Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive223

• 68.132.68.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Originally posted at User_talk:68.132.68.52#December_2017_2.

I didn't do anything wrong. With regards to the edit to Dismissal of James Comey, I stated Comey's dismissal is alleged to have constituted obstruction of justice in the lead, which is already stated in the article. In pertinent part, the article already reads as follows: "In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed.[19][20][21][22]" Hence, my edit adding material already in the article to another part of it is not a blockable offense. I will also note that "obstruction of justice' is in the article 46 times; it was certainly not inappropriate to add it to the lead, given how heavily it figures in the article. The accusation that my edit was "tendentious" is wrong; I was summarizing article content, which is what a lead does. With regards to my edit to Trump-Russia investigations stating that members of Trump's campaign were convicted due to their meetings with Russians, (even though this was not cited as the reason for the block, for the sake of completeness I'll discuss it) please note that this, too, is already repeatedly stated in the article: "On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign" Also, see Michael Flynn for further information.

I don't think the admin who reviewed my edits actually took the time to look at them, and made a knee-jerk block without making the effort to see if what I said was A) True, B) already in the article. What I stated were items already in the relevant article that I merely added to the lead. Neither of these edits were worthy of a block. The blocking administrator does not appear to have reviewed the article prior to blocking. Had he done so, he would have noticed that this is not undue, but accurately summarizes what the article is about. Blocking administrators have gotten insanely trigger happy and are blocking without taking any time to understand the edits or the article itself. How can you block without even knowing what's in an article first?

Posted per the user's request, via the unblock template. SQL^{Query me!} 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you User:SQL. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I care much less about procedure than about trying to foster an editing environment in which we can produce an encyclopedia whose point of view is neutral. If you don't know by not that I am always amenable to community overview of my blocks, you should come over for cocktails and we'll talk. Given the history of that editor, the blocks that were issued and the reason for it, I figured that an escalation to one week was more than appropriate but, Sandstein, you may well be right about the paperwork. It's not a big deal to me anyway--if the user gets unblocked, they'll either tone it down, which is fine, or they'll continue in the same vein, in which case they'll get blocked again. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Waiting for a comment by Drmies (talk · contribs). It appears the reason for the block is tendentious editing in the form of this edit. This is clearly not the best BLP edit ever in the history of Wikipedia, but I'd not have issued a one-week AE block solely because of it. It is also not clear to me based on which arbitration decision or remedy this block was made, and it does not seem to have been logged as an enforcement action. If this is not promptly explained, I'd be in favor of lifting the block as a procedurally flawed AE block. Sandstein 08:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In view of Drmies's statement above, agreeing with an unblock, I'm unblocking the editor and closing this thread. Sandstein 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Sandstein that the block was not procedurally correct. I'm wondering whether User:Drmies just got the wrong template? The user has never received any arbitration alert and so an AE block is out of process - and an arbitration enforcement block ought also to have been logged. This edit appears to imply that Drmies expects any admin to be able to overturn the block - so I'm wondering if this was intended to be a normal block for TE rather than an AE block? GoldenRing (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MickPhil (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

1. 22:05-22:19, 24 December 2017‎ 4 consecutive edits removing content from Milo Yiannopoulos. Edit summaries are:
   
   • BuzzFeed is not a reliable source. Removed biased information from an entertainment website
   • libelous to describe Mr. Yiannopolous as “alt-right” when he has stated he is not. provide sources for your accusations.
   • Poorly written without sources for strong accusations as well as claims he belongs to the “alt-right.”
   • Make sure sources are being used.
2. 03:33-03:55, 26 December 2017 Five consecutive edits with more content removal on Milo Yiannopolous. Edit summaries:
   
   • removed unsourced comments, and opinions
   • The Guardian is a tabloid. incident in Adelaide should be properly sourced with an article that does not include the writers own opinion.
   • article from AU news describes Yiannopolous as being “alt-right” and being protested by “anti-fascists.” the insinuation that Yiannopolous is 1) belonging to the alt-right or 2) a fascist is not actual news based on fact. other source was a tab...
   • Unreliable sources with clear bias and political agenda. Again describes Yiannopolous as being part of the “alt-right.” Article’s headline is even an opinion and the article serves as a critique of his tour in the “entertainment” section of t...
   • Any reference to allegations of being an “apologist for pedophilia” should have a more reliable source than BuzzFeed, and should not be in opening section of article.
3. 05:40-05:42, 26 December 2017 Two consecutive edits removing alt-right related content from Milo Yiannopolous.
4. 05:52, 26 December 2017 Removing alt-right content again
5. 05:54, 26 December 2017 Same content removal

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)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 05:52, 26 December 2017‎
• Article is under active remedies per ARBAPDS.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User engaged in large amounts of content removal, apparently attempting to whitewash the BLP. This article is under active remedies. The user continued even after these active remedies were pointed out to them. Note that this user has engaged in other disruptive behavior, including REVDELed edits.

@DHeyward and Sandstein: arb case we mentioned a minute later in this diff. The last edit by the user occurred after the warnings. Further, since the warning is on the talk page, I'm under the impression a formal warning is not required for active remedies. Has this practice changed? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Forthcoming 06:15, 26 December 2017l

I see this issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_Sanctions. This is very clearly a 1RR violation though so I'm not sure how why Sandstein there's been no conduct violations. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I mentioned "Article is under active remedies per ARBAPDS." above. There's a standard active remedy for ARBAPDS which includes 1RR (see {{2016 US Election AE}}). Do you need a diff to that active remedy being put in place? If so, here they are: [1], [2]. Admins can't read minds, but it's entirely unclear how to file for an active remedy and not a general DS issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Okay, I think this is being discussed over at the clarifications noticeboard. I was under the impression that individual user notifications were not needed. If that issue is still being resolved, consider this filing withdrawn. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

All the diffs for evidence appear to be before the AE DS warning notice. The warning diff provided doesn't seem to mention the arbitration case, either. --DHeyward (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not actionable. This looks like a content dispute; no conduct policies are alleged to have been violated. Also, the notification required per WP:AC/DS#Awareness has apparently not been made. Sandstein 16:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No actual remedy to be enforced has been invoked, either. Sandstein 18:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• EvergreenFir, if you think that there has been a 1RR violation, you must say so in your report, and link to the arbitration remedy and/or discretionary sanction imposing a 1RR restriction. Admins can't read minds. Sandstein 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, we do have a 1RR page restriction, but without proper notification of the editor in the form prescribed in WP:AC/DS#Awareness a sanction is still not possible. Sandstein 18:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing as withdrawn since no other admins seem to be interested in this and arbitrators at ARCA seem to agree that an individual notification is necessary. Sandstein 19:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nishidani (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:ARBPIA :

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

1. [3] Nishidani's first revert
2. [4] Nishidani's second revert, a bit after 24 hours

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Nishidani has a rich history of blocks in the WP:ARBPIA area, as well as voluntarily refraining from editing when caught redhanded but before being sanctiond

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. Especially galling is the fact that content wise I am correct: archeological sites are manged, geopolitical areas are controlled.
2. The sourced used by Nishidani clearly do not support his claim, and are trumped up as filling only. Such editing should be condemned. Especially in the WP:ARBPIA area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

@GoldenRing Then why did you block me when I made a revert some 3 hours after 24h? Now you show your true colors. I knew I didn't have much chance, but I just wanted to expose the hypocrisy of this forum. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I invite administrators to toss a boomerang to Debresser. For the relevant context, please see the past few days' history at B'Tselem and Talk:B'Tselem. Debresser doesn't like the way Nishidani spoke about his edit on that article, so he pursued this frivolous complaint about a trivial matter at another article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is not actionable as reported. No specific arbitration remedy that is to be enforced is indicated, let alone how these edits are supposed to violate it. Sandstein 17:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DS does allow room for "these edits don't violate any specific sanction but they're disruptive and the editor should be sanctioned;" I agree this is a long way from that point, though. It's not even really close to a 1RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ScratchMarshall (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. The article (Unite the Right rally) is currently under ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES, including:

• Limit of one revert in 24 hours
• Consensus required
• This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia's general sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

1. [6] At 21:47, editor inserted contentious material about a recently living person against Consensus required clause on the Talk page. Several editors had previously objected to this material [7] at 21:14; [8] at 20:05, etc.

• The purported cause of death was reverted from the article multiple times (not originally inserted by Scratch): [9]; [10]; [11]. The Talk page discussion with Scratch (Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#More_stuff_that_looks_like_it_belongs_in_reactions) includes: You have been told this countless times. So I take it that Scratch knew the edit would be contentious. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. [12] This revert at 19:48, combined with the edit above, appears to violate 1RR clause, as it's in addition to the edit at 21:47 that the editor knew was contentious.

• First edit by Scratch was: [13]. It was reverted here: [14]. Scrat then reinstated it here: [15].

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

• The editor was alerted in August 2017 about the DS sanctions on the same article here: [16].--K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• There are multiple prior discussions and warnings on the user's Talk page that pertain to the same article:

• [17] "Caution: Personal attacks directed at a specific editor on Talk:Unite the Right rally"
• [18] "Please stop your disruptive editing at Unite the Right rally"
• [19]: "PA warning"
• [20]: The DS alert linked includes a specific warning: "Particularly troubling is your turning that car thing into a "collision". Setting aside the question of the categories, that's pure POV editing. (...) 02:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)"

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Editor has been notified here: [21].

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.

• special:diff/817497032 at 19:48 was me identifying the struck sedan as a Toyota Camry per Duggan of WashPo
• special:diff/817511202 at 21:47 was me identifying the cause of death as blunt force injury to the chest, per Porter of NewsWeek

First I'll explain how K.e.coffman is misrepresenting the Camry issue. In Special:Diff/817496708 my larger edit was indeed reverted by ValarianB. However the summary said "This edit made proper grammar into atrocious grammar". Valarian did not actually object to my mention of the Camry in the summary, only the larger rephrasing that I did. On that basis, I was not restoring what Valarian's revert targeted (the grammar) but only the Camry identification, which Valarian did not object to. Thus my summary "minimalist restoration of details". Valarian's revert threw the baby out with the bathwater. Since only bathwater (grammar change) was objected to, and not baby (Camry ID) restoring it was not a restoration of what Valarian objected to, so this was an entirely separate edit and not a 1RR violation, because I did not "revert" Valarian's reversion, I noted his objections and made a completely different edit which did not change the grammar and only simply added the data.

Second I'll explain how K.e.coffman is misrepresenting the COD issue. This is not "contentious" material at all. We already had consensus regarding that we should not state Heather Heyer's cause of death as being a heart attack based on her mother Susan Bro's comments during an NBC News interview. Our discussion was on whether or not we should mention those comments or the news coverage reactions to them generated. It was not on whether or not to list the official COD, which is blunt trauma, not heart attack.

The "several editors" K.e.coffman refers to are:

• special:diff/817499023 Grayfell at 20:05
• special:diff/817506831 K.e.coffman at 21:14

The problem is that both of these were replies to special:diff/817480803 where I was discussing Noor Al-Sibai's article regarding the "heart attack" quote, which did not mention "blunt trauma" at all. K.e.coffman is inaccurate in saying that these were "previous objections to this material" because it was different material we were discussing.

Re the "multiple prior discussions and warnings"

• special:diff/796258874 August 19 Power~enwiki decided to leave a message conveying personal opinions that a car killed Heather Heyer, despite there being no actual statement regarding manner of death released at the time. Given that Newsweek didn't report on it until October 17, I don't even think cause of death being blunt trauma had been mentioned at the time. Power~enwiki's false accusation of my making "disruptive edits" was thus at the time, based on pushing a personal PoV which violated WP:BLPCRIME.
• special:diff/797772479 August 29 Drmies left thea false accusation of the word "collision" being "Pure POV editing", even though that word has been used in news coverage of the event, for example "Man accused in fatal Charlottesville collision back in court". Editors who persist in inserting the word "attack" are clearly upset by neutral language in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME like this. I do not put stock in people who levy false accusations and then abuse the flooding of templates on those they disagree with to try and frighten them away.
• special:diff/797802477 August 29 Doug Weller left an ambiguous warning without actually specifying the accusation. I followed up on his talk page: User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_46#request_for_clarification and Weller accused me of not AGF whilst ignoring people who already not AGF and harassing me. Weller calls "check a mirror" a personal attack when he accused me of not AGF, but if accusing someone of not AGF is a "personal attack" then this would be Weller admitting to engaging in personal attacks himself. Weller has been WP:INVOLVED with this article from the outset (check the talk archives) and was not a neutral party in warning me. He was ignoring unwarranted attacks on me and falsely portraying me as the attacker when I was simply defending myself. Situation was:
  • Party A: "X is true. B is biased for saying Y." - no reason given
  • Party B: "Y is true because reason. Given A persists on X without evidence, A may be the one who is biased."
  • Party C: "B is making personal attacks against A! Stop doing that B!"
• special:diff/798752997 September 3, Acromion responded to Special:diff/798752389 saying it was "moving into personal attack territory" where I said "abusing reversion" and "dogpiling" regarding Valerian's behavior. This was at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#Color_of_other_2_vehicles where Weller had already weighed in to agree with Valerian (thus being WP:INVOLVED). Notable things supported do not become "excessive" or "trivial" based upon the unsourced personal opinions of Wikipedians. None of them were actually making arguments, just stating a lack of interest, or a lack of understanding of the value of detail, thus "dogpiling" did and still does seem appropriate for that, and it continues today.

Re Sandstein, your suspicions are correct, diff 2 is not a 1RR violation, and not a revert at all. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we deal with an editor who brings up the same topics over and over and over and over again? I'm trying to sift thru the maze of restrictions and rules that cover political pages, is there anything along the lines of "being super-unable to stop beating a dead horse" ?

Look at this, Scratchmarshall has brought up the same topic, which has garnered zero consensus among editors at the article, over several months

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#OR_regarding_triviality_of_Toyota_Camry

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#Color_of_other_2_vehicles

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_5#what_is_brand_of_white_car_which_Dodge_Challenger_hit_then_pushed

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_5#Best_source_saying_Heyer_was_hit_by_Challenger

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_4#license_plates_and_car_brands

Here's the topics started for the "heart attack" part, a notorious alt-right meme attack

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Medical_report_and_chest_injury

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#Cause_of_death (initiated by another user but Scratchmarshall takes same argument tack)

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#statements_from_Heyer's_mother

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#casualties_afterward_split

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_5#clarifying_Heather_Heyer_location_during_Challenger_incident

Am I crazy or is this overboard? TheValeyard (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't much matter if sentiment is leaning against any finding of wrongdoing, but the silly assertions of and in archive 6 the first one to mention "heart attack" in the "casualties afterward split" is YOU are prime examples of the belaboured nitpicky focus this user has subjected editors to over the last few months. My, quote, "first mention", was to rebut this users suggestion that a casualty sub-article be created. The user then invoked the term "heart attack" as a part of subsequent arguments no less than a dozen times. What this behavior does is drive people away, so when say 10 people object the first time around, it drops to 7 on a repeated attempt, then 5 and on and on. Argument by exhaustion, it poisons the talk pages and makes everything just unpleasant.

I've had my last say so do what you will. TheValeyard (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has started with Scratch posting to my Talk page: "Your redaction", where he linked to this diff from the article's Talk page, which I had redacted two months ago. It looks like he's unable to let go of this fringe theory, and it's becoming disruptive and possibly BLP violating. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein is correct that there is no technically sanctionable violation of an editing restriction, however GoldenRing is correct that the behavior of Scratch Marshall is disruptive pushing of detail. In fact, it violates the principle of consensus, which is plainly established for this aspect of the subject. I agree with the idea of a narrow topic ban from the article (and related articles), but since this manner of editing from ScratchMarshall has been ongoing for nearly five months, I think the topic ban should be for at least six months, if not permanent, based on the WP:POV pushing evident in their contributions to the article.- MrX 14:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I'm reading some comments wrong, but there seems to be a misconception by a few people that AE is only for sanctioning editors that breech article editing restrictions. That is simply not the case. Relentless editing against consensus is exactly one of the behaviors that Arbcom cases sought to stop in the two AP cases. Whether this case requires a sanction is a judgement call. - MrX 01:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a followup is fine so I have responses.

• firstly to K.e.coffman: you appear to be implying I agree with the fringe theory. I do not. I simply think the best way to deal with it is to acknowledge it is being spread (as sources show) and that it has been discredited, and supply the leading theory supported by the medical report. My objection here is that by censoring confused people who post that, they'll just keep posting it and nobody will actually be educated.
• Valeyard: it is not the "same topic" if I am bringing up new details. The recent discussion of the 2nd sedan's brand being "Camry" for example, I have never brought up before, I only recently learned of it. I view it as valuable when we are talking about a situation of 2 sedans making contact, to be able to discuss their brands. We already do so for the Challenger, doing so for the Camry is following an existing pattern. The archives you have linked to are on separate topics. A4 was asking about brands. A5 had Spem Reduxit suggest indictment sheet, implying to me agreement that it is valuable. I JethroBT said "until sources discuss it" regarding brand. Sources DO discuss it now, imlpying Jethro would now clearly see the value in how it is relevant to the content. A6 was you pushing the idea that car colors are trivial despite multiple sources commenting on color. You prematurely closed the conversation with under 2 weeks of activity, burying it to try and sink the line of discussion.
  • Valeyard your description topics started for the "heart attack" part is a lie obvious to anyone who will check the sections. "Heart" does not appear anywhere in archive 5, and in archive 6 the first one to mention "heart attack" in the "casualties afterward split" is YOU. As for the September 13th "statements from Heyer's mother" section, that is a followup to the september 8 "cause of death" section where user:DIthewave posted concerns about people adding this to the article. The difference of topic is that rather than discussing whether that is a reliable source to Heather's CoD (it obviously is not, this was a grieving parent not a medical professional's statement), it is discussing what exactly was said, the reactions it caused, and whether or not the reactions (or reactions to the reactions) were notable. The present "medical report" topic is me acknowledging your valid concern over conspiracies, and what better way to combat theorists than to provide the report showing CoD is blunt force trauma and not heart attack? You regularly falsely accuse me of supporting the heart attack theory when I have never done so, and here was actively cooperating with you to debunk it.
• GoldenRing or Mr. X you haven't explained how my discussion of easily summarized details like Camry/CoD are disruptive. Discussing content is part of collaboration. I think I've been cooperative so far with consensus, dropping the topic for MONTHS after the irrational anti-color gangup. I came back when learning new information I had not previously discussed, to see if that new detail would be worth acknowledging. I think it is worth considering that the ones disrupting the article are the ones who keep removing valid sourced information from it based on personal feelings of aesthetics, as if their personal aesthetics are more important than being an encyclopedia. Words like "Camry" or "black" or "sedan" are short and cheap, look at the massive character count, how much would they really clutter? Informing people of detail is what encyclopedias do, and without us conveying that info, readers will not be easily able to tell which sources share details like these. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GoldenRing re special:diff/818251390, it seems like exaggeration to me that discussing general details like the model of car (which, since they are different, allows easy reference) is "all possible details". There are other less important details which I have been aware of but so far not even broached upon. The black Toyota Tundra (pickup truck) visible on the right side of the Challenger, for example. I haven't brought it up because even though it was there, the Challenger did not collide with it. The GVF 1111 license plate of the Dodge Challenger is a detail I similarly did not actually add to the article, I merely asked on the talk if anyone thought we should bother including it. The license plate wouldn't help people discuss the incident like memorable brand names like Challenger/Camry would, nor to understand video/photographs the way colors do. I believe this is probably why the sources I cited to support the information decided it was valuable to mention these details moreso than others. Rather than adding all possible information (ie original research, I personally saw "Toyota Tundra" in an image but didn't bother to check if any sources commented on it) I only added notable information reported on by reliable sources, which established their noteworthiness via the writers' decision to include them. "Complete exposition" would be doing things like listing the names of the other people who were there and have tweeted/facebooked about it. I didn't do that because while there were some isolated stories, it didn't seem well-covered enough to focus on. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On review of the diffs in the initial filing, it appears that there has been some misunderstanding. The initial diff31 does not show ScratchMarshall reinserting contentious material; it shows an insertion of reliably sourced information, in line with mainstream views on the subject. Neither do the next two Talkpage diffs3233 show discussion of the material included in that first diff.
The next 3 diffs[34, 35, 36] do show removal of contentious content; but this is not the content which was added by ScratchMarshall.
I am not a mind reader, but it would seem that with the first diff, ScratchMarshall has understood the objections of other editors to previous content, taken those objections on board, and acted accordingly. I cannot see that a sanction is warranted based on the evidence presented. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider view: Agreed with Ryk72 and Sandstein. There's nothing AE-actionable here, even if some of this seems to wander into WP:TE and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE territory. This should have been taken to WP:ANI, and can if the issue continues. I tend to agree with ScratchMarshall's defense, point-by-point, but that's kind of not the point. A pattern can still be unconstructive even if no particular action in it was expressly sanctionable. So: a) Those who feel he's being disruptive need to make an actual case, not some "flailing with poorly-supported fingerpointing" thing. b) Scratch should take the hint and not make them build that case, since if they do then ANI will surely act on it, probably with the requested topic ban.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I can't quite follow this request. As to diff 1, the restrictions prohibit "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". The report does not indicate that the content at issue was previously reverted. Talk page objections are not reverts. As to diff 2, the report does not make clear which previous edit this diff is a revert of, and what the diff of the previous revert by the same user is. It can't be diff 1, because there is nothing in the report to suggest that diff 1 is a revert. Without a previous revert, diff 2 is not a 1RR violation even if it is in fact a revert. Sandstein 22:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for adding to the report. Diff 1 is still not actionable, in my view, because the text at issue in it ("died by blunt-force injury to the chest") does not seem to have previously been reverted. According to the wording of the restriction, it is not enough that the edit is contentious, but imposing a sanction requires that the content has been previously reverted. Diff 2 is also not actionable because I see no prior revert by ScratchMarshall that has been reported. 1RR prohibits the same user from making more than one revert in 24 h. But as reported, ScratchMarshall made only one revert. I would therefore take no action in this case. Sandstein 00:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: I think you're probably right that we don't have a strict 1RR / consensus required violation here. But I think the links to discussions by TheValeyard are pretty clear that this editor is disruptively pushing detail, often the same detail repeatedly, into an article where the material would be undue and the consensus is pretty clear that it doesn't belong. This seems to me obviously disruptive and something needs to be done about it. My gut reaction is a 3-month topic ban from the article in question, but would be interested to hear other thoughts before I go and do it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point, but I'm reluctant to impose an AE sanction for talk page conduct that is not patently and obviously disruptive. We're not, I think, at that point yet, based on the material submitted here. The "car model" stuff is just weird, and while the "heart attack" material may well be motivated by non-neutral reasons (as e.g. described here), this is still ultimately a content disagreement, which is outside the scope of arbitration or AE. We only sanction disruptive conduct, not the questionable motives editors may have. Sandstein 13:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I take your point, but this has been going on for some months now and the editor's responses here show that they still don't get it.
  @ScratchMarshall: I suggest you go and read WP:NOT. In particular, A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Understanding this is pretty fundamental to editing here. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @ScratchMarshall: You're not getting this. Information doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia because it is true, or because it is verifiable, or because it is useful to someone. We aim for a "summary of accepted knowledge" about a subject, and if you can't see that the sorts of detail you're pushing aren't part of a "summary of accepted knowledge" then you're going to keep on running into trouble, whatever topic you choose to edit. You should be able to see that, because the sort of detail you're pushing has been rejected repeatedly over a period of months. The message here is that you need to recalibrate your internal "what is significant to go in an article" gauge, because it is out of step with the community's. GoldenRing (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It may appear "Consensus required" has been violated, but this is such a nebulous restriction, I'm loathe to enforce except under the most obvious of circumstances. Otherwise, I agree with Sandstein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The consensus required provision does not apply to talk page conduct, neither does the 1RR restriction. Close as no action is my call here. I will close as such if no other administrators intend to comment. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coffee:I think this has got to the stage of being disruptive, and the editor's most recent response here (paraphrase: "I didn't mention every possible detail so the stupid amount of detail I did mention can't be a problem") show's they're not getting it. If you're set on no sanction, I won't get in the way, but would appreciate any close at least including an appropriate warning. GoldenRing (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee's on holiday now. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

KA$HMIR (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 enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.

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

1. 17:11, 19 December 2017 1st revert
2. 17:19, 19 December 2017 2nd revert
3. 17:26, 19 December 2017 3rd revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked indefinitely on 19 October 2017 by Alex Shih (talk · contribs) for not disclosing his "old account". Still hasn't declared it publicly presumably to avoid scrutiny.

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, on [22]
• See also Talk:Kashmir conflict#Sanctions_reminder

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a clear violation of the editing sanctions placed on this page by this WP:SPA. And I'd add that this is not the first time that this guy has violated those sanctions.[23][24] —MBL ^Talk 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @NadirAli: If you think that those "stray IPs" are someone's sock, then file an WP:SPI. Throwing around groundless accusation of socking against established editors is not acceptable. Please watch your step. —MBL ^Talk 08:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it's worth mentioning that NadirAli was warned "to focus on content, not nationality" last month (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive221#NadirAli), yet he has continued to make comments like, "The older text whose value Hindu POV pushers want to dilute.."[25], "There is a case here that Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors through these frivolous reports and when they fail they start to IP sock.."[26] Surely some administrative action is warranted here. —MBL ^Talk 08:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @RegentsPark and Lankiveil: I believe that KA$HMIR is in clear violation of WP:CLEANSTART and WP:SCRUTINY policies and therefore he should be topic banned or blocked. This makes it clear that Fahaddar65 (talk · contribs) is KA$HMIR's former account. KA$HMIR has used his former account as recently as December, 10.[27]

KA$HMIR was registered on 23 September 2017, by this time he had already received multiple warnings, and an ARBIPA sanctions notice on his former account's talk page. He has engaged in similar disruptive editing with his new account and has received multiple warnings on his talk page too. KA$HMIR has also used his former account to make POV edits on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Pakistan, History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, History of Sindh, and for restoring edits of a disruptive sock, Towns Hill (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_10 for diffs.

On Dhar (surname) Fahaddar65 removed "mostly in India" (which was sourced) and used Wikipedia as a source.[28] Fahaddar65 also made POV edit on Ethnic groups in Pakistan,[29] (that also violated WP:V, WP:OR, among other policies) similar to those made by KA$HMIR,[30][31][32][33] for which he received a yet another Level 3 warning on his talk page.[34]

Dishonest editors like KA$HMIR shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. —MBL ^Talk 12:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[35]

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.

Well I will make my simple case here but will abide by whatever is the board's final decision, whatever it will be, though this looks like a bad faith report. As far as I know regentspark [removed] the 1RR restriction from all Kashmir Conflict articles, if this is indeed one of them. Besides, there is an exemption from 3RR to remove content which is copyright and or added by blocked users, as anyone can see, I consistently removed the page's content on the basis that it has clear copyright violations which other users Josephus and Danish agree with me on. There is also a talkpage discussion ongoing and I am still compiling the evidence for those users who had requested it. Also a lot, if not most, of the article's content was written by a blocked sockmaster TylerDurden, who was recently caught socking again.

• Apologies if I have unwittingly violated any sanction. Will be extra careful in future. KA$HMIR (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @RegentsPark: as an example see this sentence in the first section's first paragraph.

" From then on, Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of State troops

It's source said this

"But from this time onwards Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of J&K State troops."

This is very closely paraphrased. There are more examples especially in the sentences which cite Saraf's Kashmiris road to freedom Volume 2 and other obscure primary sources which are not available online. Overall the wording in the article differs little from the sources.

This [36] also shows the article with a 60%+ similarity. Article needs to be rewritten from scratch. We can not trust a sockmaster TylerDurden to have written this article properly. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His being a SPA and Alex's block are not much of a problem at their respective individual merits. Functionary Yunshui knows his alt-accs and AFAIK, the use of such accounts are permitted by our legit-socks criterion.Obviously, cases of 3RR and/or violation of ArbCom decisions needs to be looked at, though! Winged Blades^Godric 04:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the copyvio tool: [37]. The top two matches are caused by properly-cited blockquotes. I don't see anything that justifies blanking the entire article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But problem remains that KA$HMIR is edit warring against consensus on multiple articles and often engaged in WP:BLUDGEONING. At least 3 articles (Violence against women during the partition of India, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Kashmir conflict) have been provided extended protection because of his edit warring. Capitals00 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Mblaze needs serious consideration. Despite the siteban+topicban by Arbitration Committee,[38] recent warning by BU Rob13, NadirAli continues to attack editors by commenting on race/nationalities by saying "Hindu POV pushers,"[39] "Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors"[40] and now "I am referring to Indians involved".[41] When other editors get topic banned for such attitude, there should be no exception for an all-time disruptive editor like NadirAli. Capitals00 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mblaze is right about KA$HMIR that the account is suspicious and should be blocked since it is frequently engaging in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. You are not allowed to continue edit wars and disruption that you did with your previous account. Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring that occurred at the 1947 Poonch Rebellion is the most shocking I have seen in my three years of editing, not only for the spuriousness of the rationale but also the bombast with which it was carried out. Note the edit summaries:

• There were massive copyright violations in the article's old version. Admins please suppress [42]
• stop restoring copyvio else it could lead to you getting a block [43]
• whole article is copied from the sources used [44]

Yet, when I quizzed it on the talk page, no evidence was forthcoming. KA$HMIR was certainly aware of the edit restrictions placed on Kashmir conflict articles because RegentsPark recently reminded every one of their existence. This is the apex of all the tendentiousness that the user has been displaying ever since he came on board. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us also note the obvious Tag teaming that has occurred in this edit war. These are the first ever edits by any of these editors on this page. Pure coincidence? But such coincidences are now occurring with increasing frequency all over the India-Pakistan space: Talk:Violence against women during the Partition of India, Talk:Annexation of Junagadh etc. At Talk:Kashmir conflict, a group of editors have repeated each other's RfC comments [45]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after five days of continuous prodding, user KA$HMIR was able to produce one sentence of poor phrasing in a Background section, which is not particularly egregious and in no way justifies blanking an entire article. This is clearly shoot-first-and-think-later battleground editing, precisely what the ARBIPA sanctions are meant to control. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir conflict and all articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir (initially posted here. Modified Sept 2016: 1RR restriction removed and a first revert does not need to be explained on the talk page.):

• A 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
• A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
• A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.
• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.

  --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Quoted from DSLOG by EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a bad faith report by a user who has been obsessed with maligning this user through hook or crook. I guess this request is another frustrated attempt after previous failures to rid the encyclopedia of this constructive editor. Previously MBlaze Lightning joyously joined in a ridiculous SPI against KA$HMIR, only to be confronted with the establishment of KA$HMIR's innocence. He also brought him up in a spurious ANI case which was based on such weak evidence (such as MBlaze' Lightnings mixup of my IP address and Danish Mehraj's) that even MBlaze Lightning had to withdraw it. The encyclopedia has also been recently hit by malicious IPs [46] [47], located in different Indian cities,[48] [49] looking to malign this user as a sockpuppet (the different locations of these obvious IP socks suggest collaboration and their knowledge of old SPIs indicate that these are older users IP socking to harass without getting their accounts sanctioned). I suspect a link between these reports and the malicious IPs who are obviously not new strays but old Indian editors who have a beef with KA$HMIR and Owais Khursheed and are IP socking to harass the Kashmiri editors.

Overall this request is nothing more than the latest attempt to get rid of another good user who is a headache for the POV pushers. 223.225.246.200 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree with Dilpa here. The frequency with which these reports are getting filed show desperation that some of the mud flung will stick. Mar4d previously expressed the same concern in another frivolous AE request, that time against me, about Kautilya3 desperately trying to get rid of editors with another frame of mind. Since this looks like KA$HMIR's first mistake I would advise to go easy on him. We can all rest in peace that Yunshui has confirmed that KA$HMIR was not under any sanctions on their previous account. So a warning should suffice this time. As far as copyvio is concerned I am more concerned at the speed with which this is being used as a reason by not just KA$HMIR but several editors to delete content which no one can check afterwards was really copyvio or not, especially when the users getting the diffs suppressed have themselves restored copyvio content.

Instead I call for a WP:BOOMERANG. The evidence Dilpa has shown has startled me. It is just not possible that stray IPs are able to link to old SPIs. There is a case here that Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors through these frivolous reports and when they fail they start to IP sock to frame these responsible users for sockpuppetry.

The messages left by these IPs are quite telling.

KA$HMIR - about me - Am an old user (Owais Khurseed) :D I hope indians you have not forgotten me am still doing edits for my friends TalhaZubair Butt. ha ha Indians can never catch me. #gayhind

To Indians: User:KA$HMIR is me - ha ha - am doing edits for my friends Talha Zubair Butt a k a User:Towns Hill. Me and my friends has dozens of wikipedia. accounts cunning Indian Kautilya can never catch . HA H A HA Kashmir Banega Pakistan. I N S H A L L A H

The case of collaboration is quite strong, not least because of the different IP locations within India of the users messaging with the same motive. I just recently expressed my concern at how some editors with no contributions to articles are suddenly arriving on the articles' talkpages as if they were requested by an invisible hand. This is part of a more extensive phenomenon of a particular set of users who participate in the same SPI, ANI and AE requests concerning editors in the India-Pakistan topic area and support each other on the talkpages on articles in the India-Pakistan project.

I call for a warning to user:KA$HMIR to be more careful in future and a full investigation of the accounts frequently filing such bad faith reports and their links to these malicious IPs.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MBlaze Lightning:, I should file an SPI against anyone I think is in violation. Obviously I am referring to the Indians involved. Do you want me to specify that every single time on every single thread related to this case? It would take up a lot of my time and space here. It was also a cruel thing to do in filing an SPI against me for the sheer sake of getting me and one other opposing user blocked, but you are just doing it again here by distorting my statements. Take care to refrain from such behavior in the future.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I got pinged above, I'm just dropping by to confirm that KA$HMIR has indeed disclosed their original account to me and I'm satisfied that they are complying with the requirements at WP:SOCK. However, per an email conversation yesterday, they have advised me that they intend to abandon their former account entirely, in order to ensure that no accidental violations occur. I do not believe the former account is relevant to this case. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing actionable here. Agree with RegentsPark that a warning, and a note to be careful in the future, is sufficient. Mar4d (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any evidence provided by KA$HMIR, I would concur that an AE block of a week would normally be in order. Given the time that has elapsed, I'm disinclined to place such a block myself, and would much rather give them an explicit warning. Copyright violations are an exception to 3RR, but for that very reason, crying wold over copyright should not be treated lightly. Vanamonde (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looking over the evidence provided by MBlaze Lightning, I see that KA$HMIR was repeatedly asked for evidence of the copyvio but failed to provide it. I suggest they provide specific evidence above otherwise these will be viewed as bad faith deletions of sourced material and a violation of the 2RR without a talk page post sanction placed on these articles. If there is evidence forthcoming, then a warning to be more careful in the future is probably all that is required.--regentspark (comment) 16:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KA$HMIR:. Still waiting for evidence of the copyvio. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't see evidence that would justify repeatedly reverting 64K plus bytes of material without responding to requests or using the talk page as required by the - clearly stated - restrictions that are in place. I suggest a 1 week arb enforcement block but will let someone else decide whether to apply it or not. --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I too would like to see the evidence that RegentsPark has requested. If such evidence can't be presented, I'll assume it doesn't exist. If the evidence doesn't exist, this is 2RR and that would be unfortunate for KA$HMIR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• This looks like a clear 2RR violation, unfortunately. If no other administrators are expected to comment I will close this and issue the standard block. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:KA$HMIR was given a chance to respond here in detail and back up their charge of copyright violation. They haven't done so. Agree with the block proposed by User:Coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014 :

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

1. 30 December 2017 DHeyward starts hostile section on Talk:Erica Garner This is the first of several edits which seek to disrupt and destroy this article. The subject was an activist in the Black Lives Matter movement, prominent supporter of Bernie Sanders and critic of Bill de Blasio, both being American politicians.
2. 31 December 2017 Tags Erica Garner, suggesting that her life did not matter, which is a derogatory implication given her role in Black Lives Matter.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2 December 2017 DHeyward}} is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 December 2017 by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DHeyward is continuing to make vexatious attempts to delete and disrupt the Erica Garner topic, for example, at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 3

For clarity, perhaps it needs stating that, by making the edits to the Erica Garner topic, DHeyward violated the topic ban placed on 2 Dec.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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.

As of the filing, topic ban is expired. [50]. Further it was limited to articles regarding Politicians and not other articles. Erica Garner is not an article about a politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU_Rob13 The admin imposing the retriction noted how narrow it was (a BLP DS limited to articles American Politicians). It's not an AP2 sanction and didn't broadly construe to talk pages, wiki spaces or any other articles. It came up before and was ruled narrowly with no adjustment to the sanction. It included an apology for a previous filing[51]. It was not changed and certainly I've waited the appropriate time to be restriction free and avoided al larticles on American Politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, the expired restriction was not an AP2 restriction. --DHeyward (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 VM falsely states these are related to AP2 and my topic ban was an AP2 restriction. It was not. They are not. The reversal on Scarborough is a long standing smear and BLP violation. It's been removed numerous times. The others are unrelated to the restriction or after the restriction expired, which is not aP2. Also, they weren't significant or disrupive enough to even warrant a complaint. The restriction has expired and was extremely narrow as confirmed by the retraction of an earlier complaint. --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 in turn here are VMs complaints that he didn't make when the BLP US Politiciaon articles was in place:

1. [52] BLP violation corrected after expiraton.
2. [53] Talk page comment,not an article edit. I was nort barred from talk page comments.
3. [54] The Mandell article is not about an American Politcian. the restriction was a BLP restriction on articles about American Politicians, not a broad ban on American Politics. The edit was not challenged nor was I asked to revert or explain. Also, out of an abundance of caution, I self reverted [55]. VM failed to note this.
4. [56] This is also not an article about an American politician. It appears to me to be after the ban. Either way, it is not a violation of the very limited restriction. This was not an AP2 ban, it was limited in scope to American Poltician articles under the BLP arbco sanctions. I've avoided those articles like the plague since it was enacted. A complaint after expiration is pointless and is punitive rather than prevantive. the vultures arrived after the ban ecpired and their motives are clear. --DHeyward (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cbs527 review the log and sanction. It was not an AP2 sanction. It was a restriction on "articles" about "American Politicians" filed under the BLP arbcom case. Nothing else was restricted. The narrow scope was confirmed in a previous discussion. I stayed away from bios on American Politians per the restriction and further clarification that it "only" incuded biographical articles on politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell Really, how can I operate when this was the "clarification." [57]. I am not in violation s I've avoided all articles in the clarification. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 MastCell see self reversion above that VM failed to mention[58]. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 And per this WP article, the Scarborough removal[[59]] complied with BLP by refusing to link him to a conspiracy that he murdered an employee. BLP exenption is obvious per the Washington Post. [60]. We don't permit smears. Are you stil arguing I should be sanctioned for this edit? --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni TonyBallioni Joe Scarborough was BLP edit over a longstanding consensus. If you like, review the Article for Deletion. The deceased person had her article deleted in 2006. Even Jimbo weighed it. We don't allow baseless conspiracy theory smears on living people. Even smears by Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton didn't have Vince Foster killed either and you can try to insert that conspiracy theory to her article but it will be reverted by a number of editors (and by me regardless of your ban as it's a blatant BLP violation just like Scarborough) . --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to Scarborough was not a vio. It seems the majority of commenters are piping up after the ban expired over stale edits. --DHeyward (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni GoldenRing read the Joe Scarborough talk page. It's consensus that the account I removed is a BLP violation. It has been for years. It's not a new allegation. We don't put that alleged criminal activity in BLPs. It's a consensus BLP violation. Claiming it is not moves the bar. The false claims were removed when other prominent people said them as well such as Michael Moore and the Daily Kos creator. It's a long settled BLP issue. I added those high quality sources to highlight the BLP issues on the talk page as support for removal (the WaPo as much called Trump out for it). It was removed before the ban and it was removed during. The talk page clearly shows the 10 year history. Citing Kingsindian comments as supporting a vio is a gross misreading of what he wrote. I didn't edit anything about his political activity. --DHeyward (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll spell it out even clearer. on 11/29, before the topic ban, I removed that material and put the WaPo article on the talk page under BLP. It was not reverted or challenged. In December, the material was readded against BLP and consensus. I reverted that that addition. Again, it was unchallenged. I don't see how anyone in this forum can equivocate on the result of that consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, TonyBallioni, Sandstein GoldenRing In closing, you can review mt last 30 days of edits. I've avoided politicians articles. I did it in good faith. I have not tried to evade the topic ban in any way and I'm sorry if the handful of edits look like I was skirting the edges. That was not my intent. No one alerted me to anything they thought was a violation at the time and it seems clear that it's the pile on comments, not the original filer that are being discussed. Also since the pile on charges failed to note the self-revert, it was clear they searched my history to exact punishment. None of my edits appear to be disruptive nor were they edit warring and it seems odd to file for a sanction after its expired with no disputes or disruption to solve. I am not currently under sanction and it seems a bit off to put me under sanction again for edits that are not contested or controversial. We're here to build the encyclopedia and that has been my motivation even after I shifted away from political bios. --DHeyward (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem You're statement about the Dec 19 edit is false. I self-reverted that edit. If you meant the Scarborough BLP violation I removed, it was December 31. Has anyone even read the talk page or the history of Scarborough to know that it was a long-standing BLP issue. It wasn't a new allegation and it's just as baseless today as it has been for years. Other editors remove the account while lots of IP editors keep trying to sneak it in (even in the last month). Go read it. Certainly with less than a day in the topic ban, I didn't edit an article that I thought would be covered. --DHeyward (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem Do really lack the good faith necessary to believe I intentionally violated a 1 month topic ban on the 30th day? That seems to be what you are saying even after acknowledging the BLP consensus? Come on. That was a good faith BLP removal. --DHeyward (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem Again, your statement is incorrect. I added paragraphs to Robert A. Mandell which were sourced. I removed EVERYTHING[61], not just sources as your statement implies. Another editor restored my edits because they were truthful and sourced. I have no control over that. You also are not clear that this had NOTHING to do with Scarborough. And yes, it was out of an abundance of caution that I reverted the Dec 19 edit to Mandell. --DHeyward (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an immediate close to this, and a super-duper trout to the complainant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Garner was not a politician. Being an activist does not make you a politician.

And finally, now that other diffs were brought in showing political relations, it should be echoed that the TBAN expired a couple of days ago. So again, I reiterate this should be closed with a large trout.

• Zero0000 The TBAN is expired so what TBAN violation is there?
• I agree with Kingsindian. If the TBAN was explicit, that is what the TBAN is. And in this case the TBAN was explicitly on ARTICLES, not EDITS and as such no violation of any ban occurred and this should be closed. And this should also be a warning to new admins that when they place a tban, they need to be sure and explicit on what is being banned. I was a victim of this as well, and I was blocked for a post that wasn't a violation, and luckily the admin unblocked me right away. It is also extremely ludicrous to call Scarborough a politician.
• I agree with MONGO as well. Reading the admin comments below it's as if you have no need for truth or facts. You are now talking about extending a TBAN that was never violated just to suit your leftist agenda. There is a reason why TBAN's need to be written clearly and this one did not mention edits, it mentions articles. And I echo yet again the fact that Scarborough is not a politician and calling him that is just showing a POV that should not be shown by people determining DHeyward's fate.
• Since Sandstein removed Mongo's comment because he shared truth, I will add some of my own comments. Shame on all of you admins. You are creating violations when none exist. So yes, I do see a political bias. I'm still laughing that Scarborough is considered a politician. I'm still laughing, but I'm also not laughing because this is why editing here is so toxic.

Really, Andrew Davidson? I second Sir Joseph re: trouting. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This edit is a pretty straightforward violation of the topic ban (de Blasio is a American politician)
• This edit is an even more blatant violation of the topic ban (it's about Donald Trump)
• This edit is also a blatant violation of the topic ban (not only is it about an ambassador but also Obama)
• Another blatant violation. It's about Michael Flynn. I mean, if that doesn't violate the topic ban, I don't know what does.

There's a few more topic ban violations (ex. [62]) but the four right above pretty clearly show that DHayward apparently figured that no one was paying attention over the holidays and decided he could violate his topic ban with impunity.

@Zero0000: - the topic ban is "broadly construed" and applies to "related topics". But even that doesn't matter since DHayward's violations of the topic ban are pretty blatant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on past reports, the appropriate action here is a short (day or two) block and a resetting of the topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: says "Zero0000 VM falsely states these are related to AP2 and my topic ban was an AP2 restriction. It was not" - this is an outright lie. I never said such thing. His topic is from articles on American politicians and related topics (such as de Blasio, Trump, Obama and Michael Flynn, all of whom he made edits about BEFORE his topic ban expired). The fact that DHeyward is trying to pull a fast one here should be an acerbating factor in any sanctions being considered. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: - speaking of "inflammatory hyperbole", how about those comments here from Sir Joseph ("...just to suit your leftist agenda") and particularly MONGO, who's been going around making these kinds of attacks throughout Wikipedia as of late, (" None of these persons wishes this encyclopedia to be a neutral treatise on these articles...they want a slanted, biased left wing view on them, always" and "disgusting left wing bias"). That's WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAPBOX right there. And people wonder why this topic area is such a battleground? (Note nobody is going around flinging accusations at DHeyward, MONGO or Sir Joseph about their supposed or imagined "agendas" and these outbursts by these two were prompted merely by someone pointing out that a topic ban has been violated).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend administrative action. Please see this edit, in which DHeyward restored shitty material (poorly written and misspelled) to the lead section of Blue Lives Matter, an article covered by WP:ARBAP2, with a personal attack in the edit summary. To be honest, a revert like that makes me wonder whether DHeyward is competent to be editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for a merge and commenting on an image is "hostile" or "disruptive"? Nonsense. None of the examples the the complainant/article creator has given seem to violate the topic ban. However, the examples Volunteer Marek provided above clearly do violate the topic ban and occurred during the topic ban time frame. Since the topic ban has expired I'm not sure what actions can/should be taken at this point. CBS527^Talk 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell: your last visit included several edits and a partisan comment on Carter Page. You shouldn't be commenting in the "uninvolved administrators" section. D.Creish (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the problem lies with the phrasing of the topic ban more than any action by DHeyward. In an earlier AE request by TonyBallioni, who instituted the topic ban, Sandstein clarified: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. This left DHeyward in a state of uncertainty.

Therefore, all the edits mentioned by VM are not really violation of topic bans. I suppose Joe Scarborough could tenuously qualify (since he's a past politician), but he's a TV anchor now, so I don't think one can reasonably call it a violation. The other one which could qualify is on the talk page of Michael Flynn. As far as I know, talk pages are generally covered under topic bans, but DHeyward seems uncertain, and the talk page comment wasn't disruptive.

I suggest:

• No action here. The topic ban has already expired, and there's no need for sanctions based on past violations which may not be violations.
• In the future, topic bans should be standardized (it would have been best to use something like ARBAP2) so that everyone knows where they stand. Topic bans (for example in ARBPIA) are usually about edits, not pages -- since the purpose is to keep the person away from topic area. And talk pages should be covered unless specified otherwise.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough hasn't been a politician for 17 years. The lead describes him as is an American cable news and talk radio host. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Yes, you said what I said, except that you were less precise: "former" in this case means "17 years". If you wanted the ban to be so "broadly construed", why didn't you just topic-ban from ARBAP2? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the Scarborough edit, please read this talk page section and this WaPo article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the 20/20 vision of hindsight, the topic ban really should have been the standard AP2 topic ban, or nothing at all.

The wording, which bans the editor from mainspace only, and only then pages relating to American politicians, explicitly not American politics, is neither clearly topic ban nor clearly page ban. It leaves a wide corridor of uncertainty at its edges. The clarification in the previous, withdrawn, AE filing makes things no clearer. There was opportunity for explicit clarification of the logged sanction at the time; it is a pity that it was not taken. As it was not, it left open the possibility of edits like those complained about here; with a reasonable expectation that they were not within the scope of the ban.

There are rare times when I disagree with Kingsindian. This is not one of them. Endorse their recommendations in full. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this disruptive statement in my capacity as an administrator; see the separate enforcement request concerning it below. Sandstein 19:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't interpret Erica Garner as falling under the TBAN as phrased, and don't see any violations of the TBAN in the diffs presented by Andrew Davidson. I don't want to get into the details of whether there were any other violations, and I feel Erica Garner falls under AP2 discretionary sanctions. If the TBAN is extended I would recommend using a simpler wording (all BLPs in the AP2 area, or even all of AP2) for the new TBAN due to the confusion the current warning has presented. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really looked into details concerning this request, but it should be noted that DHeyward edited another user's comment in direct violation of WP:TPO and then proceeded to readd it when rightfully reverted. He also redirected his talk page to AE, something I would argue is very disruptive, almost to the point of vandalism. SkyWarrior 19:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• All I can find here are examples of DHeyward using legitimate processes to advance a content disagreement. I don't find anything actionable. Zero^talk 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, now I get it. The question is whether the articles in question here fall under the banner "articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed". If they do, there is a topic-ban violation here. My initial impression is that articles about activist in US political movements do fall under the topic ban. Zero^talk 02:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The additional topic-ban violations brought by VM seem rather blatant and I don't think that a warning covers it. I propose the ban period be restarted, plus a warning that further violations may lead to a long block. Zero^talk 03:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sir Joseph: It makes no difference if the topic ban has expired now. It only matters whether forbidden edits were made before the topic ban expired. None of this is stale either; it is quite recent. Zero^talk 05:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @DHeyward: Yes, your 19th Dec edits at Robert A. Mandell concluded with a self-revert so we can discount them here. Zero^talk 05:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't even need to make a determination like that, Zero0000. Topic bans cover "parts of other pages that are related to the topic" even if the page itself isn't related to the topic. An edit directly related to an American politician is a topic ban violation even if the page has nothing to do, generally, with American politicians. I recommend a strong warning that the next violation will result in a block and an extension of the topic ban to 1 month from the close of this discussion. I'm not a huge fan of a block here, but if there is a block, no more than 31 hours. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It would appear, from the diffs provided by Marek, that DHeyward has repeatedly violated his topic ban over the past month. (Technically, there are two possibilities: A) he didn’t realize that he was violating his topic ban, in which case he lacks the competence to edit a highly charged topic area, or B) he realized that he was violating his topic ban but made the edits anyway. DHeyward claims A), while B) seems rather more plausible. In the end, the distinction is academic since the remedy is the same in either case).

  The proper remedy here is not a warning. If warnings were effective in this case, we wouldn’t be here. DHeyward has already been warned, and topic-banned. The proper remedy is a block and a reset/lengthened topic ban (of 3-6 months), ideally with less wiggle room in the wording for wikilawyering and feigned incomprehension. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was pinged: the topic ban was for articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. I see one unambiguous topic ban violation here with an edit to Joe Scarborough, who is a living American politician (he was a member of congress), and is certainly a closely related topic even as a political commentator. I also believe that this edit violated the topic ban as a closely related topic since Robert A. Mandell is a political appointee to an ambassadorship and the material that DHeyward inserted was about his political fundraising for Obama. The edits in the original filing by Andrew Davidson are more borderline, but considering that the article at the time discussed Ms. Garner's political activity during the 2016 campaign for Bernie Sanders, and that she is an American political activist, I would consider her a related topic more clearly than the previous filing under Kris Paronto. By my count, even by the narrowest construction, there is one direct edit to article space of an American politician, and two to clearly related topics. I will not be adding sanctions myself here, as the last time my attempt to make them narrow led to confusion, but I would support MastCell's suggestion of a new broader topic ban with clearer wording. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add, per Zero0000, that since the Robert A. Mandell article ended with a self-revert, I don't think it alone would be enough for sanctions. I'm also not particularly convinced by the argument that edits to the Flynn talk page don't count, since talk pages are typically viewed as extensions of the article for TBAN purposes. If it had just been these on their own, I would be inclined to let this go with a warning since one was reverted and the ban did say article. At the same time, I do think combined though we have at least one unambiguous TBAN violation on an American politician and related topic, one on a recently deceased political activist who is a related topic, one violation that was reverted, and one potential violation on the Michael Flynn talk page. Taken as a whole, I think that does paint the picture MastCell describes. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsindian: he's a former congressman who has been the subject of frequent political speculation on the possibility of his running for office since his retirement and who is a political commentator on one of the big three US cable networks. This doesn't even get into the frequent issues he has been having with Trump. His article is an article on a living American politician, and related topics, broadly construed by any reasonable definition. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingsindian, I would echo MastCell's comments to DHeyward here to you: if you really think that Joe Scarborough is not covered by this topic ban, you really shouldn't be commenting on things related to American politics. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DHeyward, I don't consider the text you removed to be a blatant BLP violation, and I think that the conspiracy theory being used as an attack by the President of the United States against a former congressman and member of the media, and the subsequent reporting on Trump's actions by high quality sources such as the ones provided by Kingsindian, mean that the BLP case can be argued either way. Your removal certainly wasn't exempt from this topic ban. @Sandstein: as this has been appealed several times and confusion has been claimed, I think it would be better for another administrator to handle this one if there are to be sanctions. I think there is consensus by the admins on this page that multiple violations did occur, and in my view at least one was pretty blatant. BU Rob13, what are your thoughts on switching this to a general AP2 topic ban to help avoid any claimed confusion, as the original was construed under the BLP sanctions? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I as well support a 1 month reset and making it explicitly AP2 per Masem and MastCell. I tried originally to keep it narrow, but I think given MastCell's analysis above AP2 would be better. I'd also support changing the wording to cover the entire topic, and not just articles. I would also support a formal warning of Andrew Davidson given the rhetoric. The BLP case would likely be the best place to log that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have to agree with Tony that some of the diffs should fall into the "broadly construed" language (and were within the 1 month ban); I'd also consider that a ban placed Dec 2 for a month does not expire until Jan 2, not Dec 30/31 (which some of these edits are). There's reasonable course for further action here. That said, I would also suggests a very large trout if not something stronger (like an admonishment) for Andrew's assessment of the diffs, which show an incredible degree of bad faith and attempts to personalize the issues and mis-characterize the intent of the revert/removal, particularly the "[DHeyward] suggesting that her life did not matter" by suggestion of a merge). We absolutely do not need editors trying to go that direction. --Masem (t) 07:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one clear problematic diff is the Scarborough edit (first VM supplies) as a former politician and done on Dec 19; that's broadly construed in the topic and clearly within the month. The original diffs from Andrew about Garner do not apply, they only were to include how she was connected to a politician but in terms of the wording (not an explicit AP2 one) its outside that scope (in additional to the outright bad faith assumptions from Andrew). I don't think all of the others from VM are as clear as the above one, but they do wear at the edges. I am sympathetic that the language of the TBAN was different enough from AP2 that where the lines are to be drawn are not as clear, and would support a "reset" of the one month, but making it explicitly AP2. --Masem (t) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, the 19th edit was self reverted but that you were self reverting due to topic ban should have been stated (Since the next restored the material you added on the apparent basis you removed sources). But I would still consider the 31st edit a problem. The past talk discussion does show concsensues to keep out, just concern about presentation. New attention was brought to light in Nov so the issue may need to be revisited. As wordeD the removed text seemed appropriately in line with BLP, so a tBAN exception is not 100% clear. But that comes back to the broadly construed part of the tban. Its meant to keep editors a good buffer away from topics, and I do feel this articles falls into that. --Masem (t) 19:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In cases such as this one, where a violation of a discretionary sanction by a still-active administrator is alleged, I'm of the view that the sanctioning administrator should decide what to do about it. Sandstein 09:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Broadly per Masem - there appear to be violations here (one absolutely clear and several nibbling around the edges of the ban) and IMO a reset of the one-month ban is the appropriate remedy. But the way the ban is presented is verging into sanctionable territory too, IMO - if the ban was not in place, suggesting a merger is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and interpreting it as a judgement on the significance of the subject's life is inappropriate and unhelpful. GoldenRing (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with GoldenRing. Reset topic ban and formally warn Andrew Davidson for using inflammatory hyperbole. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with User:Sandstein that the sanctioning administrator, User:TonyBallioni is the best person to decide what to do. TonyBallioni says above, "I as well support a 1 month reset and making it explicitly AP2 per Masem and MastCell." As an aside, a one-month ban is almost too short to be worth the trouble. By the time it is fully litigated through all the discussions and appeals it will be over anyway. Better use warnings in such cases, and if a case is grave enough to deserve a topic ban start with 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Removing my side comment about short topic bans, since it may cause confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • EdJohnston, thank you for your comments. Could you mind clarifying your edit summary, which seems to suggest you support a 1 month ban, but your comment says three months. I'm also troubled by the actions mentioned in SkyWarrior's comment, especially DHeyward's edit warring on his own talk page to redirect it to AE during this request. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MONGO (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 :

3.3) MONGO is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

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

1. January 4, 2018 Gross incivility and personal attacks on three editors
2. January 4, 2018 Restored gross incivility and personal attacks on three editors
3. January 4, 2018 Wanton accusation without a shred of evidence to support it.
4. January 4, 2018 "threats from POV pushing zeros are to be ignored" in response to a polite warning
5. December 5, 2017 "Looks like VM is hoping to rid himself of all opposition by expecting a very strict application of the sanctions be applied to others, but expecting everyone to grant him the benefit of the doubt."
6. December 4, 2017 "Bullshit. It was right after DHeyward was sanctioned. You two calling people liars, doing nonstop character assassinations here and elsewhere deserve whatever wrath you get. The admin corps doesn't seem to want to reign either of you in...but that doesn't surprise me one iota considering their track record for blatant bias."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See block log, Findings of Fact: ((4) MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility ([63][64][65]) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ([66][67][68]). ), and evidence presented in the Arbcom case in which he exhibited the same overt hostility and politicizing of content disputes.- MrX 19:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To those complaining that I linked to MONGO's block log—how is that not appropriate for a section called "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions"? MONGO has a history of making policy-violating personal attacks and spewing random incivility directed at those he considers political foes. The fact that he was blocked for incivility in 2008 and is still doing it in 2018 indicates that he's either not getting the message, or is unwilling or unable to control himself.

On a more personal note, I'm really tired of being accused of various wrongs by MONGO every time our paths cross and consistently without any evidence. He claims to avoid AE because he would rather make strong arguments, but in my experience, instead of making strong arguments, he consistently attacks the motives of editors and admins that he disagrees with, accusing them of being leftists or progressives and making veiled threats. His behavior prior to the American Politics Arbcom case in defense of Collect was especially ugly [69][70][71].

It's time to do something more than just admonish him.- MrX 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[72]

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.

When did I last make an edit to article on American politics(ians) on a page or a talkpage that was a violation of the arbcom remedies. My comments are here at AE where I will gladly impose a self exile. I'd like to see diffs showing I have been disruptive in article space please. I may have been but would like to see them.--MONGO 19:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I originally posted this comment to Sandstein's page--MONGO 19:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Sandstein below states I have a long block log. I have not been blocked since 2008...nearly a decade ago. This is precisely the kind of unjust insinuation and unfair aspiration he claims I have made that he says is at least partly grounds to topic ban me from articles I have not even been active on! You want to tell me to avoid noticeboard cause I can't keep my cool that's fine of course. But I am sick and tired of seeing he same names popping up all the time where they are seeking penalties applied to their political opponents based on even the tiniest piece of evidence. I will however confess that my comments made regarding DHeyward now closed AE case were made in anger and disgust and I retract them and apologize. I retire from this noticeboard voluntarily and indefinitely.--MONGO 20:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking up the details of the AP2 case after seeing MONGO's attacks above and was planning on commenting on it above myself. MONGO was specifically admonished for EXACTLY these kinds of statements (the ones in MrX's diffs) and barely escaped a topic ban. Seeing as how the admonishment has done squat to change their behavior, I think it's time for an explicit topic ban.

(Note: I commented in the AP2 case where I actually opposed MrX, but that was three years ago and enough is enough - a topic ban for MONGO is long overdue) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this action very troubling. I am also very excited that the admins are now going to enforce civility. I look forward to bringing items to their attention and seeing swift action. To the rest of you, please note that if you think this doesn't look like political grandstanding, you do need to check yourself. There's a reason why people stop editing Wikipedia and it's because of things like this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the AE jurisdiction. There is no valid claim that Mongo's behavior is a violation of any ARBCOM sanction.

Well, Sir Joseph, these are egregious violations, rather than the usual small potatoes curried at AN/I. And I think aspersions are in any case far more troubling, just on principle; incivility is rude, and then over. Aspersions, on the other hand, leave a footprint behind for someone to step into later, intentionally or otherwise. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, more as an FYI for procedure, Alex Shih is half wrong  ;) a statement has been made. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins appear to acknowledge that MONGO's disruptive behavior has not stopped. So why are Admin's bending over backwards to find a gentle but possibly ineffective remedy? There's a huge problem with survivorship bias in the application of these Discretionary Sanctions. Admins here have no easy way to observe the many good editors who give up on these article sin distaste or disgust at the personalization of content discussions and paralyzing tail-chasing on the talk pages. The editors who've given up don't bother to monitor this page and recite why it's a waste of their time to engage with editors who ignore the letter and spirit of the Arbcom remedies and DS. Admins here should not be unduly concerned with threading the needle to find the most minimal effective remedy, when the great damage of editor attrition goes undocumented and unaddressed. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content editing by Mongo does not seem to be problematic. His comments are directed against other contributors. A logical solution would be a ban to comment about any other contributors in the project on any pages, including article talk pages. This is basically an enforcement of WP:NPA, but including also WP:AE and other administrative pages. Comment on content, not on other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the train-wreck sanction is creating even more drama. All of the non-stale diffs mentioned by MrX relate to the AE case mentioned above. They arose when MrX edited MONGO's comments. MrX shouldn't be clerking at AE. However, the comments were not good at all.

If a sanction is to be considered, banning MONGO from commenting at drama boards (AE, AN and ANI) should be considered first. There is ample precedent for this sort of sanction. Besides, watching the drama boards is enough to instill a lasting cynicism in most editors: a break would be good for all. A topic ban from ARBAP2 does not make any sense. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I agree that the statement by MONGO in the AE request above concerning DHeyward is disruptive and have removed it. I'm waiting on a statement by MONGO concerning this request. Sandstein 19:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a feeling that MONGO probably won't make a statement concerning this request. Alex Shih (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks that way. The request has merit. The edits at issue egregiously violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS. Such conduct is unacceptable regardless of whether one feels that one is oppressed by the Wikipedia establishment. Editors must in all cases comment on content, not on fellow contributors. MONGO was admonished against such conduct in the original case and has a long block log for disruptive conduct. I intend to impose an indefinite American politics topic ban on MONGO, appealable after 6 months of constructive editing in other topic areas, considering that MONGO does not seem to be able to adequately handle the stress associated with editing in this topic area. I'm leaving this thread open for the time being to allow other admins to comment. Sandstein 19:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly not going to take MONGO's block log into account, because he hasn't been blocked for 9 years; however the admonishment was only two years ago and the diffs presented are way out of order. I'd agree with Sandstein's suggested remedy immediately above this. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No evidence has been presented that shows MONGO has been disruptive in article space. However, MONGO has already been admonished for adding hostility in the topic area and has engaged in more of the same activity. MONGO, assuming there's no new article space-related evidence, how can we stop these outbursts of yours without a full topic ban? I genuinely would like to know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose a a six month topic ban on talking about the AP area. They could still do their RC patrol and make uncontentious edits that don't require discussion. Per this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If it were a case that MONGO's comments were made to counter the hostile commented from filer Andrew D. in the above, I could understand (to a degree) but the comments were clearly attacking other editors commenting on the case. I would think that AP2's "broadly construed" line would include any AN/ANI/AE case where AP2 is evoked, particularly if we are talking about civility in that topic area which will carry over from main/talk pages to noticeboards. --Masem (t) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm torn, and should perhaps stay out of this. I may not be able to be impartial wrt MONGO. It's no secret that we're friends — if you look at his talkpage, you can see my socks (some of them even more fire-breathing than MONGO) cavorting there. I'll just make a couple of points. Firstly, MrX's link to MONGO's block log, where the last block is from 2008, is kind of silly, as Black Kite points out. Apart from being old, the blocks that are there, from 2006 to 2008, were AFAIK for incivility (losing his temper) in the course of defending Wikipedia from the onslaught of conspiracy theorists wrt 9/11. He was right on content, and I for my part was never happy about the civility blocks his hot temper earned him in that area. Content is king, not patience. (MONGO's own content work is amazing, btw.) Secondly, however... I wish quite fervently he didn't get so hot under the collar today, in the context of American politics. I don't like the attacks on Volunteer Marek and MrX that are diffed above, not even a little. I'm sorry to see this. MONGO, I hope you'll have some suggestion in response to NeilN's question. And, speaking personally, how about a short break to recover your equanimity? You have done too much for the encyclopedia to go out in flames like this. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• In a topic area that suffers sharply from too little discussion and too much reverting, I have serious concerns about a sanction forbidding someone from discussing their own edits in the topic area. If a topic ban in some respect is needed, it should be a normal topic ban from the area. I think six months is harsh, though. Two is more in the ball park. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, there's no evidence MONGO's article space edits are disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with NeilN and their proposal. MONGO has shown hostility in AP topics, and should be restricted from making comments in that area if it's only going to be divisive; although six months may be too long in my opinion. I also fail to see disruption in article space that warrants a general sanction there. Alex Shih (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see wording like this: "MONGO is banned for x months from talking about the WP:ARBAP2 area. They may still edit in the area, using non-inflammatory edit summaries. If they suspect reverts of their edits are not being made in good faith, they may approach an admin or this board for resolution." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's the basis of a good idea here, though I'd suggest it needs to be tweaked to be "talking about other editors or their edits in this area" or something similar - I don't see a problem with a talkpage post that merely discusses an article in neutral terms. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "talking about the perceived biases of other editors or their edits in this area"? Not sure if we need to add something referring to talking about systematic biases on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don‘t think that a ban from „talking“ (I assume „discussing“) is workable. Editors are expected and required to discuss with one another in order to establish consensus. No discussing means no editing, in effect. That‘s why I think a topic ban is needed. Sandstein 23:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the point that NeilN is making is that MONGO's issues are purely based on casting aspersions about other editors, not his actual mainspace editing, so he's trying to find a sanction that would stop the problematic issues whilst allowing the positive ones. If that can be agreed, then I'm good with that, but I wouldn't object to a full topic ban as I said above. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Please direct your objections towards the modified proposal, not the initial "no talk" one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A topic ban in the area is difficult because apparently MONGO's article edits are unproblematic, and it's kind of hard to ban someone from "talking" about something (or even „talking“, with Sandstein's charming foreign quotes). But the edits under discussion are (sorry MONGO) really awful, though they align with what I see on Twitter and some cable channels--unproven wholesale condemnations of other editors and their work and, worse, an entire website and its editorial/administrative corps. Few things are more toxic than this mentality which, essentially, throws all good faith onto the rubbish heap. But I don't know what to do about it. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be strongly against any restriction of the form "Editor X is prohibited from talking about Y". We've seen many restrictions of this general form over the last couple of years, and every instance that I know of has caused more drama than it solved. MONGO's commentary was terrible (though I have to say it's mild by ARBIPA standards...). If the folks here feel this shows he is unable to engage with the American Politics arena without acting like a jerk, then a topic ban is in order. If we think it's not at that level, my preferred remedy would be to warn MONGO that future behavior of this sort may be met with immediate blocks, of lengthening duration. Vanamonde (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking into consideration the discussion above, we agree that this is actionable conduct, but some admins would prefer a sanction that reflects that there are no complaints with respect to MONGO's article-space editing. As noted above, I'm of the view that a sanction limited to non-articlespace is impractical and does not reflect that Wikipedia editing does not occur in segregated namespaces, but that casting aspersions against others affects all work that the affected editors undertake; for instance, it severely hinders the ability of the involved editors to work together and find consensus on content issues. I am therefore topic-banning MONGO from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. As regards the duration of the sanction, I must take into consideration, on the one hand, that MONGO has been admonished by ArbCom against such conduct and has a long block log, and that their immediate reaction to this request was to blame others and to disclaim responsibility; but, on the other hand, that no blocks are recent, and that MONGO has now apologized for their remarks. Accordingly, I'm imposing the topic ban for a duration of three months. Sandstein 09:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

I received a Topic ban from the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and similar articles in July 2014 for edits to articles that all admit are highly controversial.

     WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2014#Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=818511476&oldid=818440397

It's been several years since the ban was implemented in July 2014. It's time for a fresh start and a lift to this ban, as it's now 2018.

• I am not in favor of granting this ban appeal. I've given a longer summary of the history here on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• We've been here earlier this year - an appeal that, frankly, didn't go well. As Dougweller suggested at the time, "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.". Since the user hasn't actually edited since, I'd suggest that this appeal probably needs to end the same way. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Black Kite. We need to see you editing other topics before we can judge if the issues that led to your topic ban won't crop up again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above. Sandstein 09:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of the complete agreement between all the administrators who have seen this request, and given that I share their assessment of this appeal, I have declined this request. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#September_2017

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

1. [73] – questions the general competence of all those who patrol AN by saying "intelligent" interpretation is beyond them and insinuates their motivation for editing is to "get rid" of other people

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. See block log, there are several AE actions there

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is pretty straight-forward. TRM is banned from "reflections on [the] general competence" of fellow editors or " posting speculation about the motivations of editors", as he has a history of belittling comments. He made a comment questioning the general competence of all editors who patrol AN while also claiming their motive for doing so was to get rid of people. TRM has a history of pushing the bounds of his restrictions, as evidenced by the many past AE blocks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. [74]

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.

Standard behaviour, throw the kitchen sink at it. There is so often these days a proclivity to get rid of editors rather than discuss with them better ways of doing things. If what I said offended BU Rob so, he could have talked to me about it. But no. If someone uninvolved wishes me to remove that comment, fine. Otherwise I guess Rob gets what he’s wanted for a while. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken thus struck. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken thus redacted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric You're right, but I do find it troubling that we have exactly the same problematic behaviour kicking off 2018 with people just seeking punishment and retribution over resolution and improvement. This is not what admins and Arbs should be doing. I'll zip it until we formulate the RFC to get the overall set of problematic behavioural issues defined and a community consensus on how we can dramatically improve the way things are done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric actually, those issues with Eppstein run much deeper than just that one action. But that's not really relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken as you like, but this is very real and has significant input. The problem is real whether you like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24, that's part of the point I'm making above. No-one mentioned anything about this to me until this admin/Arb initiated the kitchen sink solution we find ourselves in now. Not one single other editor made any comment to me on or off-wiki. Given how very, very, very seriously this apparently needs to be taken, I do wonder why. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24 please also take note of my contribution history. I made two edits after the "offending" one, and then went to bed. The very first edits I made when I woke up this morning were in response to this drama. Surely even personae non gratia are entitled to some sleep? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond petty. Grow a thicker skin if you intend to work in admin areas. Besides, I endorse TRM's comments completely. This was a horrible sanction. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst, this looks like a violation, I would not recommend any action on the merits of this alone, since TRM has since-struck it and it's not something that has the gravitas to start the one-month-long-drama at multiple venues that will necessarily accompany any block/so.Winged Blades^Godric 09:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TRM:--There isn't much any incentive in making these type of statements (esp. when you are under active sanctions for whatever reasons), nor the statement(s) are going to benefit anyone.So, why not restrain, at the first place?Winged Blades^Godric 09:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...people just seeking punishment and retribution over resolution and improvement..--I hate to mention this but TRM, yesterday you were threatening to drag Eppstein to the ArbCom for a probable desysop, for an one-off misuse of rollback.Do you think that's any different from punishment and retribution?Winged Blades^Godric 10:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, without any comments on the other parts, I'll zip.... is definitely a step in the right direction.Winged Blades^Godric 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whoever is saying the sanction was worse:--It doesn't matter.What matters is whether TRM violated it and whether a resultant sanction is deserved.The venue to alleviate the sanction is that-way.Winged Blades^Godric 10:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24:-TRM intially strike-through-ed and later redacted them, both after successive requests from Francis Schonken, over here. Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..As TRM states, there aren't any sig. edits between his writing the comment and subsequent retraction per Schonken's req. at this thread.So, we can't really comment on whether he would have redacted himself without any clear request.I am (thought not fully) willing to assume that he might had.Winged Blades^Godric 15:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What Kingsindian said, only louder. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This particular gag order itself seems to be a separate issue, but how long were these statements up before he removed them? Did he remove all of them? If Rambling Man made some impulsive posts but then very shortly took them down, well, good. (Checks) Okay, so the one in the first link provided it went up at 17:45 on Jan 4 and went down at 3:20 Jan 5. So not immediately but not three weeks either. Did anyone see them and ask him to take it down or did he do it without being asked? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Come on, folks, there's better things to do on Wikipedia. this is not a comment I would have cared to see from anyone, and I was going to recommend TRM retract that statement. Following Francis' recommendation, he has already struck, and later redacted his statement. Let's move on. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC) (Added later. Thanks, Alex, but I'm uninvolved with respect to TRM and meant to place this here). To be clear, I would not support a sanction in this instance. Vanamonde (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC) (Added still later: I did not mean to imply that Alex moved my comment. He did not: he merely fixed my messed up formatting. It was I who accidentally placed this in the wrong section to begin with.) Vanamonde (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Vanamonde93 on this. It's been redacted and, anyway, was not about any particular individual but rather merely generic venting about the noticeboard expressed using collective nouns. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS including WP:1RR.

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

1. AYW edits ending 06:35 on 9 Jan. This is a series of continuous edits to the Jeff Sessions article that I made immediately before VM jumped in, though I wasn't aware he jumped in until about ten minutes later.
2. VM edits at 06:40, 06:42, and 06:43 on 9 Jan. This is the first series of consecutive edits by VM reverting stuff that I did (VM here reinstated stuff that I removed and also removed stuff that I inserted). He did not revert me wholesale because he presumably recognized that at least some of my edits are good.
3. AYW edit at 06:44 on 9 Jan. I made this edit nine minutes after my previous edits, not realizing that VM had jumped in (by which I mean he started editing while I was in the middle of a series of edits). It's an extensive edit which took me a while to study and put together, and it did not revert anything that VM did, nor reverted anything that anyone else recently did. VM says at his user talk that I was deliberately jumping in to interfere with his consecutive edits, which is false given that I did not even realize VM was editing this BLP, and manifestly false given the extensive nature of my edit, but it's also irrelevant. The rules don't say, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert, except for Volunteer Marek who can make as many nonconsecutive saved revert edits as he wants and count them as one revert."
4. VM edits ending at 07:16 on 9 Jan. This is the second series of continuous edits by VM. I stopped editing as soon as I realized he had jumped in, so as to avoid edit-warring, and immediately asked him to self-revert.[76]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Nov. 15 VM banned from all articles and edits related to Donald Trump for one month, and warned to edit collegially and assume good faith. Note that the article now in dispute is the BLP of Trump's attorney general.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on November 15, 2017 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After I gave VM a warning, User:El_C defended VM; at my user talk, El_C basically argued that, "sticking an edit in the middle of his series does not magically turn his remaining series into an extra revert. If the changes could have been made in a single edit, they count as a single revert." In reply to El_C, I said that I should not have to wait for VM to revert my intervening edit, and that El_C was making it sound like I deliberately stuck in that intervening edit. I didn't, you can see that it's an extensive edit that took me a while to study and put together, and I would have made more edits but when I realized VM was editing the article in this way I withdrew from editing the article to avoid further conflict. Plus El_C is inventing a new rule that is contrary to the simple 1RR rule: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Incidentally, I didn't have to discuss this with VM at his user talk after giving an initial warning, but did because I wanted to avoid AE, and all I got from VM was personal attacks like this.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[77]

@User:GoldenRing, you don't think VM was reverting my edits? And doing so nonconsecutively? Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left this message for User:El_C. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:PeterTheFourth, Volunteer Marek reverted me so many times today that it would take me too long to list all of the individual reverts unless I really have to. So I’ll just give you two very specific examples:

This edit by VM at 06:42 on 9 January deleted new material that I previously added at 07:48 on 7 January. Following that revert by VM, I made this edit at 6:44 on 9 January unaware VM had made any edits. Then, VM reverted me again many more times, including this edit at 06:54 on 9 January which reverted edits I had made at 05:39 on 9 January and 06:02 on 9 January and 06:35 on 9 January. All of these reverts by VM were total nonsense, by the way, but that’s another story. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:PeterTheFourth, I think I already mentioned above that VM reverted me, then I made an intervening article edit (unaware that he was editing), and then he reverted me some more but without reverting the intervening edit. 1RR is supposed to be a bright-line rule, and it doesn't exempt people who make non-consecutive reverts while leaving the intervening edit intact; maybe that takes the rule literally, but apparently it's supposed to be taken literally, and could be easily changed to make that exemption. If we're not going to take the rules literally, then perhaps we can also recognize that VM's specific reverts that I just described for you were total disruptive nonsense unaccompanied by any rational explanation and so he should be topic-banned on that basis? Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Black Kite, all of my article edits at every article I’ve ever edited have been consecutive with respect to each other. Every editor at Wikipedia can say the exact same thing. But apparently VM is the only one who can actually get away with it. The specific reverts that I described above for PeterTheFourth edited entirely different paragraphs of the BLP. I grow weary. Anythingyouwant (talk)

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.

User:GoldenRing - what is my response you're referring to? The stuff on my talk page? Sorry buddy, if somebody comes to my talk with this kind of bad faithed nonsense, I am free to respond to it appropriately. And there was no personal attacks there (and no, saying "bullshit" is not a personal attack).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It has already been explained to Anythingyouwant by an uninvolved administrator, User:El C, that this was NOT a 1RR violation. Repeatedly: [78], [79] (also points out that Anythingyouwant's action could be seen as a bad faith attempt to WP:GAME 1RR), [80] (also a warning about Anythingyouwant trying to reinstate his edits in violation of DS), [81]. Anythingyouwant has chosen not to heed this advice and decided to file this AE report anyway - which is direct evidence of their cynical, bad faithed, WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing in this topic area. WP:BOOMERANG please.

You can read the discussion on my and Anything's talk page. Here is the jist again.

From Jan 5, 16:345, until Jan 9, 6:35 Anythingyouwant made a series of unilateral and undiscussed edits to the Jeff Sessions article (despite being fully aware of the contentious nature of the topic and the fact the article was under DS - he didn't bring anything up on talk). A little while later I looked over these edits and many of them appeared to be the standard POV stuff. At this point I could've just reverted back to the original version by User:MelanieN [82], since there was a lot of problematic stuff in there. But rather, following the suggestions at [83] I decided to do Anythingyouwant the courtesy of going through each of their edits one by one, undo the bad, but keep the good. Well, shit, this is what I get for trying to do the right thing. As I was making these edits, at some point, Anythingyouwant managed to jump in and make an edit - which I did not notice until he showed up on my talk page - in between two of mine. Specifically:

I made an edit at 6:43 and a follow up edit, less than a second later, at 6:44. Anythingyouwant managed to make his edit split seconds before mine, at 6:44 [84]. I did not get an edit-conflict notice (it was a different part of the text). Like I said, I didn't even notice this and kept going. All of my edits spanned the time 6:40 to 7:15. Let me also stress that I did NOT subsequently revert that particular edit of his.

Then Anythingyouwant showed up on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR and demanding I self revert. Hey! This reminds me. User:GoldenRing, didn't you JUST call something like this a "threat", quite recently? Do I need to dig the diff up where you accuse me of making "threats" because I notified somebody on their talk about a DS violation?

Anyway, Anythingyouwant claimed that I made, quote, " two distinct groups of reverts". Apparently the edits made between 6:40-6:43 where "one distinct group" and the edits made "6:44-6:52" were a "second distinct group". Now, at this point, it's pretty obvious that this is just some cynical WP:GAMEing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Anyone who tries to argue that two edits made SECONDS APART, which were part of one continuous whole are "two distinct groups" is not playing it kosher. So yeah, I said that to Anythingyouwant. And as El_C pointed out, this very much looks like Anythingyouwant PURPOSEFULLY jumped into the middle of my editing (and again, I was doing him a courtesy) to try and turn a series of continous edits into "two reverts". Which itself is bad faithed and disruptive.

Couple other things. Above, Anythingyouwant uses the language "before VM jumped in". This is rhetorically dishonest. I waited till he was done with his edits to make mine. He jumped in the middle of mine. He adopted this "jumped in" terminology only after I used the phrase in regard to his action. He's trying to turn the tables and pretend that I did what he was actually guilty of.

Anythingyouwant claims he didn't even know I was editing the article when he made his edit at 6:44. Seeing as how there were three intervening edits in between, that at least five minutes had passed, and how quickly he came running to my talk page, this is quite unlikely.

One last thing. Here is the irony. If you go by Anythingyouwant's logic then this edit and this edit constitute a 1RR violation. This has also been pointed out to him [85]. Strangely, he insists that that wasn't a 1RR violation even though it's two reverts made in a non-continous fashion. This illustrates the bad faith behind this report. (The difference of course is that my edits were made seconds apart and were part of a continous whole with only Anythingyouwant's single sneaky edit in between, whereas in between Anything's two reverts there were three intervening edits and 9 minutes had passed. Also, I'm not actually reporting him for 1RR).

Like I said, this is a pretty clear illustration of the bad faith and battleground mentality that Anythingyouwant has brought to this topic area for some time now, and it is the same reason he was banned from the topic area previously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please link to the individual edits that were reverts? It's hard to see which by looking at these large series of edits. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: It looks a like like those edits could all be a single edit - he didn't revert what you added in your single edit between his edits, for example. It's possible you're being too legalistic/literal with the rules. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1RR, I already closed this as No violation. VM could have made the reverts in a single edit, he just chose to do it piecemeal. It's that simple. El_C 09:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So striking comments is enough to not get a block or sanction? You guys should look up to the MONGO close, where if my memory serves, MONGO got a block for a personal attack, even though he struck it out. But regardless, VM should be sanctioned. As someone who is often the complainant in AE actions, he is readily aware of the rules and should know that his edits are actionable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear pattern with User:Volunteer Marek going on edit blitzkriegs, which he claims are anti-POV-pushing, without actually checking the sources. Here he deletes on the basis that the source doesn't say "confirmed", but The Hill source, for one, says the FBI "backed up" the Justice Department's claim.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marek is particularly shameless to evoke WP:GAMING. His MO is to claim a source is "misrepresented" unless it uses exactly the same language as the text. In fact Editing Policy states:

You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words.

--which is exactly what User:Anythingyouwant did in the example above, and other edits I saw. And note that in most cases Marek didn't simply reword information, he deleted it. That is disruptive, POV editing pure and simple.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is messed up. Anything went to Marek with what looked like a simple 1RR concern. That's what we all do in these DS articles. In almost all cases there's a swift resolution without an AE report -- yes AE Admins, you see only a small sample of the problems that arise on these articles. So in this case, Marek walks Anything through the issue -- which nobody claims did any damage to anything -- and then uninvolved Admin @El C: helps out with an impartial review that should have settled the issue for anyone who cared about it.

Then Anything immediately comes here to get what result? I can't see any purpose other than to punish Marek and just maybe to disable or intimidate a prolific editor so that Anything can take a break from his 24/7 tweaking of these politics articles. The only explanation I can see is that Anything is looking for punishment.

Editors who are going against the mainstream narrative on article content end being overruled by consensus time and again. That's why they file a disportionate number of the AE complaints we see here. Some of them feel compelled to use every tool at their disposal, including gaming the volunteer Admins at AE, to push minority or fringe POVs into articles.

I've said repeatedly in the past that in my opinion Anything's TBAN on topics related to Abortion should be extended to cover American Politics as well. It's well documented that many people who support the Trump Administration, among the American public and the US Congress, are doing so as a strategy to promote judicial appointments that will enable a Pro-life agenda on women's health. It is entirely within the spirit of an abortion-related TBAN broadly construed to extend that TBAN to American Politics after months of disruptive editing by Anythingyouwant in the related area.

I don't think you AE Admins should just be relieved to close this and let it go. I ask you to consider a TBAN for Anythingyouwant. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see any particular problem on either side in the article space edits given - two editors happened to be making edits at the same time. It happens. VM's response is blatantly unhelpful and I'm inclined to block for something like 72 hours, but would like to hear from others first (or @Volunteer Marek: you could strike it and apologise?). GoldenRing (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Volunteer Marek: I was referring to the diff which AYW linked in his complaint, in which you said, Your capacity for lying is actually surprising, even though it shouldn't be at this point. I agree that this constitutes a personal attack. GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Template:Editnotices/Page/Jeff Sessions, it is Coffee (talk · contribs) who placed the article under discretionary sanctions including 1RR. I suggest that they address this request after their scheduled return on 13 January 2018. Sandstein 10:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with El_C that this isn't a 1RR violation. I also note that VM has struck the comment that GoldenRing mentions above. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Kite: In view of that, I intend to close this as no action unless someone objects before about 1700 UTC. GoldenRing (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]