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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_(2011) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Sanctions_available

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

1. 00:24, 10 April 2018 removes Q2 from an article FAQ that he had been heavily involved in building out three years previously. No discussion raised on talk.
2. 17:59, 13 April 2018 Removes again, again with no talk discussion
3. 17:04, 15 April 2018 Removes again, whilst talk discussion ongoing
4. 14:49, 17 April 2018 Removes again, whilst talk discussion ongoing
5. 16:53, 20 April 2018 Removes again, whilst talk discussion ongoing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 21:39, 15 May 2017 72-hour ARBPIA-related block

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

• Previously blocked under ARBPIA

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• These five edits do not cross 1RR, but they constitute a clear and consistent edit-war. Given this editor's long term experience, I would have hoped they could have relied on discussion instead of trying to force through a new status quo.
• Whilst these edits were on a talk-page FAQ, and not an article, the general restriction clearly refers to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", not just "any article".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [1]

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.

There is an explicit talk page consensus that the material should be removed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#1RR_on_FAQ where 5 editors support removal and only 3 think the material should be included. Note that my reverts "whilst talk discussion ongoing" were per ONUS and CONS to the version the talk page consensus supported.

Please note that Onceinawhile (who has also reverted twice) has not reported editors who support his position who also made multiple reverts while discussion was ongoing (some against consensus), including one who didn't even bother to participate in the discussion. This report is an obvious BATTLEGROUND attempt after failing to gain consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, it's not "whatever consensus your preferred verson might once have enjoyed", it's a !vote in bold right in the discussion I linked to which I assume you haven't even looked at? Also, was I edit warring with myself? Anyhow, I self-reverted my last edit before you posted, for whatever that's worth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto2012, who commented below, made 3 reverts in 5 days to the same page this complaint is about, despite an explicit 5:3 consensus against the material he inserted, in a discussion he participated in. I think Onceinawhile forgot to report him? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address the above diffs in full, the complete order of things is as follows:

1. I removed some material from a sub page of a talk page (might be important to remember we're not talking about a main page mainspace article here). Nobdy had edited this page in over 6 months. This might technically be a revert, but it is for all intents and purposes a BOLD edit.
2. Almost 4 days later, Onceinawhile, the filer of this report, reverts claiming "no consensus for removal". [2]
3. I reverted him. [3]
4. He opens a discussion (claiming a 1RR violation) on the talk page [4].
5. Within a day a 3:1 consensus emerges against including the material.
6. Pluto shows up and reverts, despite said consensus, with a cryptic ES [5]
7. Some back and forth reverts occur (including by me), including another one by Onceinawhile, the guy who filed this report, again, despite the talk page discussion and consensus.
8. Some talk page discussion occurs over a couple of days, it is now 4:3 against including.
9. Pluto again reverts against consensus, with an irrelevant ES [6]
10. Again some back and forth reverts (including mine).
11. Some more talk page discussion over 3 days, consensus is now 5:3 against including.
12. Pluto again reverts against consensus.
13. I revert. Onceinawhile reports (but only me), I self-revert.

I would also point out that a week block for (at worst) 5 reverts over 10 days to a sub page of a talk page seems excessive and punitive rather than preventative. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: do you also think that a 1 week block would be appropriate for all editors in the edit war? By my count, the OP of this request had reverted twice, Pluto2012 reverted three times, and TheGrecefulSlick twice. Is there any special reason you are singling out No more Mister nice guy, other than your personal history with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.212.219 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG is not on wikipedia to participate (constructively) to the development of an encyclopedy. His activity here is limited to bring controversial and useless issues again and again. Here, we are talking about the FAQ and discussions pages that was introduced 3 years ago to summarize discussions. What for ?
But this behaviour has come back recurrently on this board in particular regarding his behaviour against Nishidani but more globally about his general behaviour to import here the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And that is not compensated by NPoV given his uncapacity to follow Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent.
A ban of 1 week blocade is not enough. He should just be topic-banned. Pluto2012 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NMMGG: I made 3 reverts. You are reported because you made 5. But you and I would have made 10 that it would not change anything. We are not on wikipedia to play with these rules (that I just don't know or follow) and I do not count the reverts that I make. You are not here to participate to a projet and develop and encyclopedia. You are here to defend a point of view and in truth you fight for this. And you also bring huge frustration and agressivty. All this is not compatible with Wikipedia and you shoule be topic banned, if not just banned. For the good of the project and for your good. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMNNG was acting inline with talk page consensus - in the discussion concurrent to these edits, more users objected to inclusion than supported this highly POVish faq item in Wikipedia's voice. Per ONUS, the burden is on those who wish to include the material and this has clearly not been met. I would like to point out the following edit summary by Pluto2012, made when TP consensus was clearly not inline with inclusion, diff with the following edit summary: Let's open an ARBCOM case once for all..Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy is correct with his reverts that the edits had no consensus. Read WP:BRD, this is not a sanctionable conduct. Issue is moot because NMMNG has made a self-revert. Lorstaking (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yep, pretty straightforward editwarring here. "The others are editing against consensus" is not an excuse for editwarring, and if you keep on reverting many different editors, then that is a pretty good indication that whatever consensus your preferred verson might once have enjoyed isn't so solid any more. I think a one-week block would be appropriate. Sandstein 21:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Consensus is now 5:3 against including" makes no sense. Consensus is not a vote. This situation, together with many people reverting, is rather indicative of no consensus - which doesn't matter anyway because edit-warring is never justifiable except in rare cases not at issue here, see WP:3RRNO. Closing with a one-week block. Sandstein 18:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS

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

1. April 19, 2018 - Violation of article editing restrictions.
2. April 19, 2018 - "I am tired of you and your POV pushing. Go away from this talk page, please, and don’t come back, ever. You can see I have cited BLP in my edit summary. Now go away to whatever administrative forum you wish to abuse. If wikipedia had a jury-like system instead of the structure it has now, you would not be able to subvert the rules to advance your POV, as you do incessantly, and doubtless are about to do in the present case. Wikipedia is the biggest propaganda outfit on Earth, thanks to folks like you. Cheers." (Personal attack)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. November 27, 2017 - AE sanction for restoring challenged text on an edit restricted American politics article. Used similar reasoning: "Per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP."
2. January 23, 2018 - AE Topic ban extend by one month (AE discussion)
3. January 20, 2018 - AE topic ban

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on November 27, 2017 by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on January 20, 2018 by Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Related talk page discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#BLP

I'm nonplussed by Anythingyouwant's doubling down on calling me a POV-pusher who abuses administrative boards. As far as I'm concerned, behaviour like this, which has been going on for years, is not going to be quelled by a narrow three month topic ban.- MrX 🖋 14:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:

1. Anythingyouwant adds the content: [7]
2. I remove the content: [8]
3. Anythingyouwant reverts my edit, effectively restoring the challenged material:[9]

• I'm disappointed at the ineffectual proposals by some of the admins below. Anythingyouwant has a history of using BLP as a shield and gaming the system to advance his POV.[10] He has a history of unfounded personal attacks, often far worse than his flagrant assault on my integrity.

How many times do we have to come back to AE and ANI before something meaningful is done to address this long term, recurrent problem. I'm tired of of having to politely ask Anythingyouwant to follow our rules, only to have my hand slapped down as if he has some superior editing insight that the rest of us are too biased or stupid to understand. We have dozens of conservative leaning editors like JFG, FallingGravity, PackMecEng, Springee, Markbassett, Dervorguilla, and many others who manage to help balance content without constantly bending the rules to their favor and attacking other editors. Would it help if I produced a list of Anythinyouwant's personal attacks, or a list of his attempts to blatantly game the system, or a list of his faux retirements? Do we need an American Politics 3 Arbcom case before this will addressed in a meaningful way?

Admins, please help me help you. This falls way short of what is necessary.- MrX 🖋 12:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: You quoted me and then wrote: "There are definitely editors that are more liberal leaning editors with a strong POV that have repeated been brought to AN/AE for behavior, shall we do the same to them? (obviously not)." ← How is that a logical response to what I wrote about constructive editing from right leaning editors? I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.

On the other hand, the rest of your comment is abundantly clear: that you think I'm trying to eliminate an editor whose POV I disagree with. If that is what you have gleaned from this discussion; the block and topic ban history; the talk page archives; the Arbcom cases; the diffs; the wikilawyering; and your own participation in the May 2017 ANI discussion, then I can confidently say you have no business making any comments below the Result concerning Anythingyouwant heading. Please recuse yourself, or at least move your comments to the gallery.- MrX 🖋 19:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

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.

Saying at my user talk page that User:MrX is a POV-pusher and that he abuses administrative boards like this one was intended as an honest opinion, and his complaint here about it only proves the point.

Regarding the other matter he raises, let’s be real. The Trump lead includes an allegation that he may have committed a basically treasonous act: conspiring with Russia to steal the election. That allegation belongs in the lead, and so does at least some brief mention that Trump has denied it, which he has done incessantly and emphatically. My edit explicitly cited “WP:BLP” and I did it only once, here, before taking it to the talk page. BLP is crystal clear about this: “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported”. The more notable an accusation, the more notable the denial.

Sime people at the talk page say it wasn’t really an allegation because it’s merely alleged that he may have done it. Others say that it was indeed an allegation, but still the denial can be put later in the article instead, leaving only the accusation in the lead. That all strikes me as baloney. Accusers don’t have to be 100% certain of guilt, for this part of BLP to apply. Moreover, WP:LEAD instructs: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.“ After my one edit citing “WP:BLP”, I was reverted and did not repeat the edit. Instead I went to the talk page to listen to several editors make their implausible, partisan arguments. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN, I hadn’t realized that calling Wikipedia a propaganda outfit at my user talk was blockable. If so, please block me from my user talk instead of from the article that you don’t want me involved with. Until Wikipedia adopts some kind of jury-like system, fora like this one will be sources of abuse. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, I’m well aware that user-talk is not a free-for-all zone. I didn’t call anyone a fucking retard. I said that Wikipedia is propagandistic, and that’s because certain editors make it so. Even if I did call someone a fucking retard at user talk, does that give you authority to dish out topic bans? For stuff I said at user talk? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, do you really think I ever suggested that editors cannot be sanctioned for user talk page posts? I instead questioned whether the type of sanction, i.e. a topic ban, is the proper type of sanction for something I said at my user talk. A proper sanction for calling someone of the anointed ones a POV-pusher at my user talk can take some form other than a topic ban, no? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, you will be implementing a three month topic ban on Donald Trump for something that was not said or done at either that article or that talk page. I called someone a POV-pusher at my own user talk. Do anything you want, I suppose. Call me whatever you want, I suppose. Whatever makes you feel good. I can certainly understand why you (plural) would not want a jury-like body to get in the way of your prescriptions. I will say quite frankly that Wikipedia’s most effective means of censorship is not to directly modify content, but rather to get rid of editors. You can judge for yourself how true that is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, you say it’s wikilawyering for me to mention that this page is for enforcing arbitration sanctions whereas your only complaint about my alleged “attacks” is one single mild comment at my user talk page which has nothing to do with arbitration sanctions, and which I deleted hours ago. So, it seems you’re just throwing around catchphrases. I’ve already given my opinion above, regarding how and why folks like you operate. It will be very nice to have more space between us. Incidentally, the last sanction that you refer to was simply for an allegedly inaccurate edit summary, not for any edit that I made anywhere. In any event, you know as well as I do that no indefinite topic ban on me will ever be removed, that’s just the way things work around here. Congratulations, and farewell. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:RegentsPark, I don’t see any indication that you’re any more aware than User:NeilN that the comment he objects to was at user talk, so banning me from somewhere aside from user talk seems like a misfire. I also don’t see any indication that you’re aware of a BLP exception to the “consensus required” restriction. You all are largely unaccountable and not detached, so none of this is surprising. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Masem, isn’t there a BLP exemption from the page restrictions? If you doubt it, I can provide links. I successfully availed myself of that exemption here at this page in 2016. The article talk page includes a BLP template, saying “This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy”. Also, I took this to the article talk page after citing “WP:BLP” only once, so it’s obvious I wasn’t jamming it back in using “BLP” in my edit summary again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masem, the policy you cite says “Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.” Note the word “biased”. You don’t think I had a good faith belief that omitting a denial of treason is a biased omission? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging User:Masem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mandruss, I agree with you that BLP appears to provide a very limited exemption, but it doesn't include anything one considers biased. So I relied on a very specific form of bias that is clearly spelled out in the BLP policy: describing allegations while omitting denials. They should remove the word “bias” from the list of exemptions, if they’re going to sanction everyone who invokes it, but perhaps that suggestion is quixotic as well. Better to entice people into removing obvious bias, so they can then be selectively sanctioned depending upon the type of bias. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mandruss, see WP:3RRNO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, 3RRNO potentially applies to 1RR, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t likewise potentially apply to the Trump article as well. See what User:Masem said below. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, if someone switches the top image in the Trump article to an image of a chimpanzee, that is subject to repeated reversion under 3RRNO, regardless of whether a consensus at article talk supports the chimp image. You seem to be arguing otherwise, but that’s the whole point of 3RRNO. The matter about the image can then come here, the admins can identify and ban the vandals, end of story. Same with blatant bias in the lead that violates explicit and specific language in WP:BLP. That’s what the applicable guidelines and policies say, and I’m surprised you disagree. (I don’t care for your sarcastic comments about white knights, by the way.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, I entirely agree that most BLP questions are far more nuanced than the chimpanzee example. So the admins here aren’t supposed to just take my word for it that BLP policy requires a brief denial in the Trump lead; they should go look at what WP:BLP says, go look at the lead as it stands now, read the applicable sanctions and 3RRNO, look at the proposed edits, read pertinent discussion at article talk, and reach a neutral decision about whether there’s a bias in the lead that violates BLP. None of that happens here because folks like you say it’s unnecessary to go through that process, and other folks just don’t feel in the mood. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, you say “AE's function is not resolve content disputes.” Unless it’s a chimpanzee picture, I gather. The discretionary sanctions say, “any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process” can be sanctioned. Blatantly violating a very clear BLP standard seems to qualify, IMHO. Anyway, you say we should all go home if Wikipedia fails. I will take that as very good advice. Wikipedia fails because there is no mechanism for randomly gathering uninvolved and uninterested editors together in a jury to apply BLP rules in disputes like this one, IMHO. Biased editors flock to every proceeding where they’re allowed. See you later, maybe. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bishonen, speaking of “crap”, when did my user talk page become subject to discretionary sanctions? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein violation of consensus required before restoration per [12] and [13]. (not sure why MrX didn't include those diffs)

Clearly not under the purview of the BLP exemption unlike what Anythingyouwant seems to say. There isn't a vague hand wavy "BLP" exemption; WP:3RRNO is pretty clear about it being of "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think Anythingyouwant is going to change his views about Trump in the next 3 months? Does anyone genuinely think a 3 month vacation from Trump will change his editing in any way regarding Trump? Just make the topic ban permanent and be done with this crap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @Masem, I see you missed the second rhetorical question. "Does anyone genuinely think a 3 month vacation will change his editing in any way?". The combination of his POV regarding Trump and his inability to alter his behaviour means that a 3 month topic ban from one particular topic in US politics is unlikely to do anything except push the problem back for 3 months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no exemption to the ArbCom restrictions for opposition to perceived POV-pushing. If there were, the ArbCom restrictions would be virtually worthless, as misperceived POV-pushing is rampant. BLP appears to provide a very limited exemption, but it doesn't include anything one considers biased. If it did, the ArbCom restrictions would be virtually worthless, as misperceived bias is rampant. Anythingyouwant seems unable to err on the side of caution when editing under the remedies, which I expressed to them in January. And claiming that the entire system is corrupt is tilting at windmills, pure and simple. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: BLP does not trump CONSENSUS, which is why we go immediately to talk upon a challenge even if we are asserting BLP. Once we got to talk, we saw legitimate opinion from multiple experienced editors that the preceding sentence is not an allegation as intended by that clause of BLP. Hence, err on the side of caution. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: ArbCom restrictions ≠ WP:3RR. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: At great cost to the project, BLP is often used as a weapon by self-appointed righteous Knights of the Order of BLP Protectors—editors who like (or need) to see themselves as the only good editors in the room. Neutrality looks like bias to those who fail to recognize their own bias, and that's a stone cold fact. Whether you are such a knight is really beside the point, as there has to be one set of rules for everybody. BLP cannot trump CONSENSUS, it simply does not and cannot work; if somebody challenges your BLP claim, you go to talk and seek consensus, full stop. If somebody repeatedly forces you to talk with spurious challenges of BLP claims, that's an equally serious behavior issue that warrants a harsh response.
If policy does not make all this crystal clear, we have identified the root of much unnecessary conflict in BLP areas. As I've said before, if CONSENSUS and behavior policy are not enough to protect article content, en-wiki fails and we all go home. I don't rule out that possibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: I submit that this BLP question, and most BLP questions, are far more nuanced than your chimpanzee example. And that's the problem, too many editors are unwilling or unable to see the nuance, and every BLP question is a chimpanzee example. They self-appoint as the only editors able to see with that amount of clarity, even when opposed by multiple editors with, collectively, many times their experience. That can't work in a project fundamentally based on collaboration. It never has and it never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: AE's function is not resolve content disputes. It is to decide whether you violated the ArbCom restrictions. In my opinion you did, I'm sorry if the rules are unclear, but you knew the quicksand was there and chose to walk into it. Again.
I'm done here unless pinged by somebody else. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER say "I'm done here".
SPECIFICO's "Your 'evidence' seems to suggest" overstates the case, but their interpretation of the cause-and-effect is at least as likely as Lambden's, and that neutralizes both arguments. I don't know the name of Lambden's logical fallacy, but I know a logical fallacy when I see one. Besides, we are hardly going to instate affirmative action for conservatives, so the argument is pointless. It's also meta to this AE complaint and thus off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I saw the change made by Anythingyouwant, thought it was accurately in line with BLP so I restored it, not paying enough attention to the regs for that page, that stipulate talkpage consensus must be reached beforehand. Recognize also the reverts mentioned do not involve vandalism reverts and the BLP argument is not strong. To me it seems like an issue of ethical good taste more than anything else. While most may feel Anythingyouwant deserves a sanction here, would prefer they be allowed to participate in the talkpage discussion if they would be willing to self impose a 90 day article space editing moratorium. Just seeking a less draconian resolution.--MONGO 18:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The push to site ban or indef block this editor has all the makings of a rather draconian resolution. The near threats of yet another arbcom case are not pleasing to read either.--MONGO 14:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm appalled that MrX would demand that Masem, an 10 year veteran admin, who was supported 50-1 on his Rfa, and with numerous FAs and GAs under his belt, would be asked to not participate in the resolution of this matter in his capacity as an administrator of this website. I dare say that MrX does some heavy pitching here frequently to AE and while some of those he has brought forth here do deserve penalty, his heavy handed approach here and elsewhere indicates to me that the inability to edit collegially may be as much his problem to work on as those he accuses of the same.--MONGO 20:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: If the sanction is to be a TBAN, why restrict it to Donald Trump? Anythingyouwant's behavior spans the entire American Politics space, and its gone on for many years. I don't think it really should be a temporary sanction, either, but that is typical of the timid approach Admins have taken in recent enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden: Your "evidence" seems to suggest that Trump-oriented editors (e.g. ones with pin-ups of POTUS on their user pages) tend to violate DS whereas neutral editors, who generally do not violate DS, are repeatedly brought here on specious, undocumented and generally incompetent complaints. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Some fallacies should not even be dignified by the name logical. It's just a "one of those". SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Admins, but I'm going to repeat something I've said on this page several times before: Anythingyouwant got a TBAN from abortion-related topics after some epic misdeeds in that area. The post-1932 politics has become an extension of that battleground. Many pro-life advocates will do anything necessary to sustain Republican leadership that will appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices. Anythingyouwant's behavior in American Politics articles should already have been deemed a violation of his TBAN, but the connection may not be within the domain of mere Admins. I'm sure if we take this to Arbcom, this user would likely be blocked indefinitely from WP. There needs to be decisive action to stop the corrosive misbehavior that has been the core of Anythingyouwant's participation on Wikipedia. A simple AP2 TBAN is required. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are all cases where 1RR/Consensus Required AP2 complaints were dismissed:

• Sept 2016 – Volunteer Marek – Complaining party accused of using enforcement to "game" the system and topic banned
• Oct 2016 – Anythingyouwant – good faith reverts as potential BLP problems
• Oct 2016 – My very best wishes – No action taken
• Feb 2017 – SPECIFICO - Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken
• May 2017 – SPECIFICO - No action taken

Here are all cases where they resulted in sanctions:

• Oct 2016 – Ihardlythinkso – banned from the topic of post-1932 politics
• Oct 2016 – Anythingyouwant – banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States
• Feb 2017 – Thucydides411 – 'blocked for one week for violating the page restrictions
• Jul 2017 – Neuwert – blocked for 48 hours
• Nov 2017 – Anythingyouwant – placed on 0RR for 1 month on Roy Moore
• Nov 2017 – Volunteer Marek – Topic ban from Donald Trump and interaction ban for filer
• Dec 2017 – DHeyward – topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians

In only one case was a complaint against an editor seemingly advocating the conservative position dismissed, and it involved them removing an unsubstantiated accusation of "child rape" from the lede. Note the editors who restored "child rape" faced no consequences.

In only one case was an editor seemingly advocating the liberal position sanctioned, and the complaining party was sanctioned with an interaction ban.

To editors familiar with the topic the pattern is evident.

I have listed only violations reported to AE. Past decisions and comments have had a chilling effect, and editors in the topic know to avoid disciplinary noticeboards as, depending on the violator, a complaint will at best be dismissed and at worst result in their own sanction.

Here are two examples I've encountered just in the last month of the same 1RR/Consensus Required violation which were not sanctioned: diff1, diff2. If there a question as to whether a complaint would have resulted in action note that one of the violators (who I repeat violated the same policy) feels confident enough to comment here recommending a full topic ban.

To quote Justice Judy's decision in Brawthen, a domestic violence case:

• "There are women who worked very hard for decades to create a system where domestic violence is serious business, where people respond to it in a serious way, and when [it's] used as a weapon and not a shield it's offensive to the system."

Unfortunately I have seen more examples of Discretionary Sanctions and enforcement as a "weapon" against editors than a "shield" to protect articles. I expect this will continue absent significant reform.

Note regarding the list above: I have omitted complaints dismissed due to conspicuous policy misinterpretation by the filer. If I have excluded 1RR/Consensus Required complaints with a reasonable policy basis please link them and I will amend the list. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading down the page, I found Only in death's comment (in favor of an indef Trump topic ban) persuasive at first, since I think he's quite correct that a short Trump topic ban for AYW isn't going to make much of a difference. Then I read Bishonen's comment (3 month indef block), and that seemed to make even more sense, although I (personally) would still doubt that AYW would change their combative way of editing (on full display here) even then, but a few months in the desert is better than allowing AYW to continue practicing their editing style on other American-politics related topics -- which they would certainly do. Therefore, I would suggest to NeilN that Bishonen's suggestion is the better choice, if we're to have any hope of encouraging AYW to change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This case moved forward quickly so I apologize for getting here so late. My perception of AYW's attempt to add the denial to the lede was that it was a GF edit based on NPOV and BLP. AYW did go to the article TP in an attempt to discuss the inclusion. I don't think irritating another editor at a TP justifies a block or TB. My interest in this case is more focused on the NPOV argument which I see as being inseparable from BLP. Prior to this case being filed, I posted a tough question on the TP of TonyBallioni hoping to get some thoughtful input. The diff I used in that same discussion included AYW's edit as an example. While waiting for more answers at Tony's, I discovered this case had been filed. I respect MrX, and realize that our Trump-related articles are highly controversial. There also appears to be an expanding left-right divide in RL which may explain why we're seeing mention of party affiliations in the discussion above. Political persuasions should not be an issue if everyone is truly focused on NPOV, but I also understand why some may think political persuasion may create an inadvertent COI, especially if one has a strong loyalty to or hatred for a particular party. I can also see that the results here are not leaning in AYW's favor, but I'm going to ask for leniency anyway. Editor retention is becoming/has been an issue, and as Legacypac pointed out above, we may be eliminating too many editors whose opposing views actually help WP achieve compliance with neutrality and balance. I hope it's a worthy enough point for admins to ponder. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at AYW's contributions shows they have interests beyond politics. Their contributions in those areas don't appear to be problematic. An indefinite topic ban from American politics as proposed by User:NeilN, rather than a block, would let them continue to contribute where their activity isn't causing problems.

Admittedly there's a chance that they could cause problems in related areas that fall outside American politics (e.g., British politics or something). But I think it's worth trying a broadly-construed, indefinite AP topic ban instead of a block. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Given the past sanctions, I am disinclined to overlook "Wikipedia is the biggest propaganda outfit on Earth, thanks to folks like you" and recommend another Donald Trump topic ban, three months in length. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Anythingyouwant: I don't think you understand user talk pages are in no way free-for-all zones and not subject to civility restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Anythingyouwant: Yes, editors can be sanctioned for user talk page posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @MrX: How exactly does the one diff no. 1 violate the article restrictions? Sandstein 14:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. Why do we need a novel-length discussion for this? Anyway. BLP is not an excuse, because whether the contested content is needed here is primarily a matter of editorial judment and therefore a legitimate content dispute. But I am generally not a fan of page restrictions, because they tend to create more problems than they solve. Because of this, I normally expect whoever places page restrictions to enforce them themselves. I'll therefore take no action here and have no opinion about whether anybody else should. Sandstein 21:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with NeilN that a three month Donald Trump topic ban is the way to go. Sandstein, diff no. 1 appears to violate the "consensus required" restriction. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Anythingyouwant's first addition of this material, prior to the diff identified above. While I am 100% sympathetic towards the BLP argument raised here (including the allegation in the lede but not the denial), this is clearly against page restrictions. --Masem (t) 14:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the material added qualifies for the WP:3RRNO exemptions; the only one we have for BLP is removing obviously poorly or unsourced libelous material. I think Anythingyouwant is fully correct there's a massive BLP problem here, but its not one that can be managed by edit warring. --Masem (t) 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I'm aware of. While BLP is very important and particularly in this case, you still can't edit over it. We're not talking poorly/unsourced material (the allegations and his denial are well sourced), so it immediately fails the 3RRNO allowances. I know what you're trying to ask to do, you're hitting a massive wall, but that's not a reason to edit war against clear page restrictions, even if you think you are doing it in the name of BLP. --Masem (t) 15:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only adding a comment that I am concerned about @Only in death:'s suggestion that they don't expect AYW's opinion to change on Trump in 3 months so we should enforce something harder. The last thing we are going to do is block/ban people strictly because they express a certain opinion/POV. It's the combination of expressing that opinion and editing in a disruptive manner to maintain that opinion/POV that causes a problem and where we need blocks. Mechanically, we need to enforce something here against AYW's edits - they were clearly not appropriate and since they have been warned/acted against before, they should know better. But again, those were for actions, not for having a specific POV. Very much particularly at an article like Trump, we should have editors with multiple viewpoints to keep watch to make sure BLP/NPOV is upheld, which may create friction which is why there are the discretionary sanctions on that page to caution editors. --Masem (t) 06:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have dozens of conservative leaning editors like JFG, FallingGravity, PackMecEng, Springee, Markbassett, Dervorguilla, and many others who manage to help balance content without constantly bending the rules to their favor and attacking other editors. There are definitely editors that are more liberal leaning editors with a strong POV that have repeated been brought to AN/AE for behavior, shall we do the same to them? (obviously not). Given that AYW's concern here is 100% valid under BLP (and as I see from the talk page, has been discussed and implemented), just not an allowance for editing warring, this seems more pleading to eliminate a louder voice in opposition to the majority's POV from the discussion, only readily supported in the fact that AYW has engaged in some disruptive behavior in the past. I know what that looks like, where you are challenging the prevailing editors' broad POV and end up having those editors try to silence you, and I see the same patterns here. We have something we can take action on (exceeding 0RR on contested material), but it's nowhere close to the disruption that a lengthy topic ban or block is required, particularly as they jumped to the talk page to start discussion. --Masem (t) 14:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and continued jibes on display here, I will be implementing a three month topic ban on Donald Trump, broadly construed, unless there is further admin input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I won't straight-up oppose your plans there, Neil, but I find Anythingyouwant's arguments against a topic ban logical. He questions "whether the type of sanction, i.e. a topic ban, is the proper type of sanction for something I said at my user talk. A proper sanction for calling one of the anointed ones a POV-pusher at my user talk can take some form other than a topic ban, no?" Yes. A three-month-block would be a better fit (proposed block length adjusted for AYWs long history of battleground editing, and for the "one of the anointed ones" crap). Bishonen | talk 20:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• I think that if this were only the editing restriction violation, I'd argue for leniency; while the disputed text probably doesn't reach the standard of the exemptions in 3RRNO, I do think the is a BLP problem and the exemption was claimed in good faith; that they are also participating in the TP is also good. The aspersions and general battleground attitude on display is deeply unimpressive, though. I agree with others that a narrow topic ban is not the answer here and I'd be inclined towards a shorter block (a month? six weeks?). GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What would be the rationale for the block? If we are giving a three-month block out just for some extraordinarily mild incivility on his own talk page, then that's ludicrous. The community lets far more incivil comments than that go by with nothing done about them every day of the year. Blocks should not be used to punish, they should be to prevent disruption. If the block rationale would be for the problem editing in a single area, then a topic ban is appropriate. As the disruption is in one area, then a targeted topic ban is both less destructive and would solve the problem of disruptive editing. I'd suggest it be to American politics articles, rather than specifically ones about Donald Trump, though, and I'd suggest 3 months would be the absolute minimum length. Fish+Karate 11:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bishonen, GoldenRing, and Fish and karate: When considering your comments I had another look at Anythingyouwant's editing history. On January 20th they were given a one month topic ban from Donald Trump. On January 27th they took a break from editing. They returned on April 13th and went back to Donald Trump a couple days after. On the 19th they started the attacks that landed them here. This indicates they will simply wait until their topic ban expires and then continue their disruption. When reading their "discretionary sanctions applies to user talk pages? really??" comments above, I was struck how similar this was to their behavior outlined in the last case here. Same gaming, same wikilawyering. I don't think a short block will work here based on their Jan-Apr editing history but an indefinite topic ban might. Let them edit in other areas to show they can contribute non-disruptively and have them appeal rather than having the ban simply expire. I'd go with a blanket American Politics ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be good with that. The ban formulation should preferably contain explicit advice about how constructive editing in other areas, as well as in the sister projects, would make an appeal more likely to be viewed favorably. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• I think that’s a better option then immediately jumping to a full block. Fish+Karate 17:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @NeilN: I'm still reluctant to see someone indefinitely topic-banned for a BLP-defending edit + attitude. While it seems generally agreed that the edit in question didn't rise to the level of 3RRNO, an indef tban still seems a very harsh outcome to me. But, as ever, you can act unilaterally here and I wouldn't think it completely outside your discretion to do so. Just not what I would do. GoldenRing (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

The editor has been engaging in edit warring on multiple articles under the purview of ARBMAC.

1. 2018-03-12 Initial change to place Macedonia in ancient Greece
   1. 2018-04-05 same change
   2. 2018-04-22 same change
2. 2018-03-14 Initial change to make Macendonia Greek
   1. 2018-04-05 same change
   2. 2018-04-22 same change

Similar patterns hold on Alexander I of Macedon, Seleucus I Nicator, Alexander II of Macedon, and others

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 2018-04-05

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not sure what solution is best here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._Katechis_Mpourtoulis&diff=837919221&oldid=834439028

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

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

• I think this is fairly clear-cut - ARBMAC topic ban required. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Black Kite: I started writing something here arguing for limited scope or duration - but never mind. Looking back through this user's contributions, all I can say is that SarekOfVulcan was remarkably restrained in their selection of evidence - this edit pretty much sums up the attitude. GoldenRing (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Blocked for one week for edit-warring - this AE thread.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

notified

I was blocked for a week for edit warring on a talk page following this report. I made 5 edits over a 10 day period to a talk page. The first edit was not a revert. I self-reverted the last one as soon as I saw the report (no courtesy of a warning, as per the filer's usual MO with me). I couldn't have possibly been edit warring alone yet I am the only one whose behavior was scrutinized (including the filer of the report who edited against consensus). A week block for something like this is obviously punitive and not preventative. This is not the first time Sandstein closes an AE I'm involved in unilaterally and in less than 24 hours, with an unusually harsh punishment not supported by any other admins. Check out my talk page where I predicted something like this will probably happen before Sandstein posted on the request. I know AE admins have wide discretion but this is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the last 10 pages of archives, representing over 30 AE cases and appeals.

• Not a single case of an admin unilaterally closing a request (this is the 3rd time Sandstein has done this to me)
• One case was closed in less than 24 hours - an obvious topic ban violation closed after two admins discussed (this is the second time Sandstein has done this to me).
• In many cases the actions of the filer and other editors were taken into consideration, particularly when it was obvious the person reported was reacting to other editors. I did not get that privilege, but was told to file a report after being blocked (I can't, and by the time I could it will be stale).
• I'll go out on a limb and say that 4 reverts in a week+ to a talk page have probably never resulted in sanctions before. I'm willing to look at more archives to substantiate that, if necessary.

Could someone do me the courtesy and explain why I deserve this special and unusual treatment? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @NeilN: sorry, I phrased that poorly. Should have included "to editors with more than 60 edits". Are you honestly saying these cases are comparable to mine? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @NeilN: (should probably be copied otherwise someone might accuse me of doing something improper) I understand admins are free to act unilaterally. That is not the issue here. I'm going to again, go out on a limb here, and assume the times you were sanctioning editors unilaterally it was for a grave violation that required immediate action and not, say, 4 reverts on a talk page in over a week, one of which was immediately self-reverted when the AE was filed, signalling there will be no further disruption? Have you acted unilaterally against the same editor 3 separate times? Perhaps each of the things I listed happens every once in a while, but all of them together from the same admin? Come on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this appeal be declined. The evidence submitted in the AE request clearly indicated edit-warring by No More Mr Nice Guy. What No More Mr Nice Guy submits on appeal is unconvincing. Any misconduct by others (see WP:NOTTHEM), or the presence or absence of consensus for any specific content, does not justify edit-warring. If others also need to be sanctioned, separate requests concerning them can be filed, but as submitted there was not enough evidence to justify action against others in my view. While No More Mr Nice Guy did self-revert themselves, they did so only after the AE report was filed and they did not acknowledge that they had in fact acted inappropriately. I therefore consider the block to be necessary to prevent the reoccurrence of such conduct. Sandstein 07:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend that reviewing admins consider sanctioning Pluto2012 for their comments here in the light of WP:ASPERSIONS. Sandstein 07:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per NMMNG's request, I copied this appeal over from his talk page. I would like to note that in Talk:Mandatory Palestine#1RR on FAQ at the time of NMMNG's revert (to remove the disputed section) there was no consensus to include the disputed FAQ section (in terms of "raw head count" - more editors opposed than supported inclusion - there were serious arguments to exclude (both due to misrepresenting sources and not presenting aspects of the issue, and due to this being simply off-topic)) - WP:ONUS had not been met. Some of the supporters of the inclusion of the section, were convinced of some deficiencies - diff in the wording. NMMNG self-reverted after the AE started, he was also less aggressive (ignoring his initial challenged that led to a discussion/semi-RfC (opened here - probably should have been a full fledged RfC and without the pings)) than Pluto2012 who reverted thrice with WP:POINTy edit summaries - let's start by being able to real what it is all aboutrv - account who is not there to contribue a constructive wayLet's open an ARBCOM case once for all.. The AE case was closed 21 hours after it was opened.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMMNG, ie no more Mr Nice Guy..., is no more on this project to contribute constructively to the development of an encyclopaedia. All his interactions are fights [sic] dedicated to prove WP would be biaised, anti-Israeli and not to say antisemite.

We know his past. His bitterness is not curable. And this has lasted for years now. Most of time he joins "forces" to others to lead their fight on baseless issues. All this generates a bad climate in importing the I/P conflict on WP.

Sandstein fits his analysis to the facts and only them with a zero tolerance's policy towards NMMNG. That's why he blocked NMMNG one week for edit warring. But that edit war is a symptom and not the cause. NMMNG would just need to be topic-banned, which would avoid the contributors to endlessly have to come and extinguish the fires that he and his mates start. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. I assume that in WP:ASSERTION you refer to the 5th topic and to my accusations against NMMNG without supplying evidence.

Here is what I have posted in 2012 on NMMNG's talk page :

Hi NMMNG,
I have the feeling -but I may be wrong- that you shifted more and more radical. I think that this is due to the strong involvment in conroversial and difficult topic where no censensus is achievable due to the misunderstand, the fears and/or the bad faith of people. For your pleasure and for you own, I think that it may be profitable sometimes to take some distance and/or to focus on other topics.
My two cents.
Rgds, Pluto2012 (talk).

Since that time, anybody can just scroll down the page of NMMNG and sees in which situations he was involved :

• In July 2013, he was forbiden to post Arbitration Requests.
• A few weeks after, he writes I'm sorry, but I'm so thoroughly disgusted with this place right now that I have no interest in wasting time trying to improve the unimprovable. I know that for people like you that means encountering an automatic majority that won't let you put anything that doesn't fit their political agenda in articles
• 2 years later he decides to focus on Nishidani and as another contributor points out : First you attacked Nishidani by labeling him as an antisemite. He even wrote a page about the antisemitism on wikipedia. It was finaly deleted but it was hard to convince him.
• And a few time later : (...) Although to be fair, watching those anti-Israel guys (and really, other than maybe Huldra none of them can be reasonably suspected of caring for the Palestinians more than they hate Israel, or in some cases Jews) obsess over socks was somewhat amusing. Amazing how they never find socks with whom they agree politically. What are the odds?
• In october 2015 : In a couple of weeks I will be so thoroughly disgusted that they let the kind of behavior he (-> ie Nishidani) displays freely go on here, that I'll leave. It's just not worth it.
• The same month in 2015 he was already involved in the FAQ of this famous article for which he was blocked 1 week yesterday by Sandstein and advised to cool down : I saw on Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#Edits_to_the_FAQ that you have been calling User:Oncenawhile all kinds of names. Please be civil and correct at all times. Just stick to the issue at hand and don't play on the person. You can read up about this at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC). Please, read the remaining.[reply]
• Please read these exchanges 2 weeks later.
• ...

He would have been topic-banned at the time, he would be much more happy and wikipedia a much more pleasant place.

Sandstein, "La loi, rien que la Loi, toute la Loi" has some limitations.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would decline this appeal. Being "right" (and I don't mean to take a position on whether they were or not) is not an exemption from the edit-warring policy. I also think Pluto2012 is right on the edge of a block for ASPERSIONS. GoldenRing (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline The appeal is wholly unconvincing. Admins can and do unilaterally impose restrictions to curb disruptive editing in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The block length is more than appropriate for a second AE block for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @No More Mr Nice Guy: No special treatment as your assertions are easily shown as incorrect. Even the last archive shows admins acting unilaterally dealing with two requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit count has little to do with it. Admins are free to act unilaterally and often do without a request being made. Have a look at WP:DSLOG and see how many editors have been sanctioned without a request being made at WP:AE. I know I've sanctioned editors with a couple thousand edits to tens of thousands of edits without seeking input from other admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline per my colleagues above. One week for a second AE block is fine, and Sandstein acted reasonably. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per the above, decline. There's only 3 days left on the block now anyway. Fish+Karate 08:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition :

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

1. Latest revision as of 12:40, 25 April 2018 reverted strike out of !vote from ARBPIA AfD
2. Revision as of 07:26, 25 April 2018 ARBPIA AfD

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Revision as of 15:06, 22 April 2018 Edit warring block

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

notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Was specifically warned of the 500/30 rule - [14]. In addition @Drmies: warned the user regarding some of the particulars of the edits in ARBPIA - [15][16]. Note - this partially involved the article up for AfD. Furthermore - I believe there may be a wider NOTTHERE/BATTLEGROUND issue here that revolves around different topic areas (Syria, Catalonia/Spain, and I might be missing out on a few others - the editing history and talk page history for this 12 day account is quite instructive.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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.

• Since I have been warned by User:Drmies I have not made a single edit to any Arab-Israeli conflict related articles. I am prohibited from editing those articles (for now because I am not an "Extended Conifrmed User") but nowhere in the document cited does it say I am prevented from voting in AFD's relating to them. If I am prevented from doing so I will revert my vote. However considering I am fairly certain that is not the case there is really nothing to be enforced as I am fairly sure I have not broken any rules. ApolloCarmb (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To be quite fair to the user, sanctions are pretty difficult to understand, especially for newcomers. I consider myself relatively competent, but I had to have sanctions explained to me by a seasoned editor so I wouldn't make a mistake. In this case, it looks like the user simply missed the part where the prohibition extends to AfDs. I think Drmies is right in his approach here. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @ApolloCarmb: Do not revert other editors in this area as you're likely to be wrong. In this case, the motion states "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Without clicking through the diffs, if the account is accurate, and all that is at stake here is an AfD comment which the author said they'd revert if need be, I see no reason to come down hard. Thanks Neil, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBEE, page level article restrictions - 1RR (+original author as in ARBPIA)

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

1. Revision as of 09:51, 23 April 2018 Original authorship by GCB.
2. Revision as of 16:40, 25 April 2018 - reverted by other user.
3. Revision as of 23:51, 25 April 2018 - revert1 - which in itself (coming after 7 hours from the revert), is a violation of If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert..
4. Revision as of 07:17, 26 April 2018 - revert2 by other user.
5. Latest revision as of 11:56, 26 April 2018 - revert2 - this is withing 12 hours of revert1, violating 1RR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In short - we have two violations here - a violation of the "original authorship provision" with revert1, and a violation of normal 1RR with revert2 in relation to revert1.

IPs from this range have admitted to being GCB. You can see this in - admission at SPI, User talk:2A01:110F:4505:DC00:1DAD:B65D:E100:9863, User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/May#Hi, yes, and [17].

Please also see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella. The IP in question is quite dynamic (at times - a few changes a day), however the prefix is consnant - searching for 2a01 (or an even tighter (longer) range) on the page in question go back to (probably) GCB.

There are additional issues with editing here - including long term edit warring and talk-page behaviour.. I'd like to note that revert2 returns a newspaper article written by an author that appears to mainly write WP:FRINGE softcover books (a self-evident list of book jackets may be seen here). User has also added Ewa Kurek as s reference which is questionable as a source both due to the publisher, and due to "Kurek is more subtle than [Holocaust denier] David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system."Why Was Historian Who Blames Jews For Complicity with Nazis Considered For Humanitarian Prize?, Forward and Poland Stops Ceremony for Author Accused of Anti-Semitism, NY Times (AP reprint).

Also -Revision as of 06:54, 25 April 2018, reverted as BLP vio here, and reinstated - Revision as of 23:26, 25 April 2018 is a BLP issue as well as being contradicted by sources provided (see Talk:Leszek Pietrzak#BLP violation - lecturing position at KUL) - however BLP DS alert was placed on their page following the addition after the revert.

Added per response below - GCB (under a shifting IP) has been performing quite a few reverts on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland since protection was lifted, also against talk-page consensus (and in the face of reverts by multiple users) - as may be evident in the history of the page. Reported above are 2 separation violations - on the 25th the "original authorship" clause was violated in addition to the 1RR on the 26th.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for knowing the IP is GCB - this has been evolving. Following their admission at SPI perhaps more are aware - initially this was not obvious, and they had filed, without identifying themselves, an edit warring report, ANIANI2, as well as responding thus (on ANI) when their identity was questioned.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified GCB, and IP1, IP2, and IP3.

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.

• Genuine - I self-reverted myself [18] I was confused by the date 25th versus 26th. I thought in my mind its day difference (24h), didn't add hours. My apologies, I will pay attention to that.
• PS --> All other complaints are tendentious. It's a dispute over the edited topic of which filing user is heavily envolved with. It appears that filing editor is trying to win the argument by getting opposite side sanctioned. He could have messaged me requesting the self-revert, I would undoubtedly relapse myself
• PS2 - I have no access to my account until the end of April when I get back home, that's why IP edits. All editors who are involved are aware who I'm. Thanks 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already warned her about the DS restrictions [[19]], moreover the material she added is still being disputed by multiple edds [[20]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I will be blocking the GizzyCatBella account for 72 hours. The block is for the person and so applies to IPs. Counting hours until you can revert is not on, especially as you seemed to indicate acceptance of other editors' concerns and made no attempt to address them. [21] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. April 24, 2018 Inserts material that makes a controversial claim about a living person in Wikipedia's voice.
2. April 24, 2018 I reverted the bold edit because it's unattributed and unrelated to the article subject. (It also violates WP:BLP and WP:OR.)
3. April 24, 2018 Reverts my edit, thus reinserting the challenged material in violation fo the editing restriction.
4. April 24, 2018 Refuses to self-revert

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 February 5, 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If anyone else agrees that this edit is a WP:BLP violation, please revert it.- MrX 🖋 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question is original research for two reasons: 1) The source make no mention of the election interference by Russia, and 2) the source publication date predates the public revelation on the interference by several months.

The edit is a BLP violation because it strongly implies criminal wrongdoing in the context of an article about illegal activity, especially by omitting the attribution.- MrX 🖋 19:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

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.

A TBAN is warranted. I don't see any reason to fine tune this to Trump-related rather than using the AP2 Post-1932 American Politics definition. It's just forcing us to parse what's Trump-related or what's motivated by the same impulse that's led to Trump-related disruption. For nearly all the disruptive editors we've seen at AE, the origin of their behavior is generally not Trump. It's some broader POV that includes Trump or his standing. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remind that this is the same person who's said ""wikipedia is not a conspiracy site for anti trump wackos" + a BLP violation about Clinton collusion, among other excellent edits to talk:Donald Trump and elsewhere on talk pages. Do recommend AP2 tban perhaps longer than 1 month as the person clearly cannot edit here without being a problem, complaining about everyone having an anti-trump agenda. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Lambden The article is about Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections. Is there any evidence that that visit is about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Nobody is saying that Reuters "would be deemed unacceptable". That is a straw man. If he does not understand the notice MrX gave, then he has a WP:COMPETENCY problem, in addition to his everything is anti-trump POV and agenda (and resultant basically attacks on other editors as being "anti trump wackos"). Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source, in fact, does not say the meetings were secret. The word secret has extra meaning and saying someone had secret meetings with the Russians and putting it under an article called Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections carries a pretty heavy implication entirely unsupported by the source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim itself is not controversial. The only possible BLP violation is that the source attributes the claim while we do not. But scrolling to the next section I see the following:

• "Between April and November 2016, there are at least 18 further exchanges by telephone and email between Russian officials and the Trump team."

The Reuters source attributes that claim to unnamed "current and former U.S. officials" yet our article states it as fact. Poor articles result from inconsistent standards which may explain the state of this one.

AmYisroelChai clearly violated the consensus required provision but judging from this talk page conversation he was unfamiliar with it. The confusing claim of a BLP violation didn't help. Is there evidence elsewhere he understood this restriction? @Sandstein: Is a 3 month (or 1 month) topic ban typical for a first-time consensus-required violation? I will have to search the archives.

Regarding WP:POINT, the editor's frustration that Reuters would be deemed unacceptable in an article that cites Raw Story and The Huffington Post is, I would argue, understandable. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: I was not arguing it was relevant, I was arguing it was not a BLP violation. I can cite several instances of experienced editors misunderstanding one Discretionary Sanctions provision or another. It is hardly evidence of incompetence.

Secret: confidential, top secret, classified, undisclosed, unknown. I could find no public announcement of the meeting so although I would not have, his use of the word is defensible. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting here because I am WP:INVOLVED at the article.) First, it is true this does not belong in the article. The source provides no evidence, or even a suggestion, that a visit to Russia by Obama's CIA director had anything at all to do with the subject of Russian interference in the election. For all we know it may be routine for the CIA director to meet with counterparts in Russia. Including it in this article implies that it was related to the election, which would be a very serious allegation if true. We need two sources to make a serious allegation against a living person, and we only have one.

Then there’s the problem with the source. Please note that the source for this information is not Reuters (a reliable source); it is Interfax (which we would not generally regard as a reliable source). Reuters is not citing a product of its own reporting, it is merely repeating something that Interfax said. Maybe we could use it since Interfax attributed the information to a specific source, but we would have to name the individual who is being quoted (certainly not Wikipedia's voice). IMO AmYisroelChai did not notice this problem with the sourcing (can’t blame him; several discussants here have made the same error) and was acting in what he believed was good faith. The consensus-required issue remains, but it seems to me that a one-off incident like this could be handled by education. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It's not obvious that this addition is a BLP violation or OR, given that it is sourced to a reliable source. Except, perhaps, by implication, in that it is placed into a list of events related to Russian election interference, but is in fact completely unrelated to that topic. Particularly in view of this, we seem to be looking at a WP:POINT issue. The reported conduct is also clearly a violation of the page restriction. I think that a topic ban from Donald Trump (including Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections) for 3 months or so is appropriate. Sandstein 18:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear-cut violation of consensus required restriction. I lean towards more moderate sanctions for first-time offense which doesn't involve completely inappropriate content. I recommend a 72 hour block or one month ban on the topics Sandstein suggests above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with NeilN. GoldenRing (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A site block is unnecessary, blocks are not punitive. Ambivalent on a topic ban, but given it's the first "offence", I'd personally be inclined to go with a warning. Fish+Karate 11:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fish and karate: I'd argue that a block would show that the restrictions need to be strictly followed and help to prevent future violations. Their warning was being asked to self-revert - they refused. I'd also rather not set a precedent that other editors can point to. Had this landed on my talk page instead of being brought here, I would have little hesitation in blocking for 72 hours after the way the refusal was worded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @NeilN: Probably boils down to a difference in opinion between us on the value of short-term blocks as a means to improve an editor's attitude (they usually get more pissed off, not less). I'm not going to complain if the consensus is that a block is appropriate. Fish+Karate 13:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing with a one-month topic ban based on the discussion above. Sandstein 19:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[[23]] :

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

1. April 28 3:21 First revert. Restoring challenged material without consensus.
2. April 28 3:28 Second revert. Restoring challenged material without consensus again.

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

• Initial notification
• Reminder about DS and warning
• And another warning about DS
• Also, previous warning about edit warring in topic area [24]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user also fills the talk pages (and occasionally articles) with conspiracy mongering nonsense: "[25]" and [26] (needless to say this is a gross misrepresentation of sources) and [27] (pushing a discredited and obnoxious conspiracy theory - and when this was disposed off with a very apt reply by User:Objective3000 [28], Phmoreno just doubles down with yet another conspiracy theory based on a conspiracy website [29]). And then more misrepresentation of sources [30] in which there's also some BLP vios (alleging criminal behavior)

While strictly speaking these are more or less content issues (to the extent that trying to include conspiracy theories in an article is a content issue), they do demonstrate a WP:NOTHERE.

Regardless, the 1RR violation and the "consensus required" violations are pretty straight forward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Phmoreno:, can you provide diffs or links or explanations for the following claims:

• " I actually did have a consensus " - I don't see this anywhere. Instead what I see is the following comments:
  • "I think I might see some BLP/NPOV problems with a document suggesting potential criminality of many persons signed by eleven members of one party and zero members of the other party."
  • "I see that this was added, but still using primary sources. That's OR. You must find secondary sources. I'm sure they exist"
  • "Removed assertion cited only to desantis.house.gov. Needs citing to a third-party independent reliable source"
  • "Please use talk page to gain consensus for challenged material before restoring"

So can you explain in what world the above comments constitute "I have consensus!"?

• "As for "pushing conspiracy theories about Steele, Clinton, et al. being arrested" I did not say they were going to be arrested" <-- I can't find it where someone - definitely not me - said that YOU were saying that they were "arrested". I, and a couple others, noted that your edit implied they were engaged in "criminal behavior". Are you purposefully misquoting people?
• I was going to ask you but then I looked it up myself. The "Go for it" comment you quote below, is NOT DIRECTED AT YOU, but at another editor, soibangla. And soibangla EXPLICITLY recommends "seeing if it withstands challenge". I.e. NOT restoring it if it gets reverted. Are you purposefully misquoting people? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

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.

1. April 28 3:21 First revert. Restoring challenged material without consensus.
2. April 28 3:28 Second revert. Restoring challenged material without consensus again.

I restored an edit that was reverted by a false claim that it hand no consensus on Talk. I actually did have a consensus so there should have no been no initial revert of my edit. Second revert still based on false claim involving first. Please see Talk and clear my record of this.Phmoreno (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among the comments: "This sounds like legitimate content, maybe in the section we have about litigation. We cover this kind of thing. Go for it." There were also false claims about OR because it was a primary source (the DeSantis letter); however, there was defense of using it in the discussion. The source is perfectly legitimate in the way it was used. Someone started another Talk section defending me.Phmoreno (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for "pushing conspiracy theories about Steele, Clinton, et al. being arrested" I did not say they were going to be arrested, I said they were referred for criminal investigation based on the Grassley-Graham memo (Steele- last paragraph) and the DeSantis letter (official document of House of Representatives) referring the others related to specific laws cited in the letter.Phmoreno (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over 11k edits, has been here for quite a while, so not a newbie and WP:NOTHERE doesn't seem to apply. "Conspiracy theories" on talk pages gets a big shrug from me. My opinion is they aren't any more annoying than many editors I've encountered in my time at Wikipedia and are much less annoying that those who revert endlessly and pointedly in order to game 1RR. Warning only, no block, in my opinion. Maybe some mentoring could be offered? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be for the best if Trump–Russia dossier were full-protected for a while to avoid this bickering about the day-by-day theories from both sides, and to force changes to get consensus on the talk page.

As that's unlikely to happen, I see some merit to these claims. There's a technical violation of 1RR/Consensus required, but I'd be willing to ignore that. More troublingly, Phmoreno has been pushing claims that the Steele memo is going to result in Steele, McCabe, Hillary Clinton, or someone else being arrested for a long time ([32], [33]). Until someone is actually arrested, this is either gossip or POV pushing. I think we need to wait on a statement from Phmoreno, but a TBAN from pages about both Donald Trump and Russia seems like the right sanction at first glance. In response to the "the other side does it too" comments, there are likely other editors who should be TBAN-ed from that page, as is allowed by Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PackMecEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. 01:07, April 12, 2018 Material boldly added by BullRangifer
2. 08:16, April 12, 2018 Material challenged by me
3. 19:17, April 24, 2018 Restored material claiming rough consensus

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 28 December 2017.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At last count it was about 6 for the purposed text and 5 against shown by votes at the end of this section. An RFC or spin off article was suggested in the discussions but had not happened yet. The page is under 1RR and consensus required here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I think you might be reading it backwards. BullRangifer added it on the 12th, I reverted same day, and K.e.coffman restored it on the 24th. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:Sorry about that, first time filing here. Fixed. PackMecEng (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I had brought up the BLP aspect in a few places on that mess of a talk page, hard to find anything on there at this point. Others in the votes had brought up the NPOV aspects as well. I am surprised that you would say given the arguments it was enough of a consensus for restoration or at least enough for it to be uncontroversial enough for the "If in doubt, don't make the edit" portion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I will note I brought up it two separate times on the talk page [34] & [35] as well as talked with them on their talk page after they reinserted the information. I think it would be fair to say I made a fair effort to go though my options before coming here. Also yes 12 days of active discussion both ways, which is still going on, does not seem to be a consensus situation. If I am in the wrong in this situation I apologies, I have never wanted to bring someone here, nor have I ever in the past, and did try in good faith to avoid it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is this basically going to yes he should not of done that but no action? I would at least hope there is a warning and revert. PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

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

I made the edit nearly two weeks after the initial edit/revert, with plenty of discussion in between. One of the opposes that PME lists hinged on not including the pre-presidency material, which has been rectified: [37], so I don't believe it should be included in PME's tally. One ivote was unclear & remains uncounted, but I interpreted it as leaning "support".

I would be happy to self-revert if deemed appropriate. I also note that PME did not include in the filing the discussion he and I had on my Talk page, where I offered, for example, to clarify the uncounted vote: #Presidency of Donald Trump. It's possible that I acted prematurely since, after a lull, the discussion continued today with two additional opinions: one oppose & one support, but I did see rough consensus when I made the edit. I also would have appreciated letting me respond to the last PME's message on my TP vs seeing this report filed.

In general, no other editor has objected to the edit, either on my TP or on the article's TP, where the discussion instead moved onto what heading the section should have: Better heading, with comments such as: ...we have never seen a politician like Trump, etc. Still, I apologise for the disruption this may have caused and I can self-revert if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint is battleground nonsense. There was evident consensus at the talk page after extensive discussion, and K.e.coffman has had not a hint of aggressive or POV editing now or ever in his contributions to American Politics. There's no RfC at play here, and the insinuation of a mooted RfC is a further battleground blur of the facts. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems minor with what we're used to these days. (Although it's amazing what you can get used to.) Suggest KEC self-rvt and the filer withdraw the complaint. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Masem. No action. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, we need AE, IMHO. But, there was a twelve day gap with discussion. You don’t call Homeland Security if your neighbor’s dog pisses on your petunias. I think you had better options in this case. Your point was made. Drop it as it now looks like a content dispute, before the focus turns on you. Just my opinion and sorry if I’m talking out of turn. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since that content has SINCE been subjected to radical alterations to bring it into line with the complaints of those who at first opposed it, we now have a situation where, through the normal process of collaborative editing (by editors who hold opposing POV), the content is compliant with a clear consensus; most of the opposition is satisfied.

It would now make no sense to undo content which is largely satisfactory. Let's just close this thread and move on.

Let's not destroy what has been fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Masem. A wise solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Politrukki, I'm not sure where the OR objection is coming from. That's pretty offensive. I too would not "believe that objection to be policy-based." And don't try to make my admission of an error into more than it was. The discussion tended to focus on Trump himself, and we lost focus about which article we were on, which is only about his presidency. When you brought that back into focus, I immediately responded positively and removed those portions which were clearly from his candidacy and before, even though it all clearly affects his presidency. "From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency,"^[1] and he has not become more honest after becoming president. So don't portray my response in a bad light. Admitting an error and correcting it is not a weakness, but a strength. Don't punish me for responding positively to your concern. The current content is without the content you objected to. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Politrukki, you are an editor whom I can work with, in spite of some of our POV differences. I really appreciate that. Together we produce better content: "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." Let's continue on this path. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content currently in the article pretty much reflects my oppose (which was limited to events that predate Trump presidency, I believe K.e.coffman is now retro-actively counting my oppose as full support), but K.e.coffman acted improperly. When K.e.coffman said (23 April) they were going to reinstate the material, I asked them to explain how the content is not original research. I find their dismissal ("I don't believe the objections to be policy-based." [38]) of my policy-based argument unimpressive. Even BullRangifer, who made the proposal, admitted making a mistake: "I got a bit confused and muddled in my thinking there." [39] After BullRangifer's partial (self?)revert, K.e.coffman has not defended their original position that there was no OR involved. Without that detail, it would be fair to say that this is just a content dispute, everybody go home. If K.e.coffman's argument is that none of the objections were policy-based, and hence it was justifiable to revert, such notion must be rejected.

Regardless of whether this enforcement request has merits, it would be wise for K.e.coffman to self-revert, which would allow rebooting the discussion: it is becoming increasingly difficult to say whether the editors are supporting/opposing the original proposal or what is currently in the article. Politrukki (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer:, WP:STICKTOSOURCE is a policy. If you use an old source that is exclusively about candidate Trump, you can't use the source to base your hypothesis about President Trump. If the source makes it clear that an observation applies to President Trump, it may be proper to use the source to make a so-called retrospective prediction. If you have better sources that directly support the analysis, use them.
Admitting mistakes is admirable, and I really mean it. You were the only one who admitted their mistake and that's exactly why I mentioned it. Admitting a mistake is only the first step. If you continue to repeat the same mistakes – I can provide examples with diffs, but I would rather use another forum – you should draw your conclusions. Politrukki (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I was reading the comments, I literally had to wipe the Cheetos residue from my fingertips so I could respond. Greasy Granola (make that cheesy not greasy)! ^[FBDB] I'm too much of a softy to see anyone get blocked or TB when they're productively debating an issue and not using the F-word inappropriately , or being consdescending, disruptive, or worse. As long as an editor doesn't prematurely finalize a debate because they aren't getting their way, and will continue to exercise civility ^{(the only exercise some of us get these days is jumping to conclusions),} I'm OK with letting the debate continue, as long as it doesn't become stonewalling. However, I'm also of the mind that challenged material should not be restored until an unequivocal consensus has been reached per the 1RR/Consensus required restriction. I'm ok with an admonishment against the offending editor if they have been forewarned and still refuse to remove the material. That's my $2.00 worth (taking inflation into consideration). ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• How exactly is this supposed to be a violation by K.e.coffman? Per the diffs, the material was re-added by BullRangifer, not K.e.coffman. Sandstein 16:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Right, please add diffs chronologically next time. Waiting on K.e.coffman's statement. Sandstein 16:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh. I'm of the view that those who mass-post page restrictions should enforce them themselves, particularly if enforcement requires parsing consensus in complicated discussions and, as here, the outcome is not obvious. No action on my part, therefore. Sandstein 19:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I'm missing something on the DS and talk page notices that require a formal procedure to determine consensus (like an admin closure), I don't see the re-addition of material by KEC after a week+ of discussion and judging consensus themselves is violating any DS. The closest warning is "If in doubt [there's consensus], don't make the edit." but I would be hard pressed from the discussion on the talk page to express that there wsa a strong doubt that the addition didn't have some consensus to be added; consensus is never going to be 100% !votes for it. I will express a strong concern related to the BLP/NPOV nature of the content that seems to be overlooked in that discussion that would call for a separate discussion elsewhere, but since I wasn't involved in that page in any way, I am judging this AE review that the consensus seems there to support adding it, and no other factors of the DS were violated, so no action seems to be needed. --Masem (t) 00:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PackMecEng: I'm not saying that there is a clear 100% definite consensus on the talk page discussion. It's still somewhat contentious. But I would not question if an uninvolved admin were to close that in their opinion as having consensus to include; I might disagree with that and argue my BLP/NPOV points atop it, but I certainly can find fully reasonable logic as to determining consensus in that to favor inclusion to be fully within reason. So KEC had reason to presume they got the consensus the DS demanded. Now, were I in KEC's shoes as an involved editors, I'd probably use a bit more caution to not add it based on that consensus, but in the same way, KEC saw it differently, waited to readd after valid discussion, and then hasn't done any DS-violating action since that. Basically, this is like going 51 in a 50 mph zone. Yeah, it's not perfect, but that's the type of leniency that seems fine here, since there's no stricter instructions in the DSes to point to. --Masem (t) 01:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KEC should have asked an uninvolved editor to independently assess the consensus. If an admin were to find insufficient consensus and block KEC on that basis, I'd say that KEC would need to fight an uphill battle to get us to grant an appeal. That said, I don't think there's a need to take further action at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think KEC's belief that the edit was supported by consensus was at least defensible and reasonable, even if it's possible it was mistaken. I don't see a need for any action here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Discretionary Sanctions

Particularly relevant from that decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Casting aspersions

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

1. 18:36, April 27, 2018 Posts a comment at Talk:Glyphosate saying that I and other editors are "protectors" of GMO-related content.
2. 20:08, April 27, 2018 After getting the DS alert, responds by repeating the accusation.
3. 20:15, April 27, 2018 And repeats the accusation again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Block log shows history of disruptive editing. This is an experienced editor, who should understand what not to do after getting a DS alert.
2. 00:52, April 15, 2016 Was also alerted to the same DS two years ago.

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

• 19:29, April 27, 2018 DS alert.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The "shill" gambit was noted by ArbCom as a particularly disruptive problem in the GMO topic area. GMO pages have been pretty calm in the past year; this needs to be shut down promptly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About trolling, the problem here is that accusations of "protecting" GMO companies had progressively grown to be widespread and mean-spirited by the time of the ArbCom case. I'm experienced at ignoring trolls, and I would never have come to AE over simple trolling. It's also worth considering The Banner's response below, in terms of the likelihood of continuing the conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins may also want to consider a topic ban as opposed to a block. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fairness, I feel that I should link to this: [40]. I will add my personal opinion that it should have little or no effect on the decision here, but I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't point it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

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

This filing is a typical example of preventing criticism and killing off discussion. The Banner talk 21:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this mild trolling, but rather persistent long-term disruptive editing. There's a pretty good record of The Banner getting a mild sanction (usually a block) saying it wasn't that bad, but don't do it again only for the cycle to repeat. The only reason The Banner hasn't been topic-banned with the other editors in this topic (this is a good example of this same rhetoric at AE and what it leads to) is because they normally pop in the topic for a little bit, make accusations like this, and then leave. They knew this behavior was inappropriate going in, and it doesn't look like it's going to stop at all either. One can say don't feed the trolls, but us editors in the topic have been doing that for years, which is why I proposed the principle at the original ArbCom case meant to tamp down on this this years ago. Editors who blatantly do this just make the topic more toxic and disruptive. The last thing we want are editors who rile things up to the way it was around the ArbCom case.

There's a whole mess of casting aspersions that comes up with The Banner fairly often at admin boards as well as other diffs that usually get a slap on the wrist since the picture is usually viewed in isolation rather than the long-term history:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#The_Banner
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#WP:CIVIL,_edit_warring,_and_user_talk_page_violations_by_The_Banner
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Harassment_by_User:The_Banner
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Dr._Blofeld_/_The_Banner_dispute

• Soapboxing [42]
• Violating 1RR[43][44]
• Using edit summaries to pursue battleground mentality[45]

That's just from my quick perusal outside glyphosate, but it's pretty clear they have no qualms with maintaining a battleground mentality after so many warnings by frequently referencing cabals, industry influence, etc. I can't say I recall once when an editor cautioned The Banner about this without them taking the opportunity to continue sniping like we see in their response here. They've had plenty of other sanctions already, so whatever happens, I'd just ask that we don't have to keep dealing with it in the GMO/pesticide topics anymore (organic food falls into the broadly construed). That principle was put in place so editors who resorted to that kind of behavior could be more easily removed for something they shouldn't need to be warned about in the first place. While not quite as disruptive on a regular basis like other editors that have been topic-banned, there's also a point where we need to say enough is enough. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is some rather mild trolling. Generally I'd just say, don't feed the trolls. But this is a DS topic area, and The Banner does have a track record of disruption, and the cited principle is on point, and trolls are bad for a collaborative project. I'll have to consider the views of other admins before determining whether a mild sanction is appropriate. Sandstein 21:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the opinions below and the evidence by Kingofaces43, I agree that a topic ban is appropriate, and am so closing this request. Sandstein 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a pretty clear cut case of battleground mentality and ABF, and coupled with the history here I'd say a topic ban is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with T. Canens. The shouting of "shill", absent any evidence that it's true, is disruptive and unacceptable, and this editor is clearly already aware of that. Nor do I see any indication in their response here that indicates they intend to change it. If they're going to behave that way, they need to be removed from the topic. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing: I'm a bit on the fence here. On one hand, they were clearly warned as of the last indef to knock off that type of behavior, but here we are again. But on the other, as you say, they often make helpful contributions and it has been four years since that incident. Given that, I'm more inclined to at least try a GMO topic ban rather than jumping straight to an indef, in hopes that getting out of the "hot zone" for a while might allow them to refocus and cool it. If that doesn't happen, we can always revisit the question at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Timotheus Canens and Seraphimblade: So what's being proposed here? I agree that the conduct presented is sanctionable under GMO DS, but I'm less sure what sanction is appropriate. Looking back through this editor's history, it seems that disruption is not focused on GMOs, though they have repeatedly dipped their toes in that pool, so I'm not sure that a GMO tban is the answer here. Their block log shows a series of escalating blocks, from 24 hours initially up to the latest being 1 month (with an indef in the middle as well). When HJ Mitchell unblocked them after the indef, the conditions included You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia and You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor (see here). That was in April 2014 and The Banner said they accepted the conditions unconditionally. Then in July 2016, User:Fences and windows closed an AN/I discussion regarding The Banner with the conditions No comments about other editors' behavioural issues, including their motivations (COI) or conduct, on article talk pages or other venues apart from those users' talk pages and appropriate noticeboard, i.e. no more casting aspersions and Remain civil at all times. These were imposed with the rider that If The Banner does not abide by these conditions, I believe that any admin will be justified in imposing an indef block without further warnings.
  The evidence presented here doesn't rise to the level that I'd normally consider an indef block, but given the history of disruption and avoiding indefs based on the conditions above, I think maybe we have reached that point now. The only thing that gives me pause is the productivity and length of time between those warnings. This is a user who makes 2,000 to 4,000 article-space edits per year; has the disruption reached the point where they are a net negative to the project? GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would recommend a GMO topic ban to start with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Andrewpostman93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

DS on BLP topics

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

1. 18:55, 22 November 2017 added content including the unsourced phrase "is in fact a large scale scam"
2. 00:47, 19 December 2017 removed well sourced NPOV content, added back content above and added "owned by convicted felon Ernest Garcia II"
3. 02:36, 1 May 2018 As above, but repeating the "convicted felon" stuff several times.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• none

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above and this diff.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The three diffs series above, are the only thing this user has done in WP. They clearly have some real-world beef with Garcia and are carrying that out here in violation of WP:BLPCOI and the discretionary sanctions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• notice

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

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