From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sanctions clarification request: 2016 US Election AE[edit]

Per consensus here, "firm consensus" has been changed to read just "consensus" in all affected notices. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

Template:2016 US Election AE, placed on various election-related articles' talk pages, directs: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." It does not say what "firm" consensus means; and this is not a term of art used in any policy or guideline that I know of.

In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, I found ordinary (rough) consensus in a talk page RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Because the content at issue in the RfC had previously been challenged, editors disagree about whether the RfC's result amounts to "firm" consensus and can be implemented.

"Firm" can be read as describing the form of consensus-finding (as, e.g., through a formal process such as an RfC), or as describing a degree of consensus (e.g., a very clear supermajority), or a combination of both. In my view, either can reasonably be described as "firm". However, since the creator of the template, Coffee, is currently inactive, I ask other admins who have been active in this topic area to help clarify the template's meaning and possibly wording.  Sandstein  07:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the removal of the word "firm" would resolve the matter. Thanks, all!  Sandstein  11:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dervorguilla[edit]

"Firm" doesn't mean "large", so "firm consensus" doesn't likely mean "large consensus". Firm does often mean "not easily challenged or undone" (usage example: "holds a firm position as the country’s leading poet"). M-W Unabridged, s.v. "firm".

What kind of consensus could not be easily challenged? At the very least, it would comply with these three policies:

1. WP:CONACHIEVE. Was the proposed edit ever adapted (ever altered or limited) to bring in at least some dissenters?

2. WP:CONLEVEL. Were notices posted at related articles and WikiProjects?

3. WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Does the consensus calculation take into account the apparent concerns (or voiced opinions) of those dissenters who ultimately stopped responding? (Logically, they may well have been the very editors who were the least "emotionally or ideologically invested in winning".)

This kind of consensus could not be easily undone. It would accordingly help achieve the apparent purpose of Coffee's template: To stop the repeated reversing or undoing of edits on these highly visible pages. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Awilley[edit]

Absent the input of User:Coffee (who has been asked thrice for clarification) I believe that the original intention of the "firm consensus" clause was to prevent revert wars involving multiple users who each revert once, and to enforce WP:BRD. Defining a higher tier of consensus (as some have interpreted the clause) is not in line with Wikipedia principles and is not conducive to article improvement. I think the problem could be solved by simply replacing the words "firm consensus" with "consensus" or "clear consensus". There's no reason to require a higher standard of consensus than is normally required to exit the BRD cycle and implement an edit. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: I did some digging and found Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Clarification request: American politics 2 (July 2016) in which Coffee clearly states that the clause in question was meant "to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction..." Given this, I think the modification I'm proposing should be quite uncontroversial. ~Awilley (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@MrX, I BOLDLY made the change to the primary DS warning template here. Any admin who disagrees that consensus here is "firm" enough to warrant that change is welcome to revert. If nobody reverts me within 24 hours and if no other admin has made the changes to the other templates you listed (thanks!) I'll follow through and make the change on those templates as well. I do wonder why we are using multiple templates for different talk pages instead of just transcluding one or two.

@Anythingyouwant, just as I oppose defining a higher tier of consensus I would oppose formally defining a higher tier of editor. How would we determine who is a "lead editor" and who is not? Who would be the judge? ~Awilley (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant, it's one thing to talk in general terms about distinguishing between long-term content editors and, say, single-purpose silly-season POV pushers. It's another thing to rewrite a rule to explicitly favor reverts made by one type of editor. Our definition of "consensus" already does that implicitly, directing us to "incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". I am getting the feeling that your resistance to just going with regular old "consensus" is because you don't like the result of the "rough consensus" RfC that started this discussion. ~Awilley (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alsee[edit]

Good job Awilley finding that link. The purpose of the "firm consensus" text is not to create some weird new standard of consensus. The purpose of the text is to allow Admins to invoke the Voice Of Doom, or an actual block, to deal with disruptive editing. It should be changed simply to "consensus". Admins obviously should not block someone for applying an edit that has gotten any level of RFC-consensus, or for applying an edit which has gone through reasonable informal debate to a constructive outcome. Alsee (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MrX[edit]

Given that there seems be agreement that our policies don't define "firm consensus"; that Coffee probably added that adjective to reinforce the message; and that the adjective does nothing more that inspire Wikilawyering, is there some reason why an admin is not stepping up to remove the word "firm" from the edit notices (linked below for convenience) so that we can all get back to work?- MrX 15:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Anythingyouwant[edit]

Kudos to Awilley for finding that stuff about what Coffee meant. I see that I was pinged by Coffee into that discussion, but never got around to it. The bit excerpted above by Awilley is interesting, and uses the term "content editor". Coffee previously explained what he meant by that: "The whole point of this restriction is to reduce the unnecessary workload faced by editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, and thorough (and in the case of the BLPs, in full compliance of the requisite policies)... I'll refer to such editors as 'content editors' henceforth." So it seems Coffee meant that when "content editors" oppose a revert, then a "firm consensus" is more likely lacking for the revert. Perhaps we would clarify by replacing "firm consensus" with "consensus that includes lead editors" or "consensus that includes any lead editors (or is a large RFA-type consensus)".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Awilley, I thought the object here was to figure out what Coffee meant, and he plainly wanted to distinguish between what he called "content editors" and other editors. If we decide to disregard that distinction (which may or may not be impractical), then your bold mid-discussion edit to the discretionary sanctions would be appropriate. Your edit seemed kind of premature to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Awilley, you went and changed the template before there was any discussion among uninvolved administrators. Now that three uninvolved administators have discussed the issue, I am fine with removing the word "firm". I especially like that outcome because now the image I !voted for will be more likely to go at the top of the BLP (but that image discussion did not influence my comments above, and I'd have to be a very lousy editor to want discretionary sanctions to be molded so as to advance my position in one transient editing dispute). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes[edit]

According to Arbcom (Page restrictions), Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Did it authorize Coffee to impose this rather strange restriction for a large set of pages? I think it was not included by Arbcom in the list of possible restrictions above ("semi-protection, full protection, ...") for a good reason: WP:Consensus equally apply to all pages and hardly needs any special enforcement. I think this restriction is not helpful.My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved administrators[edit]

  • I think, since the term "firm consensus" here seems to be causing a lot of confusion and disagreement, I would support modifying the remedy to simply say that changes must be supported by consensus. We already have clear guidelines as to what that term means, so hopefully that will be clear enough to prevent interpretation issues. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Seraphimblade, don't think anything else is necessary here besides that slight modification. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I support Awilley's bold edit to the template,[1] and I think we're in agreement here. I invite some admin who's not just going to bed [yawns demonstratively] to please remove the word "firm" from all the edit notices conveniently listed by User:MrX above. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

Tiny Dancer 48[edit]

Indef ban from all topics covered by WP:ARBR&I, per the user's apparently inability to edit neutrally. The ban may be appealed in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Tiny Dancer 48[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tiny Dancer 48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Tiny Dancer 48 is a relatively new account (joined 17:22, 26 March 2016). They didn't make many edits at first, but they did make some related to this AE request. They showed immediate familiarity with Wikipedia and how it works. For note, I will often quote Tiny Dancer's own words so that their context and character can be seen.

  1. 10:00, 27 March 2016 Edited on Nations and intelligence adding information about expert opinions on the influence of genetics on IQ. Edit was reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji as not being supported by an RS.
  2. 18:35, 6 May 2016 Blanks the United Kingdom section on Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
  3. 17:20, 21 June 2016 Removes sourced content on Weev about him being in an anti-Semitic hacker group

Tiny Dancer begins editing on Race (human categorization). At first, there were just two edits on the article talk page.

  1. 17:22, 21 June 2016 "Lol, quite. The childish sophitic and clearly Marxist arguments of the "race does not exist" crowd are an affront to human reason. Sadly individuals sympathetic to these clowns appear to have used their money to buy Wikipedia.".

Recap: The user started immediately by editing on articles covered by WP:ARBR&I and continued that trend. Only two edits were ostensibly unrelated to this topic. The familiarity with Wikipedia, the topic of interest, and the combative/dismissive language used makes me think Tiny Dancer is sockpuppeting (judging by behavioral evidence and loss of good faith over time), but I was never able to connect them to a specific user (e.g., Mikemikev).

At this point Tiny Dancer begins to edit war on Race (human categorization). Tiny Dancer was blocked for 48 hours for this per an AN3 complaint (see relevant sanctions below).

Their behavior on the talk page was problematic. They continue on about "cultural Marxist", engage in assuming bad faith, IDHT, and POV pushing by dismissing basically anything by social scientists.

  1. 09:10, 24 August 2016 "It's truly pathetic. What the cultural Marxists want people to think is social = non-biological, but the opening sentence calls a biological construct (phenetic similarity) social. Ridiculous. But WP is run by cultural Marxists so good look with that."
  2. 09:14, 24 August 2016 "By the way Darwin defined race by shared ancestry and Mayr by genomic similarity. I'm not sure why anyone cares what some US sociologist thinks."
  3. 11:11, 25 August 2016 "Yes, it simply trots out Lewontin's fallacy, irrelevantly points out skin color is locally adapted, then starts waffling about US slavery. The statement was adopted by a stacked leftist executive board with no membership voting." (referring to the American Anthropological Association (AAA)).
  4. 12:44, 25 August 2016 Personal attack/incivility
  5. 13:39, 27 August 2016 Refers to Alan Templeton (a living person) as a "quack", dismissing material in the article sourced with his work.
  6. 17:11, 27 August 2016 "What on earth are you going on about? Please logically address my sources and points."

Danielkueh posts on Doug Weller's user talk page about Tiny Dancer as a possible sock.

  1. 17:24, 27 August 2016 "I'm not entirely sure what this guy is going on about. I apologise about his opinion of my tone, but he has to admit I supported my position with sources and logic. In fact it's safe to say that I am correct and he is incorrect. Maybe he feels defeated and has to go complaining about how my tone frightened him or something, because he cannot back up his position logically and honestly.

Accusations start flying

  1. 19:43, 27 August 2016 Accusations of "stonewalling" and tag teaming begin after being reverted as part of BRD.

Edit warring begins and they post a lot on the article talk page. A few highlights:

  1. 13:42, 30 August 2016 "You're wikilawyering to push a lie"
  2. 19:44, 4 September 2016 "I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that race is considered biological by biologists and social construct theory is just some Marxist nonsense from American sociologists"
  3. 12:41, 5 September 2016 "You present nothing to support you, other than an assertion your POV is a consensus view. You are babbling irrelevantly about sources I never mentioned. This is ridiculous."
  4. 14:30, 5 September 2016 "It's you that is misrepresenting sources. Your hypocrisy honestly turns my stomach."
  5. 6:59, 5 September 2016 Accusations of POV pushing by a "regular cadre".

AN3 response:

  1. 17:06, 7 September 2016 Final version of comment accusing me and others of stonewalling, OWN, bias, etc.

Starts post at NPOVN. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Race_.28human_categorization.29. More of the same behavior.

A series of personal attacks against My very best wishes and more of the same accusations. See User_talk:Tiny_Dancer_48#Advice.

Culmination of all of this was these two posts

  1. 18:29, 14 September 2016 "Maunus assumes that "Ann Morning" is the leading light in biology and the Russians, Chinese and British are just "holding out" against her groundbreaking ideas. Another possibility is that she's a babbling Marxist pseudoscientist. Who knows?"
  2. 19:03, 14 September 2016 "The "agenda" of refuting Marxist pseudoscience with biology.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 03:42, 9 September 2016 User blocked by EdJohnston for 48 hours for edit warring on Race (human categorization) with a specific mention of WP:ARBR&I. EdJohnston said, in closing the AN3 complaint, that " If this continues, the next step could be a topic ban under WP:ARBR&I.".
Diffs of previous relevant warnings, if any
  1. 17:53, 21 June 2016 User warned by Doug Weller about WP:NOTFORUM and article talk page guidelines.
  2. 18:11, 13 September 2016 User was warned by Doug Weller about personal attacks and behavior related to discussion of the topic on their user talk page
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, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 17:02, 27 August 2016 by Doug Weller

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I'm filing this per EdJohnston's comments about this being the "next step" and the clear pattern of abusive behavior and disruption.

Laser brain - Sorry about that. I quite a bit over that. Would collapsing some sections in addition to trimming be okay? There's quite a bit going on here. I'll trim out some of the less serious stuff though. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Chopped it down to 20 diffs in the main diff section. According to the prose size script, the "readable prose" is 283 works (see User:EvergreenFir/sandbox6). That's excluding the text after the diffs that are numbered. Guessing it's around 500 with those. Message or ping me if you need me to trim those a tad. I'd prefer to keep Tiny Dancer's actual words so they're context and tone (a big issue here) isn't lost. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No comments from Tiny Dancer or any admins yet? I'm hoping for some review of this, especially since EdJohnston specifically mentioned ARBR&I. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Roem: I had to trim out some of the diffs, but there were two present post-edit warring on 14 September 2016. You can see the original list of diffs at this version. While the edit warring has stopped for now, the talk page behavior continues and is unacceptable imho. The comments on this AE filing by Tiny Dancer show (1) a battleground mentality, (2) a continuation of the behaviors already detailed in the diffs, and (3) absolutely zero acknowledgement of any problematic behavior. Instead, they're just arguing with Maunus more, and not addressing anything detailed here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Roem and EdJohnston: Another disruptive edit on the article today: [2]. Few more recent diffs showing continued bad faith, calling others liars, railing against AAA/sociologists, etc. [3], [4], [5], [6]. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've disengaged in the discussions for now because of this AE request. Also, suggesting the AAA committed fraud is over the line. Hoping Lord Roem and EdJohnston will comment soon. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
  1. 21:20, 14 September 2016

Discussion concerning Tiny Dancer 48[edit]

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

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

I think Tiny Dancer 48 has some knowledge in this subject area and wants to contribute in a good faith, however he has little understanding of the subject ("Races have a trait in common, but ... do not share a single phenotypic trait" below), has difficulty communicating with others and focuses on a single subject. Hence almost all their edits in article space were reverted, and none of the discussions he started led to any positive outcome. This looks to me as a case of WP:NOTHERE.My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus[edit]

Tiny dancer does have some knowledge in this topic. Unfortunately it is the kind of knowledge that one gets at "race realist" fora and websites, not the kind of knowledge that one gets from actually reading upto date mainstream sources about race and human biological variation. Many of the sources that he is parading are the same ones that have been used by prior race realist single purpose editors - which it has already been demonstrated either do not meet the reliability criteria as they fail to represent the adequately the scientific consensus, or which are quoted out of context to misrepresent the status of the pro-biological race pov. He suggests that a book by the cytologist John Baker in 1976 (in which he argues that "races" are distinct biological species, and which has been almost unanimously ignored by mainstream science since its publication for obvious reasons) would be a good book to build the article on[7] - dismissing the statements by professional organizations such as the American Anthropological Association and the Encyclopedia Britannica article as worthless because they represent the "US Sociological perspective"[8] (which is what he calls what others would consider the mainstream). He caricatures Ann Morning's book along the same lines without having read it - since Morning does not write about race, but is exactly a study of how social scientists and biologists differ in their uses of the concept "race" - and she concludes that biologists do sometimes still use the concept in "essentialist" ways in spite of the fact that biological mainstream discourse tends yt avoid the concept and stress that racial groupings cannot be used as essential constructions. Tiny Dancer is not interested in reading new sources like this, but only in pushing the safe old ones that supports his idea that his own POV neeeds to be more prominently represented regardless of what is current practice in the scientific fields that use the concept. This shows a basic unwillingness to play by the general rules of how weight is determined, basic unwillingness to cooperate on article building. Being an SPA, a topic ban against editing any content related to race might be enough of a sanction, but it probably isn't a good solution since Tiny Dancer might well go on to tangentially related topic areas where someone would have to follow them around to maintain the integrity of their contributions. A total ban per NOTHERE is probably the best remedy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I should note that tinydancers insistence on claiming that the social-constructionist view is particular to American sociologists (which is erroneous as evidenced by more than a handful of genetics textbooks written by geneticist) is also clearly a tendentious misrepresentation since the view has in fact been championed primarily by physical anthropologists since the 1960s. Physical anthropologists of course are biological scientists who specialize in studying the diversity of human anatomy across time and space. By referring to physical anthropologists as sociologists he is trying to make it appear as if their views are not specialized in biology and can therefore be discarded. Such tendentious misrepresentation is of course highly problematic and makes it very hard to assume good faith of an editor. Also as for the "essentialism", several books an articles to which I have referred at the talkpage - including Ann Morning's - race can be used in both essentialist and non-essentialist ways. Morning demonstrates that even though everyone agrees that essentialist uses are scientifically invalid some of its current uses in population genetics, behavioral genetics and forensic science tend towards the essentialist conceptualization. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Tiny dancer's comment on "Ann Morning's ignorance" clearly demonstrates the limits of hiw own understanding of biology. Defining race by ancestry or by genetic similarity specifically does not produce a category in which all members share any trait (because of recombinination in regards to ancestry, and because genetic clustering shows a pool of allelles that are shared by the members at a higher frequency than in other group - but in which no two members share all the specific traits in the pool and in which no traits are exclusive to members of the group) - that is the entire point of the genetic clustering debate which Tiny Dancer here demonstrates failure to grasp. Also again he is of course not realizing that Morning is reviewing what biologists write about race, not expressing her own view.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Ancestry or genomic similarity are precisely not "traits", as any biologist would know. And before the 1960s racial physical anthropology exactly used essentialist constructions of race - often based on single traits (e.g. cephalic index or similar) as anyone familiar with the history of racial science would know. Interestingly TD's idea that ancestry and similarity can be traits are EXACTLY the kind of essentialisyt misconception of the science that Morning shows is universally agreed is scientifically invalid, but which is still used implicitly in some studies that operationalize racial categories as distinct groups.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is somewhat hilarious to read TinyDancer's statement that he has not called anyone a liar after having been called exactly that at least a handful of times, some of them on this very page. It seems Tiny Dancer is himself applying a Trumpian approach to truthiness - truth by authoritative assertion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

Dancer needs to WP:LISTEN and WP:DROPTHESTICK. No opinion on whether it will take admin intervention. Rhoark (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tiny Dancer 48[edit]

Maunus's statement is full of lies. My approach to the article is based on scholarly international surveys. Maunus's is based on an assertion of his POV. John Baker's book is excellent for the history of the concept. He covers the development in European natural sciences, also mentioning the concept in other cultures. The 1998 AAA executive board blame "White slave traders", a patently false and emotionally driven pseudoscience guilt tactic. Maunus wants to parrot this and only this, then accuses me of what he is doing, basing the article on his favorite source. Baker never says human races are species. The book by an Oxford biologist and historian may be ignored in American sociology, I don't know.
Calling the biological race concept "essentialist" is a common meaningless strawman argument by biologically ignorant American sociologists. We cannot reference sociologists for biological views. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
"Nor did anyone believe the old essentialist view that there are clear cut, sharply-defined discrete race groups, all of whose members share some trait (or traits) that no members of other races share." Ann Morning
Defining race by ancestry or genomic similarity will produce discrete groups which all share a trait. Is Ann Morning thinking about immutable Platonic idealism? Who knows or cares. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
"It is now clear that individual traits do not make for good differentia. But this is not a new discovery. It was recognized by Buffon, Blumenbach, Darwin, and the many others who argued that one should simultaneously take into account similarity in numerous traits." Sesardic
I'm really not sure why Ann Morning's biological ignorance is of any relevance. Nobody thinks what she is talking about. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The shared trait being genomic similarity or shared ancestry. No biologist bases race classification on one physical trait. Why mention that? It's the kind of amateur point that only a sociologist would waste everyones time going on about when trying to discuss biology. This is why we don't reference sociologists for biology. Or do we? What next? Referencing sports scientists for nuclear physics? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
It's possible US sociologists Ann Morning and Maunus are confusing "trait", or defining characteristic, with "phenotypic trait". Races have a trait in common, but as far as I know don't all share a single phenotypic trait. Why go on about this? Is it some cheap race denial strawman referencing no actual biological views? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Refers to Alan Templeton (a living person) as a "quack", dismissing material in the article sourced with his work." Yes, Templeton takes the "75% rule" for subspecies which refers to the possibility of a accurate phenetic classification of individuals in contact zones of hybridity and applies it to human genetics or Fst. This is a ridiculous misunderstanding. Subspecies Fst goes down to about 1% and there is no limit on this. He is then referenced four times for one race denial sentence. "A popular view in American sociology is that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]" Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"Interestingly TD's idea that ancestry and similarity can be traits are EXACTLY the kind of essentialisyt misconception of the science that Morning shows is universally agreed is scientifically invalid, but which is still used implicitly in some studies that operationalize racial categories as distinct groups."

I see, now defining a category is an "essentialist misconception". Maybe we should throw out all concepts in a postmodern relativist frenzy because some whackjob US sociologist said the magic word "essentialist". Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"I think Tiny Dancer 48 has some knowledge in this subject area and wants to contribute in a good faith, however he has little understanding of the subject ("Races have a trait in common, but ... do not share a single phenotypic trait" below),"

This is absurd nitpicking. Ancestry and genomic similarity are traits in some sense. They are characteristics which can be used to classify. The "essentialist" strawman seeks to imply that there are no characteristics or traits which can be used to sort. This is false. Claiming I have little understanding of biology for this semantic quibble (when you show no understanding) is just a personal attack. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm simply reacting to a tag team pushing the pseudoscientific US sociology POV. I'm happy to include that POV, they seem unhappy to give weight to the global biology POV. The POV pushing is a far more serious issue than the whining about my tone. The "you are ignorant" claims are simply dishonesty. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston: I do have the POV that race is a valid biological concept. I am not trying to push this POV. The other editors clearly have the opposite POV. And are pushing it in the article. This article has been dominated by American sociologists since SLRubenstein.[9] The article remains similar to how he wrote it.[10] This does not represent international biological views. It's very easy to take sides and say "editor X has a POV". This is cheap. You should be looking at the various POVs in academia and asking whether the article represents them. Whether I am trying to bring the article to NPOV. Your comment is nothing more than gratuitous ad hominem. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Evergreenfir: I didn't call anybody a liar. How ironic. I'm "railing" against the 1998 AAA statement, which has been debunked. And we got a consensus for an opening sentence.[11] I would have liked it if you'd contributed to the discussion instead of pointing out how much of a mean person I am here. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Embarrassing failure was another possibility. Evergreenfir, what's your opinion on Lewontin's argument in the 1998 AAA statement? I mean, you do understand this stuff right? You don't just want me banned for violating your precious beliefs? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's Evergreenfir removing my edit citing "unsourced", but leaving the unsourced material it responded to.[12] Clearly gaming the system to push a POV. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Tiny Dancer 48[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @EvergreenFir:, please trim your statement to the 500 word and 20 diff limit. --Laser brain (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Clearly, problematic behavior here. I don't see any diffs post-edit warring block, so I'd close this with a warning and an eye towards a topic ban should the POV-pushing continue. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Was on the fence, Ed, but their most recent reply shifts me right over. Not sure an indef is necessary as a first preventative measure, but I'm not opposed if you, or another admin, thinks that's the best route to go. Sanction is necessary. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Lord Roem points out that Tiny Dancer didn't continue his article edits after the September 9 block. But since that date, he is still all over the talk pages with his intense POV (as shown above) and I don't think he has the ability to edit Wikipedia articles in a neutral manner. So I would go ahead with an indef ban from everything covered by WP:ARBR&I. A person with a strong POV on talk pages has the potential of wasting a lot of editors' time. He is unlikely to change his mind or be persuaded by data and sources offered by other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Tiny Dancer 48 has written above, "Maunus's statement is full of lies", while later in the same section he writes "I didn't call anybody a liar." Just had to get that observation out of the way, per User:EvergreenFir. I'm issuing an indefinite ban of User:Tiny Dancer 48 from all topics covered by WP:ARBR&I. That includes the article Race (human categorization) as made clear by having the banner {{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} on its talk page. This ban may be appealed in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek[edit]

CFredkin (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for three months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 1:37, 14 September 2016 Content recently added by 3P
  2. 13:53, 14 September 2016 Content recently added by 3P
  3. 16:33, 14 September 2016 Content reverted
  4. 16:49, 14 September 2016 Content restored in violation of Discretionary Sanctions

Snapshot of article Talk page at time of restoration indicating lack of consensus regarding content (bottom 2 sections)

Nofication of OP of violation by uninvolved editors and OP's response.

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

Prior notification of OP of DS at article

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

VM has clearly violated discretionary sanctions in this case. Multiple editors have noted this. The implication of his behavior is that he thinks discretionary sanctions don't apply to him.

Please note: Despite SomedifferentStuff's claim below, this request does NOT involve a 1RR violation. Please see "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" above.CFredkin (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User: Laser brain: If my behavior is going to be examined as part of this request, then I'd like to respond to the allegation that I've gamed the DS process somehow. (That seems to be the most common allegation.) I'd encourage the OP's to provide actual evidence to support the allegation. Presumably it means that I've been using DS to block content from being added to Trump's bio which is not actually questionable. If that's the case, there should be multiple examples of me reverting content (and declaring DS) and then my objection ultimately being decisively over-ruled in the Talk discussion.CFredkin (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User: Laser brain: Also, please review the discussion in this section of the Talk for Donald Trump, titled "Depth of coverage on Trump Foundation and current NY inquiry". I pointed out that an entire paragraph of the disputed content is not supported by the source provided. Somedifferentstuff and VM both responded to my post. Net result: as of this post, the unsourced content remains in Trump's bio. Please tell me who's operating in the best interest of the project.CFredkin (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list of archived AE activity regarding VM. (I'm not even sure if it's complete as I stopped looking after a while.) Seeing this list, I guess it's not surprising that a straightforward complaint of DS violation against VM would result in my being banned.

1 No action taken. 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

2 No action taken, see admin discussion below. 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

3 Case was without merit and filing party blocked for sock puppetry. 22:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

4 No action taken 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

5 Not closely related to the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions so outside the jurisdiction of AE. 07:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

6 Volunteer Marek and Russavia are banned from interacting with each other. Russavia is blocked for two weeks for violating his Eastern Europe topic ban. 07:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

7 This complaint is archived in the expectation it can be reopened when User:Volunteer Marek returns to Wikipedia editing. 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

8 Submitter blocked indefinitely. 08:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

9 Volunteer Marek warned for incivility. No other action. 17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

10 Jacurek, Volunteer Marek, Dr. Dan and Lokyz are sanctioned as described in this thread; M.K is warned. 06:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)CFredkin (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that the only actual evidence I've seen of alleged recent wrongdoing on my part is a post by Bishonen on my Talk page alleging that I gamed DS by reverting after 26 hours. Everything else has been generalized accusations.

It's interesting that the only editors who posted here as 3P's who have not edited Trump-related articles (as far as I can tell) were Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Vanamonde93. However, I believe Vanamonde93's post here was retribution for my opposition to his recent admin candidacy.

Leading the charge (although late to post here) to get me banned is MastCell, the admin who does no administrative work. As far as I can tell, all the edits he makes don't actually require administrative authority. So why does he have it? Because it's great for intimidating other editors and it allows him to get away with being generally nasty toward those he disagrees with (e.g. [13], [14], and [15]. He can't engage with me administratively, because he's been pushing his own agenda on Trump articles, so instead he gives this dog whistle to his buddies.

That was the signal for Bishonen (who had previously, and not long ago, declared that she was not going to get involved with DS enforcement) to head to my Talk page and threaten me with a ban for reverting after 26 hours on a page with DS. That's right, VM can get away with being the recipient of an amazing number of AE enforcements without so much as a slap on the wrist. But heaven forbid I revert after 26 hours on a DS page, and I'm threatened with a topic ban.

Then there's Drmies, who brackets her appeal here for boomerang sanctions against me with posts([16], [17]) advocating deletion of an article I created.CFredkin (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User:NeilN: I don't understand this post below. How is removing "firm" from the DS being discussed here going to change behavior? Multiple editors here have pointed out that when VM restored the reference to the Generals and Trump University, he lacked firm consensus, consensus, and in fact any support at all for doing so in Talk. And he later only removed the reference to the Generals, not Trump University.

I would say other editors will look at VM's blatant violation of DS and the proceedings here and conclude that what counts most on the project is having a group of like-minded admins who've got your back. In fact, I've had more than one editor email me to say that given the intellectual dishonesty of the liberal editors on political articles, they're not planning to engage in the project moving forward. I'm sure nothing would make you guys happier, but the inevitable consequence of that dynamic is that WP's articles will become increasingly biased over time. As that happens, readers will conclude that WP is not a reliable source for information.

In fact, that bias is already happening. Look at Clinton's campaign article.... liberal editors have blocked any mention of her "deplorable" comment and any mention of the Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy that's been a huge issue for her campaign. And then look at Trump's campaign article.... anything negative said by or about him has been added there, including an unfounded attack by Hillary regarding the "alt-right" movement. What's the chance that any attack by Trump against Clinton would end up in her article? That's easy... no chance.CFredkin (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Here we go again. Please see the, what? last three? reports against me this month - all closed with no action - for why this is bullshit. This is a blatant attempt to abuse discretionary sanctions bordering on harassment.

Here is the relevant discussion at User:NeilN's talk page.

Here is User:MastCell's comment there: [19]. The edit summary is on gaming discretionary sanctions and it refers to CFredkin's behavior (just like he's doing here). MastCell's comments are so on point that they deserve being quoted in full:

" it's pretty obvious what CFredkin is doing. He reflexively reverts any material that might reflect negatively on Donald Trump, typically with a vague or non-existent rationale, and then demands "firm consensus" before the material can be re-inserted. Any attempt to achieve consensus is then filibustered with further vague objections, most commonly some variation of "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-in-Hillary-Clinton's-article".

The discretionary sanctions are intended to promote caution in inserting potentially contentious material, but he's realized that he can render any material "contentious" simply by reverting it. It's a pattern which, combined with his editing history, makes it clear what he's up to. He's gaming the discretionary sanctions, and I see other editors, including Marek, getting frustrated with it. More to the point, if the discretionary sanctions are giving editors like CFredkin or Anythingyouwant de facto veto power over content, then they're not being enforced in a productive way."

because that's EXACTLY what CFredkin does. He blanket reverts any editor who's not one of his allies, claims that discretionary sanctions protect his edit warring and then filibusters any discussion to make sure that he can always claim that no "firm" consensus has been achieved. This is also the case the particular case of this request. Here's the talk page discussion [20]. There's five different editors who disagree with CFredkin. But hey, CFredkin objects, so "no firm consensus" so "I get to do whaa I want!!!".

Here's User:Somedifferentstuff's relevant comment [21]: "If Volunteer Marek deserves sanctioning then so do half the editors at Donald Trump, in particular CFredkin for consistently gaming the system in regards to discretionary sanctions with his drive-by deletions. I know this is silly season but enough already. I won't even get started on Anythingyouwant as I was in awe of the description here --- and low and behold, he strikes again".

For the record, I don't know Somedifferentstuff from a hamster and though I've obviously seen MastCell around (since he's a super-veteran editor) I don't recall interacting with them in any substantial manner. So it's not just me that has noticed and is getting totally fed up with CFredkin's behavior (Anythingyouwant does sort of the same thing, but he's not so obnoxious and transparent about it) and thinks it's long over due for a topic ban. CFredkin should've been topic banned when they first made an appearance making BLP vio edits. But hey, assume good faith, let it slide, and here we are now, four months of irritation too late.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And to be explicit, there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text. Ok, Anythingyouwant appears to have changed his mind later but at the time of my edit under discussion, their comments on talk indicated support for keeping the material. That's five editors who want to keep the text. And one editor - CFredkin - who wanted it removed. And he removed it. Against consensus. And then tried to invoke discretionary sanctions and filed this report as some kind of abracadabra magic spell that gives him immunity from being reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Zaostao, please don't accuse me of lying. Especially when it's your fault you have problems with reading comprehension. My statement clearly refers to the issue of including text about the Trump Foundation - you know, that's why I quote editors' statements about it and link to the section about it. What you are pointing out is that there was no consensus for something else - mentioning the New Jersey Generals in the lede. And I agree with that, which is why I self reverted that portion of my edit [22].

Again, in regard to the pertinent issue - whether to include material on the Trump Foundation - there was indeed five editors, and strong consensus for inclusion when CFredkin tried to remove it and when I restored. So stop throwing unsupported accusations around and strike your comment. (Also, why are you showing up to every article I edit?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Zaostao, first please don't alter your comments after someone replied to them, as you did here, since that makes it look like I'm replying to something other than what you actually said. Second, there was indeed no consensus for including the NJ Generals and I did a partial revert. Now Trump University, the discussion was more mixed, and I was considering self-reverting that as well but you beat me to it [23]. If you really want to know here is the timeline:

  • I undid CFredkin's revert at 16:47 [24]
  • I went to real life work. Anythingyouwant complained on my talk page that instead of immediately responding to CFredkin's admin-shopping at NeilN's talk page [25] I "waited six hours". Gimme a fucking break. If I have to go to work, I'm gonna go to work, not check Wikipedia every ten minutes to see if someone somewhere said something bad about me. Tough noogies guys, get over it.
  • I got done with work and noticed that CFredkin was trying to stir up controversy and haranguing admins and running around crying "discretionary sanctions" as he usually does when consensus is against him. I didn't have much time to look at the whole thing, but I did a quick partial self revert at 21:59 [26] to show good faith. I then drove home
  • I had dinner.
  • I quickly checked Wikipedia and quickly responded to the attacks on me at NeilN's page.
  • I hang out with my family and watched a cartoon with my kid.
  • I checked Wikipedia again at about 00:00 Sept 15, had some time to actually pay attention to what all this was about and made some more edits.

But now it seems that I was STUPID to actually partially revert myself at 21:59 (Sept 14) since now you're trying to use that against me to argue that "I was aware" of ... something or other. I'll keep that in mind and try to be less accommodating in the future, since apparently making a show of good faith just gets twisted against you.

Look, it's freakin' ridiculous of you to demand that I respond immediately on Wikipedia to every little storm that someone concocts in some tea cup. I responded to the concerns on the same day, when I had time to actually sit down with Wikipedia. And your insistence on bringing this up just evidences how bad-faithed your editing is (and you still haven't explained why you're stalking my edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And btw, I'm gonna go to work again now. So whatever crazy shit you guys come up with in the mean time, don't expect an immediate response. Probably shouldn't state this, since now there'll be a flurry of attacks (get him while he's busy!!!) Have fun with yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@ D.Creish.

You already brought up this MVBW business and tried to make something of it in like fifty million previous AE reports against me and in all of them nothing happened, because there was nothing to it. Just drop it. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean, seriously, is there some external forum or website or something where you guys collect and share these diffs, because you and a few others keep posting the same set and it almost looks like a cut-n'-paste.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Re Anythingyouwant - Anythingyouwant says " VM made six edits spanning 21:59 to 22:46 including this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead". This is blatantly dishonest. Oh screw it, let's call it what it is - it's Anythingyouwant lying his ass off. I made a partial self-revert. This partial self-revert did not include reverting a part which ATW apparently wanted me to revert as well. And now he shows up here and pretends that my good faithed partial-self revert was a "refusal". Do you see me refusing anything in that edit? No? That's because I'm not. But yeah, I'll keep in mind that trying to compromise with some people only makes them use that against you for the future. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic where every action by an editor one disagrees with is made to look bad and nefarious even when it's actually doing what you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And like I already replied to Zaostao - this boils down to the fact that I didn't fully revert within six hours after CFredkin went crying to an administrator. Like I already said, I was at work and wasn't even aware he had done this. I briefly noticed it six hours later but as I was busy with other stuff I made only a couple quick edits, including self-reverting myself in part. But that's not enough for the battleground warriors. They expect and demand that when they complain about something, the editor being attacks comes running to fulfill their wishes immediately and without delay. I want this and I want it now! Ok... how old are you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And oh yeah, did I mention that majority of the edit had "firm" consensus on the talk page when I undid CFredkin's revert? Cuz it did. This is just CFredkin yelling "discretionary sanctions! discretionary sanctions!" as an edit warring and POV pushing tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ATW, it was a lie. I didn't "refuse" to do anything which is what you are claiming. I made a partial self-revert rather than full revert. And no, I didn't break DS since the edit restored material which had support on talk page for the most part. If you had been nicer about it, and didn't try to make this into a battleground and had just waited a bit longer (like I said, at work) we could've worked it out amicably. But this isn't really about the edit in question, is it? It's about trying to hang a sanction on someone who gets in the way of pushing your POV. Because whether "Trump University" is mentioned (literally, as briefly as possible) or not, and whether I self-revert after six hours, or ten hours, doesn't matter all that much. But it provides you with this bullshit excuse to agitate here on WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla - yes, and I self reverted that part about the Generals as soon as I noticed. Frankly, it was such a minor part of the dispute, and of the text, that it didn't immediately pop on my radar. But when it did, I undid my edit. What's the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

I think the POV-pushing by CFredkin is immediately obvious from many his comments. Consider this for example. He tells: If we are going to say Trump is "racist" in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, then it seems completely fair to include this reference here. Both comments are equally well sourced and character-based.

Everything is wrong here:
  1. The lede at the Donald Trump presidential campaign in fact does not tell that he is a "racist"
  2. He makes assumption that if something bad was said about one presidential candidate, than something bad should also be said about another presidential candidate, just to "get even"
  3. CFredkin is obviously against saying about Trump that he is a "racist". OK. But he votes "Yes" so say an equally bad thing (according to his own comment) about another candidate.

My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Word "firm" was removed, but I do not think it changes anything in this AE discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The restriction tells: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). I guess it comes from Template:2016 US Election AE. Was it actually authorized by Arbcom for all pages related to US elections 2016? Based on comments below [27], I can see that no, it was not specifically authorized by Arbcom, and it was poorly worded.

I think this restriction should not be used as something prone to WP:gaming. For example, anyone can remove anything he does not like (no matter how well this is sourced and relevant) and claim: "hey, that was challenged by reversion, where is your consensus to include?". And this is actually happening, like here (see also edit summary). Moreover, making a restriction "to enforce BRD" is a questionable idea because WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi[edit]

  • Volunteer Marek: 27 edits since December 2015;
  • CFredkin: 222 edits since March this year.
Muffled Pocketed 08:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zaostao[edit]

Volunteer Marek states "And to be explicit, there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text. Ok, Anythingyouwant appears to have changed his mind later but at the time of my edit under discussion, their comments on talk indicated support for keeping the material."

Volunteer Marek restored the contested material at 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) and the talk page discussing this issue at the time showed no support for the inclusion. Anythingyouwant disagreed with the inclusion citing WP:MOSBIO, Buster7 said "OK. Maybe no mention in the lead but the Generals could be mentioned somewhere in the article," and Muboshgu said "Generals definitely not important enough for the lead. Trump U probably not."

So Volunteer Marek's claim that "there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text" is simply a lie, he had not discussed restoring the material, and there were only three editors on the talk page, none of whom supported the inclusion. Zaostao (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no support for the inclusion of Trump University in the lede either, but you left it in when you were self-reverting. You also did not discuss any of this on the talk page, in fact, the talk page when you made your partial self-revert was exactly the same as it was when you made your original restoration of the contested material. The excuse being that "but I meant to restore this contested material (Trump Foundation), not this other contested material (New Jersey Generals & Trump University) that I re-added as collateral" is not valid, and you showed awareness that you made the restoration of the New Jersey Generals and Trump University material along with the Trump Foundation material when you made the partial self-revert that left the unsupported Trump University material in the first paragraph of the lede.

You restored contested material without discussion and against the consensus on the talk page at the time of restoration. Zaostao (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving me the time line of your day Marek, but if your time is limited, may I suggest that you spend that time working and with your family instead of restoring contested material without discussion? It would be beneficial to all parties.

Addition: Marek states that "Now Trump University, the discussion was more mixed, and I was considering self-reverting that as well but you beat me to it."
1) He admits here that he was aware that he also restored the contested Trump University material along with the Trump Foundation material, and also was aware of the discussion that he did not partake in (how else would he know the discussion was "more mixed" or not), but chose to leave the contested Trump U material in when he made the partial reversion that removed the New Jersey Generals material.
2) This seems inconsistent as after I removed the contested Trump University material, Marek then made his first contribution to the talk page (his first in 12 days actually: 3rd September to 15th September despite having restored the contested material on 14th September) stating that he thought Trump University was important enough to be in the lede. He also later said that "Of course Trump U is notable. Why in the world would it not be?" in response to CFredkin stating "Neither seems notable enough to warrant mention in the lede," so I have to seriously question whether Marek was actually considering removing the Trump University line himself or if that statement was a lie—although it doesn't really matter either way as he still restored contested material without any discussion on the talk page and when the talk page was actually in consensus against the restoration. Zaostao (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, Marek complains about my presence here, but does not complain about My very best wishes' presence despite the fact that they showed up before me? As D.Creish has shown below, I think if there's anyone who is "stalking your edits", it is MVBW. Zaostao (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"one can at least hope that discretionary sanctions should be interpreted in a way that removes obvious single-purpose tendentious agenda accounts like CFredkin, rather than rewarding them while punishing the people who have to deal with them." –MastCell

Is this speaking as if the account being reported in this filing isn't (at least recently) a single-purpose tendentious agenda account? Do the same 3,000 edit test for VM, how many are not partisan edits to politics related articles? Zaostao (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement By D.Creish[edit]

You're correct, it's not relevant. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't know whether this is relevant here but I'm concerned about possible WP:TAGTEAM-ing by Marek and My very best wishes in political articles.

In Debbie Wasserman Schultz Marek makes two reverts which remove the same block of content:

  1. 17:42, 1 August 2016
  2. 20:21, 1 August 2016

When Marek's second revert is reverted, MVBW (having never edited the article before) makes another two reverts removing the same block of content Marek had removed:

  1. 23:06, 1 August 2016
  2. 09:13, 2 August 2016

In Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy (under 1RR) Marek removes a significant amount of content, is reverted, then reverts:

  1. 18:16, 14 September 2016

and again MVBW (having never edited this relatively obscure article) reverts to remove the same content:

  1. 00:20, 15 September 2016

One could chalk it up to shared interests but MVBW's edit summaries and (occasional) talk page comments don't reflect an understanding of the text he's restoring or removing.

For example, in his first revert above he refers to Wasserman-Schultz denying Sanders access to the DNC's computerized voter database as a "petty detail", when the incident was covered in every major RS, and the cited source was a NY Times article focusing exclusively on the incident.

In his 3rd revert his edit summary is: rv per BLP. The arguments on article talk page look convincing, but account(s) look suspicious. Something published by newspapers is not research. Except none of the editors whose content he reverted had posted on the talk page... and while one account looks suspicious the other two look normal. His reference to "research" is a bad paraphrase of Marek's talk page comment where he objects to including a USA Today "study."

The only part of MVBW's summary that seems reasonable is "rv per BLP." His reversion also restores a broken link corrected in a separate edit, suggesting he didn't examine the content or edit-history before restoring and simply deferred to Marek's version.

A more thorough search showed the pattern repeating:

If I continued searching I'd expect to find more. Effectively they appear to operate as one account with extra revert and consensus privileges. D.Creish (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


@Volunteer Marek: I mentioned your and MVBW's involvement at AE only once previously. I don't think "tried to make something of it in like fifty million previous AE reports" is a remotely fair or honest representation. Please retract it along with the personal attack that follows. D.Creish (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Somedifferentstuff[edit]

First, the initial filing of this complaint is malformed. It list 4 diffs, 3 of which do not involve Volunteer Marek (you need at least 2 diffs to demonstrate a violation of discretionary santions - i.e. 1RR). Second, the above section by D.Creish appears to be some type of "guilt by association" attack. It is largely focused on another editor called My very best wishes, who appears to be following him around. In other words, it is not his responsibility to monitor the actions of a fellow editor, much less be ascribed sanctions for their behavior. Lastly, whoever takes on this case needs to look at the discussion that took place here. Cheers. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

It's clear from this thread that CFredkin is abusing AE to pursue a political agenda against Volunteer Marek because Marek is upholding WP policy in the face of Fredkin's POV and Battlegound editing. CFredkin should be TBANned from American Politics per ARBAP2. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It should also be clear to the Admins who are declining to enforce ARBAP2 that their inaction is enabling various anti-Clinton POV editors to run out the clock, gaming the system long enough for their stuff to stay on WP and Google search results through the election. There really isn't time for Admins to ruminate, warn, study and relitigate all this misbehavior. All of this nonsense e.g. using WP to post anti-Clinton conspiracy theories as if they were fact, will be removed on the normal WP cycle -- about 12-18 months -- but the POV warriors know that, and so did Arbcom when it authorized Admins to act with appropriate timely sanctions to put a stop to this behavior. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: appears to be stating that a punitive remedy should be levied against Volunteer Marek. But on WP, remedies are applied for prevention, not to shame and blame. Furthermore, Dervorguilla, you fail to consider the context of battleground and POV behavior by other editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Anythingyouwant[edit]

The edits in question by VM were twofold: partly to the opening paragraph of the lead, and partly to a section about the Trump Foundation. This AE complaint is reasonable as to both, and reasonable as to either one separately, regardless of the outcome. For brevity's sake, I'll confine the rest of my comment here to the first edit by VM (i.e. his edits to the opening paragraph). At 14 September at 13:53, the following sentence was added to the opening paragraph of the lead: "He is the founder of Trump University and the New Jersey Generals football team." This sentence was removed at 16:33 on 14 September. Then Volunteer Marek edited this BLP by restoring that sentence at 16:47 on 14 September. At that point (16:47) there was already a talk page discussion with no consensus for including this material (three editors had commented and none of them supported reinclusion of the disputed sentence). Volunteer Marek had previously been informed about discretionary sanctions at this BLP.[28] VM's edit summary said: "restore well sourced material removed with misleading edit summaries".[29] But there had been nothing misleading about the edit summary VM criticized (please compare VM's blank edit summary for a non-minor edit at 16:49); even if VM had been correct that someone else's edit summary had been misleading, that wouldn't give VM power to revert new and contested material back into the opening paragraph without consensus, contrary to discretionary sanctions. Shortly after his edit to the opening paragraph at 16:47, a complaint was filed at 17:12 over at the user talk of an uninvolved admin, who requested at 17:52 that VM answer the complaint.[30] VM made six edits spanning 21:59 to 22:46 including this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead. Finally, another editor removed Trump U from the opening paragraph at 23:37. So, VM had plenty of time and opportunity to comply with the discretionary sanctions, and chose not to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead paragraph did revert some other stuff, but still it was a refusal to revert Trump U, exactly as I said above (without "lying my ass off"). I don't think VM ought to be praised for violating discretionary sanctions less than he tried to do initially.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Believe me, VM, I'd have much preferred if you hadn't screwed around with the lead paragraph of this very high profile BLP, because then I wouldn't feel obliged to stick my neck out like this at AE. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@User:Lord Roem, you refer to "VM's self-revert", but if you click on it you'll see that it was only a partial self-revert, and VM himself described it as such in his edit summary. The material that was not reverted had no consensus at the article talk page, including insertion of "Trump University" into the opening paragraph. It's nice and all that VM reverted himself a little bit, and I will certainly keep that tactic in mind next time I want to get away with controversial insertions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC) ───────────────────────── MastCell has now pinged me twice, so I will now respond. I have already denied that any misrepresentation was made by me in the incident five years ago to which MastCell refers. I do not want to comment any further here in this proceeding, unless or until anyone suggests sanctioning me, at which point I would like to see specific diffs and allegations to which I can respond. Preferably, we won't get to that point, but please let me know if and when we do. For now, I deny MastCell's accusation that I have recently lied about anything at the Donald Trump talk page. MastCell omits to mention that an uninvolved admin has already absolved me of that bogus charge (User:NeilN wrote "Different editors place different emphasis on different parts of guidelines. Doing so is not deliberate misrepresentation"). MastCell also omits to mention the explanation I gave him at the time, and omits that other experienced editors shared opinions similar to mine. Again, if I am being considered now for sanctions, please let me know why so that I can respond appropriately. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Belated statement by Dervorguilla[edit]

"I disagree with ... putting ... in the first paragraph ... 'He is the founder of ... Generals football team', per WP:MOSBIO," says Anythingyouwant. "OK. Maybe no mention in the lead," says Buster7. "Generals definitely not important enough for the lead," says Muboshgu. Looks to me like a reasonably well-founded consensus against reinstating, not for reinstating. Yet Volunteer Marek, an experienced editor, goes ahead and openly reinstates. He appears to have been openly taking a needless risk. I think he and other interested editors (including this editor) deserve to learn what the consequences are -- both for a risk-taking editor and for an editor who correctly calls him out. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Dervorguilla (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

[Rewritten after helpful comment]: "I disagree with ... putting ... in the first paragraph ... 'He is the founder of ... Generals football team', per WP:MOSBIO," says Anythingyouwant. "OK. Maybe no mention in the lead," says Buster7. "Generals definitely not important enough for the lead," says Muboshgu. Looks like a well-founded consensus against reinstating. Yet Volunteer Marek -- an experienced editor -- goes ahead and openly reinstates. He appears to be taking a needless risk. He gets properly called out. I think he and other interested editors deserve to learn what the consequences are -- both for the risk-taking editor and for the editor properly calling him out. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MelanieN[edit]

I think this diff (a comment by Bishonen at CFredkin's talk page) might be helpful in evaluating this situation. (Note: I am WP:INVOLVED in several of these articles, so anything I say here is as an editor, not an administrator.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant: this comment by MastCell at NeilN's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent activity: On September 19 VM and CFredkin got into a small edit war at Political positions of Donald Trump, in which they both did things that would have been sanctionable under Discretionary Sanctions. However, that article has not been identified as being under DS so the edits were allowable. I would like to suggest that somebody place a DS warning on that page, and possibly other Trump related articles, because this is by no means the first time that this kind of edit warring has happened there - by people who are clearly very well aware of what they can get away with in the absence of DS. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Just another straw in the wind: In a discussion at CFredkin's talk page, User talk:CFredkin#Gaming 1RR in American politics, he claimed that VM violates AE sanctions but gets away with it because "the same admin intervenes on your behalf at AE each time to give you a pass." When challenged to say who he was talking about, he backed down and struck the allegation. This seems to be to fall somewhere in between bluster and tendentiousness. Not to mention his unsupported claims that the admin community is "biased" and is "selectively enforcing policies". There is definitely a battlefield mentality here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]

I have interacted substantially with both Marek and CFredkin, so I am commenting here as an editor only. Marek's behavior was sub-par, and in my view he should certainly have been more circumspect about the revert: but he has self-reverted, which does not seem to leave too much to be sanctioned. I want to echo MelanieN's comment, and add that CFredkin's track record in this area is poor. I, too, have found that his modus operandi, more often than not, is to remove any material of Trump (or other mainstream republican candidate) and then demand consensus for its inclusion, or else insist that it is undue weight. He also tends to dance very close to the edge on many of the restrictions in place on US politics pages, whether they be 3RR, 1RR, or requiring consensus for contentious material. I can post diffs if necessary, but this is easily verified by looking at the number of warnings on his talk page, or the reports here. Moreover, a point he makes frequently is that Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump (for example) should be treated symmetrically, because that is his interpretation of NPOV: which of course is incorrect. NPOV means giving due weight to all significant points of view in reliable sources; and reliable sources treat the two candidates differently. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell[edit]

I agree with the consensus below that this request is meritless, but I'd like to expand on my comments here, on stonewalling, filibustering, and abuse of the discretionary sanctions by CFredkin, the filer of this complaint. CFredkin is a prolific single-purpose agenda account, whose only apparent interest in Wikipedia is in its potential as a platform for right-wing talking points. Here's an exercise: go back in CFredkin's contribution history and look for edits that don't directly involve partisan US politics. And if you find any, let me know—I went back about 3,000 edits or so before I gave up. If he has contributed anything to this project besides partisan political edits, please show me.

CFredkin also shows a striking disregard for this site's behavioral norms and policies. He was busted for abusive sockpuppetry designed to push a partisan agenda (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CFredkin/Archive), but was let off with a 2-week block. He subsequently racked up multiple blocks for edit-warring, again in service of his partisan agenda. He has become more adept at avoiding these sorts of bright-line violations, but he continues to edit-war in a more subtle manner (see this thread for one example). In light of his flagrant disregard for site policies when they stand in the way of his political agenda, his newfound stance as a defender of the project's integrity is strikingly hypocritical.

The most concerning behavior is the abuse of discretionary sanctions. CFredkin's m.o. is to reflexively revert any material that might reflect negatively on Donald Trump, regardless of how well-sourced, relevant, or policy-compliant the material may be. He then demands a "firm consensus" to reinstate the material, pointing to the discretionary-sanction requirement for contentious edits. The final step is that he stonewalls any effort generate consensus on the talkpage (together with Anythingyouwant). At best, his approach makes it a grueling weeks-long slog to insert any material into the article, since he's realized he can render anything "contentious" simply by reverting it and then invoking the discretionary sanctions. At worst, he effectively vetoes appropriate, policy-compliant material that goes against his partisan agenda, and then uses the discretionary sanctions as a weapon against good-faith editors who recognize what he's doing, as in this filing against Marek.

I'm not under any illusions as to our ability to deal with this sort of subtle, corrosive tendentious editing, but one can at least hope that discretionary sanctions should be interpreted in a way that removes obvious single-purpose tendentious agenda accounts like CFredkin, rather than rewarding them while punishing the people who have to deal with them. MastCell Talk 19:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh no. According to CFredkin, I'm infamous, as "the admin who does no administrative work". This is a transparently disprovable lie; I've logged nearly 8,000 administrative actions here. Perhaps he meant to say that I haven't adminned much recently, which is true. Of course, I haven't edited much recently either, mostly because I'm tired of dealing with people like CFredkin.

CFredkin also provides several diffs to support the claim that I'm "generally nasty". Please, scrutinize those diffs, because he's saved me the trouble of digging them up. The first two ([31], [32]) relate to an instance where I called him out for a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of a source. (He took a source describing the business community's horrified reaction to Donald Trump, and cherry-picked from it to write that "Trump has been endorsed by a number of members of the business community"). I'm not sure why he thinks that this reflects badly on me, rather than on him, but it is worth reviewing, especially in the context of other evidence of his unscrupulous approach to this project (for example, his deceptive use of sockpuppets).

(The third diff involves Anythingyouwant, who's previously been sanctioned for misrepresenting policies, doing more of the same). I think I was firm in response to these instances of dishonesty, but not "nasty", although I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. MastCell Talk 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MrX[edit]

My perception of CFredkin's editing career is reflected perfectly in MastCell's statement. CFredkin started as an SPA with a troubling history of edit warring. After several blocks, he was more careful about crossing 3RR, but still continues to edit war [33] [34] [35]. More troubling, is that he has learned how to use WP:ARBAPDS as an implement to veto content that doesn't mesh with his point of view [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. These, and many more reverts like it, seem to be attempts at GAMING the system.- MrX 23:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the motivation for CFredkin's editing conduct seems to derive from the need to correct perceived inequities in how Wikipedia covers politicians on opposite sides. Comments like these suggest an agenda to RIGHTGREATWRONGS:

On the positive side, CFredkin is almost always civil, and does use the talk page to discuss content. He has also made numerous improvements to article content, albeit within a narrow range of subjects.- MrX 00:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield[edit]

An arbitration remedy that says "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged" simply takes discussions down to a level of whoever shouts loudest and longest wins. While this may match the state of political rhetoric and political engagement in America, it is hardly conducive to producing acceptable article content. I think the remedy is now made even worse by the decision to remove the qualifier "firm". "Firm" means something that has a sound argument behind it, something that is not going to be easily upturned, something not based on just short-term raw numbers or long-term perseverance (something that most editors assume "consensus" means). On Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 I see lots of pov opinions in the lede unacceptably presented as if they were facts, plus lots of weasel and editorializing. The biggest red flag is the weasel-jargon "populist" - a word that ruling elites everywhere have started to regularly use to justify their widespread unpopularity and antidemocratic actions. I see little indication from administrators that they recognize a problem, but every indication that they are happy with things as they are. We have Drmies, Wikipedia's always available "man on the Clapham omnibus" administrator, being the first to fly the boomerang flag, allowing all other administrators to flock immediately around it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

In their 00:39, 22 September 2016 comment, CFredkin reveals an inappropriate approach including two mentions of "liberal editors". The attitude indicates that the editor should not be editing articles on US politics because Wikipedia should not be an adjunct to the election campaign. Rather than complaining about the "like-minded admins who've got your back", CFredkin should engage with the points raised by the uninvolved administrators. For example, has CFredkin ever added content that "reflects well on Clinton or poorly on Trump", or removed the inverse? What about the diffs presented, for example, by Drmies? Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I don't know if AE is set up to handle this but from where I stand, both parties have made claims against one another and both parties' behavior should be examined. --NeilN talk to me 16:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I've been looking through both of their contributions in this matter. --Laser brain (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This request doesn't hold water. There's a lot of semi-legalistic arguments in the above statements about how one should go about discussing before reverting or adding in reverted material. The re-addition of the 'Generals' sentence seems strange to me, but VM's self-revert seems to resolve that, at least in my mind. However one slices it, I don't think this singular edit is indicative of any behavior that needs to be sanctioned. I'd close this with no action, like the previous requests regarding VM. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Which begs the question of the boomerang... Drmies (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
      • After review of the new evidence and discussion both above and in this section, I agree with Bishonen's proposal. 3 months would be sufficient, in my mind. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Laser brain, do you have any findings? Also, I note that the "firm consensus" wording in the template that implemented the AE remedy has been replaced with simply "consensus". This should change the behavior of editors. --NeilN talk to me 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning heavily toward a boomerang for the filer. I see quite a bit of troubling behavior in diffs provided by MelanieN and MastCell, and I believe CFredkin is gaming DS to remove his perceived opponents. This thread is also very concerning, and I do believe he is gaming 1RR and illustrating that he considers Wikipedia to be ground zero for ideological political battles. He's edit warring and now making unfounded accusations of admins at the same time his behavior is being examined here, which indicates that he lacks the ability to see his own part in these conflicts. I suggest a three month topic ban from post-1932 US Politics. --Laser brain (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What would you think about a zero revert restriction that would allow CFredkin to continue to contribute to their area of interest but significantly disrupt their MO described above? ~Awilley (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's sufficient, for my part, since gaming the 1RR isn't the only MO by which the user pushes for bringing articles into compliance with his own political views. Having reviewed his editing recently, I just don't think it shows any respect for NPOV, even aside from the 1RR technique. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC).
  • Support boomerang. A three month topic ban from post-1932 US Politics, broadly construed, is just what I had started to consider applying myself, but through AE is better. If CFredkin has ever, in his diligent editing of these articles, restored content which reflects well on Clinton or poorly on Trump, or removed content which reflects well on Trump or poorly on Clinton, I haven't seen it. I'm not saying it can't have happened, but it must be vanishingly rare. He's a tendentious editor, and specifically, he has been using the discretionary sanctions as a way to force his preferred content into articles. That is not acceptable, no matter how polite a person is while doing it. Actually even the "polite" part of CFredkin's polite POV-pushing has started to flake off a little during this discussion; not that superficial courtesy is what's at stake here. I support Laser Brain's proposal. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC).
  • I support this boomerang too, and think that three months is generous, given how old and consistent some of these diffs are. Some highlights: invoking the BLP here is completely gaming the system. This edit is very questionable and its edit summary also attempts to gain the system of DS. Same thing here, in that infamous set of edits to the Trump lede--though I actually agree with its removal from that paragraph, but it should have been placed elsewhere in the lead (that's just an editorial thing, of course). This edit to the Trump article, same thing--threatening BLP/DS while whitewashing the article. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • CFredkin, I made this comment long before I looked at your edit history and drew the above conclusion--"it begs the question" doesn't mean I thought you should be banned or whatever. The question came up because of User:Lord Roem's comment, and it was just a question. I was not very aware, or aware at all, of you and your editorship here. Second, the Clinton Foundation AfD and the charge of retaliation, if that's what you're going for, I can see that I never clicked on the history of that article; it may be that I knew back then that you created the article, but I am not aware of it. (I can be a bit forgetful.) Finally, you say that "liberal editors have blocked any mention..." of something--well, I like to be a unifier, not a divider, and painting your opponents as "liberal editors" suggests that you have internalized not just a POV but also the thought that political POV determines editing behavior. I know some editors that I suppose are liberal, and I know some that I guess would not vote Democratic ever ever ever, but when I'm editing with them I only care about whether they can write, and whether they have a grip on neutrality and other policies. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @CFredkin: Before, changes could be stonewalled while debating what was "firm" consensus - a nebulous notion to be sure. That won't happen any more. --NeilN talk to me 01:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Towns Hill[edit]

Blocked 72 hours to prevent further disruption of the India-Pakistan topic area. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Towns Hill[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 03:13, 26 September 2016 Editing in section about the‎ Kashmir conflict
  2. 03:13 - 7:29, 23 September 2016‎ (4 consecutive edits) Explanation
  3. 03:13, 23 September 2016 Adding content about Bangladesh on Wartime sexual violence
  4. 22:31, 22 September 2016 Creating content about Bangladesh on Wartime sexual violence
  5. 06:24 - 8:23, 19 September 2016‎ (5 consecutive edits) Creating section about Kashmir on Wartime sexual violence
  6. 00:08 - 02:58, 29 August 2016‎ (13 consecutive edits) Added content about Kashmir on Wartime sexual violence
  7. 07:27-10:59, 28 August 2016‎ (4 consecutive edits) Added content about Kashmir on Wartime sexual violence
  8. 09:25, 30 August 2016 Edited on article about battle from Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
Diff since AE filing
  1. 11:14, 27 September 2016 Reinserted Kashmir content on Wartime sexual violence with edit summary "Sexual crimes by Indian occupation forces against Kashmiri women is not part of Indo-Pakistan conflict (which is separate and dates to 1947). Its part of Indo-Kashmiri conflict. This referenced and cited section cannot be removed by a random IP address."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 02:49, 24 March 2016 You may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area for a period of 1 month, subject to the standard exceptions by Slakr
  2. 15:12, 15 May 2016 Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh by EdJohnston
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

User was also indef blocked by Diannaa on 19:22, 30 August 2016 copyvio and later unblocked.

The Kashmir conflict clearly falls under ARBIPA as it's an ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan. Anything related to that conflict or Indian/Pakistani actions in that area would easily fall under the discretionary sanctions, broadly construed. I agree with Lankiveil that it's disingenuous to suggest Kashmir is not under these DS. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

17:04, 26 September 2016

Discussion concerning Towns Hill[edit]

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

Statement by Towns Hill[edit]

  • Actually I think all this is being over-interpreted. I have not edited anything contentious re. Bangladesh or Indo-Pakistan disputes. Rape of Kashmiri women by Indian troops is not part of Indo-Pakistan conflict. Its part of the Indo-Kashmir conflict. Towns_Hill 11:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Conflicts between India and Pakistan do not include conflict between India and Kashmiri people. If Indian army is raping Kashmiri women, it does not fall under Indo-Pakistan conflict. What would fall under Indo-Pakistan conflict would be the charge that the Indian Army raped Pakistani women.Towns_Hill 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown[edit]

As he is still a fairly new editor, I am pretty sure he has misunderstood his restrictions and thought that Wartime sexual violence does not come under this restriction, as he is been staying away religiously from the pages which got him this topic-ban at the first place. This is a common mistake made by new editors when under a topic-ban as they think that the restriction is on the article names rather than content. Requesting that he should be given a leeway here with a more clearer explanation as how these restrictions apply to the edits he made. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, he did not respond yet himself but my thinking is that he must have misunderstood these restrictions as I can see he stayed away from most of those articles which were specific to Bangladesh. Wartime sexual violence is not specific to Bangladesh. I see a potential of good contributor in him and think he should not be punished. Maybe he can be given a rope here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Towns Hill topic-ban was invalid to begin-with, it was issued in haste and was based on a rather inflammatory comment of one editor to an admin's TP. He was never reported at AE and was not given a chance to defend himself. He was banned on a comment of an editor who went on admin shopping and knew which admin would be more than willing to entertain his request because that specific admin has been mentioning distributing topic-bans on forums in the past. Bans/Blocks should not be distributed like candies and avoided as much as possible until they are absolutely necessary as they put a huge stain on an editor's credibility and history especially when the editor is a new editor. Towns Hill's t-ban should be reviewed and reversed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

@User:EdJohnston - dropping "and Bangladesh" from the restriction is just going to cause a shift in the problematic behavior. Like a balloon - you press in one place, it gets bigger in another. And that area has a lot of problems already (SheriffIsInTown's presence here indicates that if TownsHill is let loose there, it will probably get worse). @User:Seraphimblade - Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until the bloody and brutal Liberation War in 1971. That war also involved India. So for most practical purposes "and Bangladesh" is redundant with "conflicts between India and Pakistan". I'm assuming it was added in there just so TownsHill or whoever can't try to WP:WIKILAWYER it. I mean, there probably are some articles which are about "just Bangladesh" and are not somehow tied up with the India-Pakistan conflict, but probably not many, and in any case, these are not the ones that TownsHill chooses to edit.

As an aside, I do wonder if the increase in disruptive activity on Bangladesh-related articles correlates with the imposition of discretionary sanctions on India-Pakistan in 2012. It's possible that users who wanted to fight over I-P conflicts realized that was an easy way to get sanctioned, so they went over to Bangladesh articles to fights their battlegrounds there by proxy. I can think of a couple accounts who seem to fit that pattern. Another good reason to leave "and Bangladesh" in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi[edit]

I'd just like to point out that although it is belt and braces to insert 'and Bangladesh,' the provision on the original restriction- that is, 'broadly construed'- should be enough to include it. Since, as had been pointed out above, before 1971 it actually was part of Pakistan ('East Pakistan'), it is disingenuous to argue that is now completely irrelevant.

Statement by Kautilya3[edit]

Just a note to say that the user has also edited Partition of India after this report was filed. The edit even adds text saying Thus the 1946 election was effectively a plebiscite where the Indian Muslims were to vote on the creation of Pakistan. The edit summary is worth noting too. It does seem that the user has great difficulty understanding the scope of their topic ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Towns Hill[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Not sure what clarification is needed. The restrictions clearly apply to anything to do with Bangladesh and there are a whole string of edits on that topic. So also is the India Pakistan conflict restriction. Sexual violence during the conflict is clearly about the conflict. On the face of it, these are clear and umambiguous violations of the ban. --regentspark (comment) 18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps Bangladesh, the part not covered by the liberation war, can be withdrawn because much of that is independent of India and Pakistan. However, that still leaves many problematic edits. The ones connected with the liberation war, the Kashmir conflict ones, the annexation of Hyderabad (definitely India/Pakistan related). I'm willing to be lenient, but TownsHill's own statement leaves a lot to be desired. Disassembling aside, the majority of the edits are India Pakistan related. --regentspark (comment) 22:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to hear from EdJohnston as to how the topic ban from Bangladesh-related topics works. WP:ARBIPA authorizes discretionary sanctions for India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, but I can't find anything indicating that the area of the case was ever broadened to Bangladesh. If it wasn't, that portion of the ban seems to exceed the authority to impose sanctions and wouldn't have been valid to start with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I do see that there are several problematic edits aside from the Bangladesh portion. I'd endorse the suggestion of a 72-hour block, and removing the portion of the sanction regarding Bangladesh (though with the caution that if any edits regarding Bangladesh touch on the ARBIPA area, they are still covered under the ban and can be accordingly sanctioned). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The restriction I imposed on User:Towns Hill says "Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." I would be open to dropping "and from anything to do with Bangladesh". However this won't make the present complaint go away, since all the diffs given above (except #4) apply to war-torn countries where Indian and Pakistan were fighting. The atrocities that were said to be committed in Kashmir were due to India-Pakistan conflict. Diff #4 does not violate the restriction because it was a charge that rapes were committed by soldiers of the post-independence Bangladeshi army. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a clarification (or extension) is required to make it clear that matters relating to military conflict in Kashmir absolutely come under the banner of "conflicts between India and Pakistan", given the frozen conflict between the two states over the territory. It does to me seem somewhat disingenuous to claim that one thought the ban didn't already apply in that situation, however. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC).
    The edit linked to by Kautilya3 would seem to indicate that this user is probing at the limits of the topic ban to see how far they can go. Initially I was happy to go with good faith, but I'm finding that an increasingly difficult position to maintain. A short block might be in order. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
  • I think at least a 72 hour block, and a firm notice that this sort of thing is going to lead to very rapidly escalating blocks. There's no shortage of disruption in India-related articles, and it gets amplified several orders of magnitude if admins don't send an unambiguous message that they will enforce sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Epson Salts is cautioned that further attempts at wikilawyering and obstructionism is likely to lead to sanctions. No further action is taken at this time. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Sean.hoyland[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21:54 16 Sept First revert (notice no explanation in edit summary)
  2. 03:00 17 Sept Second revert 5 hours later, this time claiming a BLP violation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

[48] 3 month topic ban for 1RR violation.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months. He mentions ARBPIA 79 times in the edit summaries of his last 500 contribs, so it's safe to assume he is aware.
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 3 May 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Sean.hoyland (who according to the banner on the top of his user page edits exclusively in the ARBPIA topic area because of something related to "suppressing dissent" [49]) first appeared on the Walid Khalidi article after two weeks of no editing. Despite never having edited this article or its talk page before, he reverted another editor without explanation in the edit summary or talk page [50]. I reverted him reminding him of BRD (can be seen in the first diff I link to above). He reverted me, again with no explanation. He was reverted and 5 hours later made the second revert noted above, where he refers to BLP but does not explain what the problem is exactly.
I notified him on his talk page that he violated 1RR [51] and invited him to either participate in the discussion and explain the nature of the BLP violation he sees there or self-revert. He removed my warning and did neither.

@Kingsindian, even if your description were accurate (and it isn't. Anyone can see only 4 people including you and me have participated in the discussion in the past year, and you arrived after Sean's 1RR violation), restoring the RIGHTVERSION is not exempt from 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a link to a previous case in which Sean was reported for violating 1RR and received a 3 month topic ban. I would also like to point out that he has been warned [52] about accusing other editors of being socks without providing sufficient reasoning, as he did below.
Putting aside his ridiculous justification, I don't care if he talks to me or not. It has been long established here and elsewhere that "reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior" [53]. He can address his comments to someone he likes, but he can't invent reasons for reverting without discussion and in violation of 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@JzG, could you please explain how this is "a deliberate attempt at entrapment", and by whom? Am I reading you correctly and you think someone tricked Sean into making reverts without discussion or edit summaries, and in violation of 1RR? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount, you'd think a BATTLE laden rant in which an editor announces he will not collaborate with those he finds ideologically unacceptable would elicit some kind of reaction from the admins but apparently that's acceptable behavior for ARBPIA and this board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

While we wait for the admins to finish contemplating this case (and I'm starting to get the feeling that Sean's sense of impunity is not completely unfounded), I have a question: would an editor saying it is "proven" that a living person deliberately committed academic fraud in order to "get" another academic be a BLP violation? Seems exactly like the sort of thing Wikipedia could get sued for. Such an accusation has been sitting in this thread for a few days now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Could someone close this already? Here is a summary of the salient points that came up in the filing and resulting discussion:

  • 1RR violation (previously topic banned for 3 months for 1RR violation: [54])
  • Refuses to discuss his reverts ("reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior": [55])
  • Proclaims here and on his talk page that he's an SPA only interested in reverting other editors in ARBPIA, and his edits in the last several months reflect this.

I gather you guys are going to just ignore all these things which would, for most other editors, result in indef bans (I wish you were more honest about your reasons for this. Entrapment? Come on), but someone is going to have to close this and put their name on the close. It's not going to just get archived. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel, there's no consensus problem here. Not a single admin has indicated they accept Sean's BLP reasoning. Not a single admin said Sean's behavior was acceptable or that he didn't violate the Arbcom mandated 1RR restriction. There's a consensus, they just don't want to act on it. Apparently some editors get extra privileges, like not being bound by Arbcom decisions or normal editing practices. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@T. Canens, don't forget to note you're using your discretion to let his refusal to discuss his reverts slide as well. Someone might compare this request to the filing just below and get the wrong (or right) idea. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani, on the contrary, I'm arguing that cases should be judged only on their merits and regardless of what "side" an editor is on. Usually someone who violates the 1RR restriction would get sanctioned (see below). If they had been previously topic banned for a similar offence they would get a longer topic ban (I can easily show dozens of examples). Usually the fact someone outright refuses to discuss their reverts is of concern to admins (see below), not something to be ignored. Usually BATTLEGROUND fueled rants on AE get people sanctioned. Etc, etc. Why is this is a special case? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Sean.hoyland[edit]

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]

Ed, I don't think your solution will work. Firstly, I don't think there can be a legitimate consensus to include a misquote presented as a legitimate quote and so I will not pursue one. The evidence that demonstrates that the Village Statistics 1945 survey was misquoted was provided on the talk page (see here) and the orginal document can be seen at the National Library of Israel here (see Explanatory Note, paragraph A/5). Secondly, I choose who to engage with in ARBPIA. It is not a choice for anyone else to make and it excludes people I regard as belligerant ethno-nationalist POV-pushers and/or sockpuppets. There also has to be a good reason to expose myself to the inevitable pitifully infantile personal attacks that accompany engagement with these kinds of editors on talk pages (many examples of which can be seen at Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Dr_Brawer_quote), and in this case there was not. So for me, there will be no response to statements made by NMMNG and Epson Salts here or anywhere else, no dialog or collaboration, no replies to questions, no explanations and no discussion on talk pages and no seeking consensus with these individuals on this or any issue. If that results in a block or topic ban, the benefit for me personally outweighs the cost of engagement. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I should add that, while I have made hundreds, perhaps thousands of 1RR violations in ARBPIA reverting disruptive editors (as anyone can see from my edit history), I don't believe this was a 1RR violation. I think the removal was justified by WP:BLPREMOVE because a statement that criticizes a living person based on a demonstrably false quotation of the source they used fails the basic verifiability test. The source cited is simply wrong. The associated quote can and should be removed, in my view. There was no justification for the repeated restoration of the misquote and no amount of waiting or discussion could produce a situation that would justify its restoration based on policy. A legitimate consensus for that is impossible. There was nothing to wait for and there is never a good reason to avoid the inevitable reports that follow from any attempt to suppress the illegitimate actions of belligerent ethno-nationalist POV-pushers in sock and/or non-sock form. 1RR is not there to facilitate editors repeatedly and knowingly restoring false information into a BLP and self-preservation is not a valid reason to delay an action that an editor or bot regards as justified by policy in my view. Any long term editor knows that effective suppression of the disruption and contamination that inevitably follows from Wikipedia's inability to exclude these kinds of editors from ARBPIA will have costs for the editors doing it. So admins can do as they see fit and there will be no complaints from me. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

AnotherNewAccount, you are correct that I have 'no intention of editing collegially with those whom he deems "belligerant[sic] ethno-nationalist POV-pushers'. You are incorrect in assuming this is related to an "ideological agenda", but that doesn't matter. I had the privilege of attending a good college where working 'collegially' was possible. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to edit this way in ARBPIA with all editors, but right now that is neither possible or advisable in my view. The topic area does not have an effective admissions policy and so the notion of 'editing collegially' is wishful thinking and an irresponsible policy that exposes editors to attacks and the idiocy and ugliness of nationalism. My view after many years of editing, is that editors in ARBPIA should not collaborate with these kinds of editors because it is counterproductive. Editors who violate WP:NOTADVOCATE should not be here in the first place. Collaboration perpetuates the toxic unsafe environment which is why my edits are now restricted to uncommunicative bot-like reverts mostly of long-term-abuse accounts. I am glad that you misidentify these as "often good-faith new editor[s]" because the less you know about it the better. ARBPIA should be treated as an unsafe work area in my opinion and shutdown until Wikipedia can provide an effective measure of protection to editors and content.

Re: Kamel's 'directly rendering Wikipedia's policies meaningless' statement. This is nonsense. Wikipedia's policies are already meaningless. Bear in mind that in practice I have absolute impunity. I can literally do as I please. If blocked I can create as many accounts as I wish, all of which would be impossible to confirm as sockpuppets because, like many others, I have the access to the resources and experience necessary to do that. The fact that I wouldn't do that is just a random factor over which Wikipedia has no effective control whatsoever. Blocking is only effective against people with integrity, which sadly means it is largely ineffective in ARBPIA.

Re: Sir Joseph's statement "It is a common practice for those on the Palestinian side to claim sockpuppet for other people. We see that here and that has to stop. It is a chilling atmosphere when every dispute has allegations of sockpuppetry." The reason it's common practice to claim sockpuppet for other people is because it is common practice in ARBPIA for people to use sockpuppets. I'm aware that accusing someone of sockpuppetry without filing an SPI report is an article of faith the Church of Wikipedia. I haven't accused anyone of sockpuppetry here but I would have no qualms doing so even if it resulted in a block. I have simply reflected the reality that in ARBPIA the editors can be legitimate editors or socks, and the mix is probably 50/50. Complaining about the number of sockpuppets or telling people to shut up about sockpuppets does no good either way. It changes nothing. Blocking a sock changes nothing, they will just come back. In practice, if an editor that resembles a sock behaves well, does not violate WP:NOTADVOCATE, complies with all content policies, they will be left alone. But if they harass editors they dislike, which is what usually happens, or go back to their misuse of Wikipedia, someone is going to say they resemble a sock, and wishing they didn't or blocking them for voicing their opinion changes nothing. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

Please see the comment I made here on the talkpage. The basic issue is that there is (at least) 6-2 or 7-2 consensus on the talkpage to pare down some material, which is being obstructed by one editor by using wikilawyering. In the face of this obstructionism, Sean.hoyland has violated WP:1RR. You can "punish" the 1RR violation, or see the underlying issue. Up to you. Kingsindian   02:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not surprised that Epson Salts is wikilawyering here as well. Here's the consensus timeline. The initial discussion was a year ago, which nobody objected to, 3-0. Here Zero made the first edit which they forgot to do a year ago. Epson Salts reverted (3-1). Sean Hoyland reverted (4-1). Nishidani commented (5-1). NMMNG commented and re-reverted (5-2). Sean Hoyland reverted again. I comment (6-2). Pluto2012 commented (7-2).
This is of course not the first time Epson Salts has engaged in wikilawyering. Nor is it the first time they have given an unsolicited opinion that Zero and Nishidani should not be editing in ARBPIA, insinuations about source falsification, personal attacks and so on. One can easily find a ton of pages where they insert themselves into a content dispute, always to throw gasoline on it. I can give diffs if required. Kingsindian   16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Can we close this, one way or another? There is no more edit-warring on the text and there are proposals on the talk page to fix the text, one way or another, without including the misquote from Brauer directly. Kingsindian   04:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

Although it would have been good for Sean to state his explanation more expansively on the talk page, I believe that it is a reasonable judgement that the revert was justified by the BLP rules. As KI says, one editor is wikilawyering to keep a fake quotation in the BLP, that reflects badly on the subject of the BLP, despite everyone agreeing that it is fake. Even if you disagree that this justifies a revert, I think you should see it as a fair call made in good faith. Zerotalk 05:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Actually a link to a scan of the misquoted document has been on that talk page for over a year; see Huldra's text "I agree". Everyone has long all they needed to check that there was indeed a misquote. Zerotalk 23:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Epson Salts is easily the worst editor in the I/P area at the moment and I challenge anyone to identify any positive contribution he/she has made to the encyclopedia. What I see is endless POV-pushing, stonewalling, sneering and abusive tone and bad faith. The case brought here is actually representative. Any editor who is dedicated to article improvement, on noticing an objectively incorrect item in an article (in this case, a BLP even) will be thinking about how to fix the error within the rules. Epson Salts instead wastes the time of multiple editors by fatuous wikilawyering to keep the incorrect item in the article. The reason is quite obvious if you examine the direction of his POV-pushing. He/she even went to WP:NORN without notifying anyone else in the discussion and tried to get support by means of a distorted description (he/she makes it sound like a disagreement between an editor's opinion and a source's opinion, but it is nothing of the sort). Zerotalk 23:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Epson Salts now claims that all should be forgiven because the dispute was resolved. The fact is that there was never any cause for a dispute and it was only Epson Salt's disruption and wikilawyering that created one. Zerotalk 01:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement byEpson Salts[edit]

This is a very clear cut case of 1RR violation. Even the editors who posted here in support of Sen.hoyland do not deny that fact. I won't go into detail into the misrepresentations by Kingsindian or Zero as to the nature of the dispute (the quote is not 'fake' - we are talking about a possibly missing ellipsis; the current discussion is 4:2; it obviously can't be obstructionism by a single editor if they concede there are at least two who opposed to their position etc...) - because we are not supposed to be rehashing and deciding content issues here- that's for the talk page discussion - a page where Sean hoyland has been conspicuously absent. The question before us here is - do we allow 1RR violations for what some editors think are 'good' edits. That's a very slippery slope. Epson Salts (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: You are confused as to the argument I am making. A noted scholar, who is a geographer by training and current occupation, who is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal on a topic of geography, is an academic source. An activist, who is an anthropologist by training and a current researcher in internet activism, who is published in a group blog on a topic far outside her academic expertise (WII history, Nazism and Arab antisemitism), is not. There's nothing inconsistent about this position.
Would you care to point out where I am wikilawyeirng on the relevant talk page? I have already said I am willing to rephrase the Brawer crticism and have asked Zero0000 for a proposal for such re-write - what is the issue?
And let me understand the position you are taking: It is ok to violate an Arbcom mandated 1RR restriction, refuse to discuss the reasons for the revert, and declare that you will continue to do so in the future , provided it is a revert to the "right version"? It would be useful to know this. Epson Salts (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If any of the admins jumping to the "topic ban" conclusion actually care, the dispute over which I was supposedly "wikilawyering" has been fixed for two weeks now, due to a collaborative effort between me and @KingsIndian: . Epson Salts (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

There is no 'misrepresentation' by those editors. The second diff constitutes an IR violation, but was motivated as a WP:BLP violation. Zero outlined a case one year ago that the quote from Brawer comes from him running together two sentences widely separated, with a crucial element missing, to formulate a criticism of another scholar, Walid Khalidi.Nota bene that on perceiving this, he did not rush to 'score' a point, the vice of many editors here. He waited a year for further collegial input This is an inexpugnable fact which ES still challenges above: 'we are talking about a possibly missing ellipsis. I.e. the talk page has the evidence, a scan has been provided to verify the full text, the fact that Brawer in defiance of fundamental scholarly practice dropped the (. . . .) marks indicating an ellipse, to get at Khalidi is proven. For ES it remains a possibility. That is wikilawyering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT principles.

A further point.In reverting Sean.hoyland’s revert Epson Salts’s edit summary reads: disruptive edit warring by editor not participating in the discussion. But that is precisely what ESS does. For example, this, at Max Blumenthal, where he reverted never having participated on that talk page. Epson Salts varies policy reasons for reverts from page to page, indulges in abuse of, and bad faith accusations of several editors, and when told to desist replies:'You get back exactly what you dish out', which misses the point. I asked him to stop abusing Zero, not me. There is no trace in Zero's edit record of intemperate language. Hoyland should have waited: there were several eyes on that page. But it is not as if he can't see what has been obvious to several editors since ES arrived on the I/P scene.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I accept the I/P area is always going to be difficult. But there is an uptick in hostility and sneering recently that is effectively making any form of editing close to impossible because the hostility is undisguised, and it comes with theories about me, or others. I am assumed to be a Hamas-POV pusher (here and here, herewhere the technical literature I cite (per WP:NPOV - one cannot just cite incidents of terror and cancel out what the huge scholarship on it regularly produces as contextualization or theories regarding its causes - is then interpreted invariably as 'my opinion'), or part of a 'gang of buddies' who are going to get what, apparently, 'we' dished out now the 'shoe is on the other foot' (here; here against Zero;here; or here), which today echoes exactly the unembarrassed, openly 'vindictive' declaration of an intent to 'dish it out' to a perceived group which I mentioned earlier. It comes, note, after The Blade of the Northern Lights advised him to 'tone down' the aggressiveness he flaunts.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
NMMGG/KT.The innuendo above that the respective merits of each particular case be ignored, and that in its place all I/P cases be collapsed into 'if you take one of our guys out, you have to take one of theirs' logic, and if you don't, you're biased, is, if not rhetorically coercive, then arguably intimidatory, and out of place. If a IR rule is broken, though the reason of the reverter had a policy basis, that is one thing. A sanction is probable, but it is not to be taken as identical to repeated aggressive personal attacks, amply documented, by the editor Hoyland reverted. There is no mechanical parity between the respective behaviours. Hoyland is not fighting a sanction, if his interpretation for the second revert is invalid. Epson Salts has been attacking everyone. They are two qualitatively distinct forms of behavior. Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra[edit]

Ah, this is a case of horrible "wiki-lawyering"; saying that if anyone is scholar, is a WP:RS, therefor should be represented. Well, there are countless of WP:RS-sources which gives the number of killed in the Deir Yassin massacre around 250. Today we know this isn´t true, so we do not use them in the article (except to note that the estimates of killed were earlier larger.)

That Brawer is a scholar does not mean that everything he wrote is correct. When shown that what he wrote was not correct, then it is a horrible (sanctionable?) idea to put it into an article. Huldra (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, the Brawer quote S.H removed twice is: [According to Brawer, the reliability of the original version is in doubt,] to the point where the explanatory note on the original 1945 version specifically states: "The population estimates published here cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerable from the actual figures." This in a discussion of Khalidi`s 1992 book: All that remains.

Besides the fact that the Brawer quote is not as stated in the Village Statistics 1945, it also seems to me that Brawer wants to give the impression that Khalidi has hidden the fact that the 1945 populations were estimates. However, Khalidi does no such thing. On p. xxi in "All that remains" Khalidi writes: "It should also be stressed that the population figures are not the result of an actual census but extrapolations as at year-end 1944 prepared by the Mandatory Government´s Department of Statistics on the basis of the 1931 census."

It is not Khalidi´s fault that the 1945 populations figures were estimates!

To me: if editors add the full Brawer quote to Khalidi´s BLP, it indicates that the editors have no knowledge of Khalidi´s work, Huldra (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kamel Tebaast[edit]

Most all of Sean.hoyland's edits are reverts, s/he walks the fine line and knows the rules, and you admins are suggesting a warning for a 1RR. No topic ban! No block! Nothing! A warning! You're out of order! You're all out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that crazy man, reverted everyone, and he'd like to do it again! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Admins, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to let off Palestinian nationalists with warnings! Whaddya wanna gimme Admins, 3 weeks probation? KamelTebaast 07:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Not my fault you don't know one of Pachino's best scenes ...And Justice For All
@Zero0000: The worst editor in the A/I area is Sean.holyland. Since 11 August 2008, s/he has made 5,739 revisions. Clearly very little "positive contribution he/she has made to the encyclopedia".
@Kingsindian: You don't find it ironic that you wrote about Epson Salts giving "unsolicited opinion" about other editors while you were giving an unsolicited opinion about another editor?
@Admins: Enough with all these straw man and misdirection arguments, refocusing on other editor diversions, and, a first that I've heard on Wikipedia, "entrapment". With 5,739 REVISIONS, most all in the A/I area, Sean.hoyland clearly knew the rules. S/he made two reverts in five hours and bi-passed the opportunity to self-revert and discuss in Talk. A sanction must be given. If not, you are directly rendering Wikipedia's policies meaningless, and you are adding to the real concern that Wikipedia has one set of rules for editors who support Palestinian nationalism and one for editors who support Israel. KamelTebaast 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Can Wikicourt end with no consensus? KamelTebaast 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@NMMNG, you're forgetting some very important details. The admins acknowledged that "wikilawyering" and "entrapment" were the real culprits, apparently causing Sean.H to act this way. KamelTebaast 20:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@T. Canens: As a relatively new editor who wants to learn, and for all the new editors, can you please explain how you justify that an undisputed 1RR violation should "slide", while many other editors have received sanctions for far less? Thank you. KamelTebaast 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

Two things need to be kept in mind. (I am not taking any sides in the content dispute or 1RR since I haven't looked into it.) It is a common practice for those on the Palestinian side to claim sockpuppet for other people. We see that here and that has to stop. It is a chilling atmosphere when every dispute has allegations of sockpuppetry. Secondly, the claim that there will be no interaction, no explanation, no discussion is completely contrary to Wikipedia. When someone edits they are editing under the guidelines that there will 100% be discussions and explanations. These comments need to be addressed, independent of the actual 1RR case presented here. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding calling others socks, Sean Hoyland was already warned for this before. Here is one time: Quite frankly I'm surprised no admins are commenting on his statements that he will not cooperate with editors. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount[edit]

This is a very clear 1RR violation, and I fail to see how the content in question violates BLP guidelines either. (As for Kingsindian's supposed "consensus", it looks very much to me like a traditional ARBPIA non-consensus: the standard sizable group of pro-Palestinian editors with strong views all agreeing with each other, out-arguing the rump of 1-2 opposing editors by sheer force of numbers. Neutral editors, are of course, entirely absent.)

Scrutinizing the accused editor's overall conduct of late, I question whether Sean.hoyland is even here to build an encyclopedia anymore. The last few months' editing has consisted of little more than ideological revert ninjaing and POV-motivated enforcements of 30/500 without even the courtesy of an explanation to the often good-faith new editor being reverted. Reading his rant above, it's clear that he has no intention of editing collegially with those whom he deems "belligerant[sic] ethno-nationalist POV-pushers" - that is, those editors who oppose his heavy ideological agenda. I was originally going to suggest he be placed on 0RR, but demonstrating this clear battleground mentality, I now think administrators should consider a topic ban. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ijon Tichy[edit]

Sean.hoyland should be sanctioned for clearly violating the 1RR restriction. Perhaps a (short-term, temporary) topic-ban or block. I greatly respect and admire Sean's work, he is a net positive asset to the project by a very wide margin, he is clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and does a great job of reverting a wide range of edits by disruptive editors. Sean's work always strictly follows, and asserts, Wikipedia policies and guidelines across many articles in the I/P topic area(s). I hope that he will soon decide to exit his retirement or semi-retirement and resume contributing many more edits to the encyclopedia --- I enjoy reading his good work. However, he broke the rules (which is a very rare behavior for him) and should bear the consequences.

Meanwhile, Epson Salts appears to continue to edit disruptively while completely ignoring the warnings and helpful advice that were provided to him here on this board from experienced users including Kingsindian, Zero0000, Nishidani, Huldra, Drmies, JzG, and The Blade of the Northern Lights, as well as from user Joe Roe here. For just one recent example of Epson Salt's many disruptive edits over the last few months, users may want to take a look at Talk:2008 Dimona suicide bombing. This is just one representative case of the numerous incidents where Epson Salts has used WP as a battleground and where Epson Salts has continued to relentlessly hound and personally attack Nishidani across numerous WP articles, despite many requests and warnings by Nishidani, and others, to stop. Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Sean.hoyland[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I would close this with a warning to User:Sean.hoyland that he may be blocked if he edits the Walid Khalidi article again without getting prior consensus on the talk page. Sean's second revert doesn't appear to be justified by BLP. People are claiming that the Village Statistics 1945 survey could have been misquoted but there is not quite enough information provided at Talk:Walid Khalidi#Dr Brawer quote to be sure that happened. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree with EdJohnston--respectfully of course! I think that Sean.hoyland hasn't been perfect here, but it is pretty obvious to me that indeed Epson Salts is wikilawyering on the talk page where there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that a. not every apparently status quo is a "stable version" and b. the challenged material was indeed excessive and its source questionable. I note that Epson Salts claims that "sourced, academic material" (a rather vague adjective, that second one) shouldn't be reverted, though in another discussion (still at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Miriyam_Aouragh_as_a_source_for_the_views_of_Gilbert_Achcar) they are acting as if they believe the opposite. So yes, I think I'm with Kingsindian here (that that day would ever come...) and I think that the underlying issue needs to be dealt with here. If one calls Sean.hoyland's disruptive or in violation of this or that, then surely the handiwork by Epson Salts is, and I think that they're ready for a topic ban. That is, I think Wikipedia is ready for that. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Epson Salts, not confused, but your sarcasm is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Kamel Tebaast, I love a bit of entertainment, but huh? what? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Frankly, this looks to me like a deliberate attempt at entrapment. Sean.hoyland needs a shot across the bows, which is fair, but nothing more. And Epson Salts needs a pretty strong warning to watch his step. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Essentially agree with JzG, and further emphasis that Epson Salts seriously needs to back it way down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest this be closed with a strong warning to Epson Salts for wikilawyering and wasting time. I don't see much reason to sanction or warn Sean.hoyland or No More Mr Nice Guy. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC).
  • For Epson Salts, I would go for a topic ban right now. I think we can use our discretion to let this 1RR violation slide. T. Canens (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to a topic ban for Epson Salts, either. Bishonen | talk 01:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC).