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

Volunteer Marek

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 05:34, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek adds content sourced from Business Insider to Donald Trump–Russia dossier.
2. 06:21, 8 November 2017: James J. Lambden reverts the portion of Volunteer Marek's edit sourced to Business Insider, stating: "trim; rm Business Insider, if accurate a reliable source should not be hard to find".
3. 05:36, 8 November 2017: Having been reverted for WP:BOLDly changing the lead in the middle of an ongoing RfC on November 2, Volunteer Marek again tries his hand at rewriting the lead to reflect breaking news.
4. 06:20, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek's BOLD lead changes are reverted by James J. Lambden, stating: "revert lede changes; consensus on talk is against". (James J. Lambden's concurrent edits at 06:20 and 06:21 count as a single revert.)
5. 06:39, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek reinstates the Business Insider source and all of the disputed content derived from it, violating the Discretionary Sanctions requirement that "You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article". Volunteer Marek also reinstates his preferred lead, apparently claiming immunity from DS because "Lede change [is] based on new info".

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13 December 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Volunteer Marek was just let off the hook for another clear-cut DS violation in October because—while all parties acknowledged the violation—no admin was actually willing to sanction him. Rather than admit error in this case, Volunteer Marek personally attacked James J. Lambden, calling him "obnoxious and creepy" and responding to James J. Lambden's DS warning as follows: "fuck off you creep you know you're not welcome". (James J. Lambden did not respond in kind to these and other aspersions by Volunteer Marek.) Volunteer Marek also belittled me and suggested that I was acting in bad faith for pointing out that his repeated DS violations are not appropriate, thus prompting me to file this report.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

MastCell, I did not allege that Volunteer Marek violated 1RR. James J. Lambden's second revert was arguably exempt from 1RR because otherwise the "consensus required" and 1RR requirements cancel each other out whenever the editor making disputed edits reverts once. While I agree that the "consensus required" rule that Volunteer Marek violated is archaic and enables tendentious WP:GAMING, as long as it is on the books it should be enforced consistently: Admins often seem eager to interpret Volunteer Marek's actions in the most charitable light possible, but I do not think that such courtesy is generally extended to other editors in similar circumstances. I support rescinding the "consensus required" warning from the article if it is not enforced in this case. I have also amended my earlier timeline for greater clarity.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's ironic that Volunteer Marek is simultaneously accusing James J. Lambden of blindly reverting him and maintaining that because James J. Lambden's edit was only a partial revert specifically challenging the reliability of one Business Insider opinion piece that he couldn't have known it was a revert at all. Compare that with his comments at this same venue just last month, in which he similarly claims that his DS violation was unintentional because "it's sort of hard to understand the objection" and attacks the filer of the report for "playing some 'gotcha' game." As GoldenRing says, Volunteer Marek's recidivism is relevant to this case. Personally, I thought that Volunteer Marek's position was far more credible last time around.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek

First, I want to note that I made a proposal to remove the "consensus required" provision from the template here. Several administrators in the past have stated that their intent was just to add the "1RR restriction" DS to a page but inadvertently added the "consensus required" provision ONLY because it comes "packaged" into the template. When asked about enforcing it they've expressed no interest in doing so, as has been noted below.

Second, and relatedly, yes, that provision is stupid for a whole host of reasons, one of which is that a tendentious user can just jump in, blindly revert and then "demand consensus" (which they have no intent of working towards). This is more or less what's happened here. I don't know if I've violated the provisions - Lambden changed the wording and removed a part of my edit. He did not entirely remove my edit. I can't tell if that's an over all "challenge" to my edit (it wasn't a revert but a rewrite) or just a rewording. I guess it's a "partial challenge". Or something. The "consensus required for challenged material" provision is stupid.

There's no BLP issue here and nobody's ever raised a BLP objection. Business Insider is fine as a source.

Regarding the "unverified" wording. The removal of that info occurred before Nov 2 (late October), and the info that and the testimony by Page which, according to sources, explicitly verified some info. Basically, the information that's out there in sources changed and hence an update to the article was needed. If you update an article with brand new sources, is that a revert? However, if this was all there was to this disagreement, I'd be happy to wait on it.

My comment to Lambden, which TTAAC brings up, was NOT in response to his DS warning. It was in response to his continued posting of taunting comments on my talk page. I have asked him MULTIPLE times before not to post on my talk page. He knows that I regard his actions regarding me as constituting WP:HARASSMENT - he follows me to articles he's never edited before and makes blind reverts just to mess with me. Other users (User:SPECIFICO, User:Snooganssnoogans and I believe User:NorthBySouthBaranoff have made similar complaints regarding Lambden, so it's sort of a general problem with his WP:NOTHERE editing on Wikipedia; he has trouble interacting with editors whom he regards as having wrong political views). Hence his posting to my talk page JUST AFTER I removed his previous comment was pretty clearly made with an intent of ... being annoying.

As for "consistent enforcing" of the "consensus required" provision. I don't believe I personally ever filed a report on anyone for violating that provision (if I did it was so long ago that I've forgotten). Precisely because I think it's a stupid provision. I'm also pretty sure that the sanction is NOT generally enforced, except in cases where there's some other form of chicanery going on. So ... "consistent enforcing" here would be to ignore it.  Volunteer Marek  12:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@TTAC - nothing ironic there. What constitutes a revert is pretty clear cut. What constitutes a "challenge" (which is what I specifically discuss) is not. That's part of what makes this "consensus required" restriction so confusing. Volunteer Marek  16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that while I may or may not have violated the "consensus required" provision (which is inane and easy to forget about since it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's BRD guideline) unlike Lambden I did not violate 1RR. Furthermore, once the DS violation was pointed out, I did not restore the part of my text (it's still not in there) - and personally, whenever *I* see someone violating this particular provision or even the 1RR provision I do them the courtesy of reminding them of it first, rather than running off to WP:AE to try and "score points" and agitate for sanctions. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've performed this courtesy for the filing editor, User:TheTimesAreAChanging on several occasions - there have been several instances, where I could have reported him here but instead just approached them on their talk page and said "hey, remember there's that DS sanction, be careful". That is why it's so disappointing that the courtesy is not being returned and that TTAC has instead chosen to revert to the type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (and yes, filing WP:AE reports when not needed is exactly that) which characterized his editing before his (now expired (lifted?)) topic ban in this area. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess. Volunteer Marek  14:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the last example of what I'm referring to above [2]. TheTimesAreAChanging violated 1RR on the article Donald Trump on social media. I could've run here and reported him. Instead I went to his talk page and just reminded him of the restriction. When he replied I indicated that I was happy to assume good faith and let it go [3]. I'm pretty sure there have been similar situations elsewhere and I've acted in a similar manner (though I think my comments were on talk). Now I'm saying to myself "you've been here 12 years, you know how Wikipedia often works, why did you try to be nice, why didn't you just go report him when he violated the sanctions - then he wouldn't be here today reporting you". Such is life on Wikipedia I guess. Volunteer Marek  14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Another 1RR violation by Lambden

• [4] (first) revert of [5]
• [6] (second) revert of [7]

So first that second revert is indeed a revert since it concerns the contentious quote by Goodin. Now, I'm guessing Lambden is gonna argue that it's not a revert because he didn't "EXACTLY" restore the same text (he's tried using this argument before). But compare "Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack" to "Ars Technica security editor Dan Goodin wrote that, "The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.". It's the same thing, just paraphrased.

Second, Lambden knows this is a revert and knows that there was no consensus to include it because he participated in the discussion and attempted to (unsuccessfully) have this piece of text added before [8].

Third, and in light of second, it seems strange that Lambden would actually restore this text and violate 1RR in doing so. I'm guessing - and pardon my lack of good faith here - that the revert was made to provoke a revert from someone else (prolly myself, maybe User:Geogene or User:SPECIFICO) which could then be leveraged into a sanction-seeking report. It seems Lambden has adopted the "I'm willing to go down, as long as I take someone with me" tactic here (and GoldenRing's suggestions sort of play into that kind of strategy). Volunteer Marek  18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So Lambden, instead of explaining why you violated 1RR for the second time in, what?, two days?, you instead drag out some old diffs and pretend they're 1RR/3RR violations by me (they're not, and this was already covered at the time). Man, talk about Whataboutism. This is like some Wikipedia version of "But her emails!!!!" - when your own disruptive behavior is brought to light, don't even bother denying it, just try to deflect it and change the subject. Volunteer Marek  01:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

OKay, this is pretty desperate.

• "that VM is now calling a 1RR violation" - Lambden, are you saying that [9] [10] was NOT a 1RR violation? It's not me "calling" it, it IS a 1RR violation. Your second one in two days.
• What in the world does this edit have to do with this 1RR violation? It's a completely different article that has nothing to do with anything here. Lambden just looked for some instance of somebody saying something "negative" about me so he could add it here. It's a smear.
• As to the 1 year old WP:AE report I filed against that user [11], which Lambden falsely calls "frivolous". Yeah, I'm actually wondering why the admins dropped the ball on that one. In that instance the editor in question changed "it was reported she gained too much weigh and rumors began to circulate", which was bad enough, to "it was reported that she swelled to more than 160 pound", a pretty straight up and very obnoxious BLP violation (there were also other BLP violations. The article in question, on Alicia Machado was subject to a coordinated attack (organized off wiki, on reddit and 4chan). Look at all the edits to the talk page [12] that had to be rev del'd between September 30 2016 and October 6 2016 and on the article itself during roughly the same time [13]. Yeah, I would love to know why there was no action taken - I'm assuming it's cuz the archive bot got to it first or something. It was anything than "frivolous". I mean, unless you happen to think that attacking women and making fun of their weight is what Wikipedia is for (Lambden might be thinking of twitter or reddit. KotakuInAction is it?)
• Lambden says "Comments about VM's behavior by all editors in that request are just as valid " - would these be the comments by "User:Paul Keller", the sock puppet (one of dozens) of another serial harasser and stalker User:Lokalkosmopolit, that's been indef banned?

Lambden's violated 1RR on two articles in two days. The second violation was made while this report was already open. It's a pretty clear cut case of "I don't care about rules and I intend to be disruptive". He can bring up some irrelevant AE report from one year ago, or post diffs to some edits on completely different articles, and make up whatever nonsense about these he wants to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still two 1RR violations in two days, AFTER being made aware of the first one. This is sort of how Lambden operates. Whenever the facts/sources/evidence is against him, he tries to deflect and when someone points out that they're engaging in disruptive behavior he employs the "uh uh, I know you are but what am I" tactic, basically ensuring that no productive discussion can be had. THAT "is not how consensus editing is supposed to work". Volunteer Marek  20:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

I can't speak to the actions of James J. Lambden or what to do regarding him, but I would recommend against a topic-ban for VolunteerMarek unless the situation gets out of hand. I say this because, although over-zealous at times, he does excellent work in the political sphere. I would also recommend that the "consensus required" dictum re: replacing cited info be removed from the posted sanctions, as we've had complaints about it here and agreements to fix that, but it hasn't been done. Also, as GoldenRing has noted, Coffee isn't going to be returning to Wikipedia, so another admin needs to step up and change the sanction or initiate a proceeding to officially decide to change it. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by James J. Lambden

MastCells' characterization of my 1RR accusation against VM as an "aggravating factor" assumes it's groundless or insincere which is it not. I presented it clearly twice, here again:

• 16:16, 3 November 2017 - Original edit: "a combination of some verified and some as yet unverified allegations"
• 05:36, 8 November 2017 - VM's first revert, restoring essentially the same text: "allegations ... some, but not all, of which have been independently corroborated"
• 06:39, 8 November 2017 - VM's second revert: "allegations ... some, but not all, of which have been independently corroborated"

This occurred while an RfC to settle this exact question - whether "some" or "partially" should be used - was in progress violating consensus required as well as RfC procedure. VM has repeatedly ignored RfC procedure in political articles, most egregiously at Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials where he repeatedly restored disputed text during an RfC (@D.Creish:)

1. 02:44, 14 September 2017
2. 03:42, 14 September 2017
3. 13:22, 14 September 2017
4. 13:02, 15 September 2017
5. 16:14, 15 September 2017
6. 20:21, 17 September 2017
7. 15:59, 21 September 2017
8. 03:48, 23 September 2017
9. 20:54, 23 September 2017
10. 17:43, 27 September 2017
11. 20:39, 27 September 2017

VM's use of language offensive not just in verbiage but meaning, and aspersions which have persisted for months ("fuck off you creep", "Please fucking stop stalking my edits you creep", "obnoxious and creepy stalker", "You're freakin' obsessed and it's creepy as fuck. Get a life") should be addressed.

Immediately following this dispute VM made a "revenge revert" at Daily Caller then proceeded to Uranium One (an article he had never edited) to restore text that I had removed a week earlier. This behavior should be addressed.

These topics are covered by DS with the expectation of higher scrutiny. I am seeing the opposite and it has created an atmosphere of unproductiveness and hostility.

---

The rules of the page in question specify consensus required and 1RR, so we have one the one hand:

1. A violation of consensus required in two instances
2. A violation of 1RR
3. A restoration of disputed text during an RfC

and on the other:

1. A violation of 1RR

The suggestion below is the latter be sanctioned and the former ignored.

I reverted a straightforward consensus required violation (and a poorly-sourced edit which has not been restored) specifically because it violated DS. It is not preventative to mislead editors with a provision posted in authoritative language, disregard it after the fact to eliminate justification, then hold them responsible for an unjustified revert. If the consensus required provision will not be enforced it should be made clear. Had it been I would not have reverted. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: A day ago I filed an edit-warring complaint against an editor who made 6 reverts claiming a BLP exemption to remove the word "bipartisan" in the description of a lobbying firm. Although no source was provided (the claim was in the lede) it was easily sourced and the article now includes it. That complaint was dismissed and the BLP defense accepted.

Here I removed an inaccurate BLP claim* The claim is not included in our current article because it's incorrect. I made 2 reverts to remove it yet that is not seen as justification and no mention is made of VM's edit-warring to reinsert an inaccurate BLP claim by anyone but GoldenRing.

  * The inaccurate BLP claim is the line: "The meeting [with Andrey Baranov] was also documented in the dossier and confirmed in Page's testimony, as well as by US intelligence sources." Neither the Steele dossier nor the intelligence community document a meeting with Baranov. They claim a meeting with Sechin which is not confirmed by Page's testimony. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That discussion was painful to re-read. I had forgotten the extent of obstruction in that article. I don't share your interest in "gaming" strategies. I don't have the time and more importantly I rarely file complaints so it would do me no good. If you want to get picky about reverts then your violations are even more clear:

• Two under 1RR: (this of that), (this of that)
• Five under 3RR: (this of that), (this of that), (this of that), (this of that), (this of that)

That is just what I could find easily. You often remove the default edit summary from your reverts even when character count is not an issue, making them difficult to track. Maybe that is more so-called "strategy." James J. Lambden (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the text I added (that VM is now calling a 1RR violation) was restored by a 14 year old account. Examining the editor's history I see this edit-summary from a week ago - "Self rv i forgot it's marek... i'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole" - an established editor reverting what he considers an improvement solely because of VM's hostility. That is not how consensus editing is supposed to work.

I wondered about their previous interaction so I followed that comment to this frivolous AE complaint VM had filed against him. So frivolous that not one administrator commented before it was archived. Scrolling down I see my own comment, which I had forgotten - comment.

Comments about VM's behavior by all editors in that request are just as valid now as they were a year ago. His behavior has not changed nor I suspect has the inability of our processes to deal with it. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

For those suggesting a topic ban: would it be for all of AP2, or just "Trump/Russia" topics? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that a healthy serving of WP:TROUT will be enough here. A TBAN on Trump/Russia-related issues (narrowly construed to include only AP2 pages with "Trump" or "Russia" in the title, and for about a month) applied to Lambden and Marek equally seems reasonable. Contentious editing is a dis-service to the encyclopedia, and if they can't avoid that, something must be done. I feel a full AP2 ban would be too severe here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

I think this is just the latest episode when James J. Lambden persistently follows VM on various pages to get him banned, while VM is working very hard to improve the content everywhere, and specifically in the area of US politics. Also, I think this "consensus required" editing restriction is extremely unhelpful and should never be used. It does not really help to establish consensus, but prevents quick improvement of pages on recent controversial events. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

TTAAC and James Lambden have demonstrated on this AE thread what editors in American Politics see every day. Each of them appears incapable of discussing facts and policy without personalizing their remarks, disparaging other editors, and mounting irrelevant and dismissive aspersions. They both have a long history of stalking and harassment of other editors. In TTAAC's case, he has already received a TBAN per ARBAP2, he socked to evade the ban, and he squandered the good faith extended by Sandstein, who lifted his ban based on TTAAC's promise not to resume his personal disparagement and battleground rants. And that's just in calendar 2017.

This AE complaint is over a trivial matter that's typical of the dozens that arise -- which may or may not entail technical violations -- that are never escalated to this enforcement page. Marek has consistently refused to take the bait from TTAAC and has tried to collaborate courteously with him Marek has repeatedly asked Lambden to stop his harassment.

I recommend a TBAN for James B. Lambden for his ongoing stalking and harassment of Marek and others. I recommend that TTAAC's TBAN be reinstated due to his manifest failure to reform his disruptive battleground participation in American Politics articles, in effect violating the terms of his parole. Black Comedy: TTAAC's AN complaint on me within days of promising Sandstein he would not resume his battleground rants [14]. It's disturbing that TTAAC appears to have stepped back and waited until another AN complaint about him was archived the day before he posting the current pointless AE complaint about Marek. [15]. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

• I‘m of the view that the admins who add these sanctions templates to articles should address violation complaints. Pinging @Coffee: could you take a look?  Sandstein  06:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: Since Coffee last edited in April, I think you're unlikely to get much help from this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• This complaint is confusingly presented; the diffs are not in chronological order, which makes it difficult to assess their legitimacy. Additionally, diffs #3 and #6 both link to the same edit, yet are presented as if they were two different edits and two different violations. I'm going to assume that this was an honest oversight rather than an attempt at deception, but it should be corrected by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs).

  Looking at the article and dispute in question, there is a clear-cut 1RR violation by James J. Lambden (talk · contribs) (06:21 and 06:44, 8 Nov 2017). Given the black-and-white nature of the violation, and the aggravating factor that he accuses others of violating 1RR in the second edit summary, I would propose a block of the appropriate length for him.

  As far as the complaint against Marek, I'm less clear. I see one clear-cut revert by him (06:39), and several other edits which appear to add new information or wording. It's possible that there's a 1RR violation there, but I don't quite see it and the complaint is not well-constructed enough to clarify. Does anyone else see one?

  As for violations of the "consensus required" provision, it seems to me that there's a general reluctance to aggressively enforce this on all sides. Which makes sense; the provision seems like a good idea in theory, but easily game-able in practice (by reflexively reverting and then demanding "consensus", one tendentious editor could use this provision to basically hold a page hostage). I'm going to defer to other admins to interpret and, if appropriate, to enforce that remedy here. It's not immediately clear to me that the provision has been violated from the diffs provided in the complaint nor from my own review of recent editing on the page, but if others feel that there is a violation then they can certainly place the sanction that they think is appropriate. I would argue that if we (collectively) don't intend to enforce the restriction, then we should explicitly remove it to avoid confusion.

  In summary, I'd propose a block of James J. Lambden (talk · contribs) for a clear-cut 1RR violation (aggravated by hypocrisy in accusing others of a violation), and will defer to anyone else's interpretation of the "consensus needed" provision. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 06:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree the complaint is not put very clearly. Here's the history from this morning:

• In these two consecutive edits at 05:34 and 05:36, VM added some fairly controversial material, sourced to Business Insider and a change to the lead.
• In these four consecutive edits between 06:20 and 06:36, JJL reverted the change to the lead and significantly changed the other material added by VM, including removing everything sourced to Business Insider.
• At 06:39, VM re-instated the changes to the lead.
• At 06:44, JJL reverted the changes to the lead again.
• In these three consecutive edits between 07:54 and 08:14, VM re-added a substantially reduced/toned-down version of the controversial material, this time sourced to USA Today and Newsweek.

• I think it's pretty clear that JJL has violated 1RR here and some sort of sanction is appropriate. IMO topic bans are more appropriate than blocks in these situations - editors getting on with editing something else is helpful to everyone, so long as the disruption doesn't also carry over.
• I think it's also pretty clear that VM has violated the consensus required provision. I argued against enforcing it last month because it's easy to be inadvertently tripped up by them and basically assumed good faith. I think a second violation a month later is rather stretching that good faith and some sort of sanction is appropriate here. It also seems to me that whether VM's first edit counts as a fairly serious BLP violation hinges entirely on your view of Business Insider as a reliable source. On a quick scout through RSN, I didn't find immediately obvious "never use this source" but I did find a lot of caution and scepticism and feel VM should know better than this.
• In short, I think sanctions on both are appropriate and would favour topic bans over blocks. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: It's been tried - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Consensus_Required_restriction_in_American_Politics. A significant number of administrators there were opposed to simply removing it, and for what look to me good reasons. It's all very well for VM to oppose the restriction and think what he likes about it; he still has no excuse, given the history, for violating it. GoldenRing (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: I'd be inclined towards a relatively narrow ban, perhaps from articles and edits related to Donald Trump. Also relatively short in both cases - one or two months perhaps? GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) @Power~enwiki: fixing ping, sorry. GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I don't see how this edit of VM's is supposed to be "fairly controversial". Blocking Lambden after the fact is blocking after the fact--I think rather that considering the lengthy and tendentious career Lambden has had in that area they should be topic-banned, at least for three months. Drmies (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• I haven't changed my mind since that discussion. I think it should be removed. Yes, I said that I liked User:BU Rob13's suggestion that we replace it with "Editors cannot restore edits which they have introduced within 24 hours if the edits have been reverted", but I don't think "consensus required" is fit for purpose and the uninvolved administrators at that discussion seemed to agree. I think it should be treated like a lame duck and put out of its misery (sorry, I think that's a mixed metaphor). Other than that I've got no comment on what should be the outcome here. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think that behind the back and forth and history of the pair here, that there's any immediate action that can be taken outside a healthy dose of trouts, but I think all editors in this topic need to keep in mind that WP:NOT#NEWS is policy, and we strive to avoid WP:RECENTISM - just because it is widely reported does not mean it has to be immediately added to WP. A lot of the conflict in the AmPol area would be cut back if editors were not on a race to insert the latest-breaking political scandal news before the information has had a chance to make its course through a news cycle, to at least get a sense of how "serious" it is, or at least to make sure we're using the best sources possible if this is contentious information. Eg, if VM had waited 24hr, after which other sources that are considered more reliable than Business Insider came about with corroborating stories, then we wouldn't be here - the content sourced to works like Newsweek seems reasonable then to include. Even if it is the case that the NYTimes brought allegations to the forefront, waiting a bit (24hr) to understand how it fit into a larger picture, potenitally initiating discussion on the talk page pre-addition, would be helpful to reduce conflicts here. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I endorse the removal of the "consensus required" provision, which I'm beginning to think should be removed from all articles. As Coffee hasn't edited in some time, I don't feel we are stepping on any toes by doing this here and now, for this article anyway. I doubt it need replacing with anything, but will accept modification rather than flat removal as a second choice. I would opt out of opining on any other merits herein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• The consensus required provision is to stay, as has been discussed by ArbCom. Just because I've not edited in a while, is not a logical argument for the removal of a working concept. Also, no Sandstein... all administrators should be able to handle these concerns. But, I do think it would be encouraged to talk to an admin familiar with the matter first (yes this would obviously include the imposing admin). Coffee (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• I typically stay out of AE, but I will say this: consensus required makes sense and should not be removed: it already has a basis in policy (WP:ONUS) and having it as a sanction, like 1RR is only designed to be a bright line in making sure that policy is followed. I recently intentionally imposed the sanction on Roy Moore for this very reason, and I'm sad to see it brought up here that it should be removed from all pages. I have no thoughts on this particular case, but refusing to enforce a valid sanction based in well-established policy is a bad idea. Coffee's restriction was correctly placed, and if it has been violated, that should be taken into account here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411

On hold pending the outcome of the discussion at AN/I. GoldenRing (talk) 18:12, 14 November 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 MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:44, 12 November 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:ARBAPDS : Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Blatant personal attack and personalizing disputes. November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith: "This just looks like an attempt to hide the mainstream view of the JAR from readers. Given the discussion above about "purging" the article, the intent of this RfC is quite clear." November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith October 11, 2017 Personalizing content disputes July 4, 2017 Refusal to accept consensus Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any February 18, 2017 Blocked for violation of discretionary sanctions restrictions May 7, 2017 Given a discretionary sanction by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on February 18, 2017 by Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on January 23, 2017 Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on February 25, 2017. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on May 7, 2017 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint Thucydides411 has persistently made assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, edit warring, refusal to abide by consensus] and general tendentious editing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections for nearly a year as part of his campaign to inject his fringe POV[16], that election interference by Russia didn't happen, into the article. He has been warned several times at several venues to stop but he continues to exhibit a pattern of behavior that is disruptive and a drain on everyone's patience. These last personal attacks on Volunteer Marek are way over the line. @James J. Lambden: That's news to me. Please list the diffs corresponding to my examples above that show Thucydides411 being attacked. And no, let's not close this. We all know that ANI is useless for resolving these types of issues which is why there were two Arbcom cases for American politics, and why there are discretionary sanction which I am asking to be enforced.- MrX 00:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [17] 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 I'm not going to comment here further than to say this: I think this report is part of a campaign of intimidation and harassment. I really don't have the time to respond - getting down in the mud over the insane situation on American Politics articles isn't worth it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by slatersateven) There is an ongoing ANI [18] launched by me. We should close this (or that) and only have one running.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Can we please close this, statements are being made here I feel I should respond to, but have no wish to be accused of forum shopping.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC) As this is obviously not going to be closed I have asked for the ANI to be closed. I note that he has never informed anyone of DS, but was informed in the last 12 months.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC) At ANI I asked for a topic ban after the user rejected the simple request by another edd to just step away for 48 hours. I fell that if the user is not given some kind of sanction they will in fact continue to be disruptive and provocative. As to the comments about him being provoked. In the last interaction the first "about a user statement" made by anyone was this [19], whilst not aimed at A user it is an attack on anyone who disagrees with him as being politically motivated. Maybe I am missing where he was provoked into making that statement, As far as I can see he was the one deliberately trying to provoke people.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Also not only was he not hated alone, but he attempted to move his comment out of the hat (whilst keeping others hated) [20].Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden Thucydides411 has been the target of a harassment campaign. It follows the pattern of: Attack him Wait for in-kind response Option A: use his response as evidence of hostility Option B: remove or hat his response alone, to annoy Regardless, Slatersteven is right. One complaint is enough. Close this. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC) @MrX: I did not mean to suggest every editor is a witting participant but the pattern is predictable and repeating. See the comments above this diff November 12, 2017 which you linked in your complaint and subsequent removals. I will leave it to Thucydides411 to present previous examples if he chooses to respond here. I believe WP:FORUMSHOP precludes two open complaints. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim System If this is enough for ARBCOM to get involved, there are at least three complaints I want to make - anyone else? Seraphim System (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by Anythingyouwant I advise any further comments to be put at ANI, pursuant to this comment by an administrator. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO I'm copying some of the evidence I presented at the ANI thread: Admins have sanctioned Thucydides411 twice already for violating DS on ARBAP2. first sanction and then the second sanction Whenever this is mentioned, he responds with a personal theory as to why one or both of these did not really happen, citing among other things his unsuccessful appeal. He's done that several times, and it demonstrates that the sanctions have not caused him to reconsider his behavior. Recent example: [21]. He routinely mischaracterizes good faith content disagreements as POV-pushing by the majority of editors on the Politics articles who are collaborating to reflect mainstream description of facts and events. He accuses editors of following their personal opinions and engages with disparagement and denigration rather than discussion of content, sources, and policy. This behavior is not only at the Russian Interference article; it's on other related articles as well. For those who are not familiar with his conduct, here are some threads that demonstrate his personalized battleground style: [22] ANI [23] And meanwhile he’s been going after Marek on a long list of pages for a long time and has been politely asked over and over to stop.:[24] What's particularly weird, to me, is why Thuc would think that these years-old irrelevant ad hominems against Marek would hold any sway over the current editors Thuc is presumably trying to win to his POV? It seems to me he is so invested in personalizing routine editing communications that he doesn't even realize that the overwhelming majority of editors thinks these ad hominems are pointless and offensive. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Thucydides411 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.