Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive274

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

Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GamerGate sanctions, BLP discretionary sanctions

October 13-17, 2020 AE case contains evidence that on Sept. 16th they made a knowingly contentious rewrite of the section Ansari#Allegation of sexual misconduct, without first discussing it, after weeks of disputes about one of its sentences, and then gaslit on the talk page to give the appearance of consensus. After the AE close resulted in no action, I reverted their rewrite.[5] (m[6]) They have completely disregarded the arbitration complaint.

1. 01:49, 18 October 2020 They restored the DISRUPTIVE, NOCONSENSUS rewrite with an edit summary containing:
   • False claim of one month consensus (The rewrite was immediately and repeatedly challenged,[7][8][9] and was part of the previous AE case.)
   • False claim of BLP violation used to justify a rewrite with mostly unrelated changes. (See below)
2. They ignored my requests for them to revert their rewrite and discuss their proposals.[10][11]

Diffs of relevant AE sanctions demonstrating long-term behavior

1. 3 June 2018 WP:AN/EW warning by NeilN, BLP: This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus. [30], [31] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed.
2. 20 May 2018 logged warning by TonyBallioni for violating behavioral standards.[12]
3. 22 April 2017 sanction by NeilN for a pattern of disruptive behaviour which contributes to a poor editing climate, described here.[13]

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

• See previous AE case above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe GamerGate sanctions were enacted to prevent disruption like this — from an editor who has repeatedly belittled women who have made allegations of sexual misconduct.[14][15]

The 11 month stable consensus section[16] has never been respected by SPECIFICO, and yet they demand that their bulldozed rewrite remain in place while I am expected to somehow discuss reverse engineering each of their edits until RfCing a disputed sentence which was removed from a paragraph which was removed from a section which was rewritten? SPECIFICO is reversing the onus and has no respect for the consensus building process. (If you can't follow all that, good luck following the original content dispute.)[17]

(Aquillion has noted the stability of the article as a whole.[18] The section itself only had copyedits and one sentence added in 11 months.)

This is all unnecessary complications which can be avoided by simply restoring the stable version and working out what to RfC from there. Regardless of all the convoluted content details, what we know is that SPECIFICO has been violating the DS with their disruption, which can be prevented by banning them from editing Aziz Ansari for at least six months (but they could still be permitted to vote at RfCs).

If anything is unclear in this report, please ask for clarification before making a statement judging the case.

What about an agreement for me to not report SPECIFICO's misconduct? That appears to be the only complaint about my behavior. If I am unable to edit or discuss content to the point where I would have to comment on their behavior, I would have to move on. For example, it is unfeasible to for me to edit Aziz Ansari at this point, so I would move on to avoid conflict, following the example of the other editors there. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: What would be an improved wording? "...for me to not file conduct complaints"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: It's hard to see how that proposal is not punitive. If the only complaint about my behavior is filing complaints about SPECIFICO, and I agree not to, then I would think sanctions would be unnecessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Is no one going to answer my question about how an IBAN is not punitive if I agree to not file conduct complaints about them? I even offered to not comment about their behavior and leave articles before I feel that's necessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Can you give me something to work with for why it's not sufficient? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade and Bishonen: We have to consider the appeal process, because you are 100% wrong about this case. I haven't looked into the appeal hierarchy yet. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Could someone please tell me what's wrong with the word misconduct? That's literally the characterization of the behavior the AE process is used for: Please use this page only to...request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thank you for the response. I think it's important to be honest about what the evidence shows we can expect about their future behavior, but if what you object to is my conduct reports then I can stop filing them. There clearly has been no behavioral investigation, but that will not be necessary if the disputed conduct complaints cease. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: There has been no proper behavioral investigation into either of us, so it's improper to make a ruling about either of us, but that isn't necessary if the complaints stop.

The rest of your question is complex; I believe that the problem is obvious to anyone who SPECIFICO has chosen to make their enemy,[30] and to many other perceptive individuals who have spent time observing disputes in which they have participated. I believe many people don't see the problem; I believe many people are afraid to report the problem. I don't think their behavior will be ignored per se, but certainly folks will be discouraged from reporting them if they see the reaction to my reports.  WP:SEALIONING is a difficult problem for the community to address; this behavior is not unique to SPECIFICO.

I cannot make conclusions about the participants here who I have little experience with, but I am not impressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

While I know that SPECIFICO may be too busy editing articles to waste her time responding to Kolya Butternut's latest tirade, this attempt to rehash an AE report a mere four days after it was closed by Dennis Brown with a result that was not to the OP's satisfaction is plainly tendentious and disruptive. At a minimum, WP:BOOMERANG sanctions should be imposed to deter Kolya Butternut from misusing this administrative forum to "win" content disputes or to harass SPECIFICO (such as a temporary ban from commenting at AE or even a topic ban from Aziz Ansari). Combined with Kolya Butternut's unsuccessful effort to dox or "out" SPECIFICO at SPI just two weeks ago, which was called out by the clerk at the time, this escalating pattern of harassment and weaponization of Wikipedia's administrative tools against a perceived opponent may merit additional sanctions against the filer, such as a lengthy block or one-way interaction ban, followed by an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block if the harassment continues.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a one-way IBAN between Kolya Butternut and SPECIFICO. This is yet another case of Kolya Butternut complaining about SPECIFICO's opinions, not his behaviour. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: I think your suggestion might have had a chance had you not included the word "misconduct". O3000 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone past the first law of holes. I suggest instituting the one-way IBan before Kolya talks their way into something more stringent. O3000 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in this ongoing dispute concerning Aziz Ansari (though I haven't commented on it lately). I must say based on my interactions with KB, as seen on the relative talk page, I think we ought to be taking a hard look at whether they should be allowed to continue editing Ansari's article and any related pages at all. -- Calidum 02:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE #1, 8 Sep 2020, Specifico v. KB, involved (among other things) Specifico referring to KB as "it". Closed with "Kolya Butternut is reminded to be more mindful of the boundaries of their TBAN. SPECIFICO is warned to be more careful in their use of gender pronouns, and to avoid the use of object pronouns for human beings. No further action at this time; if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so." Because of that last sentence, we can't fault editors for bringing further AEs.

AE #2, 26 Sep 2020, Thucydides411 v. Specifico. Another editor had removed content that had been in the article for years [31] [32] and Thucydides reverted the removal. Specifico re-removed the content with this 24 Sep 2020 edit, with the edit summary "Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant", which is either a BLPVIO (if aimed at Assange) or uncivil (if aimed at Thucydides). That thread was closed with "No consensus for sanctions".

AE #3, 13 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico. That involved (among other things, including edits to Aziz Ansari) two statements made by Specifico on 7 Oct 2020 about Thucydides: "Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda" and "Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently". That thread closed with "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later ..."

AE #4, 21 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico, is the current thread, involving this 18 Oct 2020 edit at Aziz Ansari with the edit summary "Restoring current consensus version that has been stable for a month ...".

So in this AE #4, Specifico is reverting someone claiming that if the content has been stable for a month, it's the "current consensus version". But in AE #2, Specifico was arguing the exact opposite, re-instating a reverted edit that removed content that had been in the lead for years, and claiming that the onus for inclusion was upon those who wanted to include it. This sort of editing is disruptive, and it should be addressed. An IBAN won't help. Lev!vich 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having succeeded in bludgeoning all other users at Talk:Aziz Ansari to death, KB and SPECIFICO have now reached an impasse. But let's not call the users' behaviour the same. One—SPECIFICO—is repeatedly making demeaning and aggressive comments towards a specific person (known pseudonymously as "Grace"), and the other is not. A one-way IBAN is a ludicrous suggestion because SPECIFICO will then have "won" the game they are playing, that of forcing their opinion to be accepted as "consensus" through deliberate poor etiquette. Topic banning both users from Aziz Ansari and/or a two-way IBAN are more reasonable suggestions. Yet it seems to me that this would not solve the issue of SPECIFICO's continued disruptive modus operandi on contemporary American biographies (a possible scope for a wider topic ban).

Seriphamblade - please, no i-Bans, they suck and create more problems than they resolve. We're not dealing with a couple of kids fighting over the game controller - these are 2 adults. I really dislike boomerangs which are typically punishment for filing a case against a seasoned editor over a content dispute, and I very much dislike vexatious litigation for whatever reason. In this case, we're dealing with a relatively new editor (KB) who just learned a valuable lesson. Let it go. KB needs to tone it down, and specificolly avoid interaction with SPECIFICO, (pardon my play on words because even something that silly has been used as a reason to warn/block/t-ban an editor - I think it was warn, it was me, and today SPECIFICO and I get along famously.) Let's get back to the basics - disruptive editing at an article - nothing here to take action over. It has been brought to the attention of AE because of DS, the parties have been duly warned - log it as such in DS, and let them get back to work. Next time it happens - t-bans all the way around. That simple. ^[stretch] Atsme 💬 📧 17:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban them both from AP2 at least until the end of the year.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While most of the discussion of remedies seems to have focused on ibans, the issue here seems entirely confined to a single article, Aziz Ansari; all the other process stuff has directly stemmed from that. I would just topic-ban one or both of them from that article (only) and leave it at that. This has the advantage of being a simple, straightforward, easy-to-enforce resolution that seems like it would definitely end things, whereas ibans (especially one-way ibans) are much trickier and go way beyond what's needed to put a stop to what's ultimately a dispute on a single page that has gotten waaaay out of hand. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I tried a couple of links and I just don't get it. The first substantive link appears to be "01:49, 18 October 2020" with a "False claim of one month consensus". My reading of the edit summary is that SPECIFICO was thinking of WP:SILENCE and I think it is correct that the article had been without the disputed text for a month. Does anyone else support the text that Kolya Butternut (KB) wants to add? The only recent comments at Talk:Aziz Ansari seem to be arguing against KB. The correct way to resolve an issue like this is to start with a relevant noticeboard (e.g. WP:RSN since Babe.net seems to be disputed on talk). If WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:BLP appear to be ok, then start an RfC with a clear question. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Silent consensus" remains only so long as the silence is not broken. As soon as someone does object, be that in an hour or in a year, the "silent consensus" vanishes. That aside, we just closed this request, and I think we're at the point of use of AE as a means of harassment. I think it might be time to take some action against the filer here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would entirely agree with the suggestion by Vanamonde to refer this to AN for community sanctions. It's right about enough of this constant bickering. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If the general feeling here is a one-way IBAN on KB with regards to SPECIFICO in the BLP/GG/AP2 topic areas, I've got no objection to that as the resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For your reference, KB, since you asked me specifically: I have read your proposal, and do not believe it to be at all sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a few outlier proposals here, ranging from an acceptance of KB's "voluntary restraint" proposal to a topic ban from the topic areas, but the general consensus seems to settle on a one-way IBAN. This would, at this point, restrict KB from interacting with SPECIFICO on the topics covered by GG/AP2/BLP. It is unclear whether an AE IBAN could be sitewide, and I do intend to ask about that at ARCA, but those can take a while to answer and this shouldn't be left open waiting on it. So unless any uninvolved admin strongly objects in the next 24 hours or so, I intend to close this with a one-way IBAN on KB with regards to SPECIFICO in the topic areas of GG/AP2/BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we please give interaction ban to these two users, including filing AE requests against each other, and be done with it? Sure, if one or both of them regularly breaches our policies, there will be another user to notice this and to file ANI/AN/AE/AC whatever case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, based on the discussion I would agree to the one-way interaction ban as well. One year would be fine, with the understanding that if issues reappear after a year, we can go for an indefinite interaction ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an interaction ban is necessary. We cannot impose a site-wide IBAN here, but we could do an IBAN across GG-, AP2-, and BLP-related articles. Alternatively, we could go to AN for a site-wide IBAN. One of those options strikes me as being long overdue. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: I agree that there's been substantive engagement from admins here, but my understanding is that we do not have the standing to apply site-wide sanctions; our remit extends only to areas under ARBCOM sanctions. And if that sounds bureaucratic, enacting something that will inevitably end up at ARCA immediately does not seem wise to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown, Guerillero: I'm still uncertain of our standing when it comes to a site-wide sanction; however, I think Dennis Brown's proposal is the right way forward, regardless of which venue it is coming from. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't study the merits of this case, doesn't seem to be necessary. After the last close, KB took it to my talk page, where it should have been clear I wasn't interested in relitigating the case. They said they were going to file a new AE case, but I thought it was just talk, that they weren't really thick enough to do so. I would not support a 2 way ban, which would be unfair to SPECIFICO. I would support a 1 way ban (and I hate those) with a *request* to SPECIFICO, asking him to avoid discussing KB. I would imagine he would be fine with that request. I do not think we need to drag this to AN, btw, although that is utterly allowed. We already have enough eyes and experience with the situation to handle it here, as a non-AE remedy. While a 1 way iban is certainly an option, so is a tban, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanamonde93, we can do anything that any single admin can do, so yes, we are limited to a degree. I forget that AE is setup that way. If any admin thought that a block, or other sanction that doesn't require a "community" consensus was appropriate, they could, but this might not be that case. So I agree that WP:AN is the way to go. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You're right Guerillo, as long as it is a DS sanction or based on action in a DS area. In that case, I would propose a ONE way interaction ban, one year duration, which will end up acting as a tban in areas that SPECIFICO edits, as KB will need to avoid articles where SPECIFICO is active (although not every article he's ever edited). This is an ugly solution and KB isn't going to enjoy it, but it's the least aggressive solution I can think of. We don't need a consensus to do this, any of us can simply unilaterally impose it, but I think it would be best if we did seek consensus among the admins here at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably already clear, but I am fine with anything resembling a tban and 1 way iban. I don't think that SPECIFICO is a saint, but I would oppose a 2 way iban simply because I haven't seen anything that justifies it on his part. My opinion is that a one year duration is probably the right way to go, but I'm not fixed on duration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is well within our right to impose a project-wide interaction ban between two users that started to cause issues within a topic area under DS. I also think that going to the community would be a fair option --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am feeling an interaction ban and a topic ban from Aziz Ansari for KB --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not impressed by this report in the slightest. What's going on in that article is insane. This is a straight up content dispute, that has been going on for months, with Kolya endlessly arguing about preserving the "stable version". There is no such thing as preserving the "stable version". The concept literally isn't valid. See WP:STABLE#Inappropriate usage. And yet the phrase has been written two dozen times on the article's talk page. Stonewalling edits for the meta-reason of "needs consensus" or "needs to be discussed" or "restoring stable version" is not valid, it's disruptive editing. I don't see anything particularly egregious about SPECIFICO's behavior except that KB disagrees with them and is stonewalling their edits while refusing to pursue dispute resolution, choosing to file frivolous AE reports instead. I don't think a two-way IBAN is a reasonable solution, that's a sort of no-fault sanction for two editors who have an interpersonal problem, and I'm seeing this is more of a behavioral problem on KB's end. Reviewing KB's own complaints about Specifico's "misconduct", there's really nothing there. However as an uninvolved observer, KB's tendentiousness is quite obvious. I don't think a topic ban or one-way IBAN would be an "ugly solution" here, it seems to be the relatively straightforward solution. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In general I dislike I-bans, especially one-way I-bans. It's just hard on the editor with the one-way to expect them to make absolutely sure the other editor hasn't edited an article "too recently", and it can be a tempting invitation for abuse by the other editor. But the SPI referenced by TheTimesAreAChanging shocked me, and the continued use of 'misconduct' is troubling. I think it's possible a 1-way I-ban is the only real solution. Changing my mind. This is a newish user. Let's accept their promise to not comment or action on the other editor's behavior. —valereee (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  KB, for me the problem with What about an agreement for me to not report SPECIFICO's misconduct? is that you appear to be assuming there is clearly going to be future misconduct, but you're promising you won't be the one to report it. If you'd worded it as "What about an agreement for me to not make reports about SPECIFICO's conduct?", it would have felt like a neutral offer. Just my interpretation. —valereee (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  KB, when you say There clearly has been no behavioral investigation, but that will not be necessary if the disputed conduct complaints cease what I'm hearing is "I'm the only person who clearly sees and is willing to call out an obvious problem, and if I stop reporting, everyone else is just going to ignore it." Is that an accurate reflection of what you intended? —valereee (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  KB, FWIW the other editor has plenty of people watching their talk, and it's IMO unlikely the majority would be afraid to report a problem just because of your experience here. At worst your experience here would cause people to be in general cautious of taking people to noticeboards. Which IMO they should be. For the vast majority of cases, taking someone to a noticeboard should be treated as a last resort. General advice: don't go to noticeboards unless someone else drags you there. Much better to just go to some admin or other experienced-and-known-to-be-helpful user's talk and ask for help/advice. I just did that myself yesterday in hopes of avoiding taking someone to ANI. I'm changing my opinion to accepting your promise of just avoiding commenting/reporting on the other editor's behavior and leaving it to others. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally don't like IBANs and would prefer something with less grey area like a ban on taking each other to noticeboards. But if a ban is to be imposed I think it should be two-way. From what I can remember this noticeboard feud started with this AE report] by SPECIFICO against Koyla Butternut. (Remember? the one where SPECIFICO called Koyla "it"?) And to be fair, we closed that one with the statement "...if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so." We certainly got that in plenty. ~Awilley (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure why a one-way AE IBAN couldn't be sitewide — I agree with Guerillero (who has Arbcom experience) on that. I myself have a one-way IBAN instituted by the Arbcom itself, where I am the non-banned party (no need to mention the banned party here). Why would an AE ban be different from a direct Arbcom ban? An IBAN for only GG, AP2, and BLP would indeed cover most of it, but I also see it as an invitation to borderline disputes. As for some people's generalized dislike of one-way IBANs, I'll just point out that in practice, they work just like two-way IBANS — I can't, and won't, in reality mention the user who's IBANned from me, as it would look like provocation and quite rightly cause outrage. It's just that a formally one-way ban in some cases, such as regarding KB versus SPECIFICO, is more fair. Summing up, I'm for a sitewide one-way IBAN against KB, but if that doesn't gain traction, I will alternatively support the same for the GG, AP2, and BLP areas only. I do not support a two-way IBAN in any form. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Bishonen, hey, I might have a bit of ArbCom experience myself after all. I don't recall that question ever having come up though. My main concern is that the DS page says enforcing administrators are not authorised...to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope. That's generally been considered to mean that something like a topic ban can only be as wide as the scope of the case it's imposed under (which makes sense, "sitewide topic ban" is just another way of saying "site ban"). I don't think it's ever really been considered with IBANs though, but they've generally been imposed the same way; just within the DS area. I think it would make sense if they could be imposed sitewide, as a sitewide IBAN is not analogous to a total site ban, but I'd be hesitant to just go ahead and do it without knowing whether it will fly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (since we are breaking format..;) If we block an editor, that also extends to all articles not within the scope of AE. In this case, extending the scope of the iban to being sitewide is likely doing a favor for a lot of people, as there won't be another case asking if an interaction was DS related or not. I'm fine either way, but I don't think a sitewide iban is beyond our scope since this is because of problems in DS areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Searching Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log for "one-way" shows several examples of site-wide one-way interaction bans imposed from discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are quite correct. Looks like it's better settled on that than I thought. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:47, 24 October 2020 (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

StaceyDebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Doggy54321 (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/Doggy54321 :

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

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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

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

Darouet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. 15:20, 27 October 2020 Removes longstanding text whose removal days earlier was contested.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 23:58, 12 May 2020: "sanctioned for violation of the 1RR and enforced BRD sanctions at Joe Biden."

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 23:58, 12 May 2020 by Wugapodes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jack Upland has been engaged in a longstanding and understandable effort to trim page length at Julian Assange. I restored one removed sentence [51], a NYT paraphrase of the Obama Administration's views on the constitutional implications of indicting Assange; the text had been in the article for over a year [52]. SPECIFICO reverted my restoration of the sentence [53], and I informed SPECIFICO their action violated DS (see discussion here [54]). While SPECIFICO has continued to edit at Talk:Julian Assange and elsewhere, they have not self-reverted, nor participated in the ongoing talk page discussion that appears to favor keeping the sentence.

At Talk:Julian Assange, SPECIFICO has previously acknowledged that removing longstanding text, if the removal is contested, is a violation of discretionary sanctions on the page: [55], [56].

Awilley recently confirmed at Talk:Julian Assange that re-removing longstanding content is a violation of the DS on the page [57]. Guy, who originally placed the sanctions on the page [58], has responded [59], "that might apply in another article, but this one has been WP:OWNed by a small cabal of fans and Mueller denialists for a long time." Needless to say, this is offensive, untrue, suggests a battleground mentality, and also creates a situation where DS has opposite meanings depending on Guy's views. Guy has expressed very strong opinions on Assange previously [60][61][62], and I'm unsure if someone with such charged attitudes regarding Assange should be acting as an admin on Assange's BLP. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Guy

I strongly dispute Guy's description of conflicts on the page, and ask that any characterization of my or others' edits there be supported by diffs and sources.

• In this edit [63], Guy refers to Assange as an established "Kremlin asset"; I don't recall that I have made any similar comment on Assange, and I don't think anyone should, either for or against him.
• In this edit [64] Guy opposes the inclusion of even one sentence in the body of the article that would report a German political appeal on Assange's behalf, a letter covered by every large newspaper in Germany. Guy writes, For all the fervour with which this is promoted off-wiki by Assange cultists, it was one letter that was not, as far as I can tell, covered after its original release. Cult leaders are very good at exploiting what Lenin termed "useful idiots". Do the phrases "Assange cultists" and "useful idiots" refer to to journalists for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, or the Süddeutsche Zeitung? Or is this a reference to signers of the letter including journalist Günter Wallraff or the former Vice-Chancellor of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel? I'm not sure, but this is not about the "consensus view of independent sources": Guy is frequently arguing against them.

I think Guy is a great editor and agree with them about plenty of things, but this attitude towards the topic is not neutral, and is contributing to rather than resolving disputes. -Darouet (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, anybody can check to see if I've ever suggested you can't disagree. Otherwise, your repeated suggestion that all editors at Julian Assange be topic banned after SPECIFICO is alleged to have violated DS [65][66] comes across a clever way of punishing other editors for SPECIFICO's editing, and reversing both the letter and the spirit of the sanctions you added to this page. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @Awilley, Doug Weller, and Bishonen:

• In this case I've documented a single clear instance of a violation of DS, according to metrics that SPECIFICO understands [67] [68]. Apparently DS is very important to SPECIFICO: in the past month, they have repeatedly threatened DS at Talk:Julian Assange using an interpretion of DS exactly opposite their earlier reasoning, and contrary to the understanding of admins here [69][70][71]. In SPECIFICO's 22 edits currently found at Talk:Julian Assange and its most recent archive, SPECIFICO references WP:DS four times in various forms (e.g. "Per the page restriction Discretionary Sanction" and "you will... face sanctions"). A brief perusal of their editing elsewhere on Wikipedia shows that they are frequently warning other editors about discretionary sanctions and possible blocks or bans.
• SPECIFICO's violation here is not an anomaly: I asked them to please revert and participate in the "discussion" portion of BRD, and they will not do so. Further examination of their editing at Talk:Julian Assange shows that this incident is consistent with SPECIFICO's behavior overall. In those 22 edits I mentioned, SPECIFICO never links to a single reliable source or even bothers to quote from one. Instead, they invoke WP:ONUS 5x, WP:FRINGE 3x, WP:UNDUE 2x, WP:CONSENSUS 2x, WP:NPOVN, WP:WEASEL and WP:POV. How is this alphabet soup of WP:WIKILAWYERING supposed to be supported without references to reliable sources? SPECIFICO sums up their attitude here [72]: "policy, fact, sourcing, whatever."
• All this amounts to textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. If you would like to remove the BRD consensus required portion of the DS, I humbly suggest we take this to WP:ARBCOM, which as far as I understand it, is the body that drafted these measures. I have also believed these sanctions are designed to address exactly this kind of behavior. Is that correct? The diffs and quotes above show we have strong evidence that if the sanction were actually enforced, the editing environment at Talk:Julian Assange would improve dramatically, and it's within ARBCOM's mandate to represent the community in putting a stop to disruptive editing. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Struck "BRD" and replaced with "consensus required" (bolded) per Awilley. -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @Bradv:

At Talk:Julian Assange#Removal of longstanding content: is the Obama Administration view "SYNTH?", five editors support keeping the text, and two oppose it. Here, the two admins actually commenting on the behavioral issue — Swarm and Awilley — agree that SPECIFICO violated DS on the page. Not one admin has suggested or presented evidence that SPECIFICO's editing there is helpful, or supports consensus. If you're asking us to ignore both DS and also consensus, what evidence and policy do you have to support this course of action? -Darouet (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @SPECIFICO:

• 985 editors are watching Julian Assange: it requires no conspiracy for others to object to your misusing the discretionary sanctions on the page, and I have never engaged in meatpuppetry there or anywhere on this site. SPECIFICO, your edits also significantly overlap with mine [73], and with other editors commenting at this AE case [74][75] — something that shouldn’t be surprising for people editing on topics prominent in the US and international news.
• In the appendix to the first book of his Ethics, Spinoza remarks that humans wrongly suspect intention and intelligence behind all events significant to them. However, rather than blaming everyone else, why couldn’t SPECIFICO simply discuss the Obama Administration and New York Times’ comment, instead of reflexively reverting [76] with a false edit summary [77]? Contrary to SPECIFICO’s allegation [78] that I was not immediately responsive to their request that I change the heading of my complaint, I asked what heading they wanted one minute after their request [79], and changed the heading three minutes after that [80]. Why didn’t SPECIFICO self-revert when asked [81], or just apologize and promise to collaborate in the future? Nobody forced SPECIFICO to interpret DS at Talk:Julian Assange in multiple contradictory ways according to what seemed convenient at the moment ([82][83] vs [84][85]), including while threatening other editors with those contradictory interpretations of DS [86].
• Lastly, SPECIFICO continues to assert here that they should be free to edit Julian Assange against DS or consensus because they are right. That has never been a valid excuse for unprofessional behavior. But as often happens when an editor runs afoul of page restrictions, SPECIFICO is arguing against coverage in reliable sources. The Obama Administration viewed prosecution of Assange for his publishing dangerous on first amendment grounds, and the NYT reported that [87]: "The Obama administration had also weighed charging Mr. Assange, but rejected that step out of fears that it would chill investigative journalism and could be struck down as unconstitutional." This is a prominent view in the US and Internationally [88][89][90][91], also expressed by the Columbia Journalism Review [92], by Human Rights Watch [93], and by the United Nations special rapporteur on torture [94]. Of course, this view doesn't need to be shared by Assange's biography here, but it should be recorded where appropriate. In short, SPECIFICO’s attitude towards reliable sources has been similar to their attitude towards professional conduct and page restrictions: dismissive. -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @DGG:

The only admin who has questioned [95] the "applicability of the sanctions" is Guy, who earlier acknowledged they are WP:INVOLVED [96], and has explicitly stated that the ordinary interpretation of DS, repeatedly demonstrated by other admins [97][98][99], is correct but should be ignored [100] because Julian Assange is "WP:OWNed by a small cabal of fans and Mueller denialists." Guy is actually stating that they are shifting their definition of DS in order to deal with other editors he calls a "cabal" [101], and DGG you find that to be good-faithed and reasonable? -Darouet (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have notified SPECIFICO here [102], and also left a comment at Guy's talk page. -Darouet (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2020 (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.

@Swarm:: I see that you feel I should respond to this complaint. Please be assured my silence was not, as you apparently felt, out of disrespect for AE. I had nothing to say in rebuttal because I did not see any Admin sentiment favoring the complaint.

As has been stated below, Darouet escalated this to AE in record time -- less than 24 hours -- without the customary courtesy of a warning message on my talk page or of allowing a reasonable time for an article talk page response. This minimal content disagreement could easily have been resolved on talk in short order, much better than the immediate escalation. My edit summary explained -- too tersely I now see -- what I meant by SYNTH. In hindsight, it would have been clearer to say UNDUE WEIGHT because the SYNTH depends on the larger narrative of the article. My concern was that the repeated and excessive mentions of First Amendment press freedoms reinforces Assange apologists' narrative that he remains a journalist rather than an accused felon. This has been a longstanding matter of contention on that article. As you'll see on the talk page after my removal, I am not the only editor who was concerned about this. Sources' reporting on Assange has changed a lot in recent years, but the article has clung to some now deprecated narratives about him.

In a previous talk page thread, the interpretation of the DS page restriction was discussed and appeared to support the removal of disputed text pending talk page consensus to include. See here. I don't see anything in the sequence of events to suggest that I willfully flouted that page restriction.

Why didn't I immediately give a detailed substantive reply on the article talk page after my removal? I am busy with community responsibilities IRL during the pandemic and my history shows that I currently edit sporadically while I am not at my desk. But you'll note that Darouet launched a talk thread with a personalized title naming SPECIFICO rather than the content issue to be discussed. When I asked him to correct this he was not immediately responsive, and this didn't make me eager to hasten my reply about the edit. Darouet then continued to personalize his concern in that thread and the following thread wherein I don't think it's appropriate to refer to a violation that had not yet been adjudicated.

Given that the restriction has now not only been removed from that page, but deprecated as fundamentally flawed and unworkable, it's hard to understand any rationale for a sanction at this time. I edit in AP2 and BLP areas where disagreements are common and I do not edit war or push the limits of DS or consensus processes. What is the preventive purpose of a sanction at this time? It would appear to be more a case of rules for rules' sake, and not the way I have ever seen AE or WP operate. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Pardon me for repeating myself, but at this recent thread, @JzG: who was the "owner" of the Consensus Required page restriction, confirmed my interpretation of that sanction. On that thread and on @Awilley:'s talk page, it is documented that there was disagreement about which version requires talk page consensus before reinstatement. If Admins believe that it is a substantive disruption to revert reinstatement of old content without prior talk page consensus, why have you opted to remove this page restriction? I am not understanding why -- now that any editor can arrive and make the same removal I did -- it is not "disruptive" now but it was seriously disruptive a week ago? As Levivich showed (by reinstating the disputed content) the problem was easily resolved. I don't edit war and the matter would have proceeded to talk page resolution as the minor and routine editing disagreement is was and is. Bradv, as you know from various discussions on your talk page, there is disagreement among experienced editors and Admins as to what constitutes a revert and which edit triggers BRD and ONUS. I'd be very disappointed to learn that I could not rely on the recent Admin opinion of in the cited talk page thread to remove what I continue to feel is UNDUE emphasis created by the disputed text. Again, the text conflates a specific concern of the Obama Justice Department regarding prosecution with the general narrative that Assange is a journalist. As another editor has pointed out on the talk page, this information is already stated elsewhere in the article. Yes, the disputed text is properly sourced, but SYNTH-like and UNDUE text is not about Verification. It's about NPOV.

Finally, in case it's not known to all the Admins here, Darouet and Thucydides411, who have not denied being real-life friends have a longstanding coincidence of their editing in what many have called battleground style and often appears to be meatpuppetry Their interaction history demonstrates this is widespread and longstanding. I have long been among the targets of their animus, dating to when they were disruptively tag-teaming the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article and Thucydides was sanctioned. here among the dozens of times that eventually led to his TBAN. It feels to me as if Darouet's hair-trigger AE complaint, hours after opening a talk page thread with a WP:POINT-y header was Darouet's payback for Thucydides411's frustration that his recent prior AE complaint against me was closed without action. I think this is disrespectful of the AE process and the time and attention of multiple Admins and editors. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clearly documented disagreement as to whether "longstanding" text that lacks talk page evidence of prior consensus is privileged. JzG as owner of the page restriction had recently affirmed my interpretation. I'm not dumb or inexperienced enough to willfully violate a page restriction or to disrupt a contentious article. I really think this should be closed and we can all consider whether any of the add-on restrictions beyond 1RR makes any sense for the community. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the article talk page thread, including a link to the 2019 RfC which @Bradv: closed documenting that editors rejected portraying Assange as a "journalist." SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC) @Awilley: I'm not understanding why you went from pointing out that I am not a disruptive editor at that article to a fairly long topic block for an edit that any WP editors could now repeat without tripping a page restriction. Be that as it may, I'd ask you to leave this open for several days (during which I'll stay off that page, if you wish) because I've just now responded and pointed Admins to a lot of information and context that some of them may wish to review. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I applied the DS in November 2019, but since then I have become involved with discussions on the Talk page so as noted a previous time someone dragged SPECIFICO here I consider myself involved on that article and don't take any administrative role in this endless ongoing dispute. My opinion as an editor expressed on Talk has no more or less weight than anyone else's and I would hope would not be interpreted any other way.

It mainly just frustrates me, for exactly the reason noted above: in my view (and in my admittedly limited experience there) the article is WP:OWNed by a small group of people whose view of Assange appears to be almost Messianic, and at odds with the consensus view of independent sources. My view of Assange is ambivalent. I think that's also a fair summary of the RS, but not the current state of the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet, the idea that Assange was a Kremlin asset is taken directly from the exceptionally conservative findings of Robert S Mueller III. And yes, I think that letters full of special pleading are of no encyclopaedic merit, but, on point here, your rather obvious failure to get over the fact that I disagreed with you on that is a point against you, not for you. People are allowed to disagree. If you want to raise the issue of bludgeoning and stonewalling on that article's talk page, I will chip in with a resounding "hell yeah!" and encourage any uninvolved admin to TBAN every editor who has engaged in this, including me if they think it's justified. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, except that it's not clear that it was a violation. That's the point: it could be read either way. Reasonable people may differ. So the result here would be to "resolve" a POV-pushing problem by removing one of the few remaining editors working for NPOV and who has not yet been driven off. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC) <moved from result section, if inappropriate please revert>Arkon (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Darouet WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Regardless of how many watchers that page has, it is dominated by a very small number of voices, almost all of them strongly pro-Assange. I encourage anyone to go and read the talk page and its archives, as I did after placing the DS. To me, this looks like naked activism. I don't doubt the good faith of those involved, but I do doubt their neutrality, and I sincerely believe that the article would be better if everyone with more than 100 edits to the talk page was topic banned from that article for six months. I recognise that I may be in a minority in holding that view, but there you go. That seems to me to be the best way of removing both first mover advantage and groupthink. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the characterizations of SPECIFICO not engaging in discussion and the talk page discussion appearing to favor keeping the sentence are premature since you filed this 18 hours after starting the discussion. I also think perhaps it may have made sense for you to go to the TP before restoring text that appears redundant in an overly long article, particularly in a consensus required article; no matter the letter of the law. Just my humble opinions about collaboration. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy's description of conflicts on the page; but think it's irrelevant to this discussion and should not have been brought up by the filer in the first place. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit summary was incorrect -- it was not synth. Not a reason to file at AE. I suggest that this kind of content dispute is not why AE was created and could easily have been handled elsewhere (ATP or UTP) instead of jumping to a board of near, last resort with less than a day of discussion. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Instead of suggesting admins agree with her politics, so she is above the rules, consider the possibility that AE is being weaponized and this particular rule enables such. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the discussion on the TP and the rationale for inclusion of this twice, I now understand the SYNTH characterization and have stricken my previous opinion above. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Arrgh. Examining this discussion and that at the TP still looks like a gross misuse of this noticeboard. Part of this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Part of this discussion belongs on a few boards that can discuss the purpose and/or mechanisms of DS/AE. Filing this here without one day of discussion illustrates how this noticeboard can be weaponized. Frankly, I think the filing should have been immediately sent back to the article TP for discussion. If anyone is sanctioned as a result, I think multiple editors, including the filer, should be included. But, I’d prefer trouting (just finished some rainbow trout for dinner minutes ago), followed by a discussion on the rules with less distraction. I don’t like what looks like drama for the sake of drama. Leave drama to soap operas. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really simple, do all editors need to abide by DS? And if so, was this violated, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit."? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text that Specifico removed: The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act, but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional.

Specifico's edit summary for the removal: SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists.

What the source (NYTimes) wrote: The Obama administration had also weighed charging Mr. Assange, but rejected that step out of fears that it would chill investigative journalism and could be struck down as unconstitutional.

It is not WP:SYNTH, it is directly stated by the source. Lev!vich 18:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we've tried doing nothing, and it hasn't worked. I know it sounds crazy and it's not what the AE admin are used to doing, but how about we try actually enforcing a rule this time? I know what you're thinking: "it's a clear violation, we don't know what to do", or perhaps, "she's an AP2 regular, and I agree with her politics, so she is above the rules", but consensus required just might work if admin actually enforced it, you know, equally, as if everyone were held to the same rules. You may have noticed that AE is not getting inundated with reports of editors breaking consensus required left and right, it's just getting inundated with reports about Specifico. So maybe, just maybe, doing something more than issuing a fifth warning (or throwing up our hands in defeat), who knows, actually might make a difference. After five reports in two months, maybe we can give doing something a try, mmm? Lev!vich 14:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@O3: I've considered whether AE has been weaponized by three different editors bringing four valid complaints with diffs of clear PAG/DS violations, and rejected the theory as implausible. Now please consider whether the diff in this case is or is not a violation of the consensus required restriction, and whether the edit summary did or did not state a valid reason for the edit. Lev!vich 15:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Seriously with that question? Because no one wants to get sanctioned; because it's pending at AE; because the last person to complain about this was sanctioned. Let's not fault editors for reporting things to a noticeboard instead of edit warring. So, I've restored it now. Let's see what happens next. Lev!vich 03:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: The way we know that the sentence has consensus is that it's been in the lead for a long time (WP:SILENCE). The way we know that removal of the sentence does not have consensus is that it was reverted (and there's no consensus on the talk page supporting the removal).

Also note in this AE, Specifico is arguing that longstanding text can be removed and it needs consensus to be reinstated, but in the last AE, Specifico was arguing the exact opposite, reinstating removed text and claiming that it has consensus because it's been there for a month, and in an AE before that, Specifico was arguing the same thing as here. Can we address arguing one thing and then arguing the opposite?

Can somebody remove longstanding text or not? If someone removes longstanding text, can another editor revert that? And can a third editor re-remove it? Were Specifico's edits policy-compliant, or not? Lev!vich 03:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not judge one person's action by another person's reaction. Lev!vich 03:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text is a paraphrase of NYT and not "SYNTH". By the way, I am not a fan of Assange, still less a cultist, and I have made extensive edits to the page, so I reject the claim of "ownership" by a cabal. Yes, there is a small group of editors who are clearly pro-Assange, just as there is a small group who are anti-Assange...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of why blanket "consensus required" DSes are a terrible idea. This one should not be enforced and should be removed from the article.

Consider: There is no indication that the text under dispute has ever had any discussion. Yes, it has a degree of implicit consensus due to its age; that would be worth considering in any discussions, and would matter if an RFC failed to reach consensus otherwise. But that is not a strong consensus, certainly not enough to try and shut down editing or to substitute discussions with a pointless digression in an effort to win a content dispute, followed by a near-immediate leap to AE in an effort to remove the other editor. Is that the sort of "discussion" and consensus-building we want to encourage on controversial articles? Is that supposed to represent the first step in our consensus-building process on the articles that most sorely need it?

Consensus is an important part of how Wikipedia operates, but it is always required - and reaching it, in any sort of constructive long-term sense, requires discussion of the actual issue under dispute; when editors are sharply at odds, that discussion only happens because both sides feel a pressure that brings them to the table to hammer things out. It's clear (and has been for a long, long time) that so-called consensus required DSes are actively harmful to such discussion; putting too much force behind one default outcome encourages people who prefer that outcome in any particular dispute to stonewall and contribute minimally to discussions outside of insisting that policy backs their version. A situation where any editor can, at any time, via a single revert, demand that any change to an article go through a full consensus-building process before any changes at all can be made to the relevant text is simply not viable, especially when so much of our process depends on lightweight "implicit" consensus and a willingness to compromise or back down without going to such lengths every time.

Even Donald Trump, the article which (if I recall correctly) was the genesis of the Consensus Required restriction, is now under the much more reasonable If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit one, which slows things down enough to encourage discussion and avert revert wars without allowing endless, easy stonewalling and red tape. I would argue that the fact that any articles exist which have not been updated to that restriction yet is merely an error stemming from way DSes are mostly under the discretion of the applying administrator (which makes it difficult to update them all at once); while Julian Assange is a controversial topic, it makes no sense to argue that it is more controversial than Donald Trump at the height of an election. Why on earth does it still have a vastly more draconian restriction? --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is simple: will an editor who intentionally and repeatedly violates a DS restriction be sanctioned in any way? SPECIFICO is perfectly aware of the "consensus required" DS restriction. SPECIFICO simply thinks they don't have to abide by it. At the same time, SPECIFICO asks others to abide by it at Julian Assange, and even threatens to go to AE to enforce it ([103] [104]).

Just a few weeks ago, SPECIFICO violated the "consensus required" DS restriction at Julian Assange, by re-removing longstanding content from the lede: [105]. The only reason SPECIFICO was not sanctioned was because some (but not all) admins reasoned that SPECIFICO's edit could be interpreted as falling into a BLP exception. I found this argument absurd, since SPECIFICO was removing material that WP:BLP requires to be included (a living person's denial of accusations made against them - per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.), and because SPECIFICO's edit summary completely needlessly insulted the living person in question: Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant ([106]). Interpreting SPECIFICO's last DS violation as falling into a BLP exception was extremely generous. Now, SPECIFICO has again violated this restriction, on the exact same page, and nobody is claiming that it falls into any exception this time.

The DS rules are supposed to prevent disruptive behavior, such as removing longstanding content from an article and then demanding long-winded discussions in order to re-insert it. It would be one thing if a normally collaborative editor inadvertently violated the DS restriction. That's not the case here. Last time SPECIFICO violated the DS restriction at Julian Assange, they barely attempted to justify their removal of the material in question. They repeatedly asserted that the material was WP:UNDUE, without any explanation. When I and other editors provided a long list of reliable sources that backed up the material in question, SPECIFICO again simply asserted that the material was undue, again without explanation. When asked to provide any justification for the assertion that the material in question was undue, SPECIFICO just asserted that they had already done so - despite the fact that they hadn't (as I detailed here). They were just stone-walling. You can see the full conversation here, and verify that my summary is accurate: [107].

In this case, SPECIFICO has again justified their edit with a nonsense reference to a Wikipedia acronym that doesn't apply. They assert that the material is WP:SYNTH, despite the fact that it's quite obviously an accurate paraphrase of the source (see Levivich's statement above). Again, we are not dealing with a collaborative editor who has inadvertently run afoul of a technical rule. We're dealing with someone who needlessly insults the subject of the BLP, who refuses to justify their edits (and when they do, throws out obviously non-applicable Wikipedia acronyms), and who threatens others with this very same DS restriction, while at the same time violating it themselves.

SPECIFICO has not commented in this case, just as they didn't comment in the last case about their violation of "consensus required" at Julian Assange: [108]. They apparently don't think they have to answer here, because there won't be any consequences for their violations of the restrictions. Last time, Awilley stated, As for the violation of the DS rule, this is about as clear-cut as it gets. I'm surprised SPECIFICO didn't self-revert when asked. The reason is clear: while SPECIFICO is not shy about threatening others with this very same DS restriction at the very same page, SPECIFICO feels empowered to violate the rule, and doesn't believe they will face any consequences. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Any thoughts on the disruptive behavior I've detailed above? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: SPECIFICO intentionally violated a DS restriction here. They were asked to undo their violation and given time to do so: [109]. SPECIFICO acknowledged this request by commenting in response to it ([110]), but chose not to undo their edit. If this is weaponization, it's the softest, most considerate weaponization I've ever seen. SPECIFICO could simply decide to abide by the rules, and none of this would happen. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: How is this weaponization? This is as clear-cut as it gets. Just this February, at Talk:Julian Assange, SPECIFICO explained the "consensus required" restriction in this way:

This was longstanding consensus content, at least since last November. So the removal was a Bold edit and Snoogs challenged the removal with his revert. My understanding is therefore that the Bold edit (removal) stands reverted, and the content restored, unless consensus is reached for the removal.

-[111]

Based SPECIFICO's own very clear explanation how how "consensus required" works, SPECIFICO's recent re-removal of material from the article was a violation. The problem here is that when convenient, SPECIFICO does a 180-degree turn and argues the exact opposite interpretation of the "consensus required" restriction. Compare the above explanation of "consensus required" to the new explanation SPECIFICO gave last month, when the shoe was on the other foot and they wanted to remove material from the article:

Per the page restriction Discretionary Sanction placed by JzG, the pretext bit should not have been reinstated in the lead. It should be removed, and any subsequent reinstatement without consensus would again violate DS.

-[112]

It is only after SPECIFICO made this reversal that JzG "confirmed" SPECIFICO's new interpretation (Note that JzG was, by this point, very much involved as an editor at Julian Assange. I asked Awilley, as an uninvolved admin, to clarify. They contradicted JzG. JzG's response was essentially that Awilley would normally be right, but that the rule should be changed to its exact opposite at Julian Assange because of the supposed existence of a "cabal"). SPECIFICO's transparent gaming of the rules should be addressed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, Donald Trump is as close as we have ever come to peace in political areas – that's even more remarkable given the article's subject – and could serve as something of a model for the best we can expect. We use fairly strict BRD there (consensus required for any change that has been disputed by reversion), and a rule that prior consensus is required to change something backed by consensus. The article's consensus list, now at 38 active items, embodies the response to Doug Weller's comment, Coffee added consensus required to a number of articles but he also kept track of the consensus.

When this system doesn't work, it's an editor behavior problem, and no system will work very well without enforcement of some degree of good editor behavior. That means more than blocking disruptive IPs and newbies.

Recipe for chaos: Decline to enforce standing rules because we (still) can't agree they are good rules. Work toward rule improvements all you like; in the meantime enforce the rules we have. That's how civilization has worked for at least eight centuries, and it was good enough to get us to the Moon.

I'll offer my standard challenge: Show me a system that is proven to work better over some amount of time in areas of politics, and point me to said proof.

I am responding to previous comments, but I otherwise consider this area of discussion to be off topic on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a lot of discussions the past few months over 1RR, reverts, consensus, onus, and enforcement. But I go back to what Bradv said in their first comment in this discussion, namely "these restrictions need to be applied uniformly, or they simply won't work." And Muboshgu in their first comment "I agree that I don't want to see discretionary sanctions enforced selectively." I don't think there's any real question that the edits here (and in SPECIFICO 1) violated the sanction. I guess that the restrictions are not applied uniformly to all editors, and I'm not sure why that is the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Responding to the "Consensus required" portion of this report: I did a little analysis of my own and I find a technical violation of the rule.
  • 26 September 2019 The sentence beginning The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act... is first added to the article. It sits there for a year, enough to be considered "longstanding".
  • 21 October 2020 The sentence is WP:BOLDly removed by Jack Upland (no edit summary)
  • 27 October 2020 The sentence is restored by Darouet (edit summary: Restoring this one sentence, as the Obama administration's view (according to the NYT) is relevant to this section)
  • 27 October 2020 SPECIFICO reverts without having obtained consensus for the re-removal. (Edit summary: SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists)

A couple other points:

• This is almost exactly the same thing that happened last month at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive272#SPECIFICO. Same article, same user, same sanction. We didn't find a consensus there to enforce the sanction then.
• I personally oppose enforcing this sanction because I think it's a stupid rule. The above scenario illustrates some of its problems. I shouldn't have to use Wikiblame to figure out if the rule was broken. And this is SPECIFICO's first edit to the article in nearly a month. Do we want to be blocking users for making 1 revert per month?
• The admin who placed the sanction is now involved in the article and it's debatable whether he should be able to modify or remove it even if he wanted to.

Bottom line: I think we should either enforce the rule or get rid of it. My vote is to get rid of it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at Awilley's analysis above and can't fault it. I really dislike this rule and think it causes more problems than it's worth. We need to get rid of it from this and all articles. I also don't see how enforcing it here will improve Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike BRD as much as a restriction. Coffee added consensus required to a number of articles but he also kept track of the consensus. BRD, meh. Outside of AE it's just an essay that people sometimes throw around as though it's policy, and many times not practical. Like Bish, I hate it. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never enforced BRD and I never would, I hate it. Let's get rid of it. Can we do that here? Bishonen | tålk 15:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ugh, please let's not muddle the terminology here, Bishonen. "Consensus required" and "BRD" are apples and oranges. "Consensus required" is the DS rule we're discussing here that was added to tons of American Politics articles in 2016. "BRD" is short for WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the behavioral guideline that's been around since 2005. And "Enforced BRD" or "24-hr BRD" is the DS rule I came up with in 2018 to replace the "Consensus required" rule, because at that time the community was opposed to removing the rule entirely. The sanction at Talk:Falun Gong mentioned by User:Guerillero is something new I've never seen before, but is most similar in practice to the "Consensus required" rule. At this point it would take a consensus of admins to retire any or all of those rules everywhere. And I think it would need to be done in a dedicated thread that's not mixed up with an individual editor. ~Awilley (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor point: BRD is an "explanatory supplement", not a guideline. And it's first sentence, which says that BRD "is an optional method of reaching consensus" (emphasis added) should make it clear that this is never something to be "enforced".

    See also BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. and BRD is not mandatory and BRD doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress. There are many other options, and some may be more suitable for other situations.

    If you want to enforce something, 1RR or even Wikipedia:CRP might work, but BRD is not the right approach to every dispute and should never be mandatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It helped control things at Falun Gong, so I am not 100% opposed to BRD. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:JzG has now clarified on his talk page that he is OK with admins here revising the 1RR that he originally imposed if they think a different kind of restriction is better. His 1RR was simply {{American politics AE}}. This is the 1RR that requires consensus before reverting. My impression from the admin comments above is that the proposal on the table is to abolish 'Consensus required' and make this be a 'BRD' type of 1RR. It appears that both Awilley and Dougweller are opposed to 'Consensus required'. Not sure what they think about BRD, though I see that at least Bishonen is opposed to BRD. Personally I think that 'consensus required' is not a bright-line rule which makes it hard to enforce. With BRD, you can at least check if somebody *tried* to discuss. (that is the 'D' in 'BRD'). The sanction at Talk:Falun Gong looks like a hybrid of 'Consensus required' and 'BRD':

"You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. All edits to the article need … a clear consensus on this talk page for the change if challenged"

where the 'clear consensus … challenged' phrase is made into a wikilink to WP:BRD. The exact wording of BRD seems to say that you must not revert again if you have not reached consensus. So perhaps the two rules are in act requiring the same behavior. The weak link in both is that the admin needs to figure out whether consensus has been reached. This could be a matter of opinion, and might be as hard as closing an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ask me twice. I've removed the "consensus required" sanction and left just normal WP:1RR. I'd rather not add the "24-hr BRD" sanction at this time...that rule is currently confined to the American Politics topic area, and I'd rather keep it that way unless the rule gains widespread acceptance, which it has not. ~Awilley (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My view remains that enforced BRD is, in most cases, inferior to Consensus required. I disagree with Awilley for having supplanted CR with enforced BRD on multiple pages in the past, and I am opposed to them continuing to do so in the future. Calling CR "stupid" does not make it so, nor does it make enforced BRD smarter. Just because there apparently is neither the will to observe nor is there the will to enforce CR on that particular page, does not mean enforced BRD would work better for it. So, while Awilley's framing above reinforces enforced BRD's would-be superiority to CR, I, myself, (still) am just not seeing it how that is even remotely so. Anyway, if AE is at the point right now where these beyond-1RR enhancements, in general, are proving too nuanced to enforce, then abolish both and stick to 1RR only. That's fine. CR is not hopelessly complex. Often, when a dispute proves intractable, at some point WP:ONUS may be needed to be enforced by an admin for the remainder of the consensus building process. That happens all the time. That is what CR is — a strict version of ONUS that does so as page-level restriction. But, again, the argument that enforced BRD is the solution to its shortcomings, that it is better than CR in resolving disputes... I have never seen evidence (even of the loosest variety) to support that assertion. El_C 01:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What El C said. Consensus required is in essence a way that ONUS can be enforced. El C has accurately expressed my views on EBRD as well, so I don’t have much more to add. No comment on removing CR, but oppose supplanting it with EBRD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the above. Enforced BRD is just the "consensus required" sanction with the actual requirement to resolve the dispute removed, and replaced with a procedural 24 hour hold on reverting. It's essentially a more lenient version of both 1RR and consensus required, and it doesn't work well in practice since it allows for edit warring to continue and I have seen it do so in practice. No offense, but Awilley is hardly the authority on "consensus required" being a stupid rule when he made up "BRD enforced" and went about trying to systematically replace it with his new rule, and then it went to AN and no one supported him. That was a massive gaffe on his part. I don't see anything wrong with "consensus required" in general, it just says you can't edit war over a disputed edit until a consensus has decided the dispute. That is in line with the basic principle from which this whole project is governed. Now, I'm not saying we should ignore context and blindly enforce sanctions either, so what's the context? SPECIFICO seems to have removed longstanding content per WP:SYNTH. Per @Levivich:'s comment, it wasn't SYNTH, but a rather straightforward paraphrase of a single source. So there's no real justification for SPECIFICO having violated the sanction here, and no convincing reason not to enforce the sanction. I'm fine with a short block, or even a warning, but I'm a bit baffled that some admins are leaning towards just turning a blind eye here as if this is just some "gotcha" technicality that we should overlook. And even if SPECIFICO was like "my bad, it was a mistake, I'll be more careful", fine, but SPECIFICO is apparently at the point of not even taking AE enough seriously to comment at all at this point. Why are we giving special treatment? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Swarm: The fact that this is SPECIFICO (3) is a sign that they are either engaged in misconduct or being hounded --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...yeah. I literally explained in my comment that they engaged in misconduct here. They literally violated the editing restriction. People have repeatedly explained this. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the discussion of the sanction and focusing on the user, I wouldn't be opposed to something like a short (couple of weeks?) topic ban. As people have pointed out it's not really fair to have one person repeatedly flaunting a rule that everybody else is following. ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying so, I think that's very reasonable. Any objections, not involving meta-commentary about the editing restriction itself? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With SPECIFICO's comment, we now see that your rush to remove the sanction, was not only arguably abusive as an INVOLVED admin, but it has backfired spectacularly, with SPECIFICO now hiding behind it as "deprecated as fundamentally flawed and unworkable", rather than acknowledging that they committed a straightforward violation of an editing restriction which had no consensus to be removed, and which you removed because you thought it was "stupid", and they are now misrepresenting the removal as evidence that they cannot be sanctioned. Your removal was apparently based on the fact that you don't like the restriction and simply removed it because you could. It's uncontentious that SPECIFICO committed a clear-cut violation here and was on the path to receiving a sanction unless they responded in good faith, and now we have them arrogantly responding in bad faith, and at this point it is actually, genuinely unclear, whether they can be technically sanctioned, when the sanctions have been lifted in the middle of the AE discussion, whether your removal itself can be overturned per WP:WHEEL, and whether there's any recourse for SPECIFICO's violation and your extremely dubious lifting of a sanction that you were biased against. This has already gone to the community and no one supported your approach of procedurally removing "consensus required" because you personally don't like it. Now you've done it again and it's apparently given a free pass to a user who committed a violation, and hamstrung the AE process, even though even here there's certainly no consensus for you to have lifted the editing restriction. You did it because you personally oppose that restriction in general. That is patently inappropriate. I'm not sure where we go from here, but next time you arbitrarily lift a "consensus required" editing restriction without a consensus because you have deemed it to be "stupid", and in doing so give a free pass to a user who has violated a clear-cut rule, I will be bringing it to Arbcom. As for SPECIFICO, I'm not sure where we go from here, they deserve to be sanctioned, they're now claiming we can't sanction them since someone has lifted the restriction, it's a proper mess. However I can certainly say that based on their arrogant comment here I will have no inclination to cut them a break if I see another violation from them. Shame on everyone involved here for botching this report so completely and utterly. I apologize to @Darouet:. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: It doesn't have to be this complicated. I apologize for removing the sanction before this thread had been closed. That was a miscalculation on my part. I can clean up my own mess. If you don't object, I will close this thread with a 2-week topic ban. That's something we both found reasonable, and no admin has objected to that in the 2 days since you first said a sanction was needed here. As for WP:WHEEL, it's fine with me if you or any other admin restores the CR sanction if you're willing to take ownership over that. If you do, it might be a good idea to avoid using the "American Politics" template again since Assange is neither an American nor a politician. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If Specifico's removal of this content was so disruptive as to warrant consideration of a sanction, why has it still not been restored to the page? – bradv🍁 02:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich, the point of this wasn't to say it should be restored – it was to suggest that if an edit has consensus it can't be at the same time considered disruptive enough to warrant sanctions. "Consensus required" is a reasonably effective article restriction, but it doesn't work if we enforce it blindly. – bradv🍁 03:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed this point, we're not talking about blind enforcement, it has been specifically articulated that SPECIFICO didn't have a legitimate reason for their edit warring. Their SYNTH argument was straightforwardly not convincing. We're not talking about "blind enforcement", we're talking about a clear violation with no mitigating factors when examining the rationale and context. Are you seriously an Arb? Because you're ignoring things that people have already written, and writing things that people have already refuted. What are you doing? Just throwing random statements at the wall and seeing if it will stick?! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I framed it as a question – I was surprised at the argument here that Specifico's edit was disruptive enough to be worthy of sanctions, and trying to reconcile that against the reality that the text hadn't been restored. I didn't mean to imply that anyone was enforcing things blindly, nor am I unappreciative of any of the work that's being done here in trying to resolve this. I'm sorry if my question made things less clear – that was opposite to my intent. – bradv🍁 03:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is whether edit warring is disruptive, we already know the answer. If your question is whether violating an editing restriction is disruptive, we already know the answer. So at this point, your "question" is whether the violation itself was disruptive or constuctive, and that has already been clearly answered. It was disruptive, because the underlying reason for the violation was dubious at best, false at worst. In that context, why would the violation possibly be not worth sanctioning? You're posing a question that has already been answered, many times. Yes, it is absolutely a violation fairly worth sanctioning, and myself and others have literally explained this simple fact. A better question is why are you even asking this question? We're clearly at the point where it's been demonstrated that a violation took place, and that the context surrounding the violation does not reasonably excuse the violation. In spite of that, an admin who already felt that the editing restriction was "stupid" has lifted the editing restriction, in an apparent violation of WP:INVOLVED. So now we're left to wonder if enforcing a clear-cut ACDS violation will leave us facing negative consequences in our own right, with no obvious recourse. So to see an ARB stonewalling enforcement with an already-answered "question" as to whether an explicit violation is actionable is extremely chilling and concerning. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't object to any sanctions being applied here, and I hope my comments don't have that effect. My main concern was about the effectiveness of the "consensus required" sanction versus the various alternatives, a topic which has been discussed extensively on my talk page (thread 1, thread 2), and specifically the concern that "consensus required" occasionally results in the wrong version being endorsed. Without saying more here than I need to (I'll save that for the next talk page thread), my thoughts on these various custom restrictions largely align with your own. – bradv🍁 14:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The above discussion illustrates why I have come to think DS a poor idea--if experienced good faith admin can differ to the extent shown above about the applicability of the sanctions it permits, it adds to conflict, rather than prevents or resolves it DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]