Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive211

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

Contents

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thucydides411[edit]

Procedural closure: The appeal is moot because the block that was appealed has expired.  Sandstein  09:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Thucydides411 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
blocked from editing for a period of 1 week, imposed at WP:AE#Thucydides411, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2017#American_politics_2
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
I've moved this appeal from the user's talk page and notified Coffee.  Sandstein  08:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thucydides411[edit]

There are four reasons why I think this sanction should be repealed:

  1. I was blocked for following an interpretation of 1RR that an admin MelanieN, explicitly told editors working on the page we should follow: [1]. This interpretation is based on a number of threads that occurred between admins here: [2] [3].
  2. The block is punitive, not preventative. I have shown that I will follow whatever policy guidelines are given by admins. For Coffee to come come in, after the fact, and tell me that MelanieN and NeilN are incorrect in their interpretation of 1RR, and that my editing is therefore retroactively incorrect, is simply punitive.
  3. I have been singled out for a sanction, when, as was documented in the proceedings, most active editors are guilty of the exact same violation. There is nothing that distinguishes my editing from that of those editors, yet I am the only one to receive a block. If this sanction is to be applied consistently, the editors who must receive equal blocks are as follows: Steve Quinn, JFG, FallingGravity, Volunteer Marek, MelanieN, James J. Lambden, Neutrality, EvergreenFir (see Darouet's and James J. Lambden's comments in the original case for diffs showing exactly the same violation that I was accused of for all of these editors).
  4. Contrary to what the closing note at AE says ("reinstating edits that had been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining or seeking consensus first"), I did, in fact, seek to obtain consensus. In fact, I have been heavily involved in the discussions on the talk page. At the time I received a block, for reinstating material relating to Clapper, the material that I had reinstated had been removed again, and I was involved in discussions with the users who had removed it.

In sum, I was blocked for editing in exactly the same manner as most editors on the page, in a manner that admins had explicitly told us was consistent with the 1RR policy. If Coffee's interpretation of 1RR (which differs from that of several other admins) is correct, it should at least be applied consistently, rather than to one editor in particular. And it should not be applied retroactively to editors who were acting in good faith, according to the interpretation of policy they had been given by admins, and who spent a considerable effort engaging civilly with other editors on the talk page.

@Coffee: I didn't list SPECIFICO above as one of the people who have violated the interpretation of 1RR you've laid out, since SPECIFICO's reverts were not mentioned in the case before. But since SPECIFICO has been so adamant here, yet so disruptive on the talk page (insulting other editors here, for example: [4] [5]), and themselves has violated 1RR several times in just the past few days, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is warranted here. Here are SPECIFICO's recent 1RR violations:
Violation #1: two reverts in 24 hours:
  • 03:52, 15 February 2017: [6]
  • 05:07, 15 February 2017: [7]
Violation #2: two reverts in 24 hours:
  • 22:46, 5 February 2017: [8]
  • 00:27, 6 February 2017: [9]
Violation #3: two reverts in 24 hours:
  • 03:34, 10 February 2017: [10]
  • 03:10, 10 February 2017: [11]
A smattering of other reverts, barely avoiding the 24-hour window:
  • 20:28, 12 February 2017: [12]
  • 00:22, 11 February 2017: [13]
As they say, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee[edit]

The Arbitration Committee approved page restriction (placed by Bishonen) states that editors "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" ... the Arbitration Remedies notice at the talk page further states: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) reinstated two edits that had been challenged without first obtaining consensus, thereby violating the page restriction. The length of the block was recommended by Sandstein (although he later requested an admin more familiar with the area make the disposition) and I found it an appropriate length as well. The block for the above stated violation was proposed by EdJohnston, and I implemented it after a full review. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: So, are you saying there wasn't a violation or that because he misinterpreted the letter of the restriction, and of other administrator's views on the restriction, there can't be a violation? I'm really quite confused as to what caused such a drastic change in your opinion, unless you're saying you didn't fully look at this before making a binding decision (which is just a bit concerning). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Laser brain, @NeilN: I'd also state that any edits made after the date the restrictions were imposed, 16 December 2016, can't really claim to be "long-standing". Darouet claims these edits were first placed in the article in mid-January, meaning they're way below that threshold. Furthermore, while the restriction is intended to stabilize the article, it isn't intended to be gamed so that one may force "their version" to be the version... As these edits weren't able to stand for even 40 days without being challenged, I can only see the stated misinterpretation by Thucydides411 to be an attempt to do just that. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: Administrative actions do not work retroactively. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Awilley: SPECIFICO brings up a great point... how is 9 days considered "long-standing" (adj. existing or occurring for a long time; synonyms: well established, time-honored, age-old, abiding, enduring)? Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Awilley: Also, according to your analysis, the only other editor that would be eligible for a block currently is JFG (as the other violating edit, made by Darouet, was done over a month ago). As there is an AE thread currently open further down this page to decide on what happens to JFG, I don't see the lack of sanctions being applied to other editors to be a valid reason for lifting or reducing this fully valid block. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Awilley: An edit that is challenged isn't considered to be unchallenged just because someone else performs a revert. Once an edit is challenged, it requires consensus to be reinstated. That consensus was not obtained by Thucydides411, Darouet or JFG. As I said above, JFG is the only other editor currently eligible to be sanctioned because of time elapsed. Therefore, this sanction is correct and a sanction for JFG would be in order as well. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: According to the in-depth analysis done by Awilley, the content in question never stood more than 9 days on the article after being added. As such, I think the entirety of the idea that a 4-6 week system applied here, or that these edits were long-standing in any way, is completely impossible. What I blantaly see from his timeline is Darouet, Thucydides411 and JFG gaming the system, by attempting to claim that their obviously challenged edits weren't challenged, and then, almost fully succeeding at reversing the onus of consensus that is required by the DS. Just because three editors really want something on a page, they don't magically override our DS system. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

1. It's been amply disputed by others, and never documented by Thucydides411, that @MelanieN: stated any safe harbor or definition of DS that applies to the facts of this case.
2. Given Thucydides longstanding disruptive editing in a American Politics, this preventive block is needed. "No Fair!" is orthogonal to "Punitive". Claiming he didn't understand the sanctions only reinforces the need for a preventive time-out.
3. His claim that he's been "singled out" only demonstrates that he has not begun to shed his battleground viewpoint and enemies list. The decision in this particular case was about him.
4. It's all the more damning that, "seeking consensus" on the talk page in fact showed editors about evenly split on the issue and any diligent editor would have stayed far away from behavior that could possibly be viewed as edit-warring. Thucydides claimed that his behavior was justified because his opinion was the correct opinion. He tried to claim a false equivalence between other editors' removal of a BLP smear and his obstinate reinsertion of a POV edit.

If he has concerns about the form or function of ARBAP2 sanctions, he should go to Arbcom Clarification to seek improvements after his block expires. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Further to my point (1) above, Thucydides' repeated and ongoing attempts to misattribute self-serving exemptions to several Admins is disruptive and in my opinion is on its face a further serious violation of ARBAP2. I suggest Admins consider whether Thucydides should have a more lengthy ban from this article so that he can fully consider his behavior before returning to action. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I understand that you dissent from the consensus as of the close of the AE against Thucydides. However my understanding of these AE appeals is that they're to correct some defect or omission in the original process, not to re-open the discussion, challenge consensus at the "trial level" or relitigate the details. There are no new facts here, just remarkably obstinate repetition of the disputed meme about longstanding and Admin advice that was rejected first time around. SPECIFICO talk 04:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for your reply, but isn't that about relitigating the original decision rather than ruling on some error or omission of process that would cause the decision to be reversed? I mean, the Admins came to a decision with all the diverse views on the table at the time of the block. Did you feel that your dissenting view was not treated appropriately among the Admins? I understand there may always be a minority opinion in any adjudication, but unless the process itself was flawed, the consensus, taking account of all views, should stand. SPECIFICO talk 04:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand we have the facts -- Thucydides documented to have violated DS, behaved disruptively, and ignored demonstrated consensus against him on talk. On the other hand we have his Special Defense: "No fair!" -- The weight of the evidence in this matter says "appeal denied." SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the analysis by @Awilley:[edit]

Awilley, thank you for the work you did to provide that timeline. It shows us that the disputed content was never in the article for more than 9 days before being disputed by revert. It further shows many editors recognizing its BLP violation and duly removing it. I don't believe that 9 days is considered "longstanding" and I don't believe that a BLP violation should ever be reinstated. Even if an editor had doubted all the others who were pointing out the BLP violation, any editor with that doubt could have sought advice by going to BLPN before reinserting that content. Awilley, in light of the 9 day "longstanding" disconnect, please reconsider your conclusion. Instead we saw attacks on the good faith of half a dozen editors who recognized the smear -- published in an opinion piece in a second-tier US newspaper. You may find it helpful to do a similar analysis of the article talk page, where a clear consensus identified the text as a BLP violation glibly referring to misrepresentation by a living person -- a public servant, no less, whose responsibility entails handling sensitive information for the US. SPECIFICO talk 14:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thanks for your reply. I think the argument Thucydides was using to pursue his appeal, now moot, referred to content that stayed in the article uninterrupted for 4-6 weeks or whatever. Once it is challenged by reversion, it should not go back in. Therefore the fact that Mr. T et al participated in an edit war, never letting the reverted content stay out of the article, does not relate to the requirement of T's theory, namely that it had been stable consensus version for a long period of time. The point is that the first reinstatement occurred after the content had been in the article for 9 days. How does that relate to any advice any Admin gave about "longstanding" in the sense of weeks or months? What happened after T's reinstatement violation is sauce on the pudding, but the pudding was baked after he reinstated the 9-day longstanding. As to BLP UNDUE, SPS and other defects in the content -- yes it had all those problems and the fact that the edit warriors continued to reinstate it after all of those were raised on talk suggests, if anything, that T's block should be lengthened, not commuted. The BLP problem is that the Op-Ed and the WP text were written as if to refer to a fact about Clapper, when in fact the authors were asserting an opinion, and not one suitable for repetition without explicit discussion as an opinion. And becuase of the weak and UNDUE nature of the opinion, that kind of treatment would also have been a BLP violation. But yes, you're right that they should not have been edit-warring this stuff back in regardless of the BLP issue. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for your comment on Awilley's evidence. Given that Thucydides' claim of "longstanding" is invalid, what exemption would apply to his repeated reinsertion of that content given a) the BLP violation (which he could have addressed by seeking support for his view at BLPN) and b) the demonstrated talk page arguments against the content by several editors who presented policy-based reasons including PRIMARY and UNDUE? SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Quinn[edit]

Admins look for patterns where an editor might be thwarting polices or editing into articles without consensus. In this case, the material was challenged based on content polices by a half dozen productive editors, including me:

Thucydides411 was actually undoing any edits by some of the above editors in a short amount of time. No consensus had appeared for these edits:

  1. 07:14, 11 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO +
  2. 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting Space4Time3Continuum2x
  3. 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO +
  4. 16:52, 13 February 2017 reverting Only in death +
  5. 20:33, 14 February 2017 Here it appears Thucydides411 reverts two edits by Space4Time3Continuum2x. These are the two prior edits by SpaceTime: 19:35, 14 February 2017 and 19:40, 14 February 2017. +
  6. 20:34, 14 February 2017 Reverts Space4Time3Continuum2x again. This particular material was earlier removed by Space Time 15:05, 12 February 2017

This is what Admin Coffee and Admin EdJohnston were able to discern.

Also, Thucydides411's talk page comments demonstrate their disregard for lack of consensus and policy based arguments:

His "longstanding" argument does not hold against the assertion of content policy questions. Rather than engage in discussions about how to properly deal with the material under discussion, or about removal of policy violations, he bangs the "longstanding" gong. Also, there were not enough editors on that agreed with Thucydides411 to say there was a consensus. I will let the other diffs speak for themselves.

Coffee's decision is accurate. Thucydides411 "reinstated edits that had been challenged without obtaining consensus first." Also, he was doing this while discussions were ongoing. As an aside, the discussions are still ongoing. Steve Quinn (talk)

  • I didn't realize we had to use a signature in our section. I never noticed it before. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Laser brain if I may say so, Coffee has presented a clear sighted rationale on his talk page, as they did here and in other places. NeilN has presented a clear sighted description of how the DS are working in this instance, and probably other instances as well. And, imho, another editor is bringing in a lot of superfluous material not related to Coffee's decision, and maybe some other editors are also bringing in lesser amount superfluous material. This seems to have the effect of diluting and blurring the actual facts relevant to this case, imho. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: -- JFGs request (below) appears to be doing an end-around of some sort (05:29, 22 February 2017). NeilN, in this instance, I request that you (and other Admins) stand back and let this be worked out one way or another. He appears to be trying to garner an AE decision without the an actual AE case. Also, it seems to me to be piggy backing on this one to create an outcome suitable to him. He just reinserted material without consensus (04:59, 22 February 2017).
This was previously and explicitly challenged by My very best wishes (14:22, 21 February 2017). There was and is a talk page discussion going on, where MVBW removed the material and then opened the discussion (14:17, 21 February 2017). There is no consensus and no policy based reason for restoring the material, as can be seen in the discussion (hopefully you will look). I notice in his latest request to you, NeilN, is that you link this discussion - he says - "you and other admins...this explanation should be linked from the relevant DS/1RR".
This appears to be a preemptive maneuver to justify reverting against consensus that is a DS violation, according to the article template. This is very much putting the cart before the horse. Two editors have requested that he self-revert per DS violation: (06:59, 22 February 2017), (04:57, 22 February 2017), including on his talk page (06:52, 22 February 2017), (07:02, 22 February 2017). NeilN, as stated above, in this instance, I request that you (and other Admins) stand back and let this be worked out one way or another. This would be much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: it is true anyone can bring an enforcement request for an editing restriction violation. I am not sure what I meant by "stand back", now. Well, other than it seemed that JFG was trying to piggy back on to this AE to get a possibly get a pass for his behavior with this edit here *05:29, 22 February 2017). In any case, if anyone wishes to bring an enforcement complaint, then I have no objection, nor did I have an objection. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by JFG (involved)[edit]

Thucydides411 was acting in good faith, based on DS guidance from admins NeilN [14] and Awilley[15], while opposing editors argued that no material should be restored after a deletion is challenged by reversion. This misunderstanding spawned no less than three AE cases (Steve Quinn vs Guccisamsclub, JFG vs SPECIFICO and Steve Quinn vs Thucydides411), plus a fourth case that I refrained from raising against Geogene (see my statement in the Thucydides case above).

Sanctions are meant to be preventive, and in order to prevent further disputes along these lines, all editors need official guidance to clarify whether NeilN and Awilley's interpretation of DS wording — You […] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article — can be considered authoritative. This would discourage slow-warring as happened here and nip several similar disputes in the bud.

We really need strong admin guidance on whether removing longstanding text is a challengeable edit or whether only text additions are challengeable (which would imho be an unbalanced restriction). Thucydides has demonstrated on his talk page that he is ready to abide by the rules, as long as the rules are clear, therefore I deem the block punitive. — JFG talk 08:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for your statement. The special form of restrictions that you mention was agreed at the Donald Trump article, and has been efficient in reducing the maintenance burden for perennial disputes. However these special restrictions do not apply here: we are talking about article 2016 United States election interference by Russia, which is under the standard DS/1RR restrictions for ARBAP2. In this context, the admonition to not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page has been interpreted in conflicting ways, giving rise to the three most recent AE cases, and those conflicting interpretations have contributed to a degraded spirit on the talk page. I should be grateful if you had a comment on the generic restrictions, notably whether a challengeable edit can be both an addition or a deletion. — JFG talk 18:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Thank you for the detailed clarification; this confirms my reading of the restrictions and will hopefully help resolve or avoid similar cases in the future, and meet the goals of improving page stability and encouraging constructive discourse. May I suggest to you and other admins that this explanation should be linked from the relevant DS/1RR edit notice? Also, note that this scenario can involve more than 2 editors, e.g.:
  1. Editor A removes long-standing material - this is their first revert;
  2. Editor B reinstates the long-standing material - this is their first revert;
  3. Editor C removes the material again - this is their first revert, but they are violating the "consensus required" restriction.
Kind regards, — JFG talk 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn: In my edit comment and on the relevant article talk page, I have fully explained my revert of MVBW's sudden deletion of material; I also replied to your message on my personal talk page as soon as I had a chance to. Off-topic for the Thucydides case and appeal that we are discussing here, although the clarification of the DS/1RR rules should help us all with process issues on various articles. — JFG talk 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN[edit]

A couple things here. First, the article is not under WP:1RR but under a special form of WP:1RR, imposed by JFG on December 30, 2016. The wording, "Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions" makes clear the difference and so my conversation last August with MelanieN does not apply to the current situation. Thucydides411, given this, can you please supply a diff where Coffee says Melanie and I are incorrect in our interpretation of 1RR? Second, JFG's modification to 1RR for this article appears nowhere in the talk page guidance detailing editing restrictions. As I alluded to before, I have a lot of sympathy for editors trying to follow the rules in good faith, with all the ill-advised terminology (e.g., "firm consensus") and inconsistent instructions appearing on the article's pages. --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies JFG. Sometimes these articles just melt together. I am copying below what I just posted to Thucydides411's talk page and adding some more thoughts I expressed elsewhere.

There are two separate editing restrictions in place for that article, both independent of each other.

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

Any edit means any edit, whether addition of new material, the tweaking of long-standing existing material, or the removal of long-standing existing material. The meaning of "long-standing" changes from article to article. As with Donald Trump, I would take it to mean 4-6 weeks for this article. One this challenge has happened, no editor should be re-doing the addition/tweaking/deletion without obtaining consensus.

  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).

This is the more prosaic WP:1RR. It is somewhat superfluous given the above, but is useful to stop individual editors from edit warring over new material. Scenario:

  1. Editor A adds new material - this is not a revert, obviously
  2. Editor B removes the new material - this is their first revert
  3. Editor A reinstates new material - this is their first revert, but violates the "consensus required" restriction
  4. Editor B, relying on the "consensus required" restriction, removes the new material - this is their second revert, violating WP:1RR

It can also work out this way:

  1. Editor A removes long-standing material - this is their first revert
  2. Editor B reinstates the long-standing material - this is their first revert
  3. Editor A removes the material again - this is their second revert, violating both the "consensus required" restriction and WP:1RR
  4. Editor B, relying on the "consensus required" restriction, re-adds the material - this is their second revert, violating WP:1RR

WP:1RR is there to tell you that even if the "consensus required" restriction is violated, Editor B still can't edit war. It also keeps things under control if there's a dispute about what is "long-standing".

A challengeable edit can be an addition, modification of long-standing material, or removal or long-standing material. I think the term "edit" you used, from the restriction, is a clear indication of this. Arbcom did not use the more explicit and narrow "addition" and on Wikipedia, editing by no means refers to only adding material. The restriction is supposed to stabilize articles and removal of long-standing content can easily be seen as destabilizing. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Steve Quinn: What do you mean, "stand back"? If there's an editing restriction violation anyone can bring an enforcement request and we will look at it. --NeilN talk to me 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Steve Quinn: Per the instructions up top: "Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed." So yes, essentially anyone, except the obvious exceptions (topic banned, editor with an interaction ban reporting the other editor's content edits, etc.) --NeilN talk to me 16:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Geogene: So you only need consensus to add material to an article? No. You also need consensus to take it out. You'll note that WP:FAIT talks about actions, not additions.
  • "Fait accompli actions, where additions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate."
  • "Fait accompli actions, where removals are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate."
  • Either reading is valid. If Arbcom wants to craft a restriction targeting additions then they need to change "reinstating any edits" to "reinstating any additions". --NeilN talk to me 19:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Geogene: No, of course not. "It's in because it has consensus to stay in" is just as circular as "It's out because it has consensus to stay out". So let's say a paragraph was added a couple months ago. The article is intensely watched but wonder of wonders, no one objects or comments. Fast forward to today and an editor decides the text isn't appropriate. They remove it. It gets restored. It cannot be removed again by saying, "well, no one explicitly agreed with the addition". Instead, reasons rooted in normal policies and guidelines must be given, hopefully by multiple editors. And in that case, the side wanting to retain the material cannot just rely on, "well, the material has been there for two months". They too, must come up with reasons rooted in normal policies and guidelines. However in this case the material should stay until that discussion has been had. It might be a quick discussion, it might be a lengthy one, but it needs to exist. --NeilN talk to me 20:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet[edit]

Thucydides411 has been blocked by Coffee, for challenging, via reversion, edits deleting comments by Pierre Sprey, William Binney and Ray McGovern. Their commentary had been present in the article at least a month prior to efforts to remove them ([16]).

Diff Sequence[edit]

  • [17] Sprey, Binney, McGovern in article, 7 January
(...)
  1. [18] SPECIFICO deletes Binney, McGovern comment claiming BLP vio (Bold), makes no post at Talk or BLPN, 10 February
  2. [19] JFG challenges by reversion (Revert), posts at Talk, 11 February
  3. [20] SPECIFICO reinstates their own edit challenged by reversion, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, still no comment on talk, 11 February
  4. [21] Thucydides411 restores challenge, SPECIFICO finally comments on Talk, 11 February
  5. [22] MelbourneStar reinstates challenged edit, 11 February
  6. [23] Steve Quinn deletes Baltimore Sun reference (Bold), 11 February
  7. [24] James J. Lambden challenges deletion by reversion (Revert), 11 February
  8. [25] Space4Time3Continuum2x Removes Sprey comment (Bold), 12 February
  9. [26] I quote Binney/McGovern directly so attribution is clear, 12 February
  10. [27] SPECIFICO deletes more Binney, McGovern comment (Bold)
  11. [28] Thucydides411 challenges both edits by reversion (Revert) 12 February
  12. [29] Volunteer Marek reinstates edit challenged by reversion, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, 12 February
  13. [30] Guccisamsclub restores challenge, 12 February
  14. [31] OID again deletes Binney/McGovern text, thereby reinstating an edit challenged by reversion, citing BLP as exemption from D/S 13 February
  15. [32] Thucydides411 restores challenge, 13 February
  16. [33] OID reverts, claiming BLP exemption from D/S, 13 February
  17. [34] Space4Time3Continuum2x again tries to remove Sprey, McGovern and Binney, reinstating their own edit challenged by reversion, 14 February
  18. [35] Thucydides411 restores challenge, 14 February
  19. [36] SPECIFICO removes opinion polls showing public skepticism of hacking story (present for one month [37]), (Bold) 15 February
  20. [38] JFG challenges edit by reversion, 15 February
  21. [39] Geogene reinstates edit challenged by reversion, 16 February

There are 5 instances in which editors have "restored edits challenged by reversion: edits #3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene).

There are 8 instances in which further reversions continued after the five D/S violations list above: edits #4-5, 13-18 (Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, Only in Death).

Admin response[edit]

On 4-5 February BlueSalix and Volunteer Marek made substantial, contested edits to the article, reverted by MelanieN ([40], [41]). On Talk, MelanieN explained that "edit"≠"text." That is, deleting article text may be an "edit" that can be "challenged," and that trying to delete a second time could therefore be a D/S violation ([42]). This interpretation is consistent with the D/S text and with earlier commentary from NeilN (1, 2).

Sandstein closed the first case against SPECIFICO, explaining, "Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time." That is one way of resolving the conflict, though it would seem many people had "restored edits challenged by reversion." Guy states that SPECIFICO's edits are not justified by BLP [43][44].

In the case against Thucydides, EdJohnston stated, "The current behavior of most editors and the sanction are not compatible,", and ultimately proposed a warning [45].

Coffee stated that because Thucydides411's edits (#11 and #18) did not have consensus, he should be blocked, explaining : "Edits made to revert to an established consensus version, do not count against the WP:1RR restriction." [46][47]. However, Thucydides411's edits #11 and 18 do exactly what Coffee recommends - revert to the prior established version - so Coffee's proposal to block is inconsistent with their own interpretation of the D/S sanctions.

NeilN strongly suggests all 1RR are violations [48]. In response, Coffee repeats that without "consensus," the "established version" holds: "I used the word "established" before "consensus version..."" [49].

In response to all this, Sandstein states, "It now seems to me, as an admin unfamiliar with it, that the wording "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" is not clear enough to be understood in the same way by all editors, and should be rewritten or omitted." I agree D/S is not complicated. What is completely incomprehensible, instead, is Coffee's application of D/S to this particular case.

Look at that stack of 21 diffs, and read MelanieN's, NeilN's, and Coffee's commentaries on D/S restrictions. No matter how you interpret them, edits #3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene) are D/S violations. Under NeilN's 1RR interpretation edits #4-5, 13-18 (Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, Only in Death) are also D/S violations.

Many of us have pointed out how absurd this situation is. There is no way to interpret policy such that Thucydides411 merits a block, but seven other editors don't, and five of them much more so. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: thanks for your comment. Sandstein, NeilN can we have a discussion somewhere about appropriate procedures to follow when editing at this article? I'm afraid to re-engage there because I honestly don't understand what the policy is now, and fear I'll be arbitrarily blocked for following either one or the other interpretation of DS. One possibility is to have mediation, something I earlier proposed several times on the talk page [50][51][52], and endorsed by JFG [53], but nobody else. -Darouet (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I sort of want to write that essay now. -Darouet (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Mr Ernie's point is that the DS are lifted because they provide unclear and contradictory instructions to editors. If admins themselves cannot agree on what those instructions are, it was wrong to block Thucydides411 for following one admin interpretation - the one explained on the page - instead of Coffee's (who offered his interpretation only after the case was brought here). It should also be noted that Coffee's interpretation - that all edits made after December 16th (a few days after the article was created) are not "longstanding" and can be reverted even via edit warring - is a highly convoluted reading of the DS text, and one that NeilN and MelanieN certainly disagreed with on the Talk page. To me at least it seems clear that Thucydides411's reading of the DS text was straightforward, and this has been bolstered by NeilN's explanations.
Nobody has yet explained what made Thucydides411's editing objectionable. I carried out a careful review of all the edits and reverts related to this case, presented above. The only thing that stands out about Thucydides411's edits are these: that they maintained that former intelligence officials critical of the hacking story should remain in the article. Seven of the nine editors who pushed "revert" more than once, above, were aggressively pushing an anti-Russian line on the article and talk pages. A partisan article tone has been opposed by many editors - Thucydides411, myself, JFG, Guccisamsclub, James J. Lambden, The Four Deuces - but it is practically impossible to edit the article if we are constantly threatened by SPECIFICO (who has an impressive block log, including for "creating an unappealing editing environment"), and if it seems the admins will enforce rules selectively. Nothing about this block ever made sense, and it's frustrating to have the editors who are supposed to uphold the highest standard of conduct intervening (or so it seems) in content disputes. -Darouet (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Geogene[edit]

NeilN, please explain how you arbitrary "longstanding" concept is not WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I think that when you say longstanding you really are just assuming that text in question was once backed by consensus. But consensus is a moving target; text that doesn't have it shouldn't belong in the article. Any reading of this DS that implies otherwise is at odds with community consensus and therefore void. Geogene (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, I believe you are saying that text that is being seriously contested by multiple editors should be restored to an article even if supporters cannot offer a rationale other than citing this DS - a fait accompli justification. Is this correct? If so, then this DS is problematic. Geogene (talk)

Statement by involved admin MelanieN[edit]

I've been out of town for 2 weeks on a family emergency, and I came back to find that my name has often been invoked in this discussion. This is because, on that article's talk page, I explained the DS guidelines as they had been explained to me at my talk page by more experienced administrators. link 1, link 2 (It says something sad about the DS guidelines that I, a 10-year editor and 2-year administrator, didn't understand them and was seeking clarification.) The guideline I expounded was that an "edit" under the meaning of the DS could include a removal of longstanding material, so that restoring such a removal was a permissible challenge to it. That made sense to me, because I have seen people game the system by deleting anything they don't like and daring others to restore it; it doesn't seem right to have the guidelines stacked in favor of the deleters like that. I have not followed the incident that led to Theucydides getting blocked, but it appears he was trying to follow the guidelines as I explained them. I am distressed that he wound up blocked for doing in good faith what he had been told was all right, especially since numerous other people including myself did the same thing without consequences. I personally acted on that same understanding, at that same page, when I restored two deletions that I interpreted as "removals of longstanding material" which could be challenged by reversion. (One of my reverts was of a mass deletion of sourced material by Volunteer Marek [54], and the other was of a clearly POINTy removal of a mass of material by BlueSalix.[55]) I cited my own understanding of the guidelines at the talk page when I restored those two removals, adding that "if an admin thinks that was a violation on my part, you know where to find me." [56] No one approached me or chided me about those two reverts, which were done in the same spirit as the revert by Theucydides. Shouldn't I have been banned or blocked also? Should I block myself? As I said, I am distressed that no-one has done anything about what seems to me to be an obvious miscarriage of justice here. And I think it is clear that the guidelines can be interpreted in more than one way, and may need to be clarified by ArbCom. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I thank User:Awilley for his detailed analysis of this situation. Maybe the fact that Theucydides restored the information (i.e., reverted the deletion) four times in four days was part of the reason he was singled out here? However, he is certainly not the only one whose name appears multiple times in that analysis. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Thucydides411[edit]

Comment by Mr Ernie[edit]

Per admin Sandstein's comment below "I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply," the block should be overturned. The administrators responsible for the restriction should refactor and simplify it, and someone should create WP:KAFKA. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Bishonen has revoked the remedies at the article, therefore this block should be overturned at once. @User:Sandstein, @User:Coffee, @User:Laser brain, and @User:NeilN. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Bishonen just so I understand, you agree the restriction is "too difficult to understand and apply," but don't think that a user blocked by such a restriction should have his block removed a few days early? To put it simply, Thucydides411 is currently blocked for a non-existent reason. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've commented on this issue at AN, where I think the discussion is better suited. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:NeilN thank you for being a voice of reason here. Now please move forward with the unblock. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Analysis by Awilley[edit]

Having been pinged towards this appeal several times, I took a couple of hours today to dig into the edit war that seems to be at the heart of this. I'd like to report my findings, with the disclaimer that this is a complex dispute and I have not been able to read all of the relevant talk page posts. I have attempted to track the disputed content from time it was introduced to the article to the edit war that led to Thucydides441's block. For those who care about such things, I consider myself uninvolved.

An (admittedly incomplete) timeline at the article
  • 20:21, 5 January 2017 Thucydides441 adds new material about William Binney and Ray McGovern criticizing an FBI report on Russian hacking and James Clapper's false testimony to Congress. (Binney and McGovern opinion on leaks)
  • 11:13, 14 January 2017 Guccisamsclub removes the material as part of a string of edits removing a lot of other material. (so is this. minority viewpoints are undue.)
  • 23:52, 14 January 2017‎ JFG restores the material, in a large revert of Guccisamsclub. (Restore WP:JDLI removals of well-sourced and relevant analyses)
  • 00:08, 15 January 2017 Casprings reverts JFG (Undid revision 760100084 by JFG (talk) wp:undue and so:weight)
  • 00:11, 15 January 2017‎ JFG restores (Undid revision 760102697 by Casprings (talk) Per DS, please obtain consensus on talk page before undoing an edit which was challenged by reversion)
  • 16:29, 24 January 2017 Volunteer Marek removes the content (this is outdated, since Clapper has since commented on the issue)
  • 19:22, 24 January 2017 Darouet restores the content (Removal of this material by SPECIFICO was challenged by multiple editors: reinstatement of the edit challenged by reversion is clearly an WP:ARBAPDS violation)
  • 22:11, 5 February 2017 MelanieN comments on the article talk page, and in her rationale to revert another editor's disruptive blanking of different material, she says that

    "removal of longstanding material actually counts as an "edit", which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus. "the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged""."

    MelanieN linked to another conversation in which admins NeilN and myself gave a similar interpretation [57] [58] and in which NeilN offered his own opinion that "longstanding" on the "Donald Trump" article could be as short as "4-6 weeks" because the page was so intensely watched and heavily edited. [59]
  • 3:34, 10 February 2017 SPECIFICO removes the part about James Clapper (Delete BLP smear unproven libelous allegation against James Clapper.)
  • 19:21, 10 February 2017 JFG reverts SPECIFICO (Opinion is attributed and grounded in facts, not a BLP violation)
  • 00:22, 11 February 2017 SPECIFICO reverts JFG (BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law. If so, please show me and I will restore it.)
  • 07:14, 11 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts SPECIFICO, adding the material back. (There's no policy saying that opinions that haven't been proven in a court of law can't be included.)
  • 11:12, 11 February 2017 MelbourneStar reverts Thucydides411. (WP:BLPCRIME is a policy; those "opinions" are alleging misconduct/crime.)
  • (Also 11 February 2017, a source for another part of the contested material is removed by Steve Quinn and re-added by James J. Lambden)
  • 07:12, 12 February 2017 JFG restores the sentence about Clapper (Restore deleted material pending outcome of talk page discussion)
  • 20:28, 12 February 2017 SPECIFICO removes a different part of the original material added in January by Thucydides411: the part about Binney and McGovern. ("They have to do X is UNDUE personal opinion. Declassified intelligence report did not purport to provide all evidence the Intelligence Assessment used to reach its conclusion, let alone "proof" - a straw man word.)
  • 21:02, 12 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts (Undid revision 765136639 by SPECIFICO (talk) Restoring long-standing content.)
  • 21:48, 12 February 2017 Volunteer Marek re-removes (i think sufficient concerns about BLP and UNDUE have been raised on talk to keep it out unless it's cleaned up. I'm not totally opposed to including this but it needs to be reworded and NPOVd)
  • 22:19, 12 February 2017 Guccisamsclub restores the text. (Undid revision 765152392 by Volunteer Marek (talk) there's obviously no consensus for blanket removal. you're in violation of sanction BTW.)
  • 16:59, 13 February 2017 Only in death removes the bit about false testimony. (Quote does not appear in source, source only has two mentions of 'false' one of which states Clapper admitted giving Congress false testimony which AFAIK is not the case. Removed as BLP concern)
  • 16:52, 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts. (Undid revision 765249312 by Only in death (talk) No consensus for this removal. Mention of a notable scandal involving a public figure is not a BLP violation.)
  • 11:32, 13 February 2017 Only in death reverts Thucydides411. (Per the BLP policy you are *required* to gain consensus before reinserting good faith removals of BLP concerns. BLP reverts are also exempt from revert restrictions.)
  • 19:40, 14 February 2017 Space4Time3Continuum2x also removes the rest of the sentence about James Clapper. (no edit summary...tsk tsk)
  • 22:52, 14 February 2017 Sandstein closes AE case against SPECIFICO (Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time.)
  • 07:36, 15 February 2017 Thucydides411 is reported to arbitration enforcement.
  • 18 February 2017 Coffee blocks Thucydides411 for 1 week (Arbitration enforcement - reinstated edits that had been challenged without obtaining consensus first)
My conclusions
  • Without analyzing the actual content of the edits, I believe Thucydides411 was acting in accordance with the way he understood the discretionary sanctions. His primary mistake, I believe, was extrapolating NeilN's interpretation of the length of "longstanding" (4-6 weeks, applicable only to the Donald Trump article) to other articles covered by the sanctions. Based on the number of times the contested paragraph was added and removed I would personally be hesitant to say that it was "longstanding", but it is also not obvious to me that Thucydides411 violated the sanctions. Given this, I think a 7-day block is excessive especially considering the user's block log (only one 24 hour block 10 years ago).
  • Looking at the slow edit war above I see other users who are equally deserving of blocks as Thucydides411. I can only imagine how frustrating that must be for them, and I think this frustration has led to excess noise that has bogged down the appeal process.
  • I would favor at a minimum reducing Thucydides411's block to time served. ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Quick reply to the "9 days" argument
There are a couple parties who are using this timeline to say that the content never stayed for 9 consecutive days in the article without being removed. This argument is first, inaccurate, and second, as flimsy as the opposing argument. Consider this: since it was first added on January 5th the content never stayed out of the article for more than a day. It remained in the article for 9 days, and was then temporarily removed and restored in an edit war involving a lot of other material that was blanked. It then stood another 9 days before being removed again, this time for only 3 hours. After that it stood for another 17 days (24 Jan to 10 Feb) before the slow edit war started. So someone from the other "side" could correctly say that from January 5th to February February 10th—more than a month—the material was only not in the article for less than 24 hours. Involved parties will always see their preferred revision as the "status quo". My argument is that it was borderline. And it's not wise to block for borderline cases unless you're interested in creating drama.
Also, @SPECIFICO: I'm not a fan of the stuff about Clapper, but I'm not convinced that saying "Person X wrote an editorial saying bad stuff about Person Y" is a WP:BLP violation. I think you'd get better mileage using WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. ~Awilley (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Thucydides411[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I would decline the appeal as unconvincing. Although I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply, and would not have taken action myself because of that and the possibly problematic conduct by several editors, the appeal does not convince me that Coffee's interpretation and application of it in this case was not within discretion. To do that, the appeal would have to show that the edits at issue were not in fact violations of the restriction - i.e., that they were not reinstatements of edits challenged via reversion. Because the appeal does not make an argument about this, it is doomed to fail.
As to the reasons given by the appellant:
(1) and (2) The sanction was not for 1RR, so the argument is beside the point; also, any one (or several) administrator's interpretation of a specific restriction is not binding on other admins, the only binding guidance is that of ArbCom.
(3) This is an invalid argument in appeals, because the question here is whether the appellant was properly blocked, and the argument that others should have been blocked too is not an argument for why the appellant should not have been blocked; see WP:NOTTHEM. The same goes for the appellant's complaints against SPECIFICO. These could be raised in a separate enforcement request, but they are out of scope in an appeal.
(4) The restriction requires obtaining consensus, not just merely seeking it, and the appellant does not show that consensus supported any of their edits at issue.  Sandstein  09:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline. I don't find this appeal compelling, nor to I find the restrictions on that page difficult to understand. Thucydides411 did reinstate edits that were challenged via reversion, and this appeal has not provided evidence to the contrary. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The more I read about this case, the more it seems like the participants are trying to negotiate an impossible minefield of vague restrictions and various interpretations of them. I can no longer in good faith support the sanctioning of a single individual who appears to be at least attempting to follow the guidance provided while editing in an extremely contentious topic area. I'm not saying every one of Thucydides411's edits was far afield of violating restrictions, but I don't think we're being fair here. --Laser brain (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Coffee: Quite a bit of discussion and perspective were posted after I initially commented, and I changed my mind. I'm not sure why that would be concerning to you. "Binding decision"? --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I revoked the active arbitration remedies at 2016 United States election interference by Russia today, an act which I've explained on article talk and at WP:AN. Sorry to have done it while this case was active, but considering the discussion on article talk, I doubt I could ever have found a good time. I'm surprised that User:Mr Ernie seems to think my revocation should apply retroactively, and somehow affect a block that was placed several days ago, or indeed affect anything whatsoever that happened before my revocation. Of course it shouldn't. On the other hand... I do agree with Sandstein and with Laser brain that the restriction is too difficult to understand and apply, or indeed "an impossible minefield". That is the reason I removed the restriction. I hope people will discuss in the thread I have opened at WP:AN, with a view to solving the problems of the {{2016 US Election AE}} template. I'm not saying this to criticize Coffee, who created the template; rather, I think the difficulties of the template are caused by the inherent difficulties of keeping highly controversial articles in order. But in any case, it seems to me it's not working very well. Perhaps somebody can come up with something brilliant. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
  • I've had time to focus on the material presented in the original case. It is clear that Coffee's interpretation of how to interpret the restriction differs from mine. I do not agree with the block for "violating the page restrictions... by reinstating edits that had been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining or seeking consensus first." and would support lifting the block. Note that this is a case where different admins interpret restrictions differently for valid reasons - never a good situation when it comes to blocking. --NeilN talk to me 04:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @SPECIFICO: I see two admins agreeing with each other (one of whom handed down the block), one questioning if there's a need for admin action, and one saying the restriction is too confusing. That's not exactly consensus. --NeilN talk to me 04:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @SPECIFICO: Appeals are supposed to review the decision. I believe based on the evidence presented, the decision was in error. And please note I presented no "dissenting view" in the case. I was asked to remark on my comments made last August and that's all I did. Those remarks were not comments on the particular case against Thucydides411. --NeilN talk to me 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not really fair to Thucydides411 to have this appeal rendered moot simply because the block expired. EdJohnston, you favored blocking. Any comment on the appeal? --NeilN talk to me 20:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Coffee: Based on the new evidence provided (thanks Awilley), I agree the material was not long-standing and so Thucydides411 could not claim to be reverting to a consensus version. I still disagree with your interpretation of when consensus is needed by the "consensus required" arbitration remedy. --NeilN talk to me 03:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Unblock or "Reduce to time served" (however you care to put it) based on my lengthy analysis above. ~Awilley (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG[edit]

Content dispute, no action taken.  Sandstein  09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning JFG[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
JFG (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
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 : WP:ARBAPDS, WP:ACDS
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

JFG has not been able to establish consensus for restoring material removed and specifically challenged by My very best wishes. This action occurred before the talk page template was changed. Hence, the template formerly read 16:05, 22 February 2017: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." It is advice that should be followed whether or not it is on the template because this is Wikipedia wide consensus, including what WP:BURDEN says.

  • I am amending my complaint to include instructions on the DS template of the article talk page, which is the following:

    Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.

  • This covers WP:BURDEN, which states:

    All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution...Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source...All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

  • This also covers WP:NPOV which states:

    "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies...This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus...While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

The below WP:ACDS, section of my complaint also addresses this DS:

On WP:ACDS, the section entitled "Guidance for editors", it says: Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

  1. adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  4. comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  5. refrain from gaming the system.
  • --
  1. 14:22, 21 February 2017 My very best wishes improves the article by removing poorly sourced material that contravenes content policies WP:NPOV per UNDUE, WP:V per Exceptional, and WP:NOR per Primary. See edit history where MVBW provides the ratioional "challenging some materials via reversion - see talk"
  2. 04:59, 22 February 2017 JFG restores material without having established consensus and while contravening WP:ACDS "Guidance for editors" #2 AND #5. I note Gaming the system includes "...evading the spirit of community consensus - editors typically game the system...to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view." These are applicable to this AE request. Hopefully contravening #2 above is apparent. Also, JFG has not met the onus of WP:BURDEN for reinstating this material - no independent secondary reliable sources have been provided.
  3. 14:28, 21 February 2017 MVBW opens a talk page discussion pertaining to this material.
  4. 16:07, 21 February 2017 SPECIFICO agrees with this action based on WP policies
  5. 04:47, 22 February 2017 JFG responds and claims MVBW was too quick about removing the material. From my perspective, the material has been sitting there collecting dust from lack of conformity with content policies.
  6. 06:59, 22 February 2017 Here I recommend that JFG self-revert because that would be "supported by a content policy WP:V per WP:BURDEN". I also noted he is in violation of discretionary sanctions.
  7. 07:27, 22 February 2017 Here I present a brief analysis of the removed material and provide a rationale for why it should stay out based on content policies (please read).
  8. 1232 22 February 2017 Here User: MrX states: "The material restored by JFG should be left out as WP:UNDUE. Most of the opinions are from primary sources. Including them tends to legitimize a fringe viewpoint. Also, it does appear that JFG violated the DS restriction on restoring material that has been challenged by reversion."
  • The whole thread is not long and I recommend Admins read it (0301, 23 February) as there is a relevant back and forth between editors. It demonstrates support for showing demonstrating that JFG engaged in contravening aforementioned content policies, thereby violating #2 and #5.
  • "Long standing text" is not part of the former or current DS template on the talk page. Admin Coffee pointed this out during the appeal by Thucydides411. Coffee also seemed to point out that none of the text in this article should be considered "long standing." And as I mentioned during the article talk page discussion (in so many words), "long standing" does not supersede content policies. Editing behavior that pertains to main-space articles should be in agreement with content policies. In light of this, I have noticed that DS per WP:ACDS and WP:ARBAPDS are in agreement with content policies. Wikipedia remains consistent across content policies and various guidelines. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

* Additionally there might be a 1RR violation depending on how this is interpreted:

  1. 04:38, 22 February 2017 JFG removed material not supported by the reference for this material
  2. 04:59, 22 February 2017 21 minutes later JFG restores the material on which this complaint is based. There were no intervening edits by other editors. However, there is a 21 minute gap and neither edit is related to the other. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I did notice the first edit was to remove an edit by an IP block evader by by Kingshowman. My mistake. So, this part is no longer relevant. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

None found

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18:04, 14 December 2016‎
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC). Note this is actually the AE archive for JFG search
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • Prior to this AE request, JFG was also asked to self-revert on his talk page (06:52, 22 February 2017), (07:02, 22 February 2017) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • About JFG claiming BRD. Just after MVBW removed the content they opened a discussion right away. It appears to me that MVBW was already practicing BRD. So, JFG's actions might not be BRD.
  • I agree with Geogene, rather than justify the material on its own merits, it seems action that is characteristic of edit warring was chosen instead (although I personally don't like to go there).
  • Regarding the argument below, I think the best thing is, not trying to parse "revert" and "edit" and so on. For me it is understood that MBVW challenged the material and for policy based reasons. The material was challenged via removal and opening a talk page discussion - a two step process (at least). This seems appropriate for editing on Wikipedia. Also, for further clarification I will quote User:NeilN, on the Thucydides411 appeal page (20:27, 22 February 2017 ):

    So let's say a paragraph was added a couple months ago. The article is intensely watched but wonder of wonders, no one objects or comments. Fast forward to today and an editor decides the text isn't appropriate. They remove it. It gets restored. It cannot be removed again by saying, "well, no one explicitly agreed with the addition". Instead, reasons rooted in normal policies and guidelines must be given, hopefully by multiple editors. And in that case, the side wanting to retain the material cannot just rely on, "well, the material has been there for two months". They too, must come up with reasons rooted in normal policies and guidelines ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

03:35, 23 February 2017

Discussion concerning JFG[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 JFG[edit]

This is a simple content dispute.

  1. The interaction between My very best wishes and myself amounts to one round of routine BRD practice, as I explained on the Talk page. This was my only revert of MVBW's BOLD removal of a large chunk of material, and I have immediately engaged in discussion, which is ongoing. I have no prejudice about the outcome of the discussion and we are wasting time litigating at AE instead of discussing the merits of the contents.
  2. My other revert is exempt from 1RR as it applies to content inserted by repeat WP:EVADE offender Kingshowman, posting from yet another IP of the 63.143… range (as also evidenced by the tone of the material and the removal of similar stuff by MrX added from another IP in the same time frame). In addition to the edit summary stating this reason for reversion, I also left a courtesy note on the talk page, because other editors were already starting to fiercely argue about this content.

Although it pains me to contemplate retorsion, I would suggest admins to consider a WP:Boomerang temporary TBAN for Steve Quinn who has now started 3 unproductive AE cases in short succession against various editors on the same page:

I consider this series reflects at best a serious misunderstanding of editor conduct standards, at worst an abuse of the DS litigation process. — JFG talk 04:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I have fully explained the edits you are citing against me. Instead of piggybacking on a case opened by another editor, please feel free to make good on your vague threats and open a separate case, or shut up. — JFG talk 05:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: We seem to disagree on what is a revert. If you remove material that has just been added 5 minutes ago, that's an obvious revert. If you restore material that has just been deleted 5 minutes ago, that's an obvious revert. If you remove material that has been added 2 days ago, that's a legit revert because nobody is supposed to be glued to their screen 24/7 patrolling every edit on their watchlist. Same goes for a week ago, if by that time nobody else has reverted the contested material. Beyond that, you're stretching the definition of a revert imho. And if you delete a whole section, on a very actively-edited article, where dozens of people have made thousands of edits over two months, well it's a very wide stretch indeed. A disagreement on contents, sure, perhaps an UNDUE feeling, sure, but definitely not a revert. I saw your blanket removal for the BOLD edit that it was, which I reverted because I don't consider the whole thing to be blanket undue, and now editors are discussing. Please note (as I already said on the talk page) that I did not accuse you of any violation, and I am very respectful of your compliance with process in the few places where our paths have crossed over time. My only criticism towards you was the mislabeling of your edit as a "challenge by reversion" in your edit comment. Kind regards, — JFG talk 00:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: It's hard to keep track of the dialogue when you modify your statements after my reply. Surely you know of WP:REDACT. Please restore some order and chronology to your section for the benefit of admins reviewing the case. — JFG talk 02:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guccisamsclub[edit]

Litigation by inertia? Sanctions have been lifted. Only 1RR is in place. PS: SPECIFICO's diffs show no violation of 1RR by JFG. I think SPECIFICO deserves to be blocked for making false statements about users in an attempt to get them blocked. This happened to me as well. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

There is an additional bright-line 1 RR Violation here:
1RR First revert: 09:59, 18 February 2017 [60]
2RR Second revert: 07:22, 19 February 2017 [61]
I asked him on his talk page to undo the violation, but he denied the violation, even after I showed him the diffs: Documented here [62]
SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: makes a very salient point here. Why do a group of editors on this one article claim that the "no reinstatement" sanction is an unmitigated disaster, impossible to understand, unfair, not enforced, etc. etc., and yet we see no problems with it elsewhere. And there's a corollary: Why is it that the editors who see this unique problem all happen to be insistently editing to insinuate doubts, ranging from minority to fringe, about the mainstream conclusions and the overwhelming preponderance of mainstream RS reporting about the subject? How odd that editors with a certain POV all think that the DS as posted by @Bishonen: was unintelligible impossible to observe, while miraculously any number of editors trying to add RS content to the article were able to stay far away from the bright line in Bishonen's DS? These are the mysteries of the night. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]

No. No violation. This is getting ridiculous. Stop bringing this crap to AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Geogene[edit]

Diffs so far seem to show JFG using DS as an excuse to revert content removal by others without attempting to justify the content on its own merits. If another user is making a good faith effort to justify an edit-including the removal of content-you must make your own good faith effort to answer those arguments before reverting. Failure to do so, including by changing the subject (crying DS) is edit warring. DS exist to prevent that sort of bad behavior, not to justify it. Geogene (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

JFG violated editing restriction on the page when the restriction still was in effect [63]. As clarified by Bishonen above, he did not revoke his restriction *retroactively* [64]. In addition, JFG also violated 1RR rule on the page.

Based on comments by JFG, he violated this editing restriction willingly [65],[66]. This is wrong. Yes, I can agree with JFG that the restriction is not very helpful. But as long as such restriction remains, it must be respected and enforced.

At the very least, one should clarify here if the edit by JFG was in fact a violation of the editing restriction. If this question can not be clarified, then such restriction should be removed from all pages because it means that the restriction is not really enforceable and only leads to unnecessary conflicts and AE reports. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet[edit]

Can we please wait a few days before ruling on this case? I'd like to comment but these AE requests have been so frequent it is impossible to keep up. -Darouet (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thucydides411[edit]

Another content dispute being dragged into AE? Can't Steve Quinn just discuss on the talk page, rather than trying to get editors they disagree with sanctioned? There's a normal Bold/Revert/Discuss process going on at Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Suggestions. Reading through that discussion, it looks like JFG is genuinely open to finding a compromise with the other editors involved (JFG's comments here). Rather than threatening AE against JFG, Steve Quinn should be on the talk page working through the content dispute with JFG and others.

Please, let's have some sense. This case should be closed down without further ado, and everyone should be admonished to stop bringing their content disputes to AE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning JFG[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • To clear up any misunderstandings, discretionary sanctions have not been lifted. Only the "must obtain consensus before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" restriction is gone. --NeilN talk to me 05:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This looks like a garden-variety content dispute, which arbitration (enforcement) does not resolve. Content policies such as WP:V do have conduct aspects, in that repeated and severe violations of content policies or persistently non-neutral editing can constitute misconduct, but based on the reported diffs that is not the case here. I also see no case for 1RR or other discretionary sanctions enforcement in the reported diffs. AE is not a substitute for editorial consensus-seeking. Closing with no action.  Sandstein  09:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

CatapultTalks[edit]

CatapultTalks (talk · contribs) is hereby banned, for 3 months, from editing any and all pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning CatapultTalks[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 08:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
CatapultTalks (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
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement :WP:ARBAP2:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Starting with most recent

  1. Feb 19 Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [67] (material was added Feb 17 [68])
  2. Feb 17. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [69]. Note that the original text was inserted by CatapultTalks [70] with a misleading summary (WP:AVOIDVICTIM is suppose to protect BLP subjects - it's not an excuse for victimizing them as CT's edit summary implies)
  3. Feb 15. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [71]. Note that this is also an attempt to restart a previous edit war [72] after failing to obtain consensus or even discuss on talk.

Previous:

On Immigration policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

  1. [73] Feb 5, 7:59 (arguably not a revert)
  2. [74] Feb 5, 18:06 (revert)
  3. [75] Feb 6, 6:26 (revert)
  4. [76] Feb 7, 19:12 (note misleading edit summary)
  5. [77] Feb 8, 16:24 (revert)

Depending on how you count it that's either three or two 1RR violations.

On Executive Order 13769 - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

  1. [78] Feb 4, 22:38 (revert)
  2. [79] Feb 4, 23:15 (revert)
  3. [80] Feb 5, 8:09 (revert)
  4. [81] Feb 6, 6:13 (substantially changes the meaning of the sentence which makes it a revert)
  5. [82] Feb 6, 20:24 (revert)

This is at least four 1RR violations and pretty close to a straight up 3RR violation

On Social policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

  1. [83] Feb 1, 22:37 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)
  2. [84] Feb 2, 7:01 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)

Then

  1. [85] Feb 5, 7:56
  2. [86] Feb 5, 16:44 (resumes previous edit war)
  3. [87] Feb 6, 17:02 (revert)
  4. [88] Feb 6, 17:42 (revert. There is another edit by CatapultTalks in between the 17:02 and 17:42 one which could also be seen as a revert)
  5. [89] Feb 6, 20:02 (if this isn't a revert (it is) then the edit immediately following this one is)
  6. [90] Feb 6: 22:30

So that's a few more 1RR violations and a 3RR violation.

In addition to the persistent edit warring several of these edits violate the discretionary sanction which states: " All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Several of CatapultTalks' edits have been challenged by several users via reversion, yet he persists in restoring his preferred version without much discussion, much less bothering to get consensus.

See this previous 3RR report which was closed with "Report_should_be_made_at_WP:AE.2C_which_is_the_appropriate_forum_for_any_Discretionary_Sanctions_violations" (personally disagree, violating 3RR and 1RR is violating 3RR and 1RR, discretionary sanctions or not, but here it is) [91]

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

I think I really bent over backwards with this user. Here is the first notification. Here is the second notification. Here is the third and formal notification by User:Coffee. Here is the fourth notification. And here is one last ditch attempt to try and get the user to listen and actually make a pretense at observing the discretionary sanctions restrictions: Fifth notification.

Pretty much the response the whole time has been "I'm right, you're wrong, take it to the talk page" (of course CatapultTalks didn't bother taking anything to the talk page themselves)

Note that CatapultTalks' reply here sort of encapsulates the problem - he violates 1RR, 3RR and other discretionary sanctions and when you bring that up to him he tries to argue about how his edits were legit (on his own talk page, rarely on article page) and refuses to stop edit warring. I mean, discussion is good, but if you break the rules that everyone is suppose to abide by, people will get frustrated (especially after he's been notified, what, six times?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Mr.Ernie's comment below itself sanctionable, per WP:ASPERSIONS? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For the first three diffs in the "Starting most recent" section, the diffs are there and just those three are sanctionable. I will try to dig out the diffs for the older reverts tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning CatapultTalks[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 CatapultTalks[edit]

First, I strongly object to the allegations that I don't bother taking anything to the talk page. Here are examples where I started discussions on talk pages. You would notice that in some instances I agreed based on inputs from other editors that my initial edit could be wrong and we arrived at consensus.

On Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration: [92], [93], [94], [95]

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration: [96], [97], [98]

On Executive Order 13769: [99], [100], [101]

Here's why VolunteerMarek's allegations about my edits are wrong:

Starting with most recent per VolunteerMarek's statement above

  1. VolunteerMarek reverted [102] this well sourced relevant edit of mine, terming it "redundant". Redundant how, why exactly? Previously too, VolunteerMarek reverted [103] a good, non-controversial edit of mine, just because he can. No explanation why.
  2. [104] - The earlier edit was promoting media's narrative of the deported person as "Arizona mother" and this prolong's victimization per [WP:AVOIDVICTIM]. Instead, my edit adds a key sourced detail about the conviction being a felony and that she entered the country illegally which presumably led to her deportation. Those are the facts.
  3. [105] - This was after a discussion regarding this was open on talk page with no comments from other editors

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration:

  1. VolunteerMarek reverted [106] my well sourced edit adding a key detail because it "confuses everything". Really? How? Again, no explanation
  2. [107] - source cited at the time didn't relate to the text. More sources were provided later to back the claim and I didn't challenge or revert it again
  3. How is this [108] a revert? This is backed by an existing source. It has since not been challenged by anyone.

On Immigration policy of Donald Trump:

  1. [109] - definitely not a revert. perfectly sourced
  2. [110] - not a revert. removed redundant content and was never challenged

On Executive Order 13769:

  1. [111] - this was challenged, discussed on talk page and consensus was to keep it out the article - which is exactly what I did
  2. [112] - why is this considered a revert? I removed some unnecessary background. was never challenged
  3. [113] - I reinstated a key detail because it was ignored during a reword by a different editor. wasn't challenged again
  4. [114] - this was discussed in the talk page and once there were more sources countering the initial source, we made a consensus edit

To me, this looks like VolunteerMarek is reverting my sourced good faith edits just because they don't like the edits or that it wouldn't promote a certain narrative. Please note that none of these edits are vandal attempts or unsourced POVs. So there is no justification in reverting my edits without a good reason - especially given that I'm very open to discussion on talk pages.

CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up comment:

I request administrators commenting/acting on this to please note that this problem has compounded because of VolunteerMarek's continuous disruptive reverts of my good edits. It is almost like VolunteerMarek is setting me up for failure, by reverting without basis and then asking me to go get consensus. I implore you to relook at the kind of reverts we are talking about. Especially this [115], this [116] and this [117]. Also note that I've had fewer problems with other editors in gaining consensus because they have participated in talk page discussions - something that VolunteerMarek hasn't done. I want to reiterate that I do respect the policies, processes of Wikipedia, but it is the bad discretion displayed by VolunteerMarek in reverting my good edits that I don't respect.CatapultTalks (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]

Admin note: Comments are closed for this editor.  Sandstein  19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I propose a topic ban on Volunteer Marek from bringing editors who edit with an opposing political viewpoint to this board. It is beyond disruptive, and overall an enormous waste of time. I encourage everyone to look through the archives from the past few weeks and see how many of these VM has opened to silence other editors whose viewpoints don't line up with theirs. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO any reading of this history will reveal that you are wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If I understand the policy correctly, in order for me to be subjected to administrative action under the discretionary sanctions I need to be officially alerted of the discretionary sanctions, which has not yet occurred. I apologize for appearing to cast aspersions. I had intended to show the prior enforcement action requests that the filer has brought recently, and did not do so the right way. Another editor below has linked the history. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO please stop your bad faith characterizations of my actions. You are the one now casting aspersions at me. I struck a comment I realized could be taken the wrong way and then apologized. You claim to have not given it much thought, but every one of your comments in this particular AE is about me. Please stop the aspersions, but if you'd like to continue, I request you open a new section. Please cease the comments on what you wrongfully believe my motivations to be. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

Admin note: Comments are closed for this editor.  Sandstein  19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Mr Ernie There is absolutely no evidence here to support your assertion that @Volunteer Marek:'s edits are motivated by any "political point of view" and it is unconstructive, to say the least, to present such an undocumented aspersion at AE. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie casts WP:ASPERSIONS at OP and then instead of providing evidence or even explanation of such denigration, he tells others to scour the archives for evidence? This behavior is explicitly prohibited per guidance concerning enforcement discussions on the discretionary sanctions page, and it is unacceptable. This kind of disruption places an undue burden on editors and Admins who are trying to enforce of ARBAP2, perpetuating violations on numerous articles. Disruptive behavior at AE should not be tolerated. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I had not given it any thought, but having just read the latest words from Mr. Ernie, I believe that he should be sanctioned to prevent further disruptive conduct. After denying and defying, he doubled down by claiming a loophole "get out of jail free card" that he hadn't been templated and was therefore immune from the DS guidelines on demeanor. Then, as soon as he realized that he is actually in jeopardy, he stated that he apolgizes from the conduct he stood with only minutes before. What's wrong with this picture? SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]

@Sandstein: The archives indicate Mr Ernie is correct to claim Volunteer Marek has brought a number of editors with "opposing political viewpoint[s]" to this board. To be precise: 7 (now 8) since August of last year, more than any editor in the same period under ARBAP2: 8/2/2016, 10/8/2016, 10/27/2016, 11/21/2016, 11/25/2016, 12/21/2016, 12/26/2016

WP:ASPERSIONS cautions against claims without evidence or in inappropriate forums. This appears to be neither. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning CatapultTalks[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • A troubling pattern of editing is illustrated here, including breaches of 1RR and the requirement for obtaining consensus for challenged material. I think a temporary topic ban from this domain is in order. --Laser brain (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • CatapultTalks has been warned more than enough times... and their pattern of editing at this point shows that they hold the discretionary sanctions system in very little regard. As such, I think a 3-6 month topic ban would be appropriate at this time, since CatapultTalks cannot be trusted to follow the less restrictive page restriction system. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: Because it is contested that some of the edits you reported are reverts, please amend the complaint to include the diffs of the edit that the reported edits reverted. – As to Mr Ernie, I think an AE page ban is in order for casting aspersions.  Sandstein  10:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm closing down the Mr Ernie subplot and logging the AE page ban. As to SPECIFICO, if you make one more comment in an AE thread in which you are not a party that is not a concise and useful submission of evidence, I will likely ban you from this page as well. This board is not a venue for dispute resolution, and I am not interested in opinions of random editors, particularly those involved in disputes in the topic area. Use AN/I or the other chaos boards for that. The only thing that matters here is evidence that helps admins address requests.  Sandstein  19:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • After studying the past history here I endorse:
A ban from this page for Mr Ernie unless directly involved in the AE request as a party.
A 3 month topic ban for CatapultTalks, who seems to me to be deliberately pushing the limits here.
Neither user's behaviour as highlighted here is sufficiently egregious to be sanctioned as a standalone item, but the history kicks it into "enough already" territory. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Joe1w[edit]

User has been blocked indefinitely as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petey Parrot. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Joe1w[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Joe1w (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
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 : American Politics 2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 06:23, 6 March 2017 FDR's bleeding hemorrhoids
  2. 18:29, 6 March 2017 Claims George W. Bush has hemorrhoids
  3. 20:07, 6 March 2017 Suggests Barack Obama might have HIV
  4. 20:08, 6 March 2017 Suggests Barack Obama has nighttime body odor
  5. 20:36, 6 March 2017 Restored GW Bush edit
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 04:57, 13 February 2017 Blocked 72 hours for BLP violations by Hoary
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 13 February 2017
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

User repeatedly adds BLP violations to politicians' pages. Appears to repeatedly add bowel-related and other gross health details about politicians.

Another note: this user likes to put non-English edit summaries for some reason.

User was blocked by Bbb23 indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Petey Parrot

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[118]


Discussion concerning Joe1w[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 Joe1w[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Joe1w[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • That's weird, and icky. These edits seem to violate the requirement that WP:BLPs "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy ... it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Joe1w seems to have an odd focus on these sorts of edits (e.g. Stalin, Jefferson). Barring a very convincing explanation by Joe1w, I think we are looking at a BLP topic ban for some time.  Sandstein  20:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Icky indeed. But the user has been blocked indefinitely as a sock, so there's nothing more to do here. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

The Rambling Man[edit]

The Rambling Man is blocked for a month.  Sandstein  21:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
NOTE: This action is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TRM. WJBscribe (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
That discussion has now been archived by Euryalus in favor of the appeal below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Rambling Man (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
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited : "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

The Rambling Man has continued insulting and belittling other editors since the last AE thread last December, where he was warned that "continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked."

  1. 4 March "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?"
  2. 4 March "You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith in extremis, and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control." Also please note the edit summary: "what an unsurprising misinterpretation, packed with bad faith and clueless as to how to actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM, do us all a favour and come up with something helpful for a change"
  3. 4 March "[T]hanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing"."
  4. 4 March "We can get back to discussing it with people who are actually genuinely interested in making this a better place."
  5. 3 March "You summarily failed to answer my question, but I suppose we probably already have an inkling of the answer."
  6. 2 March "You don't have the first idea what you're talking about, but why let that get in the way of a good story and a weak threat, eh?"
  7. 24 February "... there are some users who are there simply to give their "opinion" on things, and seldom provide any kind of link or reference for their "opinions". Funnily enough, one of them is here in this thread. Until such scandalous and unencyclopedic behaviour is stopped ... The sooner you both get that idea sorted out in your heads, the better."
  8. 12 February "Another parade of article owners and credit-hungry users."
  9. 31 January Denigrating an ESL speaker. "That doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps you should leave it to a native English speaker before making suggestions or claiming that "fell into oblivion" isn't neutral in tone."
  10. 29 January "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person." – I fully admit some culpability in this, but the reply was rather over the top.
  11. 29 January "Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind."
  12. 25 January Straight chilling threats, regardless of admin's wrongness. "Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT." + "Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward."
  13. 4 January "No, I get it. You didn't even look at the article, I understand."
  14. 3 January "we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes"
  15. 21 December "Now disappear while I set about fixing up the garbage that I've just found!"
  16. 16 December "Your hyperbolic criticism is indicative of one who is too emotional to contribute neutrally."


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 14 December AE thread closed as no action, but "The Rambling Man is warned that continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked"
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[119]

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[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 The Rambling Man[edit]

Driveby comment by Iridescent[edit]

Given that the most recent diff of TRM being "belittling" was in reply to someone else saying "fuck you" to him, I think you can probably cut him some slack for that one. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

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

I note that The Rambling Man has declined to comment here, by removing the notification diff with the comment "from an admin who routinely abuses his position, this is nothing of interest to me I'm afraid. Focus on admins telling editors to "FUCK OFF" instead".

In my view, the request establishes clearly that The Rambling Man has continued the conduct from which they were prohibited, i.e., "insulting and/or belittling other editors", and even their reaction to this AE request constitutes a violation of this prohibition. Per the remedy at issue, if "The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy." According to that policy, administrators must consider "the severity of the behavior; [and] whether the user has engaged in that behavior before."

I conclude that the number of violations established in the evidence, together with the warning in the last AE request and the reaction to this request, establishes a pattern of recurring violations and amounts to a severe violation of the prohibition. Accordingly, to effectively deter The Rambling Man from continuing with this conduct, I am blocking them for a month.  Sandstein  21:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek[edit]

No violation. --NeilN talk to me 02:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:14, 8 March 2017 (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

WP:ARBAPDS

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
A1. 10:49, 6 March 2017 JFG adds sourced and relevant new content, with comment: Denial by Clapper
A2. 04:26, 7 March 2017 Darouet edits the lead section with comment: Paraphrase excessively long first paragraph quote
A3. 17:34, 7 March 2017 VM reverts Darouet along with some prior changes to the same paragraph
A4. 17:35, 7 March 2017 VM reverts JFG = DS violation (1RR)

Even though they are separated by only a minute, reverts A3 and A4 cannot be considered a single revert, because they address totally different parts of the article, with the two reverted edits absolutely unrelated to each other.

A couple days ago, I notified VM of another DS violation on his talk page:

B1. 20:26, 3 March 2017 new text added, resulting from a recently-closed RfC, by closer S Marshall
B2. 01:40, 4 March 2017 edit by Casprings, modifying RfC text based on an inconclusive discussion from another article
B3. 05:44, 4 March 2017 revert by JFG, inviting further local discussion
B4. 07:33, 4 March 2017 counter-revert by VM = DS violation (restoring a challenged edit without discussion)

I didn't want to make a fuss about it as I assumed he simply didn't pay attention. However he turned the accusation against me and alluded to collusion or socking by other editors that I never heard of; this is a pattern of behaviour which is not conducive to civil and peaceful editing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

Block log shows a suspension on 28 March 2016 for personal attacks or harassment + a solid list of older offenses. VM was the target of several AE cases in 2016, where many commenters pointed out his recurring battleground behaviour; however no technical grounds for sanctions were found.

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

VM has participated in numerous AE cases concerning the ARPAPDS system, been the target of several cases and launched a few against others. He was alerted about DS four times, with the latest notice being posted on 13 December 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Wouldn't your interpretation be open to gaming the system? An editor who wishes to undo several recent changes to an article, possibly by several editors and in distinct sections, could simply group all such reverts into a single edit and avoid the 1RR restriction? — JFG talk 02:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

 Done [120]

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]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

I don't think the filing user's statement is correct, and this is not a violation. As the policy states, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. The point of consecutive edits counting as a single revert is that the changes in those two consecutive edits *could* have been made as a single edit, and that to penalize someone for choosing to split their desired changes into separate consecutive edits for whatever reason (editing screen size, choice to use the edit section function, desire to save changes and avoid losing data, etc.) would be arbitrary. So long as no other editor made changes in that sequence, there is no second revert here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet[edit]

I don't think this is a violation - these edits were consecutive - and while the article has been contentious, I don't think Marek has behaved egregiously, or worse than others. I'll note that if this is a violation, my own edit yesterday - a single edit that undid multiple actions of others - was also a violation. JFG imho you should withdraw this request. -Darouet (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

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.
  • No violation. All of Volunteer Marek's edits today count as one revert, plain and simple. --NeilN talk to me 02:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)