk page as that's different from "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)" currently there. That article is a crazy trap for newbies. --NeilN talk to me 05:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I was pinged here. My thinking on reverts can be found in User_talk:MelanieN/Archive_26#Same_or_different_material and User_talk:MelanieN/Archive_26#Does_removal_equal_reversion.3F --NeilN talk to me 04:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I'll leave the disposition of this request to the admins who are familiar with the Template:2016 US Election AE restriction, or who imposed it (Bishonen), or who wrote it (Coffee). It now seems to me, as an admin unfamiliar with it, that the wording "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" is not clear enough to be understood in the same way by all editors, and should be rewritten or omitted.  Sandstein  11:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I had not run into an issue with the current version (which was ArbCom approved), but I'm always open to making it better. Suggestions on the wording you would like to see would be most welcome. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thucydides411

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

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

Appealing user

Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Thucydides411 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

blocked from editing for a period of 1 week, imposed at WP:AE#Thucydides411, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2017#American_politics_2

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

I've moved this appeal from the user's talk page and notified Coffee.  Sandstein  08:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thucydides411

There are four reasons why I think this sanction should be repealed:

1. I was blocked for following an interpretation of 1RR that an admin MelanieN, explicitly told editors working on the page we should follow: [43]. This interpretation is based on a number of threads that occurred between admins here: [44] [45].
2. The block is punitive, not preventative. I have shown that I will follow whatever policy guidelines are given by admins. For Coffee to come come in, after the fact, and tell me that MelanieN and NeilN are incorrect in their interpretation of 1RR, and that my editing is therefore retroactively incorrect, is simply punitive.
3. I have been singled out for a sanction, when, as was documented in the proceedings, most active editors are guilty of the exact same violation. There is nothing that distinguishes my editing from that of those editors, yet I am the only one to receive a block. If this sanction is to be applied consistently, the editors who must receive equal blocks are as follows: Steve Quinn, JFG, FallingGravity, Volunteer Marek, MelanieN, James J. Lambden, Neutrality, EvergreenFir (see Darouet's and James J. Lambden's comments in the original case for diffs showing exactly the same violation that I was accused of for all of these editors).
4. Contrary to what the closing note at AE says ("reinstating edits that had been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining or seeking consensus first"), I did, in fact, seek to obtain consensus. In fact, I have been heavily involved in the discussions on the talk page. At the time I received a block, for reinstating material relating to Clapper, the material that I had reinstated had been removed again, and I was involved in discussions with the users who had removed it.

In sum, I was blocked for editing in exactly the same manner as most editors on the page, in a manner that admins had explicitly told us was consistent with the 1RR policy. If Coffee's interpretation of 1RR (which differs from that of several other admins) is correct, it should at least be applied consistently, rather than to one editor in particular. And it should not be applied retroactively to editors who were acting in good faith, according to the interpretation of policy they had been given by admins, and who spent a considerable effort engaging civilly with other editors on the talk page.

@Coffee: I didn't list SPECIFICO above as one of the people who have violated the interpretation of 1RR you've laid out, since SPECIFICO's reverts were not mentioned in the case before. But since SPECIFICO has been so adamant here, yet so disruptive on the talk page (insulting other editors here, for example: [46] [47]), and themselves has violated 1RR several times in just the past few days, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is warranted here. Here are SPECIFICO's recent 1RR violations:

Violation #1: two reverts in 24 hours:

• 03:52, 15 February 2017: [48]
• 05:07, 15 February 2017: [49]

Violation #2: two reverts in 24 hours:

• 22:46, 5 February 2017: [50]
• 00:27, 6 February 2017: [51]

Violation #3: two reverts in 24 hours:

• 03:34, 10 February 2017: [52]
• 03:10, 10 February 2017: [53]

A smattering of other reverts, barely avoiding the 24-hour window:

• 20:28, 12 February 2017: [54]
• 00:22, 11 February 2017: [55]

As they say, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

The Arbitration Committee approved page restriction (placed by Bishonen) states that editors "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" ... the Arbitration Remedies notice at the talk page further states: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) reinstated two edits that had been challenged without first obtaining consensus, thereby violating the page restriction. The length of the block was recommended by Sandstein (although he later requested an admin more familiar with the area make the disposition) and I found it an appropriate length as well. The block for the above stated violation was proposed by EdJohnston, and I implemented it after a full review. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: So, are you saying there wasn't a violation or that because he misinterpreted the letter of the restriction, and of other administrator's views on the restriction, there can't be a violation? I'm really quite confused as to what caused such a drastic change in your opinion, unless you're saying you didn't fully look at this before making a binding decision (which is just a bit concerning). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain, @NeilN: I'd also state that any edits made after the date the restrictions were imposed, 16 December 2016, can't really claim to be "long-standing". Darouet claims these edits were first placed in the article in mid-January, meaning they're way below that threshold. Furthermore, while the restriction is intended to stabilize the article, it isn't intended to be gamed so that one may force "their version" to be the version... As these edits weren't able to stand for even 40 days without being challenged, I can only see the stated misinterpretation by Thucydides411 to be an attempt to do just that. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

1. It's been amply disputed by others, and never documented by Thucydides411, that @MelanieN: stated any safe harbor or definition of DS that applies to the facts of this case.
2. Given Thucydides longstanding disruptive editing in a American Politics, this preventive block is needed. "No Fair!" is orthogonal to "Punitive". Claiming he didn't understand the sanctions only reinforces the need for a preventive time-out.
3. His claim that he's been "singled out" only demonstrates that he has not begun to shed his battleground viewpoint and enemies list. The decision in this particular case was about him.
4. It's all the more damning that, "seeking consensus" on the talk page in fact showed editors about evenly split on the issue and any diligent editor would have stayed far away from behavior that could possibly be viewed as edit-warring. Thucydides claimed that his behavior was justified because his opinion was the correct opinion. He tried to claim a false equivalence between other editors' removal of a BLP smear and his obstinate reinsertion of a POV edit.

If he has concerns about the form or function of ARBAP2 sanctions, he should go to Arbcom Clarification to seek improvements after his block expires. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Further to my point (1) above, Thucydides' repeated and ongoing attempts to misattribute self-serving exemptions to several Admins is disruptive and in my opinion is on its face a further serious violation of ARBAP2. I suggest Admins consider whether Thucydides should have a more lengthy ban from this article so that he can fully consider his behavior before returning to action. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Quinn

Admins look for patterns where an editor might be thwarting polices or editing into articles without consensus. In this case, the material was challenged based on content polices by a half dozen productive editors, including me:

• Space Time2x 15:01, 12 February 2017, 15:09, 12 February 2017, +
• Neutrality 19:44, 12 February 2017, +
• Only in death 16:13, 13 February 2017, 17:25, 13 February 2017, 13 February 2017, +
• Volunteer Marek 21:50, 12 February 2017 and
• SPECIFICO 02:40, 12 February 2017.
• Me 15:31, 11 February 2017, 15:54, 11 February 2017

Thucydides411 was actually undoing any edits by some of the above editors in a short amount of time. No consensus had appeared for these edits:

1. 07:14, 11 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO +
2. 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting Space4Time3Continuum2x
3. 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO +
4. 16:52, 13 February 2017 reverting Only in death +
5. 20:33, 14 February 2017 Here it appears Thucydides411 reverts two edits by Space4Time3Continuum2x. These are the two prior edits by SpaceTime: 19:35, 14 February 2017 and 19:40, 14 February 2017. +
6. 20:34, 14 February 2017 Reverts Space4Time3Continuum2x again. This particular material was earlier removed by Space Time 15:05, 12 February 2017

This is what Admin Coffee and Admin EdJohnston were able to discern.

Also, Thucydides411's talk page comments demonstrate their disregard for lack of consensus and policy based arguments:

• 18:23, 11 February 2017
• 02:06, 12 February 2017

His "longstanding" argument does not hold against the assertion of content policy questions. Rather than engage in discussions about how to properly deal with the material under discussion, or about removal of policy violations, he bangs the "longstanding" gong. Also, there were not enough editors on that agreed with Thucydides411 to say there was a consensus. I will let the other diffs speak for themselves.

• 07:23, 12 February 2017
• 06:59, 13 February 2017
• 17:03, 13 February 2017
• 18:57, 13 February 2017

Coffee's decision is accurate. Thucydides411 "reinstated edits that had been challenged without obtaining consensus first." Also, he was doing this while discussions were ongoing. As an aside, the discussions are still ongoing. Steve Quinn (talk)

• I didn't realize we had to use a signature in our section. I never noticed it before. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by JFG (involved)

Thucydides411 was acting in good faith, based on DS guidance from admins NeilN [56] and Awilley[57], while opposing editors argued that no material should be restored after a deletion is challenged by reversion. This misunderstanding spawned no less than three AE cases (Steve Quinn vs Guccisamsclub, JFG vs SPECIFICO and Steve Quinn vs Thucydides411), plus a fourth case that I refrained from raising against Geogene (see my statement in the Thucydides case above).

Sanctions are meant to be preventive, and in order to prevent further disputes along these lines, all editors need official guidance to clarify whether NeilN and Awilley's interpretation of DS wording — You […] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article — can be considered authoritative. This would discourage slow-warring as happened here and nip several similar disputes in the bud.

We really need strong admin guidance on whether removing longstanding text is a challengeable edit or whether only text additions are challengeable (which would imho be an unbalanced restriction). Thucydides has demonstrated on his talk page that he is ready to abide by the rules, as long as the rules are clear, therefore I deem the block punitive. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for your statement. The special form of restrictions that you mention was agreed at the Donald Trump article, and has been efficient in reducing the maintenance burden for perennial disputes. However these special restrictions do not apply here: we are talking about article 2016 United States election interference by Russia, which is under the standard DS/1RR restrictions for ARBAP2. In this context, the admonition to not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page has been interpreted in conflicting ways, giving rise to the three most recent AE cases, and those conflicting interpretations have contributed to a degraded spirit on the talk page. I should be grateful if you had a comment on the generic restrictions, notably whether a challengeable edit can be both an addition or a deletion. — JFG ^talk 18:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for the detailed clarification; this confirms my reading of the restrictions and will hopefully help resolve or avoid similar cases in the future, and meet the goals of improving page stability and encouraging constructive discourse. May I suggest to you and other admins that this explanation should be linked from the relevant DS/1RR edit notice? Also, note that this scenario can involve more than 2 editors, e.g.:

1. Editor A removes long-standing material - this is their first revert;
2. Editor B reinstates the long-standing material - this is their first revert;
3. Editor C removes the material again - this is their first revert, but they are violating the "consensus required" restriction.

Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

A couple things here. First, the article is not under WP:1RR but under a special form of WP:1RR, imposed by JFG on December 30, 2016. The wording, "Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions" makes clear the difference and so my conversation last August with MelanieN does not apply to the current situation. Thucydides411, given this, can you please supply a diff where Coffee says Melanie and I are incorrect in our interpretation of 1RR? Second, JFG's modification to 1RR for this article appears nowhere in the talk page guidance detailing editing restrictions. As I alluded to before, I have a lot of sympathy for editors trying to follow the rules in good faith, with all the ill-advised terminology (e.g., "firm consensus") and inconsistent instructions appearing on the article's pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies JFG. Sometimes these articles just melt together. I am copying below what I just posted to Thucydides411's talk page and adding some more thoughts I expressed elsewhere.

There are two separate editing restrictions in place for that article, both independent of each other.

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

Any edit means any edit, whether addition of new material, the tweaking of long-standing existing material, or the removal of long-standing existing material. The meaning of "long-standing" changes from article to article. As with Donald Trump, I would take it to mean 4-6 weeks for this article. One this challenge has happened, no editor should be re-doing the addition/tweaking/deletion without obtaining consensus.

• Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).

This is the more prosaic WP:1RR. It is somewhat superfluous given the above, but is useful to stop individual editors from edit warring over new material. Scenario:

1. Editor A adds new material - this is not a revert, obviously
2. Editor B removes the new material - this is their first revert
3. Editor A reinstates new material - this is their first revert, but violates the "consensus required" restriction
4. Editor B, relying on the "consensus required" restriction, removes the new material - this is their second revert, violating WP:1RR

It can also work out this way:

1. Editor A removes long-standing material - this is their first revert
2. Editor B reinstates the long-standing material - this is their first revert
3. Editor A removes the material again - this is their second revert, violating both the "consensus required" restriction and WP:1RR
4. Editor B, relying on the "consensus required" restriction, re-adds the material - this is their second revert, violating WP:1RR

WP:1RR is there to tell you that even if the "consensus required" restriction is violated, Editor B still can't edit war. It also keeps things under control if there's a dispute about what is "long-standing".

A challengeable edit can be an addition, modification of long-standing material, or removal or long-standing material. I think the term "edit" you used, from the restriction, is a clear indication of this. Arbcom did not use the more explicit and narrow "addition" and on Wikipedia, editing by no means refers to only adding material. The restriction is supposed to stabilize articles and removal of long-standing content can easily be seen as destabilizing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet

Thucydides411 has been blocked by Coffee, for challenging, via reversion, edits deleting comments by Pierre Sprey, William Binney and Ray McGovern. Their commentary had been present in the article at least a month prior to efforts to remove them ([58]).

Diff Sequence

• [59] Sprey, Binney, McGovern in article, 7 January

(...)

1. [60] SPECIFICO deletes Binney, McGovern comment claiming BLP vio (Bold), makes no post at Talk or BLPN, 10 February
2. [61] JFG challenges by reversion (Revert), posts at Talk, 11 February
3. [62] SPECIFICO reinstates their own edit challenged by reversion, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, still no comment on talk, 11 February
4. [63] Thucydides411 restores challenge, SPECIFICO finally comments on Talk, 11 February
5. [64] MelbourneStar reinstates challenged edit, 11 February
6. [65] Steve Quinn deletes Baltimore Sun reference (Bold), 11 February
7. [66] James J. Lambden challenges deletion by reversion (Revert), 11 February
8. [67] Space4Time3Continuum2x Removes Sprey comment (Bold), 12 February
9. [68] I quote Binney/McGovern directly so attribution is clear, 12 February
10. [69] SPECIFICO deletes more Binney, McGovern comment (Bold)
11. [70] Thucydides411 challenges both edits by reversion (Revert) 12 February
12. [71] Volunteer Marek reinstates edit challenged by reversion, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, 12 February
13. [72] Guccisamsclub restores challenge, 12 February
14. [73] OID again deletes Binney/McGovern text, thereby reinstating an edit challenged by reversion, citing BLP as exemption from D/S 13 February
15. [74] Thucydides411 restores challenge, 13 February
16. [75] OID reverts, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, 13 February
17. [76] Space4Time3Continuum2x again tries to remove Sprey, McGovern and Binney, reinstating their own edit challenged by reversion, 14 February
18. [77] Thucydides411 restores challenge, 14 February
19. [78] SPECIFICO removes opinion polls showing public skepticism of hacking story (present for one month [79]), (Bold) 15 February
20. [80] JFG challenges edit by reversion, 15 February
21. [81] Geogene reinstates edit challenged by reversion, 16 February

There are 5 instances in which editors have "restored edits challenged by reversion: edits #3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene).

There are 8 instances in which further reversions continued after the five D/S violations list above: edits #4-5, 13-18 (Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, Only in Death).

Admin response

On 4-5 February BlueSalix and Volunteer Marek made substantial, contested edits to the article, reverted by MelanieN ([82], [83]). On Talk, MelanieN explained that "edit"≠"text." That is, deleting article text may be an "edit" that can be "challenged," and that trying to delete a second time could therefore be a D/S violation ([84]). This interpretation is consistent with the D/S text and with earlier commentary from NeilN (1, 2).

Sandstein closed the first case against SPECIFICO, explaining, "Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time." That is one way of resolving the conflict, though it would seem many people had "restored edits challenged by reversion." Guy states that SPECIFICO's edits are not justified by BLP [85][86].

In the case against Thucydides, EdJohnston stated, "The current behavior of most editors and the sanction are not compatible,", and ultimately proposed a warning [87].

Coffee stated that because Thucydides411's edits (#11 and #18) did not have consensus, he should be blocked, explaining : "Edits made to revert to an established consensus version, do not count against the WP:1RR restriction." [88][89]. However, Thucydides411's edits #11 and 18 do exactly what Coffee recommends - revert to the prior established version - so Coffee's proposal to block is inconsistent with their own interpretation of the D/S sanctions.

NeilN strongly suggests all 1RR are violations [90]. In response, Coffee repeats that without "consensus," the "established version" holds: "I used the word "established" before "consensus version..."" [91].

In response to all this, Sandstein states, "It now seems to me, as an admin unfamiliar with it, that the wording "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" is not clear enough to be understood in the same way by all editors, and should be rewritten or omitted." I agree D/S is not complicated. What is completely incomprehensible, instead, is Coffee's application of D/S to this particular case.

Look at that stack of 21 diffs, and read MelanieN's, NeilN's, and Coffee's commentaries on D/S restrictions. No matter how you interpret them, edits #3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene) are D/S violations. Under NeilN's 1RR interpretation edits #4-5, 13-18 (Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, Only in Death) are also D/S violations.

Many of us have pointed out how absurd this situation is. There is no way to interpret policy such that Thucydides411 merits a block, but seven other editors don't, and five of them much more so. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: thanks for your comment. Sandstein, NeilN can we have a discussion somewhere about appropriate procedures to follow when editing at this article? I'm afraid to re-engage there because I honestly don't understand what the policy is now, and fear I'll be arbitrarily blocked for following either one or the other interpretation of DS. One possibility is to have mediation, something I earlier proposed several times on the talk page [92][93][94], and endorsed by JFG [95], but nobody else. -Darouet (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I sort of want to write that essay now. -Darouet (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Mr Ernie

Per admin Sandstein's comment below "I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply," the block should be overturned. The administrators responsible for the restriction should refactor and simplify it, and someone should create WP:KAFKA. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Thucydides411

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

• I would decline the appeal as unconvincing. Although I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply, and would not have taken action myself because of that and the possibly problematic conduct by several editors, the appeal does not convince me that Coffee's interpretation and application of it in this case was not within discretion. To do that, the appeal would have to show that the edits at issue were not in fact violations of the restriction - i.e., that they were not reinstatements of edits challenged via reversion. Because the appeal does not make an argument about this, it is doomed to fail.

As to the reasons given by the appellant:

(1) and (2) The sanction was not for 1RR, so the argument is beside the point; also, any one (or several) administrator's interpretation of a specific restriction is not binding on other admins, the only binding guidance is that of ArbCom.

(3) This is an invalid argument in appeals, because the question here is whether the appellant was properly blocked, and the argument that others should have been blocked too is not an argument for why the appellant should not have been blocked; see WP:NOTTHEM. The same goes for the appellant's complaints against SPECIFICO. These could be raised in a separate enforcement request, but they are out of scope in an appeal.

(4) The restriction requires obtaining consensus, not just merely seeking it, and the appellant does not show that consensus supported any of their edits at issue.  Sandstein  09:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Decline. I don't find this appeal compelling, nor to I find the restrictions on that page difficult to understand. Thucydides411 did reinstate edits that were challenged via reversion, and this appeal has not provided evidence to the contrary. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• The more I read about this case, the more it seems like the participants are trying to negotiate an impossible minefield of vague restrictions and various interpretations of them. I can no longer in good faith support the sanctioning of a single individual who appears to be at least attempting to follow the guidance provided while editing in an extremely contentious topic area. I'm not saying every one of Thucydides411's edits was far afield of violating restrictions, but I don't think we're being fair here. --Laser brain (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Coffee: Quite a bit of discussion and perspective were posted after I initially commented, and I changed my mind. I'm not sure why that would be concerning to you. "Binding decision"? --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Casprings

The user is OK with closing this, since the 24-hour topic ban has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Casprings (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 24 hour block from editing 2016 United States election interference by Russia Administrator imposing the sanction El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator 01:45, 19 February 2017 ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Yeah missed that. My apologies. [96] Casprings (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Casprings I have been given a 24 hour sanction for this edit [97] . The block was done by User:El C here [98]. I appeal this in two regards. One, I was never made aware of the conversation to block me, which took place here. I feel that I should have at least been notified of the conversation that involved me. Moreover, I am unsure of the need to act quickly, as this was the only revert and I am unsure of the ongoing damage I was doing. Second, I think this is harsh. I reverted one edit by JFG and went to the talk page. That said, I understand the need to gain concensus and I have been working to do that, especially in this topic area.Casprings (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC) For the record, I didn't think I did anything wrong, besides use my 1rr. I see the point on consensus on adding now. Casprings (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC) For the record: You are not blocked. Sanction being appealed "24 hour block from editing" is false. No such block exists. Or you would not be able to write here, at all. El_C 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) This is moot now because 24 hours have passed.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by El C As I told the editor in question, there is no block. There is a 24 hour topic ban, both for Casprings (Here) and My very best wishes (Here) for breaching the reinstatement [of] any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page provision. Guccisamsclub was blocked (Here) for 24 hours due to a 1RR violation. As for being unaware, I'm sorry, but as I found out myself, upon editing the article, the provision is clearly stated. Granted, it may not be that straightforward, which is why, again, at my discretion, there were no blocks issued for breaching it. But it came close. *** Basically, I felt everyone involved in the edit war needed a break from the article's subject. Return in 24 hours and carry on. El_C 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved SPECIFICO) For the record: At the time of the cited event, in which Casprings violated DS by reinstating reverted content, no editor had yet placed the required ARBAP2 DS notice template on Casprings' talk page. Upon seeing his error, I immediately placed the notice on his talk page here, because I have observed him to be a careful and collaborative editor on WP, and it was clear to me that he had not been aware of the reinstatement provision. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC) I believe that Guccisamsclub made various scattershot accusations in the course of his attempt to deflect attention from his violation of DS. But Casprings is a collaborative editor and a simple notice, which he received immediately upon his violation, was sufficient to prevent any problem. This sanction has no preventive purpose and I recommend it be reversed. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) @El C: Yes, the DS have been placed on the article talk page, but what is your view as to the requirement that an editor be notified with the talk page template? SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) I don't view it as a requirement. Any notice of the DS will do; doesn't need to be in template form. Anyway, as far as DS go, this is so mild, I wasn't even gonna bother logging it. (But I will if and/or when it becomes more serious.) Fact is, I don't see it as serious as most AE usually are. It serves as much as a warning as anything. El_C 02:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC) It surprises me to see that no user talk page notice is required, and I think it would surprise everyone who has been posting these talk page DS Notices on active editors' talk pages, I believe that none of us knew that the DS Notice, which is referenced in the instructions for this AE page, is unnecessary. Could you or @Coffee: give us a link to where it says we need not post these notices. It would be easier not to, for sure. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC) I still think the question remains: What is accomplished by this sanction, however mild? Casprings got his warning from me when I posted the DS notice on his talk page. This is punitive, however mild, and that is clear from the very strange way it was brought up. I have no problem with Gucci trying to formulate a good faith AE report once his block is done, but this is quite out of process, and a very bad precedent in an area where we need more not less predictable process and transparency. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC) This [99] is what I understand editors currently to be following. If it has been updated at ARCA, I was unable to find the new version. SPECIFICO talk 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) I don't see how it was out of process, and proving a negative (you asking of the closing admin to: "give us a link to where it says we need not post these notices") seems like a bit of a stretch. Again, I felt that everyone needed a 24-hour forced break from the content dispute and edit war thereof. El_C 05:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC) @Coffee: has shown the language I was asking about. This is very helpful. Proving a negative would be asking you to prove their are no green zebras in New Jersey. Asking for an ARCA link is much easier. :) I have no further concerns about this matter. Thanks everybody. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Steve Quinn I pretty much agree with SPECIFICO. This block should consider whether or not Casprings actually had knowledge of the consequences in a 1RR environment. He seems to be a collaborative editor inclined to edit according to Wikipedia standards, rather than his standards or other arbitrary standards. Steve Quinn (talk) Or, this block should consider whether or not Casprings is familiar with editing in a 1RR environment. I am guessing from the actions that led to this block, this might not be so. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Not to sound like a broken record, but Casprings was not blocked. El_C 02:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Just to be clear - I apologized to El_C for the misunderstanding on their talk page. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes I think El_C exercised good judgement here. No objections from me. I just came back from a break and quickly made a few edits without looking carefully. My apology. All rules must be respected including 1RR and others. I do believe this editing restriction ("You...must not reinstate any challenged edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page") is unhelpful and brings more harm than good because it allows removing important and well sourced information, unless it has strong consensus for inclusion. This is frequently not the case simply because many people stay away of such pages, and there are simply not enough contributors willing to express their views on the article talk page (hence the consensus is not clear). If anyone made such restriction for all pages, that would be very harmful for the project. However, the rule must be followed as long as it remains on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Casprings The question of this particular sanction aside; it may be worth considering whether the "consensus required" and 1RR restrictions are fundamentally compatible (I believe they may not be, and that the "consensus required" alone may be preferable; 1RR is easily & often gamified); and it may worth considering whether there should be a lower limit on the duration of sanctions which can be appealed (I am ambivalent on this). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Casprings This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It seems like to me that this was a reasonable and deserved sanction. The page restriction placed in the editnotice is considered an acceptable warning, as was found at ARCA, and additional warnings are not necessary before admin action. Therefore, I see declining this as the only logical course of action. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: While the warning at user talkpages requirement still applies to most of the articles covered under DS, it does not apply to articles that have had page restrictions imposed on them with a warning in the editnotice. From the Arbitration Committee policy: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}). The only time the editnotice cannot be considered a substitute for the standard DS alert is if the edits were made via the mobile GUI (as the warning will not render). As that is clearly not the case here, the editor cannot claim they were unaware of the page restrictions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Agree with Coffee. Based on my review of the diffs and statements above, the short sanction imposed is reasonable. Therefore, I would decline this appeal. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC) User:Casprings has commented above that this is moot since 24 hours have passed. This suggests he won't mind if the request is closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

CatapultTalks

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 CatapultTalks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement :WP:ARBAP2:

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

Starting with most recent

1. Feb 19 Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [100] (material was added Feb 17 [101])
2. Feb 17. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [102]. Note that the original text was inserted by CatapultTalks [103] with a misleading summary (WP:AVOIDVICTIM is suppose to protect BLP subjects - it's not an excuse for victimizing them as CT's edit summary implies)
3. Feb 15. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [104]. Note that this is also an attempt to restart a previous edit war [105] after failing to obtain consensus or even discuss on talk.

Previous:

On Immigration policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

1. [106] Feb 5, 7:59 (arguably not a revert)
2. [107] Feb 5, 18:06 (revert)
3. [108] Feb 6, 6:26 (revert)
4. [109] Feb 7, 19:12 (note misleading edit summary)
5. [110] Feb 8, 16:24 (revert)

Depending on how you count it that's either three or two 1RR violations.

On Executive Order 13769 - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

1. [111] Feb 4, 22:38 (revert)
2. [112] Feb 4, 23:15 (revert)
3. [113] Feb 5, 8:09 (revert)
4. [114] Feb 6, 6:13 (substantially changes the meaning of the sentence which makes it a revert)
5. [115] Feb 6, 20:24 (revert)

This is at least four 1RR violations and pretty close to a straight up 3RR violation

On Social policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

1. [116] Feb 1, 22:37 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)
2. [117] Feb 2, 7:01 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)

Then

1. [118] Feb 5, 7:56
2. [119] Feb 5, 16:44 (resumes previous edit war)
3. [120] Feb 6, 17:02 (revert)
4. [121] Feb 6, 17:42 (revert. There is another edit by CatapultTalks in between the 17:02 and 17:42 one which could also be seen as a revert)
5. [122] Feb 6, 20:02 (if this isn't a revert (it is) then the edit immediately following this one is)
6. [123] Feb 6: 22:30

So that's a few more 1RR violations and a 3RR violation.

In addition to the persistent edit warring several of these edits violate the discretionary sanction which states: " All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Several of CatapultTalks' edits have been challenged by several users via reversion, yet he persists in restoring his preferred version without much discussion, much less bothering to get consensus.

See this previous 3RR report which was closed with "Report_should_be_made_at_WP:AE.2C_which_is_the_appropriate_forum_for_any_Discretionary_Sanctions_violations" (personally disagree, violating 3RR and 1RR is violating 3RR and 1RR, discretionary sanctions or not, but here it is) [124]

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

I think I really bent over backwards with this user. Here is the first notification. Here is the second notification. Here is the third and formal notification by User:Coffee. Here is the fourth notification. And here is one last ditch attempt to try and get the user to listen and actually make a pretense at observing the discretionary sanctions restrictions: Fifth notification.

Pretty much the response the whole time has been "I'm right, you're wrong, take it to the talk page" (of course CatapultTalks didn't bother taking anything to the talk page themselves)

Note that CatapultTalks' reply here sort of encapsulates the problem - he violates 1RR, 3RR and other discretionary sanctions and when you bring that up to him he tries to argue about how his edits were legit (on his own talk page, rarely on article page) and refuses to stop edit warring. I mean, discussion is good, but if you break the rules that everyone is suppose to abide by, people will get frustrated (especially after he's been notified, what, six times?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning CatapultTalks

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 CatapultTalks

First, I strongly object to the allegations that I don't bother taking anything to the talk page. Here are examples where I started discussions on talk pages. You would notice that in some instances I agreed based on inputs from other editors that my initial edit could be wrong and we arrived at consensus.

On Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration: [125], [126], [127], [128]

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration: [129], [130], [131]

On Executive Order 13769: [132], [133], [134]

Here's why VolunteerMarek's allegations about my edits are wrong:

Starting with most recent per VolunteerMarek's statement above

1. VolunteerMarek reverted [135] this well sourced relevant edit of mine, terming it "redundant". Redundant how, why exactly? Previously too, VolunteerMarek reverted [136] a good, non-controversial edit of mine, just because he can. No explanation why.
2. [137] - The earlier edit was promoting media's narrative of the deported person as "Arizona mother" and this prolong's victimization per [WP:AVOIDVICTIM]. Instead, my edit adds a key sourced detail about the conviction being a felony and that she entered the country illegally which presumably led to her deportation. Those are the facts.
3. [138] - This was after a discussion regarding this was open on talk page with no comments from other editors

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration:

1. VolunteerMarek reverted [139] my well sourced edit adding a key detail because it "confuses everything". Really? How? Again, no explanation
2. [140] - source cited at the time didn't relate to the text. More sources were provided later to back the claim and I didn't challenge or revert it again
3. How is this [141] a revert? This is backed by an existing source. It has since not been challenged by anyone.

On Immigration policy of Donald Trump:

1. [142] - definitely not a revert. perfectly sourced
2. [143] - not a revert. removed redundant content and was never challenged

On Executive Order 13769:

1. [144] - this was challenged, discussed on talk page and consensus was to keep it out the article - which is exactly what I did
2. [145] - why is this considered a revert? I removed some unnecessary background. was never challenged
3. [146] - I reinstated a key detail because it was ignored during a reword by a different editor. wasn't challenged again
4. [147] - this was discussed in the talk page and once there were more sources countering the initial source, we made a consensus edit

To me, this looks like VolunteerMarek is reverting my sourced good faith edits just because they don't like the edits or that it wouldn't promote a certain narrative. Please note that none of these edits are vandal attempts or unsourced POVs. So there is no justification in reverting my edits without a good reason - especially given that I'm very open to discussion on talk pages.

CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up comment:

I request administrators commenting/acting on this to please note that this problem has compounded because of VolunteerMarek's continuous disruptive reverts of my good edits. It is almost like VolunteerMarek is setting me up for failure, by reverting without basis and then asking me to go get consensus. I implore you to relook at the kind of reverts we are talking about. Especially this [148], this [149] and this [150]. Also note that I've had fewer problems with other editors in gaining consensus because they have participated in talk page discussions - something that VolunteerMarek hasn't done. I want to reiterate that I do respect the policies, processes of Wikipedia, but it is the bad discretion displayed by VolunteerMarek in reverting my good edits that I don't respect.CatapultTalks (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning CatapultTalks

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

• A troubling pattern of editing is illustrated here, including breaches of 1RR and the requirement for obtaining consensus for challenged material. I think a temporary topic ban from this domain is in order. --Laser brain (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• CatapultTalks has been warned more than enough times... and their pattern of editing at this point shows that they hold the discretionary sanctions system in very little regard. As such, I think a 3-6 month topic ban would be appropriate at this time, since CatapultTalks cannot be trusted to follow the less restrictive page restriction system. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

DrChrissy

DrChrissy (talk · contribs) is blocked for 1 month, per the Committee's procedure at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Enforcement of restrictions, for violating the two-way IBAN between himself and Jytdog. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning DrChrissy User who is submitting this request for enforcement NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested DrChrissy (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Jytdog_.26_DrChrissy_iban : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Feb-20 Feb-20 Feb-20 Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Also see this If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Not applicable Additional comments by editor filing complaint The report at ANI has been titled "‎reporting myself (and Jytdog)" for some time. It is specifically about Jytdog. It is unfathomable that posting in an ANI topic about another editor which you are banned from interacting with is not a violation of the ban. By posting there DrChrissy also precluded Jytdog from commenting in that portion of the topic. This could be seen as baiting. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning DrChrissy 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 DrChrissy Statement by Timothyjosephwood See also this recent thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken Regardless that the original title of the AN/I thread DrChrissy commented on was "Reporting myself", the thread was clearly about Slatersteven's interactions with Jytdog - indeed the first two words of the thread are "User:Jytdog". DrChrissy is banned from discussing Jytdog in any way, directly or indirectly, so their comments in that thread are quite clearly a violation of that ban, and it seems clear that DrChrissy is keeping a close watch on Jytdog, which is precisely the opposite of the effect an Interaction Ban is supposed to have. In the past, DrChrissy had his two topic bans (one from Arbcom, one from the community) tightened because of his tendency to poke at their borders, and received an AE block here for making a valueless report on another editor. And then there was this AN report, where DrChrissy managed to skate by without being blocked. DrChrissy does not seem capable of working within their sanctions and not exploring their boundaries. They should most certainly be blocked for their current comments, and some consideration ought to be given to whether DrChrissy is able to work under our policies at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43 Again? In addition to Beyond My Ken's comments on DrChrissy's problems with following sanctions, they are just coming off their block for violating their GMO topic ban. Part of the GMO topic ban was because of the battleground behavior directed at editors by DrChrissy as well as a tendency to hound those editors on admin boards. That was especially a problem with DrChrissy and Jytdog interactions, which is why the interaction ban was added on with the topic ban. That block was supposed to be for a week, but their emails with Sandstein suggested a block was no longer needed and it was lifted early on Feb 1. That block should have indicated that kind of behavior was not ok, but now it's going on with someone DrChrissy has an actual interaction ban with. There's a such a long string of DrChrissy not abiding by their sanctions just in the GMO case and follow-up AEs (not to mention their other topic ban) that I'm quite frankly out of ideas that could help them now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Capeo Well, this is disappointing. It's unfortunately clear now that DrChrissy is watching anything that has to do with Jytdog like a hawk and seems to not want to drop the stick. There's this, the recent ANI report linked above where I tried to persuade DrChrissy to let it go, the recent, oddly timed emails to people Jytdog had some conflict with. It's all adding up to indicate DrChrissy is watching Jytdog's contributions, something someone under an Iban shouldn't be doing. Even jumping into KingofAces AE report above indicates they just can't let go of the results of the GMO Arb case and those editors involved. I'm not sure how to stop this from happening but it has to stop. Statement by (username) Result concerning DrChrissy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Block of user:CFCF

Hatting this, as formal appeal is posted below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Looking at Donald Trump–Russia dossier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the block of CFCF for reinserting an image seems to me to be harsh. Per CFCF's talk, the edit appears to have been made in good faith, and at least I think it merits discussion here. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC) What part of "he reinserted a challenged edit without consensus" is not correct here? Furthermore, CFCF has been trying to push many statements that just cross the line of BLP, both there and in other articles regarding Trump I've seen him in. In addition, this is not a valid AE appeal. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Someone is blocked. The block is appealed on the blocked user's talk page and seems to me to be harsh. Thus, it's probably a valid appeal, so I brought it here to be discussed. Fie on process for the sake of it. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC) I've copied CFCF's formal appeal from their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by CFCF

Unblocked and blocking admin is fine with unblock. Closed. --regentspark (comment) 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 24 hour block, no discussion — see block notice: [151] Administrator imposing the sanction Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator Ping: Coffee Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by CFCF The sanctioned edit was performed in the faith that it was both uncontroversial and in line with the current consensus. It was also performed several days ago, and the action taken against me occurring now is quite far detached from my edit and acts in my view to be WP:PUNITIVE. I realize that this may on certain occasions be appropriate, but the idea that I was acting out of line did not occur to me at the moment. The ongoing discussion on the talk page was not concluded but weighted towards inclusion as per my reading. Judged together with: a discussion consisting of a mix of voting; with non-voting discussion preceding this: and some users who had engaging only in one of the two — it may have been rash for me to conclude that I could so quickly determine consensus. I admit that it may have been wrong in my interpretation, but do not believe this should have incurred sanction. I may also have been rash to conclude that since the image was present for a longer period before being removed, that would fall under the ordinarily interpretation of meaning it was less than controversial. Judging these together I consider I was acting in good faith when I believed my edit would not violate any sanctions. I realize that my actions can be interpreted as defying consensus, even though this was not my intent. However, the change was neither contested when it was made or in the period preceding this block, which I believe acts in my favor. No comments addressing me or that I was made aware of through a ping or similar were made. Any editor could have repeated the removal or commented with a differing interpretation of the consensus in a way that informed me. To me the block seems harsh, considering neither prior warning nor so much as a comment was directed towards me. Had anyone suggested I was acting incorrectly — the situation would have been very different and I would have attempted to rectify it immediately by self-reverting. These may be some of our most contentious articles, but I did not act believing I was in defiance of rules, policies or other regulations as set by ArbCom — and would very much like to resume editing as per usual. I believe this type of block is harmful in part because it strongly discourages me (or others) from working in controversial subject areas if such risks persist — and these areas need quite a few eyes. Since I consider editing Wikipedia to be very important to me I am especially careful to avoid risks, and believe this goes for many of us — and this impacts which concepts I feel I can engage in. I hope you accept my sincere apology and regret and hope you would reconsider this block so that I can resume using one of my rarer free evenings to edit. Please also rest assured this has been taken as a strong warning and I will act more carefully in the future. Statement by Coffee Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CFCF Just reiterating what I wrote above, the edit was a reinsertion of a challenged edit that had no consensus to reinsert. As such, a block was warranted. I do notice that the block was undone by Bishonen and that seems to me a clear violation of ARBCOM rulings, an ARBCOM block can only be undone by consensus. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC) I agree that a block seems excessive in this situation. I think a warning would have sufficed and been more appropriate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by CFCF This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. CFCF has been a constructive member of the community since 2006, and this is the first smudge on his previously clean block log. I wish Coffee had considered this fact more deeply before hitting the block button. I believe CFCF was acting in good faith, and am generally convinced by his appeal above. I appreciate that he takes it as a warning, too. I've unblocked, possibly thereby violating the arbitration enforcement principle, but I invoke IAR. I'm not closing, in case others wish to comment. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC). I'm fine with the unblock; would have done it myself but I was offline. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Block was okay, though a first and last warning would have been better. Unblock was fine, as the behavior CFCF was blocked for is unlikely to happen again. --NeilN talk to me 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)