Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:18, 17 February 2017

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by dailey78

Appeal declined. Establish a solid track record of editing peacefully in unrelated and topic areas, and then try again in 6–12 months. --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: dailey78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Rod (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles

Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles talk

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

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

Statement by dailey78

I have made numerous useful contributions to the various articles regarding Ancient Egypt. They have enriched the site and made it more encyclopedic. Three years ago, I received a topic ban for editing a highly contentious and controversial article, which is guaranteed to produce disagreement (hence the controversy). After three years, it seems unreasonable and unfair that this ban is still being enforced. Is it a murder conviction? I would like the ban lifted, because my contributions have and continue to enrich the site. In fact, a lot of what you read in various articles on Ancient Egypt, I contributed. Also, without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia.

If you have not been involved in a topic ban before, I don't think a reasonable person would assume that the ban would last for 3 years. I was made aware of the violation today. I only read the fine print of the ban after Ed Johnston suggested that I reread it today. Yes, it's meant to be taken seriously. I have edited articles on mini dental implants and other dental implants. My primary interest in Wikipedia is history and specifically Egyptian history, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that most of my edits have been around A.E. Some of the articles on A.E. are not contentious and I've made many edits that were helpful and improved the articles without incident. I am essentially being given this multi-year ban for editing an article that is extremely contentious. Everyone that attempts to edit the article ends up in contentious discussions on the Talk page. It is extremely difficult to make any improvement to such a contentious article without offending someone. We've learned to discuss it on the Talk page and move on with our lives. At the end of the day, these articles are in much better shape after I started editing them than before my contributions (speaking as objectively as possible about my own work).Rod (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laserbrain suggested that I post the following conversation from their Talk page:

I'm three years older and wiser and should be given a chance to contribute. If it doesn't work out, just ban or block me again. We all agreed to discuss the highly contentious topics on the Talk page and then edit the article. It seems that I'm the only one being forced to follow that agreement, but I have followed it. The administrators are complaining about recent edits, but have you actually reviewed some of those edits. In one edit, a sentence said "authors said xyz", I added several citations so that readers would know exactly which authors made the statement and where they could read more about it. The article was enriched. What is there to complain about?Rod (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dailey78: Thank you, and I do think it would be a benefit for you to post this to your AE request so the other commenting admins can read it. I'm willing to extend good faith generally and I believe you can make useful and productive contributions. When when conflicts occur, and they will occur, how will you react? --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the editors of the highly contentious article(s) agreed to post contentious edits on the Talk page and discuss there, without edit warring the posts on the actual article. It's the only workable solution, because editors disagree strongly and often about this topic.Rod (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Admin note: Statement exceeding 500 words removed. Sandstein 21:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Statement by Doug Weller

daily78 writes ": On Feb. 5, 2017 editor [Temple3] edited the article and removed the word "fringe" because it alters the balance and is not NPOV. Following the lead of [Temple3], I removed the word "fringe" three days later from a different sentence. That's two editors agreeing that "fringe" is inappropriate for the article. However, editor Doug Weller reverted us and reintroduced "fringe".

What actually happened is that Temple3, with their first edit since 2012-05-21, removed the word fringe. I did not revert that edit or replace that instance of the word fringe. My edit summary clearly says "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk): Rv edits by topic banned editor." The first bit of that, "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk)", is of course not something I wrote but is what the software adds. I'm not going to get into the content discussion, but I'm disturbed by the fact that I obviously didn't revert Temple3 but am accused of doing so. All I did was revert the posts of a banned editor. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, what I would suggest is that you spend six months editing in other areas that interest you. There must be some, and if you can find areas that do have issues that require careful work within our policies where you can show that you understand and can work within them well, I believe an appeal would be successful. Doug Weller talk 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by dailey78

Result of the appeal by dailey78

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

You weren't topic banned "for editing", you were topic banned for behaving poorly in that topic. For us to consider removing the ban, I'd like to see some indication that you understand your role in the disputes, why you were banned, and what you would do differently going forward. As far as I can tell, you are quite recently making potentially contentious edits and I think the probability of your getting into further conflicts is high. Getting into conflicts and disagreements is not problematic in and of itself, but how you behave in those conflicts is critical. --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be taken seriously? Dailey78 was topic-banned from "all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles" in 2014, yet as recently as yesterday they have been violating this topic ban by editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy (e.g., at [1]). It seems that they have never edited anything unrelated to this topic. Asking for a topic ban to be lifted a day after violating it is preposterous. I'm instead considering a lengthy enforcement block. Sandstein 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly complicated by the 12 month Wikibreak they took 2014-2015 and then the 18 month 2015-2017 break. But not much. I can extend a bit of good faith IF their current edits weren't disruptive and IF they stay stopped during the discussion, that they might legitimately not have understood the sanction was permanent / nonexpiring. Enough if both are met to withold sanction now and discuss whether they can address prior issues enough to consider some form of standard offer. But I have not yet reviewed the current edits enough. Reviewing now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This can't be serious. Arguing that three years is too long for a topic ban would make sense if you'd spent those three years editing other areas on Wikipedia but, instead, you merely left and then returned three years later to continue where you had left off. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this appeal, demonstrate that you can edit non-combatively by editing in other areas, and then, after a reasonable period of time, return with evidence that the ban is no longer necessary. Otherwise, I think we'll have to go with Sandstein's enforcement block suggestion. I'd also suggest not making statements like without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia, they aren't exactly reassuring. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein. Showing you can edit in other areas constructively is the solution to a TBAN. Rocking up after a long break (having not edited anything else) and editing where you have been banned is not a good formula for getting a TBAN lifted. I'm seeing nothing that makes me confident that the editor has the capacity to edit constructively. A six month enforcement block seems about right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asilah1981

No action—incorrect venue. Please use WP:AN/I. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Asilah1981

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Asilah1981 (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:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks

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

I require enforcement at breach of agreement after a long Incident discussion (see Incident link below) and continuous litigation and irregular editing by the editor in question, as well as successive incremental blocks and eventually an alternative, constructive sanction to a block, 3 month mentoring, that has eventually been equally breached by the editor, as detailed by the mentor User:Irondome [2] and [3]

06-01-2017 Incident closed with resolution to start 3-month-mentoring period; an archived discussion with all the details, diffs not available

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[4] I add all the block log, the last one being in late December / early January with two different incidents overlapping

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): I posted notice on the editor's talk page

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the areas of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor has changed during mentoring the overall tone of his language. He has also blanked most of his talk page lately [5] for which he is entitled anyway. However, evidence of irregular editing has not change.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [6]

Discussion concerning Asilah1981

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 Asilah1981

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Asilah1981

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

the editing may be problematic, but that's a matter for ANI or other fora, not AE, as I'm not seeing an Arb case here needing enforcement. Relying on a block log is insufficient, at AE you must show that this editor needs to be sanctioned for actions covered by an Arb case. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Trident

Blocked for two months for topic ban violations. Sandstein 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Neptune's Trident

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Neptune's Trident (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/GamerGate (topic ban) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (repeated violations):

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

Edited Mike Cernovich on 29 November 2016, 2 December 2016, 8 December 2016, 17 December 2016, 9 January 2017 (and again), 29 January 2017, plus other dates. Check the history of that article and search for "Neptune's Trident", I'm seeing 72 edits, only a few of which are mentions by other editors
Edited Vox Day as recently as 10 February 2017 but the history shows 36 edits and 4 mentions by other editors

These were not simply uncontroversial grammar or punctuation changes, either. Some of these edits were reverted on

5 August 2016 and again 6 August 2016 after Neptune's Trident re-added unsourced content. When reprimanded 13 July 2015, Neptune's Trident was specifically told to "discuss the issue without repeating the claim".
10 February 2017 as unsourced

Editor has been warned repeatedly about BLP-violating edits after the block:

25 October 2016 which was removed without reply
25 October 2016 (again) which was removed without reply
25 December 2016 which was removed without reply
10 February 2017 which was removed without reply

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

12 March 2015 DS alert for both GamerGate and BLP
12 March 2015 Blocked for 48 hours for violating BLP
12 March 2015 Blocked for 1 month for violating BLP while already blocked, and topic-banned from GamerGate
6 July 2015 Brought to AE for creating the article Giant Spacekat (company), a company cofounded by Brianna Wu. This AE was closed on 13 July 2015 and Neptune's Trident was subsequently reprimanded for violating topic ban

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the areas of conflict as noted above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was a brief discussion about potential topic-ban violations here and here, but it doesn't look like anything happened. Pinging @HJ Mitchell: as requested in that last link.

@EdJohnston: I can't find a diff of someone directly telling him about the connections, no. He was alerted to a discussion at User talk:zzuuzz where the connection was discussed, but he did not join that conversation. It's entirely possible that he never read the discussion and that he didn't make the connection on any of the articles. That being said, even assuming a great deal of good faith, it's implausible. The articles mention GamerGate, as do Sad Puppies and Milo Yiannopoulos, both of which he edited on 25 October 2016 (SP, MY).

On Vox Day, he filled in citation templates on articles that mention GamerGate (1, 2, 3) which suggests he read them, and he edited a paragraph mentioning GamerGate (1). On Mike Cernovich, he added a block of text from a New Yorker article that mentions the connection, which again suggests he read the article. Woodroar (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User talk:Neptune's Trident#AE Request

Discussion concerning Neptune's Trident

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 Neptune's Trident

Statement by (username)

Statement by Kelly

If this user is under a topic ban regarding Gamergate-associated subjects, then the editing on Vox Day can be considered a violation - the article subject's blog contains the Gamergate hashtag in the header. On 25 October 2016, I also warned this editor about adding the category "Alt-right writers" to the BLPs of science fiction authors associated with Sad Puppies, which is also considered by many to be Gamergate associated. (See the Sad Puppies article for refs). These controversial edits to BLPs were frequently made without any reference to reliable sources. Kelly ^hi! 01:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: - Speaking for myself, I didn't specifically warn him these articles were Gamergate-related (I didn't know about his sanction at the time.) I did, however, specifically warn him that he was editing BLPs. Kelly ^hi! 04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has removed the notification from their talkpage, indicating they are aware of this discussion. Kelly ^hi! 04:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Neptune's Trident

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

It is logical that Vox Day, Mike Cernovich and Sad Puppies should be covered by the Gamergate sanctions, but did anyone notify Neptune's Trident that these articles are included in his topic ban? He doesn't help himself by constantly deleting warnings from his talk page, which may suggest that he is up to something, and by hardly ever participating on Talk pages. But I'd like to see evidence that he continues with problematic edits after being notified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe for a second that this editor isn't aware of Vox Day and Mike Cernovich's connections to Gamergate. I'm willing to extend good faith a certain length, but not across the Grand Canyon. Recommend a three-month vacation. --Laser brain (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Laser brain about AGF here, but reckon a more substantial block needs to be implemented. Gamergate is linked in Vox Day and Mike Cernovich, so Blind Freddy could tell that they were included in the TBAN Harry handed him in 2015. I reckon a six month block would be more appropriate given this is not a one-off that could be explained as a mistake. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that Neptune's Trident has violated their GamerGate topic ban by editing articles about subjects who according to their articles support the GamerGate "movement". This means we do not need to determine whether he has also violated WP:BLP. Neptune's Trident has declined to make a statement here. There have been four previous blocks of up to one month for various misconduct. In line with our practice of escalating blocks, an enforcement block of two months therefore appears appropriate. Closing accordingly. Sandstein 17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guccisamsclub

No action taken. Sandstein 12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Guccisamsclub

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Guccisamsclub (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, WP:ARBAPDS

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

20:53, 11 February 2017 As an example of condescension toward other editors in the talk page environment Guccisamsclub says, "It's an "opinion"? Well duh." later in this same comment he says, "You also thought that the intel community did not conclude Iraq had WMDs, that the hacking findings are endorsed by 17 agencies, and plenty of other mind-bending stuff." This last phrase is applied as a rationale for saying this:"Frankly Steve, you are not in a position to critique any source on this topic." So here this editor is demeaning my editor capabilities based on an unrelated discussion on the talk page of another article. Hopefully my reply to that post will shed further light on this issue: [7]
21:41, 11 February 2017 This is an example of more personal insults and disrespectful behavior, which I characterized in my next post: 21:48, 11 February 2017
11 February 2017 Here Guccisamsclub mischaracterizes my post with "That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research..." rather than adding anything constructive to the conversation. By now it might be clear the he is attacking rather than contributing. Here is my reply 23:56, 11 February 2017, which essentially says "it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet."
4 00:02, 12 February 2017 and 00:04, 12 February 2017 he mis-characterizes my editing behavior with "or have you not read the article youre attacking" and adds to this "wouldn't be the first time". I am not attacking anything. And he denigrates my input into the conversation by saying I have not read the article and this wouldn't be the first time. In other words, rather than focusing on the editing and contributing he engages in WP:NPA behavior. Also at this point Politico was not part of this discussion, and he was the only one who mentioned it, but without any kind of reference as to why it was relevant. So, rather than providing rationale for how this is relevant, he would rather use this as some sort of stick to figuratively beat me over the head, or to show a weakness I might supposedly have. In any case, here is my reply, hopefully shedding some light on this 00:50, 12 February 2017. Also, this is the third time he brings up Politico, finally providing a rationale for referring to it after using it to engage in WP:Battlegound the previous two times. And this was not the reference under discussion by a number of editors - only him.
12:30, 12 February 2017 He mischaracterized my editing behavior by (I suppose) chastising me "If you talk without reading you are being disruptive. If you actively refuse to read, you are being intentionally disruptive," So here he is accusing me of disruptive editing or disruptive behavior, which is way off the mark, based on some sort of presumption or set of presumptions.
15:53, 12 February 2017 Here he is accusing SPECIFICO of being the only editor who is "consistently and successfully gaming Arbcom..."

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [8], [9].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Guccisamsclub ~~inexplicably~~ appears to be consistently engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior while also contravening WP:NPA.; Also. it appears that Guccisamsclub is too involved with the topic of this page, (2016 United States election interference by Russia), to be able to edit constructively on this talk page.; I appreciate the feedback and outside perspective from the Admins. I am glad cooler (uninvolved) heads prevail. I am accepting your feedback as advice. ~~Closing this with no action suits me~~. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]; However, had I seen what was happening in the main space per the diffs below, I probably would have added them to my complaint, if I thought these were DS violations. It appears there is reinsertion of what I would consider to be wp:undue re-inserinsertions. For instance, it seems Ritter is an outlier in the intelligence community according to his own opinion piece in the Huffington Post [10].

One instance Ritter cites he says he was "ultimately proven to be correct" but there is nothing to back that up or in what way he means he was proven right. The point is, by his own admission this appears to be a minority view (and so on), below Wikipedia "balanced view" criteria - and I would be against having this in the article. Anyway, my point is - if the diffs below are main-space DS violations, do the Admins wish to address this? These edits involve Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, MrX. Perhaps input from the editors would be helpful. I leave it up to the Admins to decide. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20:22, 12 February 2017

Discussion concerning Guccisamsclub

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 Guccisamsclub

What I said to SPECIFICO was in response to this:
Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Steve himself seems like a polite enough guy, but I've seen him overreact to completely innocuous statements with threats:

@Steve Quinn: You make a very good argument for inclusion of the word "alleged." As you say, reliable sources report that US intelligence agencies have alleged Russia interfered in the US elections. Going from the fact that US intelligence agencies have made those allegations to a statement that those claims are correct would, however, be WP:OR. You can have a personal view on whether or not the CIA, the FSB or any other intelligence agency in the world is trustworthy on any given issue, but unless reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) on the whole state something as a fact, we cannot do so here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: please do not mischaracterize my post (what I said), and please do not do this again. This is considered disruptive editing and contravenes WP:NPA. I am not here to defend against mischaracterizatizing my words. Please do not be presumptuous enough to tell me what what I mean either. Please be attentive to the Arbcom DS restrictions template above This is fair warning. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Confused ...

Here Guccisamsclub mischaracterizes my post with "That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research..." rather than adding anything constructive to the conversation. By now it might be clear the he is attacking rather than contributing. Here is my reply, which essentially says "it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet."

So who was making the personal attack here? I'm confused.

Why not read the source at some point?

"Also at this point Politico was not part of this discussion, and he was the only one who mentioned it, but without any kind of reference as to why it was relevant. So, rather than providing rationale for how this is relevant, he would rather use this as some sort of stick to figuratively beat me over the head, or to show a weakness I might supposedly have. In any case, here is my reply, hopefully shedding some light on this. Also, this is the third time he brings up Politico, finally providing a rationale for referring to it after using it to engage in WP:Battlegound the previous two times. And this was not the reference under discussion by a number of editors - only him."

Before complaining here, why not actually read the damn article from politiFACT, not CO, as I've already told Steve on the talk page. I've implored Steve read the immediately relevant source several times, to no avail. It seems he still hasn't done so.

This was already retracted...

"wouldn't be the first time"

That was retracted and crossed out as potentially impolite, though arguably accurate. Why didn't he even mention that?

The discussion on the page is pretty heated, though some editors have managed to be consistently polite. My impoliteness—or frankness—towards Steve has to do with the fact that he consistently posts unsourced patent nonsense to the talk page and does not respond to requests to read any sources. Steve's theories do not qualify as OR because they are not backed by research, which is why I termed his posts (NOT his person) "OH". Just read our two exchanges, the one on the Iraq war is hatted. Speaking without reading sources is profoundly disruptive behaviour. Saying over and over again—without any sources—that the intel community's conclusions were largely inconsistent with the claims made by the Bush admin in the runup to Iraq constitutes patent nonsense, which is also disruptive. There is no nice way to say to someone: "you are consistently unaware of basic facts and refuse to learn about them." If I am ignorant about a topic, I'll avoid talking about it. If another editor showed me a source and demonstrated that I had no idea what I was talking about, I'd promptly retract my statements and only continue the discussion after having thoroughly read all the relevant sources and then some. That's elementary circumspection. Anything else is disruptive behaviour under WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTFORUM.

I actually haven't edited the article much at all (!), because I know that several editors will simply revert any edit they find controversial. Under 1RR and Abcom, this means that it's very hard to mount a counter-challenge. So what is actually meant by my "battleground attitude"? Refusing to agree with Steve on the talk page?

Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely pathetic. All but the first one were reinstatements of apparently longstanding text. As for the first revert, it was immediately reverted with no action on my part. SPEC, VM and MRX have all violated 1rr and/or DS, btw. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

@Sandstein: There have been many instances in which Guccisamsclub appears to have violated the provision of DS that 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).” For example, he reinserted text reverted by me, @MrX: and @Volunteer Marek:.

On Guccisamsclub's talk page, I asked him not to do this, but he declined here.

Guccisamsclub appears to deny that these are violations, so as long as he is here at AE, I thought we could ask to have that question adjudicated. In the DS environment, various editors have said that it feels like edit-warring and it feels like he should not be editing in American Politics articles.

I expect that I'll now face the customary barrage of off-topic attacks for appearing here, but I will try to step back and let the Admin process work.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Guccisamsclub

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

I'm not seeing anything here to get excited about, to be honest. Sure, the snark and sarcasm could be dialed back on all fronts. If we start sanctioning people for such when discussing American politics, I'm not sure we'll have many editors left. --Laser brain (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sandstein 22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Few people are very nice on pages about recent American political events. We will sanction actual persistent personal attacks and nastiness, but I don't see anything like that in the diffs offered by Steve Quinn. Steve's own tone on the talkpage isn't exactly warm either, as here. Suggest closing with no action. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Closing as no action regarding the diffs submitted as evidence per discussion above. The diffs submitted separately by SPECIFICO can, if they are actionable, be resubmitted as a separate enforcement request - in proper form, with dates and explanations. Sandstein 12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO

Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time. Sandstein 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS

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

10 February 2017, 03:34 SPECIFICO deletes some content (that's fine), with rationale "Delete BLP smear unproven libelous allegation against James Clapper";
10 February 2017, 19:21 I revert him, arguing "Opinion is attributed and grounded in facts, not a BLP violation";
11 February 2017, 00:22 He reverts me, violating DS/1RR by reinstating a challenged edit, with comment "BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law";
11 February 2017, 07:13 I start a discussion on the Talk page, providing a detailed rationale behind my restoring the deleted material, and I urge SPECIFICO to self-revert until the question is settled by a proper debate;
11 February 2017, 07:14 Thucydides411 restores the material, stating: "There's no policy saying that opinions that haven't been proven in a court of law can't be included" (which happens to be one of my 6 arguments for keeping the disputed contents);
11 February 2017, 13:21 SPECIFICO replies with "Alert! This text is not worded to state "opinion" or "commentary". Edit warring. BLP violation." without rebutting any of my 6 arguments. The disputed text is fully and repeatedly attributed as an opinion by its authors, cited in a reputable newspaper. The accused person is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, his false testimony is a matter of public record (see James Clapper#False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs) and he even admitted having (unwittingly of course) misled Congress.
12 February 2017, 20:28 SPECIFICO deletes a chunk of material from the same quote, while the discussion is ongoing between several editors, thus committing a second DS violation.
The text is restored by Thucydides411, erased by Volunteer Marek and reinstated by Guccisamsclub : 12 February 2017, 21:02, 21:48 and 22:19
Just noticed this while preparing this report: Right after his first removal of material which refers to Clapper's false testimony, SPECIFICO discreetly goes sanitize Clapper's own article, trampling on longstanding content which undermines his position: 10 February 2017, 03:41 and 03:45. I'm not reverting those out of respect for the dispute resolution process, but wow, this does stretch the limits of good faith!

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

Warned in May 2016 by Coffee, December 2016 by Sagecandor and January 2017 by Octoberwoodland. Participated in numerous WP:AE threads ~~and launched some~~. I will take SPECIFICO's word that he never launched any AE proceedings; I must have confused him with somebody else; sorry. — JFG ^talk 03:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not only SPECIFICO violates sanctions that he knows well, but he also neglects to self-revert when warned, ignores the arguments against his BLPVIO stance and only contributes to the ensuing editor discussion via vague innuendo against an imagined cabal of "freaks and geeks" who are "glued to their computers 24/7" in order to "edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over". After other editors on both sides of the argument have exchanged some detailed and reasonable views, SPECIFICO comes back to say unconstructive stuff like: since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases, which I must admit I have trouble parsing. His inflammatory comments demonstrate a failure to hear other editors or participate constructively in a civil discussion, in which 8 editors argue to keep the disputed material and 6 to remove it. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: Removed text exceeding 500 words. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filer's note: Removed extra material on the content dispute which I had provided in response to other editors' now-deleted statements. Reworded and shortened my further comments on the merits of the DS case vs BLPVIO claim. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the BLP argument

Here is the disputed prose as it stood before SPECIFICO deleted the second sentence as a "BLP smear unproven libelous allegation":

Writing in the Baltimore Sun, William Binney and Ray McGovern criticized the report published by the FBI and DHS on December 29, commenting that it "fell embarrassingly short" of the goal of proving Russian hacking.^[1] Binney and McGovern wrote that given Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's false testimony to Congress over NSA surveillance of Americans, and his involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking are warranted. Binney and McGovern proposed that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider, rather than hacked and exfiltrated by an outside group.^[1]

A BLP statement can be removed on sight per WP:3RRBLP if it is libelous, biased, unsourced or poorly sourced. This paragraph is impeccably sourced and attributed no less than three times to the authors, at the start of each sentence. Absolutely nothing is stated in wikivoice. There is no libel, as Clapper's false testimony and his participation in the Iraq WMD story are a matter of public record. Here's Clapper admitting his "erroneous response" to Congress, as reported by The Guardian and cited in Wikipedia: On July 1, 2013, Clapper issued an apology, saying that "My response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize."^[2] If it is considered a BLPVIO to cite some intelligence experts who use this fact in their argument about another high-level intelligence controversy involving Clapper, then let's see the same dissenters purge Clapper's article from all such accusations, which are numerous.

Given this situation, I maintain that I was well within policy to consider that SPECIFICO's BLP claim was unjustified and to revert him, and that he breached DS rules with his counter-revert. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Binney, William; McGovern, Ray (January 5, 2017). "Emails were leaked, not hacked". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
^ Roberts, Dan and Spencer Ackerman. "Clapper under pressure despite apology for 'erroneous' statements to Congress." The Guardian. Monday July 1, 2013. Retrieved on July 2, 2013.

What if we couldn't revert spurious BLPVIO claims?

Welcome to The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia ~~according to SPECIFICO and OID~~

— JFG ^talk 02:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Removed editors' names from chart title, as one of them felt offended. — JFG ^talk 06:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to boomerang claims against me

@Laser brain: Nowhere in my report did I allege that SPECIFICO reverted more than once in 24 hours. Rather, I showed that he re-instated an edit which had been challenged by reversion (violation 1), and then cut the text again while the discussion among many editors was ongoing (violation 2), without participating constructively in said discussion. — JFG ^talk 07:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casprings: Your example is another case of me challenging the blanket removal of relevant material; it is perfectly legit, and you are the one who breached DS by reverting my challenge, although it would have been cleaner if another editor had done the counter-revert, for which I apologize. In today's case, several editors intervened on both sides of the argument, which unfortunately turned into a mild edit war. Had SPECIFICO abided by DS by leaving my revert alone, no warring would have occurred. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: You are ignoring the policy basis for my edits: SPECIFICO wrongly reverted challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page. His CRYBLP claim is untenable, as demonstrated above. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: My report was in no way retaliatory, I wasn't even aware you had commented on another AE case when I posted it (took me a lot longer than 15 minutes!). My decision to file this followed from your second violation of DS (diff 7), according to administrators' interpretation of the "do no revert a challenged edit without consensus" policy, and the frivolity of your BLP claim. Note that I didn't jump here on the first violation (diff 3), and I gave ample justifications of my actions in my edit comments, on the article talk page and now here. To your other point: if you have specific complaints to justify requesting a 6-month TBAN against me, please open a separate case. Finally, my "alternate world" post is a sarcastic illustration of the sorry path that Wikipedia might take if we followed your interpretation of BLPVIO; it's pretty obvious that we should definitely not go there. — JFG ^talk 03:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: My sample chart of absurdity does not purport to show how wrong these two editors are (I have now removed their names to avoid offense); it just illustrates how wrong an extreme interpretation of BLPVIO would be for Wikipedia as a whole. This is the meat of the matter in this case; much more important than determining whether editor A or editor B has technically violated a DS restriction, or "who shot first" in unauthorized reverts. — JFG ^talk 06:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done [17]

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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

Statement by SPECIFICO

I want to keep this as brief and to the point as possible. I did not violate the DS on this article. The text in question constitutes an egregious BLP violation. I’m sorry to see CRYBLP mentioned here. It’s not at all applicable either to the content or to any of my behavior on WP. It’s not my bag. My view as to this BLP violation was supported by half a dozen editors on the article talk page. That doesn't happen when there's a disruptive or disingenuous CRYBLP event.

On WP, I have learned that edit warring is pointless. I follow 1RR almost all the time on ‘’all’’ articles. If I see somebody undo a revert on a DS article, I ignore it or I go to their talk page and ask them to undo their error. That’s about as much as I engage with that behavior. Sometimes they thank me, sometimes they cuss. I don’t pursue it, and I don’t use such violations as an excuse to edit-war. I do cite wikilinks to policies in caps on article talk pages. I'm surprised to see that disparaged or mischaracterized as threats.

I’m disappointed that JFG filed this groundless complaint, which appears to be retaliatory, coming 15 minutes after I cited some 1RR violations in Guccisamsclub’s recent case. Also, for the record, JFG states that I have initiated AE cases in the past. I have not. It’s a false and irrelevant aspersion responding to the simple question whether I know DS is in place. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just looked at the article talk page to find more disparaging personal remarks about me and OID, deflecting BLP policy principles to personal remarks at this recent edit: [18] JFG then linked to this, amazingly, on this AE page. This casts false aspersions and attributes views that neither OID nor SPECIFCO has ever voiced. It also appears to misrepresent article text as if one of us had edited it inappropriately. As the subsequent thread indicates, JFG instigated numerous misrepresentations and personal disparagement with his post. Under these circumstances, I do think it would help the editing environment if JFG were given, a TBAN from American Politics. His attacks, deflecting policy discussion to personal remarks and false aspersions have been going on for quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this diff on this AE page] JFG again misrepresents me, falsely claiming that I requested a TBAN for him, when in fact I was endorsing the possibility of a boomerang mooted by one of the Admins here. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thucydides411

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you with diffs as to if a restriction was actually breached:

First removal - not a revert 03:34 10th Feb.
Second removal - 1st revert 00:22 11th Feb.
Third removal - 2nd revert 20:28 12th Feb. More than 24 hours since last revert. Does not violate 1rr discretionary sanctions. And even if it did, unless there is consensus the raised BLP issue is not a BLP issue, revert-restrictions are exempt for BLP-related removals.

On the other hand we have JFG:

First revert 19:21 10th Feb
Second revert 07:12 12th Feb. More than 24 hours since last revert but contrary to BLP policy for removal of material with a good faith BLP concern AND the discretionary sanctions which explicitly state "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."

So Specifico has acted according to both policy and the sanctions and JFG clearly has not. And thats just the specific BLP issue, there is other material which has been discussed to be contentious which has also been reverted multiple times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guccisamsclub

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Darouet's statement, I'm not removing it as I did the others because it has diffs and is mostly on topic. However, I find it unconvincing. I'm reputed to be the hardest of hard-liners in civility enforcement, but I can't find a clearly actionable incivility in the reported diffs. Making confusing and "edgy" statements is normally not enough for sanctions in individual cases. It may become actionable if it is a longterm pattern of conduct that inhibits or disrupts productive discussion

My list of quotes and diffs from the editor was meant to establish precisely that: a long-term pattern of nonsensical, unfocused, unsourced, fringe and inconsiderate contributions. This has been erased, due to the fact that most quotes lacked diffs. If this is really an issue here, I'd be glad to provide the diffs (which would take a couple hours to assemble given the sheer volume of contribs). Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

Prior to SPECIFICO's removal the paragraph clearly couched all content in terms of Binney's and McGovern's views: William Binney… has expressed doubt... In Harper's Magazine, he told Andrew Cockburn... Writing in the Baltimore Sun, William Binney and Ray McGovern criticized the report... commenting that... Binney and McGovern wrote that… Binney and McGovern proposed that... Sandstein, literally every sentence begins with attribution. A reasonable person would have easily concluded that the phrase "false testimony" remains a part of Binney and McGovern's voice, and many article editors thought the same.

SPECIFICO did not rectify the problem by simply quoting from the piece directly (as I did here), but removed it wholesale, and made no post on Talk to explain themselves. When they finally did comment, their explanation was so brief as to be incomprehensible. Contrast that with MelbourneStar's clear description of the problem, which allowed us to improve the wording.

Laser brain writes that JFG may be in breach of D/S by subtly but powerfully re-interpreting the D/S proscription: "it may be you who violated the provision not to restore challenged text without consensus." In fact the D/S text is, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The Binney and McGovern material was there for some time, and SPECIFICO's removal ("edit") was challenged.

Guy: if SPECIFICO is in breach of D/S, I think the violation is trivial: realistically, it is very difficult to be certain of who is violating what when everybody is reverting.

The more important issue is civility. The WP:ARBAP2 "Final Decision" states,

"Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion… 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…etc”’’

Now, consider this Talk comment made by SPECIFICO only yesterday, while they were simultaneously bringing an A/E request against Guccisamsclub:

"Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all."[19]

What is SPECIFICO saying here, except that all the editors who volunteer their time here but disagree with SPECIFICO are trolls? When I attempted to interpret their comments charitably, they rejected that interpretation, e.g. they really were referring to everyone else on the page.

At one point on Talk SPECIFICO incorrectly accused me and other editors of breaching D/S:

" "I shall..." shows admirable resolve -- but it is not apt to make any denials go more smoothly if there's an AE discussion about reinstating disputed text."[20]

SPECIFICO repeated the same allegation on my talk page (as they have done several times to me and other editors, without ever, to me, providing diffs). When I responded on Talk, they extraordinarily chose to hat my comments in response to their allegations, writing absurdly, "words unrelated to article improvement."

That is incredibly offensive.

These kinds of behaviors are exactly what D/S are supposed to prevent. I think it would be foolish to sanction SPECIFICO for a revert when everyone is reverting, but the personal attacks and offensive behavior poison the tone of discussion and merit a strong warning. -Darouet (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: fair enough, but consider your reaction if I hatted the comment you made just now and replaced it with the text, "words unrelated to article improvement," especially if you were responding to an allegation against you. Further, while the phrases "disruptive editors... highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies" may be confusing, I fail to see why they are "edgy," instead of "personal attacks" and "assumptions of bad faith." -Darouet (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Your interpretation of the text of DS is contrary to what it actually states, as MelanieN, an Admin, clearly explained only a week ago on the Talk page, and relies upon conflating "edit" with "text." You're putting us in a situation where sometimes removing text from an article is protected by DS, and sometimes reverting the removal of text is protected by D/S, and other times both actions are violations. Which is it? Anybody trained in mathematics will observe this is an impossible situation. -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casprings

The reporter, JFG, has a history of violating 1rr to support his POV. One quick example is here. [21], [22] Casprings (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I think the problem is that you are putting something that was stated in an OP that accuses a living person of a felony. Moreover, it is something they have denied. It would be one thing if it was needed for the article and directly linked to the subject, but this is un-needed. One could simply stop the sentence and leave that part out. That said, this is something that could be discussed on the talk page or in further dispute resolution. To me, it just seems like you run rough shot over the concerns of other editors and turn around and cry foul. Casprings (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

02:04, 14 February 2017. This was recently posted on the talk page by JFG The section title is "The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia according to SPECIFICO and OID". This is followed by a chart that describes sampled content in three high trafficked articles in the Amerian Politics 2 area. My interpretation is this edit is meant to be somewhat provocative, and I suppose, point out how wrong these two editors are. And an attempt to justify this edit is with WP:JDLI - which hardly supports such an edit. In fact, this type of thing is frowned upon. Here in Arbcom's GamerGate final decision under the "Battlefield conduct" section

Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks... are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited...

I am not characterizing this as Battlefied behavior - far from it. However, this seems to be in pursuit of a quarrel pertaining to a statement and source no longer in the article at this time. However, what possible outcome could be expected from this? I know things get snarky, but this is not that. Talk page guidelines WP:TALK essentially say everybody should try to get along, right? In any case, I think this should be considered when evaluating whether or not a boomerang is appropriate.

Statement by Space4Time3Continuum2x

I didn't log in at all yesterday and only just now found found a notification that I was mentioned on this page. I don't see my name in here and I'm not sure if my comment is (still) requested. I don't have any complaint against SPECIFICO, and I usually find myself on the same side of the issues as SPECIFICO and on the opposing side of JFG. If arguments on both sides get a little "spirited" at times, it's still no reason to go running to teacher. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

@JFG: I need to do some more research tomorrow but on the surface, it looks like SPECIFICO did not breech 1RR in a 24 hour period. In fact, your evidence indicates that it may be you who violated the provision not to restore challenged text without consensus. You may want to purchase some protective headgear as a boomerang may be inbound. --Laser brain (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for a concise statement by SPECIFICO. Everybody else, please keep in mind that AE does not resolve content disputes and that we are not a discussion forum about the finer points of either US politics or BLP policy. Statements by editors who are not parties to the request should be limited to facts that help admins decide whether to act on this request - such as links to previous relevant sanctions or enforcement actions, or submissions of relevant evidence, in the form of dated diffs, of conduct by parties in connection to the request's topic. Sandstein 12:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My initial assessment: The content removals by SPECIFICO in diffs 1 and 3 were justified by WP:BLP. Although the statement at issue ("James Clapper's false testimony") was attributed to a source, it was phrased in such a way that a reader could understand it as Wikipedia (rather than the source) asserting that Clapper falsely testified. It could be argued that rather than reverting the whole addition, SPECIFICO could have rephrased it in such a way as to avoid this ambiguity. However, the source is a newspaper op-ed, which is clearly an inappropriate source for BLP material because by its nature an op-ed does not pretend to assert facts, but to voice an individual opinion. (If it is uncontested that Clapper falsely testified, then there should be much better sources for that.). As to the remaining edits by SPECIFICO, their merits are a content issue and therefore outside the scope of this board, but I don't immediately see a policy or DS violation in them. I would therefore take no action here. I remain open of being convinced otherwise by collagues, though. I'm also looking forward to Laser brain's research regarding JFG's edits. Sandstein 12:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Darouet's statement, I'm not removing it as I did the others because it has diffs and is mostly on topic. However, I find it unconvincing. I'm reputed to be the hardest of hard-liners in civility enforcement, but I can't find a clearly actionable incivility in the reported diffs. Making confusing and "edgy" statements is normally not enough for sanctions in individual cases. It may become actionable if it is a longterm pattern of conduct that inhibits or disrupts productive discussion, but that would need more and better evidence in a separate request. Sandstein 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the evidence provided by Only in death does duty end, it does appear that JFG violated the restriction against reinstating any edits that have been reverted without consensus. I think that a brief topic ban from US-Russia relations might be appropriate. Sandstein 13:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This probably does not violate the letter of the DS, but it plainly does violate the spirit. The use of WP:CRYBLP is common in such cases, of course. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: I disagree that the edits were justified by BLP - this might not rise to the level of nine separate sources but it's clearly correctly attributed and any purported libel is not our problem, as we're only reporting what was said. WP:UNDUE might be a valid argument, I have no real view on that. However, both editors should have taken it to Talk. It is hard to see either as better than the other here. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...I am having a hard time discerning whether either side breached enforceable sanctions, nor whether this rises to AE enforceable vs a content dispute gone slightly astray but with editors who have largely correctly retreated to talk page discussion. I think that edge technical violations of policy may be present on all sides but really? Come on, whyfor AE when normal editor discussion ~~dealt~~ is dealing with it? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with closing this with no action, given that there seems to be somewhat questionable conduct on both sides but nothing that jumps out as immediately egregious. All parties should go back to resolving issues on the talk page instead of using AE as a battleground (I know, easier said than done). Without admin objection, I intend to close this accordingly sometime this (UTC) evening. Sandstein 08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [[23]]

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:

[24] - Removes mention that the victim was unconscious and intoxicated and adds text in another area stating both parties were intoxicated (only).
[25] - Edit wars to keep it in after it's challenged and he's asked to discuss on Talk.
[26] - 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.
[27] - 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 [28], and his "warning's" [29],[30] 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. [31] --Kyohyi (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [32][33][34][35].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- I concur with the Boing! proposal below. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thucydides411

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

[36] Discussing the quote by Pierre Sprey.
[37] 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)[reply]

@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: [38] [39]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 [40] in detail. The person who brought this AE complaint against me, Steve Quinn, even told me they appreciated my "well articulated" response ([41]). 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 ([42]), 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)[reply]

@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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [43] and Awilley [44], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A similar sequence just happened again:

SPECIFICO deletes some longstanding content [45]
I revert him [46]
Geogene counter-reverts, violating DS [47]. Geogene did open a discussion but he should have left the restored text alone until such discussion reaches consensus.

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)[reply]

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 ([48][49]) are a revert, and so are these ([50][51]). 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)[reply]

@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 [52], 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 [53] and [54]). 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)[reply]

@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 [55] (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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [56].

Thucydides411 ignored the BLP violation and instead of seeking consensus to restore the text, he reinserted it at
07:14, 11 February 2017 here: [57]

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: [58]

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: [59] 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: [60]

I hope this is clear and to the point. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Guccisamsclub

Do administrators agree that an edit can be either deletion or insertion? Then SPECIFICO made the edit, was reverted by Thucydides411, and then reinstated the edit without consensus. Check Darouet's diffs. SPECIFICO's only excuse for this behavior is BLP, clearly that's highly debatable. SEeveral editors (on article talkpage and here) and one admin (Guy mentioned the possibility of CRYBLP) have pointed this out, myslef included. Any kind of sanction would send precisely the wrong message here: namely that you can use CRYBLP to delete long-standing text without discussion or consensus (and then hypocritically accuse others of edit warring, threatening them with litigation here). Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~That makes sense. No objection. Sandstein 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)~~ See later comment below. Sandstein 11:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - @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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

[leaked-not-hacked-3] Binney, William; McGovern, Ray (January 5, 2017). "Emails were leaked, not hacked". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 5, 2017.

[4] Roberts, Dan and Spencer Ackerman. "Clapper under pressure despite apology for 'erroneous' statements to Congress." The Guardian. Monday July 1, 2013. Retrieved on July 2, 2013.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 779: / Line 779: @@
 ::*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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Binney_and_McGovern.27s_comments_on_James_Clapper 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=765510497&oldid=765510434 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. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
-:*That makes sense. No objection. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
+:*<s>That makes sense. No objection. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)</s> See later comment below. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 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). [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 :::*Replying to [[User:Darouet]]:
@@ Line 794: / Line 794: @@
 *****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. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 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]] --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 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  ({{u|Bishonen}}), or who wrote it ({{u|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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 11:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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