Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive222

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

Request concerning Archwayh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Politrukki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Archwayh (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

Topic banned from "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people".

Diffs

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

All diffs (or links to talk pages) listed below demonstrate that Archwayh has violated their topic ban.

1. 29 June 2017 Eight edits (two comments) to user talk page, edits about US politics or closely related people
2. 2–3 August 2017 Three edits to talk page, edits about US politics or closely related people
3. 10 October 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people, note the edit summary
4. 27–29 October 2017 Eight edits (five comments) to talk page, edits about US politics or closely related people
5. 29 October 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people, note the edit summary
6. 30 October 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people
7. 9 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people
8. 9 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people
9. 9 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people
10. 14 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people, attempt to use another editor as a proxy
11. 16 November 2017 Edits about US politics or closely related people, using another editor as a proxy

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 25 May 2017 Topic banned from "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, for one month"
2. 2 June 2017 Blocked for violating topic ban
3. 2 June 2017 Topic ban extended to six months

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 June 2017 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On May 25, 2017, Archwayh was topic banned for one month. On June 2, 2017, the topic ban was extended to six months. Archwayh has said that they didn't know they were topic banned as they hadn't read their user talk page.[1] I actually find the explanation plausible: this explains why Archwayh continued to mark all their edits as minor even after they were told to stop it.

On June 16, 2017, Archwayh asks Lord Roem whether talk pages fall within the topic ban.[2] Inbetween those edits Archwayh edits Talk:Donald Trump (example). Lord Roem explains that talk pages are included in the topic ban.[3]

On June 29, 2017, Archwayh opens a discussion related to American politics with JFG.[4] When JFG informs Archwayh that they may be violating their topic ban, they claim that the topic ban "has nothing to do w/ page talk".[5]

On October 10 and October 26 they make edits which to me appear to be perfectly fine, except that the edit summary refers to American politics.

Rest of the evidence should speak for itself (edits about post-1932 politics of the United States, edits to pages about US politics, or closely related people).

It seems obvious that Archwayh doesn't understand what they were topic banned from (and why), and I'm not convinced they will.

Archwayh, many thanks for you for statement. Just one correction/request: would you kindly stop gendering me?

Politrukki (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Archwayh&diff=813082793&oldid=803507767

Discussion concerning Archwayh

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

Statement by Archwayh

I have not made any edit directly related to politics, or thous as such that could be debated as political-oriented & then be removed. And re: Bloomberg, that was a FIX to an error that should be applauded. That wasn't a political-motivated change or ad, but a FIX. The minor edit on Bush was related to small grimmer fix -- not some controversial or political-oriented one. If I didn't understand these term, then I obviously apologize. But, inn essence, this is a complete lie by a user who is conducting a political witch hunt against me, bc he doesn't like my views (and for COL, I am a moderate centrist & not some ideologue who pushed agenda in Wiki. All of these attacks against me were * being perused by this obsessed user, who's fixated on me for some reason. To contrast, he he is a right-wing ideologue who supports Ted Cruz, from what I know). If he won't stop, I plan to peruse other options to stop him from smearing me. I am planning to file a complaint about his alleged corrupt behavior later on. Edits that have been on some figures that may be political aren't related directly to politics, and they were commonly agreed or small fixes. Further, most edits were on user PAGES, and didn't even influenced Wikipedia. This user, that continues this obsessive witch hint, will hear from me. If I edited something that doesn't directly relates to politics, but could be perceived as such -- then I am obviously sorry. But I didn't violate anything at least knowingly, & my small number of edits were small, non-political & commonly agreed. That's my statement Archway (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

I would tend to be lenient about occasional chit-chat about politics on a user talk page, as happened on mine a few months ago. However we cannot accept blatant requests for other people to edit by proxy on behalf of the TBANned editor. Either this is bad faith or

Reading Arch's statement above, they add

first law of holes is advised. — JFG ^talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• These are clear topic ban violations. The confrontational statement doesn't help either. Blocked for a month. Sandstein 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 : [6]. Discretionary sanctions, including a 1RR restriction and the "consensus required" provision added to the article on 2:25 November 16 2017 [7] by User:TonyBallioni.

Diffs

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

The article is under a 1RR restriction. DHeyward made FOUR reverts in less than 24 hours.

1. 10:20 November 30 1st revert. At the time the revert was made consensus for inclusion, backed by numerous reliable sources was already established on talk as pointed out by User:MrX[8] [9]
2. 1:18 December 1 2nd revert which removes pertinent info. In the process, the edit also introduces false information into the article (J.T.P never claimed she was raped and the source does not state that). Also 1:22 December 1 constitutes another revert, although the 1:18 and the 1:22 edits are sequential, hence should count as one revert.
3. 4:14 December 1 3rd revert, unilaterally restoring his own preferred version, restores misleading section heading (see description below)
4. 4:20 4th revert, same as above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [10] Previous block for violation by User:HJ Mitchell

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• [11] Commenting in recent AE case
• [12] Notification by User:HJ Mitchell
• [13] Previous block for violation by User:HJ Mitchell

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. Note that initially I thought DHeyward only violated 1RR because he just popped up on my watchlist twice in quick succession. Feeling nice and assuming good faith I asked him to self-revert [14]. Only then did I actually look at the history and realized that he's pretty much started a full out edit war by reverting FOUR times on a ONE revert restricted article. In response to my courtesy request for self-revert (which was not required on my part) Dheyward decided to get cute. He did revert but... to his initial preferred version [15]. Basically he repeated his very first revert [16], completely removing the pertinent info in the article. Note that even if there was some doubt about consensus for the material on Nov 30 10:20 (time of first revert), there was no such doubt by Dec 1, 4:52, with

Since the nature of the violation is quite egregious (4 reverts on 1RR article, sneaky manipulation) a broad topic ban is in order.

@Masem - the "agenda" charge isn't really about Roy Moore though. It's about how DHeyward rewrote "Project Veritas tried to trick Washington Post into publishing a false story" as "a woman made false accusations against Roy Moore". I mean, yeah, she did. But she didn't do it to hurt Moore, she did it to try and discredit the women who have come out with their stories. Since these women are also "living people" in this instance the BLP (aside from the AGENDA misrepresentation) would apply the other way. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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

Statement by DHeyward

I apologize for edit warring. That was not necessary.

I will raise some issues though. First, Volunteer Marek I believe is under a topic ban for articles related to Donald Trump. Trump is listed in the lead of the article in question. Trump has also stated that he believes Moore and not the women who have made complaints. This article is certainly within the broadly construed meaning of his topic ban and had he adhered to his topic ban, the collegial atmosphere of continuous editing editing would have continued just like this edit shows[21].

Second, there are not four reverts as Volunter Marek has exagerated. The links listed show the original rewrite (1:18 December 1) which is not a revert. The third on his list ([22]) was removing the "raped" allegation that VM pointed out in his edit. There are 2 reverts which is a violation of 1RR. The last revert was to a condition prior the version VM prefers. There was no way to satisfy both 1RR and CONSENSUS. VM pretends his version has consensus when in fact the only discussion is about the event.

MrX who commented below has also violated 1RR with these edits.

1. MrX restored contested material
2. MrX again restores contested material.

For a statement that he says has strong consensus to add, no other editors seemed compelled to do it and he had to violate 1RR to get it.

Volunteer Marek provides a random collection of links implying there are related blocks that are relevant. None of those links are related to AP2. It was very deceitful to list any of those links as relevant here. He is mud slinging in an attempt at overreach.

As for AGENDA, just review my edit. I described the false accusation as it relates to Roy Moore and sexual abuse allegations. That is essentially the topic of the article (see article Title). I did not remove any any relevant material and also argued that its nature makes it a poor fit here. Volunteer Mareks edit comment is very telling. [23]. WM states it makes it seem like some woman falsely accused Moore of something. The actual story is that (Project Veritas) and this woman purposefully tried to trick WaPo. If VM believes that the event was not an accusation of sexual abuse against Roy Moore and instead was between Project Veritas and WaPo, why is he pushing his personal narrative in an article that is not about Washington Post or Project Veritas? It is certainly not necessary to try to implicate Roy Moore in the deception played on WaPo which is a clear BLP violation and COATRACK violation. There are no sources that state the woman's intent was to deceive or discredit anyone other than the Washington Post.

I apologize for edit warring. I'm don't believe a block is necessary and certainly not any AE sanction.

If a sanction is deemed necessary then VM should be sanctioned for violating his Trump Topic ban levied only a few weeks ago and violating the consensus requirement as well as pushing unrelated an unsubstantiated claims into an article with sensitive BLP concerns. MrX also violated 1RR as shown above. I'd prefer just not to have any action against anyone. --DHeyward (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni My initial thoughts are between 0RR on all living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed, and a topic ban on living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed. Under what evidence are you basing the "all living American politicians" sanction? This article and the edits were not about a living politician. I have no history that intersects with AP2 and if an AE sanction were levied here, it would be my first. For a 1RR violation. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek states: It's about how DHeyward rewrote "Project Veritas tried to trick Washington Post into publishing a false story" as "a woman made false accusations against Roy Moore". Of course! The article is ABOUT sexual abuse allegations against Roy Moore. It's not a COATRACK for anything else. It's your AGENDA that you are pushing that makes it seem to you that other stuff should be added. There is certainly no consensus to decorate the article with information not relevant to it's scope. I mentioned PV and WP in the paragraph but for this article it's a sidelight. The PV article is a better place. --DHeyward (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

I concur with Volunteer Marek's comments. The first diff is an attempt by DHeyward to defy firm consensus, and the first revert of this edit made two days earlier. This edit is an unambiguous and brazen violation of the 1RR restriction, in addition to being a second violation of

• Meh... if MONGO can't see the obvious talk page consensus that everyone else sees, I guess that's his shortfall. If he thinks that material is possibly(?) a BLP violation, then he's possibly not up to speed on the subject. Perhaps he doesn't realize that casting aspersions sans evidence doesn't have much sway here.- MrX 19:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DHeyward: You're making things up now. The two diffs that you claim show me violating 1RR are more than 29 hours apart. Also, there is no restriction on restoring contested material when there is firm consensus on the talk page.- MrX 00:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Meh...I see no talk page consensus for the addition and possible BLP violation restored by MrX here after DHeyward was seemingly boxed in. There is a complete lack of dispassionate editing here by MrX and others....but when one spends all their time working on politically charged topics, how can we ever believe that their goals are a neutral treatise? I find the plausibility of such to be completely unrealistic and therefore find condemnations of others they disagree with to be laughable.--MONGO 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

This is an obvious 1RR violation, documented by diffs, with no relevant exemptions. It should be dealt with expeditiously. The idea behind discretionary sanctions is to make it easier and more efficient to deal with disruptive editing, so it's ironic and counterproductive when these sorts of obvious, straightforward cases become needlessly complicated as a result of the WP:AE mechanism. If an admin saw this case at

The 1RR violation is compounded by the "self-revert", which was nothing of the sort; it was dishonest gamesmanship, as pointed out above. I think a standard block for edit-warring would be appropriate, and would personally advocate a topic ban (at least a time-limited one) given the bad faith described above.

(I'm commenting here as an editor, not as an admin, because I have recently been involved in a discussion with DHeyward on

• Because this concerns an alleged violation of a sanction made by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs), I suggest that they determine what to do here. Sandstein 09:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This does seem a pretty blatant violation. The 'self-revert' which actually removes all the material DHeyward objected to in the first place is not impressive. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Volunteer Marek: just as a note, this is under BLP discretionary sanctions not the American politics ones so as to avoid WikiLawyering as to whether a split from the main article is "highly visible", and after with consulting with other admins as to which would be the best case here. I do consider DHeyward aware, however, for the purposes of the enforcement procedures, as the previous case was so closely related to this topic area. I'd like to hear their comments before taking any action. My initial thoughts are between 0RR on all living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed, and a topic ban on living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed. I'd like to hear others thoughts (both admins and non-admins), before taking any action, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While in light of a standalone article, I agree that the edits by DHeyward are seemingly improper given the various restrictions. That said, with VM bringing up
  WP:AGENDA is completely out of line, but they did cross the line in terms of edit warring and that does need to be dealt with. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Marek, when I read though the WaPost source, and the edits on that section between DHeyward and others, I see DHeyward's attempting to write the situation in a more cautious voice with respect to BLP given the nature of how the WaPost report makes numerous connections (possibly true, but not yet established as such), as well as the revelancy to Moore's own character. Nothing that I can find says this woman was trying to discredit the other victims, that seems to be reading between the lines, which frequently happens when there is a agenda being pushed by the media with a view that an editor might share themselves. DHeyward was trying properly to tone down that section.
    That said, how much of a BLP problem was it? Not to the level that the edit-warring exceptions would allow for, and the fact there was ongoing talk page discussions that DHeyward was participating in at the same time makes the edit warring a bit more obvious, so I would support a short term block. However, I cannot at all agree it was agenda pushing, if anything, it was pushing back against a source that is clearly dependent here and has an agenda, as to keep BLP issues to a minimum. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Nick.8.payne

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nick.8.payne (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/Waldorf education#Amendments by motion:

Diffs

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

1. [24] 2 December 2017 newbie mistake
2. [25] 3 December 2017 after being warned of discretionary sanctions and advised against performing
   WP:OR

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [26] 2 December 2017.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@

[27]

Discussion concerning Nick.8.payne

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

Statement by Nick.8.payne

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nick.8.payne

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

• I would take no action. Yes, this looks like
  WP:OR to this new editor. Sandstein 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• What Sandstein said, too soon. The reporting user only posted an explanation of the rules to the new user's talk page after their last edit and after reporting them here. New user has not edited since, so I see no evidence that they are deliberately ignoring the advice they were given. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed accordingly. Sandstein 09:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Atsme

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 : [28]. Discretionary sanctions, including a 1RR restriction and the "consensus required" provision added to the article on 2:25 November 16 2017 [29] by User:TonyBallioni.

Diffs

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

1. Dec 4 17:22 Adding material to article and...
2. Dec 4 17:49 re-adding it via revert without bothering to get consensus after it has been challanged.

Personal attacks and clear

1. [30] "Put your big girl/boy panties on and stop the whining. I'm weary of your POV reverts and UNDUE weight you defend in various articles. It is what it is, and attempts to deny your tendentious editing is laughable"'
2. [31]

Note that the personal attacks and the practice of discussing other editors without informing them has been noted by other users [32] [33]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not sure. Too busy to check right now.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

Oh boy. The user has participated in recent threads concerning the sanction. For example [34]. Indeed, the editor is currently agitating one of the admins active on this page [35] over this very sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to a straight up violation of the discretionary sanctions, the user also makes frequent personal attacks and

I am NOT under any TB from the Roy Moore article and I did NOT make a "revert while under TB". Atsme knows this because they have participated in recent discussions where this was brought up. Even if Atsme did not know this for sure, the proper thing to do would've been to ask or inquire, rather than edit war and violate DS by reverting. The excuse offered below is lame and false. Volunteer Marek  21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC) (GoldenRing has explicitly stated, in the same place where Atsme is commenting: " I wouldn't consider Roy Moore covered by it (the topic ban - VM)"[reply]

@Masem: [36] this is NOT - by any stretch - a violation of the Donald Trump topic ban (commenting on DT per BANEX here). The admin placing the restriction explicitly stated that edits about Roy Moore which are not explicit about Trump are not covered. Neither is the DT topic ban "broadly construed" and the diff you provide does NOT show that (in fact the diff you provide - [37] - is about an appeal of an IBAN... are you confused?). Please strike your false statements. And look, this is a straight up violation of a discretionary sanction by Atsme. A discretionary sanction that Atsme was very well aware of. A discretionary sanction that Atsme tried to get OTHER editors sanctioned under. Yet violated themselves. This is a pretty clear cut case, exactly the same as the one which recently other editors have been sanctioned under. "Friendship" or no, editors need to be treated fairly and equally. Volunteer Marek  23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, you're just making excuses and trying to deflect from the fact you violated a discretionary sanction. That's it. Volunteer Marek  23:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

@Masem: Here is User:GoldenRing who is the one who imposed the sanction, quote: "The ban from everything Trump-related isn't intended to be a ban from all current US politics, so I wouldn't consider Roy Moore covered by it (so long as the edits aren't Trump-related)". Also, the topic ban is NOT "broadly construed". Volunteer Marek  01:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Atsme

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

Statement by Atsme

Volunteer Marek reverted my edit while he was subject of an AE TB by GoldenRing. Another editor was blocked for violating the TB broadly construed. I believed that editors who are under an active TB are not allowed to revert edits on topics for which they are topic banned. See this discussion which includes the violative edits (and diffs) of VM while under the TB - clearly involving a Trump related article considering the upcoming election as a candidate who supports Trump and was recently endorsed by Trump - broadly construed. I requested clarification from GoldenRing, and since there is such a gray area, the ambiguities need to be clarified or WP will end-up with far fewer active editors. Also, there is not a notice of the consensus sanction in the edit view which creates a major issue - it's on the TP which is relatively obscure from editors who are busy building an encyclopedia, and who are not interested in playing politics. I'm popping some popcorn and will quietly watch the pile on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is

this section which states, "The White House said that President Donald Trump "believes that these allegations are very troubling" and that Moore should drop out of the race if they are true." Trump's position changed and he endorsed Moore. How anyone can say that article is not Trump related is beyond me. If my common sense antenna are that far off base, then don't worry about imposing a block or whatever else against me while letting VM walk - I will relent to this insanity on my own. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

In response to My very best wishes - no, and I'm not going to waste my time or the valuable time of our admins by listing all the diffs that support my reasons. I've provided what I feel is indisputabe evidence. It's Happy Hour, so please excuse me while I move on to happier places where I'd much rather be at this time of the day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Jiminy Cricket - Kingofaces has shown ill-will toward me for years and won't be happy until he gets his thousand pounds of flesh. Sad. To this day, he continues to pounce on anything that gives him a platform to express his discontent - the most recent being the incredible disruption he caused per

WP:BLPCOI over a biography I created back in October. His behavior was noted here by SlimVirgin

. I'm not about to provide all the diffs to counter his comments.

Re: Lankiveil's interpretation of my comment to VM, please allow me to pose a simple question to all who want to judge me: what would you do if you were relentlessly confronted by an editor who consistently reverted nearly every single edit you made primarily because it differed from their POV, and then harassed you with impolite comments whenever the opportunity arose, spoke to you in a condescending manner even after you attempted to reach out with an olive branch as I tried to do repeatedly? Can we please stay on topic for the reason we are here? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, here come the pile-ons as predicted - I could've named the editors one by one and they did not disappoint. Oh, well...back on point - GoldenRing issued the following AE warning: James J. Lambden, TheTimesAreAChanging, Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO who are warned to edit collegially and assume good faith. The bad faith VM and SPECIFICO have shown since that warning goes beyond the pale. Then we have the block by Golden Ring against James J. Lambden for violating his Trump TB over this edit to Talk:Patriot Prayer. While the block created a bit of confusion, I can't fault GoldenRing for doing what he believed was the right thing to do. Now Drmies is here defending VM with the argument: "Oh, I disagree that Moore falls under any Trump-ban construction". Drmies, with all due respect, where were you and all the others who are here now attempting to defend VM against a revert I made in GF thinking he was TB from Trump broadly construed when the first Trump-ban construction was on the auction block, and James J. Lambden came through the sale ring? ^{Pause to draw a deep breath after that long-winded text.} It appears to me that the precedent was established with this edit to a TP, and resulted in a 48 hr. block for James J. Lambden. If a TP edit resulted in a block for that editor, what makes VM immune for his TWO blatantly obvious Trump-related edits broadly construed - not counting the numerous others he made at the Moore AfD? Moore and Trump are inseparable - Trump supports Moore, is campaigning for Moore, and Moore talks about Trump and is following Trump's agenda. Some are foolish enough to believe Trump may help the guy get elected, but that's neither here nor there. Forget the politics - we're talking WP TOPIC BANS. GoldenRing and Masem have both faithfully executed their duties as admins, and have clearly maintained NPOV and followed WP:PAGs without any apparent COI, yet they Masem is being asked to recuse themselves from this case. What?!! I can't even begin to describe my dismay. But I have to follow-up with the COI aspect and the unwarranted recuse requests, and ask if you have any COI regarding candidate Roy Moore who is running for the Alabama State Senate, and if you approve of VM's edits? ^{struck that stupid question and apologize - I deplore such petty antics and should've picked a better scenario to demonstrate how it makes one feel to be accused when innocent.04:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)} I have nothing to hide - I'm not voting in that election, I'm a Texas/Bonaire resident who suffers from voter identity disorder and my butt cheeks hurt from sitting on the fence for as long as I can remember (long term being far greater than short term but I can still smell peanut butter). Ok, so times like these are what beckons for the most appropriate close, so I'll end with the words of John Wooden, "Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psst, Fyddlestix - you really shouldn't be broadcasting your misinterpretation of policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN - I corrected it to read Masem per the comments by Softlavender and SBHB. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masem you said " I would be extremely careful using this as a means to justify the second revert," - I did not make a 2nd revert. I only reverted once so you are mistaken. Please correct your comment. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I don't feel that

There's an obvious violation of "Consensus required" with [38]. I don't think the "personal attacks" rise to the level of being actionable. In a very similar recent case,

π, ν) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Atsme's latest statement has multiple problems. The victim act is excessive, and the claim that Moore and Trump are inseparable is absurd.

π, ν) 04:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC))[reply

]

I do not see how anyone can consider this edit as a topic ban violation with regard to D. Trump. The edit is about an opinion poll with regard to another politician. Of course that another politician was endorsed by D. Trump, and perhaps his election will help D. Trump. However, same can be said about almost any other significant politician in the US, whose elections, comments or whatever might affect the president. Telling this is covered by the topic ban is beyond belief. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme [39]. D. Trump was telling a lot of things about a lot of politicians. That does not make editing pages about these politicians automatically a topic ban violation. If you started a thread about your concerns on article talk page or on a talk page of the user who you think made the topic ban violation, we would not be here. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme. My questions were not about diffs or your reasons, but about your ability to edit high profile subjects covered by DS. This requires discipline, self-criticism, respecting the rules, and most important, the ability to discuss contentious matters with others. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Atsme. You tell: Kingofaces has shown ill-will toward me for years and won't be happy until he gets his thousand pounds of flesh. Can you please support this statement with diffs? You also tell: what would you do if you were relentlessly confronted by an editor who consistently reverted nearly every single edit you made primarily because it differed from their POV, and then harassed you with impolite comments. Who are you talking about? Who harassed you? Can you please support this statement by diffs? And if you can not support these statements by diffs, can you please strike through your statements and apologize? My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

With a keg of dots and a predilection of connecting them, I suppose you can consider “broadly construed” as meaning anything. I think considering VM’s revert within the scope of the TBan is a bridge too far. I do think that the reinstatement by Atsme after 23 minutes clearly violated 1RR as stipulated on the article talk. Now, Atsme claims to have not seen the consensus clause of the DS warning. I accept that and merely reverted what I believed to be a DS violation with a polite note in the edit summary as opposed to taking it to AE or article talk. What bothers me is that Atsme then went to an admin talk and made repeated accusations against other editors without notifying them. What’s the point of such? Atsme’s actions simply don’t appear to be of a collaborative nature. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant. I think you're getting into a content discussion which is probably not under discussion here. Besides, I don't think a possible oblique characterization of the people of Alabama could be considered a BLP issue. O3000 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved editor MelanieN

Two points. First, I find it hard to believe that a topic ban from Trump-related articles, even broadly construed, can be considered to cover an edit about an opinion poll regarding a candidate for Senate. Was VM's topic ban actually intended to cover everything to do with current politics? Or maybe everything to do with Republican politics? Or everything and everyone on which Trump has ever expressed an opinion? If so, the decision should have said so - but the

I am so used to seeing everything be "broadly construed', and I guess everyone else is since they keep saying it, that I was surprised to see VM's insistence that that phrase wasn't applied to his topic ban. But it wasn't. From the log: "James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek are banned from all articles and edits related to Donald Trump for one month. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)"[41] From his talk page notice: "You are banned from all edits and articles related to Donald Trump for one month. This is subject to the

usual exceptions."[42] --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Anythingyouwant, I don't understand your point. Are you saying we should include this to show that Republicans aren't disregarding or excusing the allegations, they are disbelieving them? Or are you saying we shouldn't, because including it would imply that Republicans are blind sheep believing whatever Moore says? It really isn't clear whether you are saying the sentence should be in the article, or shouldn't be in the article. Or are you trying to say that adding it, or removing it, is justified by BLP? I really don't think the BLP restrictions apply to potential/possible inferences about large groups of unnamed people. The restrictions are about BIOGRAPHICAL information, as the acronym says. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme Did I miss something? Where was GoldenRing asked to recuse himself? --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

I concur with the above commenters who don't think the "personal attacks" rise to the level of being actionable. VM is unhappy with Atsme, oh well. This is a controversial current event topic and emotions run high. There were not egregious policy violations here, so move on. On the other side, there is a large gray area about the details of VM's TBAN as well as the interpretation of DS as applied to this article, but he probably would benefit from clarification on that point. The appropriate response here is to explain equally to both parties what does and does not fit existing restrictions and how both parties are expected to proceed from here forward on this article and related topics. Then drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

I don't keep up with politics topics on Wikipedia, so I'll defer to others with familiarity on Volunteer Marek's topic ban, but it looks like at first glance it might be stretch of the topic ban to claim it was violated from what I've seen (though I'll let others dig on that).

I mostly am commenting here because VM mentioned they didn't look up previous sanctions. A lot of users have been dealing with exactly the same behavior from Atsme that VM described on the battleground mentality. Those of us who frequent the fringe noticeboard are especially familiar with Atsme (one previous sanction was being banned from Kombucha for edit warring).[43] The snark and battleground behavior often directed at editors on article talk pages has previously caught the community's attention regarding BLP issues[44] and pursuing editors on noticeboards, etc. with vexatious claims like the claim of VM's topic ban here appears to be. Part of that pursuit of editors resulted in a block by Bishonen[45] where a site ban or noticeboard ban was also warned as a likely next step if not justified already.[46].

Bishonen also recently warned Atsme of a topic-ban in American politics if their behavior kept up back in August.[47]. The "popcorn" comments on this board[48] seem to indicate the snark and battleground mentality still permeates Atsme's interactions with editors. It's concerning that someone is bringing up these same issues again with Atsme in a controversial topic like politics when they are already on a short

VM's edit should not be considered topic ban violation - if Goldenring wanted to topic ban VM from American politics more generally, they could (and should) have. But they didn't, and they have even commented here (in response to Atsme's own request for clarification) that the ban should not be interpreted that broadly:

For a ban from Trump, I don't seem to interpret it as widely as some; I don't think a ban from Trump is effectively a ban from post-2015 American politics. It's worth noting the phrasing of the ban, too - "articles and edits" - which is meant to say that some articles may not themselves be about Trump but individual edits on those articles may still be - so the ban is not from Sean Hannity but any edits made to that article that could be reasonably construed to concern Trump would be violations.

I note that Tony has recused themselves here - it might be worth noting that Masem and Atsme have been the two most vocal proponents of a rather strict (and extremely contentious) interpretation of policy in a number of recent politics-related discussions: [50][51][52][53] to the point where Atsme is writing a rather one-sided essay about the topic that is made up largely of quotes by Masem, and has asked him for for backup on contentious American politics articles. For those willing to plough through it all, there is a lot of evidence of IDHT-type behavior from Atsme in those discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I am uninvolved on this article and was neutral about this AE until I read Fyddlestix's comments and evidence above, and I now believe that Masem should recuse himself from this AE, as Tony did. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a warning to both editors for battleground behavior, but no action against either at this time because we've got too many mitigating factors: (1) The topic ban notice on Marek's talk page does not say "broadly construed"; (2) Atsme only made one revert, and even that possibly on the theory that Marek had violated his TBan; (3) The matter of whether Roy Moore comes under any Trump rubric, broadly construed or not, is solely a matter of opinion, and the boundaries obviously need to be spelled out to him by somebody; (4) At least four if not five experienced editors have asked Masem to recuse and to instead opine as a commenter; (5) The material VM deleted was a quote of a poll, not a BLP-vio. I think Lankiveil nailed it when he said "I'm seeing a clear battleground mentality from both participants here." I don't know how to resolve that part; Marek is already under a temporary TBan. I think they both need a warning to desist from any direct or indirect personal comments about the other (or indeed about other editors, period, except at ANI or AE), and to stick to discussing edits, content, policies, and guidelines. I believe they may eventually end up with an IBan if they fail to adhere to that. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Pardon me if the following is an evaluation without evidence, but Atsme is a diehard tendentious POV editor in many areas, most recently American Politics. She's generally civil and occasionally charming, especially to Admins, which has served her well. It's gotten her a free pass over and over. In general, however, she denies the validity of mainstream sources, which is fine -- good for her, but it doesn't work on Wikipedia. She crusades against mainstream-sourced content based on a kaleidoscopic array of illogical assertions that the mainstream is biased. She has plenty of weird interpretations of content, wing-nut stuff like on G. Edward Griffin, and she distorts policy to prolong talk-page disputes long after her views have been rejected. Anyway, feel free to hat this statement-w/o-diffs or ask for diffs if either is appropriate. My point is that there's plenty of context for this false charge that VM violated the TBAN, and we'd all be much more productive without Atsme editing in American Politics. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

(edit conflict) Fyddlestix beat me to it. User:Masem is a good admin but should not act as an uninvolved administrator on this matter. He's of course free to weigh in with his views like the rest of us, but he should recuse just as Tony did. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Trump is currently mentioned twice in the lede and at least one more time later. It may be a stretch to say this is not intertwined with Trump but not a long stretch. Looks like VM is hoping to rid himself of all opposition by expecting a very strict application of the sanctions be applied to others, but expecting everyone to grant him the benefit of the doubt. Based on my interchanges with him, I'd have to say his behavior is as bad a battlefield one in this arena as any I have encountered lately. VolunteerMarek's flat out comment "its staying" [55] certainly had a chilling effect. Maybe the thing to do is protect the page until after the election before half the active editors get sanctioned fighting over this total POS coatrack of an article. For the record, I'd likely vote against Moore if I were an Alabamian.--MONGO 02:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anythingyouwant

The material at issue began like this: "A week or so before the election, a CBS News poll revealed that '71 percent of Alabama Republicans say the allegations against Roy Moore are false'". I think we can all agree that the Republicans of Alabama are living persons within the meaning of our BLP policy, right? So it would be unfortunate if we slant the article in question to make it seem like those living persons don't care about child molestation, and/or support child molesters, instead of believing (as this poll indicates) that the accusations are false. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MelanieN, I am saying we should include this to follow RS that indicate Republicans aren't disregarding or excusing the allegations, they are disbelieving them. As to the idea that they are not covered by the BLP policy, “Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page....This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.” The lead of the BLP in question says, “Alabama Republicans have largely defended Moore from the allegations”. Some editors don’t want readers to know why. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheValeyard

I feel it necessary to parse this statement below.

I would argue very strongly that we would not have a spin-off article for him if Trump did not get involved with his opinion early on,

A Senatorial candidate alleged to have sexually assaulted minors, refusing to resign, and his own party stating they will expel him if he wins the seat (IIRC, it has been said this has not happened since Reconstruction) is notable in its own right. Donald Trump endorsed Moore's primary opponent, and his own sexual assault allegations notwithstanding, did not "make" this story.

"creating a means for journalists anti-Trump to use this situation as a means to attack Trump and the GOP in general.

IMO this statement is akin to the several occasions when the current president has tweeted something later seen as actionable in potential legal proceedings, such as calling for citizens employed in the private sector to be fired or declaring a suspect in a crime be given the death penalty. The admin here has declared a personal bias, echoing conservative's attacks on the mainstream media. This admin cannot be allowed to render a decision in this Enforcement proceeding. TheValeyard (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

Firstly, the article isn't under AP2 sanctions, it's under BLP. The notification requirement is the BLP case. VM knows this. Second, VM continues to use the AE process to bludgeon opponents. He is under a topic ban for Donald Trump and it's an extremely obtuse view to not include articles regarding the election of Roy Moore as being unrelated to Trump. The man story in virtually all news outlets today is Trump's endorsement of Moore. Claiming Moore is unrelated to Trump in even the broad interpretation we use is like saying Rudolf the Reindeer is unrelated to Santa Claus. VM needs to be banned from filing these frivolous AE requests and sanctiond for violating his topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

• As to this case, it's better to probably move on.I don't percieve Marek's edits as a T-ban violation either.
• And, Masem, you're not uninvolved.Thus, please recuse and comment your views over here.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

(Note, I believe I am truly uninvolved here since I've never edited that article or anything close to it, nor have any editor connections with those involved, only a concern for how WP is handling current events under NOT#NEWS in broad terms and the conflicts that have arisen over the last few years such as this one. But I'll respect the concerns that claim I'm not (I really don't think so) and have moved my comments from below to up here. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

• Complicated series of issues here. I think both Atsme and VM are in the wrong. VM clearly did this edit despite the current enforcement they are under against any articles relating to Trump, broadly construed (from here). The edit has zero issues with BLP (its simply results from a poll) or otherwise falls in the usual exemptions that are allowed for, so VM violated that sanction. That said, Atsme may also be goading a bit here - while edits from banned editors can be undone without reason, in a area that is under DS, I would be extremely careful using this as a means to justify the second revert, and for that, this might need a simple short term block as with DHeyward above. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Trump has backed Moore up frequently against the accusations leveled at him, which in turn has led to criticism towards Trump by the media (just checked google news right now, and there's a whole new flurry of activity because Trump officially endorsed Moore in the election race), this topic falls within "broadly". --MASEM (t) 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On whether the Roy Moore accusation article falls into the Trump area, I would argue very strongly that we would not have a spin-off article for him if Trump did not get involved with his opinion early on, creating a means for journalists anti-Trump to use this situation as a means to attack Trump and the GOP in general. If Trump simply had backed Moore and no one in the media blinked and we simply included this fact, I would agree that that wouldn't be sufficient to be included in a broadly construed Trump topic ban. But Trump and Moore have been strongly linked by the media, making this topic definitely Trump-related, if we follow how "broadly construed" should be taken in the past. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will point out that while VM's talk page message and the log are missing "broadly construed", it is in the message GoldenRing used to close the AE here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive220 (see the second VM request, 15 Nov). Pinging GoldenRing (talk · contribs) if the absence on the log or talk pages for both VM and JLL was a mistake or intentional, since there is conflict here by their closure of that AE. If GoldenRing did not mean "broadly construed", then consider my issues regarding VM's actions nullified, my apologies to VM, and still express concern on Astme's actions. If GoldenRing did mean "broadly construed" and just forgot that language, then my issue still stands (at least, in my opionion, that the Moore accusation article falls within that topic area) --MASEM (t) 05:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • VM, It would be helpful to point to the diff that GoldenRing said that (I don't see it in any place obvious), but I will assume that is verbatim, so if they think Moore is not covered (more specifically the Moore accusation article), then I strike my issues on the TBAN covering that and apologize for that. I will still state that all around, I'm seeing a bunch of battleground behavior on all sides that still isn't good here and indicative of the larger problems related to AP2 over the last few years (beyond the scope of this). I still think that Atsme reversion before discussion is a problem, no question, but I also think that their addition that was reverted is potentially appropriate material for the article (but that's a content debate) and automatic removal by VM doesn't help towards a collaborative atmosphere. --MASEM (t) 06:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marek, the diff above shows the fact that the sanction about Trump-related articles remains in place after removal of another sanction, and I don't see any further clarification about that. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs) I cannot see how I'm involved. I haven't touched that page at all (much less any connected pages), I don't have any connection to Atsme that I'm aware of (Interacted before, yes, but do not consider any type of involved outside of being a WP editor). --MASEM (t) 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winged Blades, same question, how am I involved or not uninvolved? --MASEM (t) 06:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Anonymous)

(I've removed this unhelpful screed as an administrative action. Sandstein 08:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Result concerning Atsme

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

• I consider Atsme a friend, and as such INVOLVED with her, so I am recusing on this even though I placed the original sanctions on the article. Also, a note that it is technically under BLP sanctions, not AP2, though if that is causing confusion and there is consensus here to move it to AP2, I have no objection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that Roy Moore, and specifically the recent controversy around sexual abuse allegations, fall under the Donald Trump topic if broadly construed, given that Trump has repeatedly inserted himself into the controversy. That being said, this is also a thoroughly unimpressive contribution from Atsme. I'm seeing a clear battleground mentality from both participants here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Oh, I disagree that Moore falls under any Trump-ban construction--such a construction is so broad that anything Trump has tweeted about or mentioned in passing would be covered, which is just about anything. One could argue that given the Access Hollywood tape the female anatomy or lifestyles of the rich and infamous would be covered by such a topic ban. Masem, sorry, but we have a spin-off article because a. no one follows NOTNEWS and b. there's a ton of coverage and it's a Big Deal. One doesn't always need Trump to make something a Big Deal... "Strongly linked by the media", I don't know what that means: is this a post-truth construction of reality? Drmies (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As Tony points out, the article was placed under BLP sanctions, not AP2 or DT sanctions. On the other hand, the DS entry does not bar VM from making edits related to Donald Trump, it bans them from all articles and edits related to Donald Trump (emphasis added). Broadly construed, this includes all articles about subjects that are usually mentioned in connection with Donald Trump and this does imho apply to Roy Moore's sexual abuse allegations because Trump has injected himself into that scandal multiple times. So I'd be willing to AGF that Atsme thought so as well when she reverted VM for what appeared to her as a ban violation (note that she did not reinstate the edit when another editor challenged it). Her behavior afterwards however is, as Lankiveil points out, problematic. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I recommend closing this with a warning to both Volunteer Marek (for violating their Trump topic ban, which arguably encompasses a politician opposed or, as here, supported by Trump); and to Atsme for battleground attitude and editing in violation of the "consensus required" restriction. The conduct reported here doesn't strike me as sufficiently serious to warrant other sanctions on either side. Sandstein 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Apologies that I have been rather absent over the past couple of days. Actually I only looked in to look up some 1st-century-BC Roman politician and my notifications had gone a bit mad. I don't have time to look into the rights and wrongs of this right now, but I'll make a few points:
  • I stuffed up imposing the topic bans referred to a bit. The close at AE includes the 'broadly construed' language and the log/notifications do not include it. My bad. The intention was 'broadly construed' but now individual admins enforcing the sanction will have to take a view on whether particular edits are a violation or not.
  • I would tend to agree with VM that non-Trump-related edits to Roy Moore and related articles are not a violation, though perhaps it's feeling somewhat close to the edge. If you're going to construe a topic ban that widely then it seems to me it's effectively a ban from all current American politics (and any historical American politics Trump happens to have commented on). If I'd meant to do that, I'd have done it and I didn't.
  • Someone will inevitably bring up my recent block of James J. Lambden for violation of the same ban. The page involved there is about an organisation which was probably formed solely to support Donald Trump (though they're now trying to broaden their interests). That makes the page Trump-related. Roy Moore is a politician in his own right with his own political campaign and his own political problems; he is not so tightly connected to Donald Trump that any edit is necessarily Trump-related, though obviously some edits may still be.
  • I had already made this explanation to Atsme at my talk page some seven hours before the edits in question, so the explanation that they thought they were reverting edits by a banned editor is a bit thin. The example used in my explanation was a different page (Sean Hannity) but the principle is the same.
  • I haven't time to look through the history of this now, but my immediate gut reaction is that Sandstein is roughly on the money. GoldenRing (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm good with doing as Sandstein has suggested. General edits on
      Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, I can't see how it would not be under that scope. Trouts all around I would say. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply
      ]
      • I'd agree with Sandstein's suggestion as well. Regards SoWhy 13:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• So closed. Sandstein 13:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Template for post 1932 American politics. I am proposing an amendment.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Diff of notification.

Statement by Kingsindian

[To clarify, I have described The Wordsmith as the admin imposing the sanction because they have in the past acted as a steward for Coffee's administrative actions.]

I am here seeking a relatively narrow amendment.

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
  • Rescinded. The provision can be applied for individual pages at admin discretion, but is not part of the template.
• Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
  • Replaced by: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. The normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The situation is as follows:

In May 2016, Coffee created a template (linked above) which is used on more than 100 pages dealing with American politics. The template includes a "consensus required" provision: challenged material should not be restored unless it has consensus.

• The template has been used in the past as a "default" template for American politics topics. For instance, Ks0stm says here: FWIW, I only placed the article under 1RR/consensus required because that was what came packaged in 2016 US Election AE [template]; it wasn't so much an explicit decision to make it consensus required.
• Some admins do indeed explicitly want to enforce the "consensus required" provision. See the AE request here, and the comment by TonyBallioni.
• The value of the provision is, let's say, contested. I can give my own view here, to make it clear where I'm coming from: it's a very bad idea.

I propose that the template to be used as the "default" for post-1932 American elections contain the amendment I proposed. The amendment is modeled on the solution used in ARBPIA, and takes care of a very common justification for the "consensus required" provision (see TonyBallioni's comment linked above, for instance). This is a much more lightweight, well-tested and clearer sanction. To be clear: individual pages may still have the "consensus required" provision placed on them. In this way, collateral damage from what I consider a bad provision will be minimized. If ArbCom wishes to make an explicit statement either way (either rescinding the consensus required provision altogether, or to affirm it to be the "default"), they can also do so.

See also this AE request, in which the solution I propose comes pretty close to being accepted, but somehow it never got closed one way or another.

The above text is self-sufficient. In the following, I make a case for the badness of the "consensus required" provision. People can skip it if they want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni: Your suggestion seems workable (though see my comments below). It might be a good idea to look over all the pages (there are about 120 or so) to see who added the template -- if it's by Coffee or TonyBallioni, the "consensus required" provision can be kept. For instance, on Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States and Talk:Donna Brazile, the template seems to have been just added because it is the "default" template, and not because the page required special measures. I agree with NeilN that the template should be substituted, and not transcluded.

In general, my view is that the circumstances in May 2016 were very different from the circumstances now, so it would make sense to add the "consensus required" provision reactively, rather than proactively; that is: start with a minimum set and add pages to it as disruption or edit-warring occurs. These templates are "sticky": it's easy to slap it on, but hard to get rid of it. But I leave such considerations to the admins here; after all, they are the ones who have to enforce it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather puzzled by various comments in the admin section. In particular, I am not sure what the extent of the disagreement is: it does not seem to me that the solution proposed by GoldenRing or TonyBallioni is all that different from the one proposed by Sandstein. The proposal I made explicitly differentiates between pages where the template was used as the "default" (I gave three examples already), and ones where the admins explicitly wanted the restriction there because they felt it necessary. The latter category, I aver, is likely to be a small(er) set. All I am asking for is to change the default template; admins are free to use their judgement to impose this restriction on individual pages. Kingsindian ♝ ♚

Looking at the DS log, I see less than 40 pages which were explicitly placed under "consensus required" provision. It is absurd that more than 120 articles have the tag: this means that the vast majority of them were placed because the template was the "default" one. I already gave 3 explicit examples of the latter case. Besides, I simply don't understand Thryduulf and NeilN comments when they say that "This would affect the many articles where the admin has purposely added the "consensus required" restriction."; I explicitly address this point in my amendment. There is absolutely nothing stopping admins from adding the provision if they want it to. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the explicit DS log entries were made by Coffee, who is mostly inactive. His replacement, The Wordsmith, considers himself involved in the US politics area, so mostly doesn't get involved. The template is "sticky": it's easy to impose it, but very hard to get rid of it.
• I gave explicit evidence that most of the templates were added by people thinking that it was the "default" template. Sure, you can fault the admins adding the template, but may I remind you that one of them is an Arbitrator? If people like that get confused, maybe that is a sign that the bureaucracy has become too intricate for its own good.
• Here's the supreme irony: read Coffee's justification for why they wanted the restriction. the idea for prohibiting "potentially contentious content without firm consensus" was to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit...I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, I come up with an amendment (a tried and tested one) to handle exactly the situation which is being described here, and for some reason, people find it unacceptable. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

This is in uncharted territory, given that I don't admin in Election 2016/Trump/far-right related articles and that one admin acting as a steward for another is also with little precedent. However, my own opinion, and one that I believe would accurately reflect Coffee's opinion, is that this Page-level sanction was never intended to be the default for APDS or one that could be accidentally applied. I do support vacating the provision from articles where it appears to have been accidentally applied, and forking the template so that the provision is an option, but the default template does not list it. I do not support vacating the CR sanction from pages where it has been deliberately applied, as that would be effectively overturning an Arbitration Enforcement action without a specific consensus about that particular sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

This is a good proposal for any articles that are currently under, or will be placed under, editing restrictions requiring consensus for reinstating new material. It would prevent some of the usual

I generally agree with Sandstein's comments, and add that the DS talk page templates and especially the in-your-face edit notices are very important for notifying editors that articles are subject to DS restrictions. Admins can use

• Pinging admins who have to placed American Politics articles under DS editing restrictions: Coffee, Doug Weller, BU Rob13, Ks0stm, Laser brain, DeltaQuad, Bishonen, and TonyBallioni.- MrX 11:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: NeilN, Darkwind, and Seraphimblade.- MrX 12:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

@TonyBallioni: " I strongly object to their removal from the Roy Moore article " - Tony, my understanding is that you can still have that sanction on the article, you just have to add it separately rather than as "bundled" with the other sanctions (1RR etc). As Kingsindian says above: "The provision can be applied for individual pages at admin discretion, but is not part of the template." This isn't a proposal to get rid of the sanction. It's (very much) more limited than that. Volunteer Marek  15:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony - it's not a bad suggestion, it's just that Coffee sorta spammed that template to lots of articles and it was never clear if he really meant to add that restriction or was just slapping on the template. Also Sandstein is right - a GENERIC restriction template used to impose DISCRETIONARY sanctions is sort of an oxymoron. At the very least it violates the spirit and intent of how DS is suppose to work. Volunteer Marek  16:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this is like observing "institutional inertia" inert itself. "We shouldn't change it because then we'd have to change it". Volunteer Marek  16:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Can there be clarification on if the templates are authorized by an Arbcom ruling or they are just placed there because an admin wants it? If it's the former, then shouldn't this be a discussion for Arbcom, via an amendment process? I filed an amendment request a while back, they voted on it, and I changed the template to match the new ruling from Arbcom. If the templates are not backed by an Arbcom ruling, then that should be spelled out in the template. Right now the template points to Arbcom ruling to give them enforcement ability so the templates should match ruling of Arbcom and Arbcom is where and DS rules should go for change, not AE which is an executive action, not legislative. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I agree with Sandstein, Bishonen and Dennis Brown. According to template, All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This brings a number of difficult questions, even for experienced contributors. Was this particular edit a "revert"? Should someone count only an "exact" revert to a recent previous version, or one should also count edits that only partially undo something? And what does it mean "recent"? What if something "has been challenged by reversion" six months ago? And it is prone to gaming. Does this include reinstating content that was slightly different from the content challenged by reversion (two words were changed as during a recent AE case)?

This restriction led to countless conflicts, unnecessary discussions and divisive complaints on WP:AE. Does this restriction help to establish good relationships between users? No, exactly the opposite. Surprisingly, it does not help to establish any WP:Consensus because people start discussing procedures (was something a violation) instead of discussing the content. Personally, I think that was the worst editing restriction ever made in the project. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that creating any general templates for new types of restrictions (to be placed on a number of pages) is something very serious. This can and should be discussed on WP:AE to obtain WP:Consensus of uninvolved admins , as it actually happens during this discussion. Of course if the template will be approved by WP:Consensus here, then it will be used by individual admins for any pages of their choosing. But once again, this should be a discussion if the template would be helpful in general, not about any technical procedures or something else. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most important, all editing restrictions must be very simple and understandable, and not only to admins, but to all other participants (they are generally issued not for admins, but for other participants). This is not the case here because even admins happened to disagree about the interpretation and applications of this restriction, and not only during this AE discussion, but also during a number of previous AE discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• NeilN tells below: Admins can choose whatever template/text to add when applying editing restrictions. I am not sure that creating or modifying DS templates by individual admins to enforce discretionary sanctions has been authorized by Arbcom. Making new template is not just an ordinary sanction to be applied to an individual contributor or a page. This is something a lot more significant.
  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) only lists templates authorized by Arbcom. I think every new template for DS (or any significan modification of such template) should be either approved by Arbcom or by consensus of WP:AE admins. That one was not, and everyone can see what had happen. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I am telling that DS templates are not just ordinary templates where common rules should apply, i.e. anyone can create or modify the template, and the template can be fixed later by consensus of all contributors (not necessarily admins). If this was just an ordinary template, then it could be simply nominated for deletion, and the votes of all contributors would be counted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ryk72

Replace All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). with All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any content that has been challenged (via reversion).. Underlines showing where the text is changed.
As currently written, the wording of the sanction does not reinforce WP:ONUS, and leads to situations where non-consensus content is locked into articles; this change would align the sanction with policy. -

Technically, the template as such is not an appealable sanction, because it's just, well, a template for a sanction. The template's application to a specific article by an administrator is the actual sanction that can be appealed. But we can treat this request as a class action appeal, as it were, of all such sanctions. I would appreciate it if editors who have followed this issue would ping, insofar as possible, all administrators who have used this template so that they can comment.

In my view, templated article-level sanctions are problematic because they do not take into specific circumstances of the editing environment of the article at issue.

WP:AC/DS

expects sanctioning admins to

"use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum."

This requirement to apply discretion is not compatible with a one-size-fits-all approach to sanctions, which a template embodies. In some cases, the editing environment may be so toxic that a restriction such as the "consensus required" provision may be needed, but in many cases individual blocks, bans or protections may be a more proportionate response. The widespread use of a template containing complicated rules such as a "consensus required" rules will cause many technical violations of discretionary sanctions to occur in the course of ordinary and, in and of itself, probably not sanction-worthy content disputes.

It is best, therefore, to remove the template and leave admins free to individually (re-)apply appropriate sanctions to such articles as may (still) warrant it. Sandstein 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject the template is not how discretionary sanctions are applied. It is a courtesy placed on the talk page. The actual sanctions are logged at the arbitration enforcement log. Additionally, users are alerted to them not by the talk page template, but by page notices. As the arbitration enforcement log shows, many administrators are willing to not impose these sanctions on articles if they don’t want to, so the complaint is really with the overwhelming majority of the articles sanctioned by Coffee. People like to bitch about these sanctions, but they work, and they are the main reason that the American politics field isn’t an even bigger mess than it is today. Sandstein, your suggested course of action ignores the fact that any validly applied sanctions were placed by an individual administrator on his own discretion (Coffee) and he has recently spoken out in favour of keeping the sanctions. If we vacate the “template sanctions”, I would personally go through the now sanctionless articles and likely apply the exact same sanctions to most of them myself immediately after the appeal was over because of how volitile this topic area is. There is no reason to waste time and increase the disruption on American politics articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I will note, again, that consensus required is already policy through
    WP:ONUS. The fact that what it takes to get people to actually follow that policy is a discretionary sanction is ridiculous but it is the case. Speaking to the sanctions I have placed, I strongly object to their removal from the Roy Moore article given that they weren’t placed mindlessly and that I think I typically have decent “discretion”. Finally, I’ll note that what we are being asked to do here is give people license to multi-party edit war on some of the most controversial and significant articles to the public. I cannot support that, and it is what this amendment would do.TonyBallioni (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I could get behind the Wordsmith’s suggestion. This should be based upon the actual sanction listed at the arbitration enforcement log. If it doesn’t list 1RR/Consensus required, remove the template. Keep in place, however, the sanctions if they were intentionally applied by an admin, and make it clear any admin can still choose to apply this set of sanctions in individual cases if they wish. Basically, all of Coffee’s page level sanctions should be kept as should any others where this was the intent. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Volunteer Marek and Kingsindian: it is unclear to me whether this would affect pages already tagged with the template (most of them by Coffee, who did place it intentionally), or just be a change going forward, which is why I am concerned. If the concern is that this standard template is not what most administrators intend to impose, may I offer what I consider a simpler suggestion: we substitute the template on the pages where we know it was the intent of the admin to impose it (so basically anything imposed by Coffee or myself, and those where the AE log specifically notes "consensus required"). We then take the template to TfD, delete it, and instruct admins to use the standard discretionary sanctions talk page notice rather than this bundled one. I think this addresses some of @Sandstein and Bishonen:'s valid concerns while respecting that some administrators did use this template intentionally because they liked the bundle. If we are going to move away from this template, we might as well move away from any specific US politics DS template and require admins to think about what thye are imposing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, which requires admins to type out the sanction they want to place, when I said "standard". I'm fine with not having a default template here, but I'm opposed to changing the current restrictions (criticism of Coffee being valid and all, but they do work well on a lot of these pages.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @
    Template:Ds/talk notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • How is swapping one template for another more complex than substituting the template that's there? Especially when the time comes to remove it... GoldenRing (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it leaves in place the sanctions that were intentionally placed by an administrator and keeps the same format that people are used to seeing on the article, making confusion less likely. Also, you are operating under the assumption that the template will be removed, which is unclear here. Substitution also deals with NeilN's concerns that another admin can come along and edit the template and make it look like the sanctions were changed. I very strongly oppose your solution here because I think it complicates needlessly a situation that doesn't need anymore complication. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support amendment. I seem to keep saying this, but I just don't like to find myself on a list that seems to imply (?) that I have placed articles under the "consensus required" provision (MrX's list above). I did do that, once, then came to think the restriction was too difficult to understand, and too much of an invitation to "gotcha" filings, and removed it from the page where I had placed it. I won't place it again, in the form that it has now, and I agree with Kingsindian's amendment. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• As before, I don't have much opinion on this either way in terms of whether we use "consensus required" going forward. I do oppose deleting the template, since that just makes a lot of busy-work replacing it with appropriate talk page notices. If consensus required is removed, I'll replace it with the following sanction on all pages it's currently in place on: "Editors cannot restore edits which they have introduced within 24 hours if the edits have been reverted." ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose changing template if it means modifying existing restrictions. This would affect the many articles where the admin has purposely added the "consensus required" restriction. Admins did not have to use this template if they didn't want to impose all the restrictions it listed. Also, any templates like this really should be substituted rather than transcluded to prevent one admin making undiscussed changes that would affect hundreds of articles they had no interest in. Finally Sandstein's proposal of vacating all sanctions is a non-starter. He assumes admins take a "one-size-fits-all approach" when applying sanctions with no evidence to back it up. A list of cases where neutral parties would agree that an editor was unfairly sanctioned because of the restriction is needed at a minimum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsindian: There are a few places on Wikipedia which warn editors that they are responsible for tool/template usage. That is, you can't blame the tool/template if you're misusing it. Admins can choose whatever template/text to add when applying editing restrictions. The fact that some of them may not have read the template text as carefully as they should have does not mean extra work needs to be done by the admins that did. It's more appropriate to say in this case, "There is absolutely nothing stopping the DS-levying admin from removing the provision if they want to." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Grant appeal per Sandstein. He said it best, so I won't parrot him, but the "consensus" clause has caused problems and should not be automatically applied to all articles falling under this Arb ruling, if any at all. I'm not as big into repealing all previous sanctions, but I won't labor it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to make the rare move of disagreeing with
  WP:DSLOG. There appear to be a largish number of articles where the template has been applied but the relevant sanction not logged; we should not construe the restriction as valid in those cases.

  Therefore, I think the right way forward is to edit the the current template to remove the consensus required restriction; to create a new and more obscure template that includes the consensus required restriction; and to apply that new template wherever the "consensus required" restriction has been validly logged. It'd be an hour or so of fairly dull work, I'm afraid, but that's what we have the mop for. I'm willing to do it. As far as I can see, doing so doesn't really require a formal consensus here, either, since it's not modifying any valid AE sanctions (though I'm not going to run off and do it now without further discussion). GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    WP:DSLOG or they are not valid and the template is only a courtesy note (in this case an inaccurate one for many articles). GoldenRing (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Which is why the template should be changed, so there isn't a template stating there is a restriction when one is not in place, as that causes problem. This is separate from the idea that the sanction should or shouldn't be used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I agree with Dennis 100% here, which is why I think if any changes are made, it should be in the direction of getting rid of the area-specific-notice templates, and making admins write out by hand what their actual intent is so we aren't confused when it comes here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline appeal. I agree with GoldenRing, there appear to be instances where the "consensus required" provision was deliberately and intentionally applied and instances where it wasn't. Once the two versions are in place, I would be open to hearing appeals regarding the "consensus required" provision in individual cases where someone feels it isn't working, but not mass removal. I would also not object to an alternative being proposed to be introduced as a third option, and if that happens discussion of individually converting individual applications between "consensus required" and the new provision would be fine, but again not indiscriminately. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsindian: There are roughly four options here: (1) remove the "consensus required" provision completely, (2) remove the "consensus required" provision but allow it to be (re-)added to articles where it is desired (as an option, not as the default), (3) change the "consensus required" provision from the default to the option for future applications and allow it to be removed from existing articles where it is not desired. (4) Leave the "consensus required" provision as the default or only option. I favour option 3, my understanding is that you prefer option 2. Creating an alternative provision has also been suggested but this is possible whichever of the above options is chosen. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I agree with the options, and could live with 3, although I also prefer 2. The primary point is removing it from the template so it isn't automatically stated that the article is under "consensus required", and allow the admin to add that for the instances where it is needed, or better yet, don't add it initially but only after the article proves that is required. I think the sanction is problematic under the best of circumstances, and should be used sparingly and intentionally, not automatically, if at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I favour option 4 personally, 1RR is meaningless without "consensus required", and if I place 1RR on any article in the future it will come with it. That being said, I don't strongly oppose option 3 on a case by case basis. The reason I think we should go ahead and close this appeal is that what we're essentially talking about here are changes to the template, and not to the sanctions themselves, which can be appealed on an individual basis. Template changes can be discussed on the template talk page, and are not actually an arbitration enforcement action since the actual sanctions are noted at the log. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• May I suggest that the next passing admin close this as no consensus to grant the appeal unless anyone has any objections. I don't think there is any chance of existing sanctions being altered here, and everything else can be discussed on the template's talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a solution no-one has proposed yet, which is to add parameters to the template allowing an admin to include/exclude certain sanctions. For instance, if an admin sets |consensus-required=no, then the template doesn't include consensus required. We could then have a real discussion on what should be the defaults (noting that it would take some bot work to fix existing notices if we want to change the default from what it currently is). This is probably the conversation we should be having, given that there's no apparent consensus to reverse existing sanctions en masse. I'm not sure whether AE or another venue would be best for that discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable idea. I would suggest that "no" be the default answer for all options, so admin must intentionally pick which to add. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No as the default option for all future applications is probably correct, but existing restrictions should not be changed without individual discussion (given there is no consensus here for en-mass changes). Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm closing this as there is no consensus to overturn these sanctions, and the parameter idea (which I was actually going to propose myself and then saw Rob had done it), can be discussed on the template talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=813139311&oldid=813136566

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a

diff

of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by DHeyward

Per the Atsme decision above[56],

Appealing Discretionary Sanctions is not "gaming the system." In fact, it's part of the process. Please stop threatening me with increased sanctions for following procedure. I commented on the above request because it was a) not an article and b) had direct implications to my sanctions since it was the same complaint made by the same editor. I have not edited any articles within the scope of my topic ban. Since the outcomes and findings were drastically different and Tony has stated he is friends with Atsme, I think it's fair to review his sanction with the Atsme consensus in mind. Uninvolved admins can reject the appeal but punishing good faith appeals is clearly out of bounds. --DHeyward (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have exhibited BATTLEGROUND behavior despite being called a ";iar" and "gaming the system." No diffs have been provided. I've only commented on your talk page in relation to your sanction and when I was pinged - all well within the norms regarding sanctions. I gave you the courtesy of undoing your action prior to AN and prior to coming here. . That is not battleground behavior. Also, I don't see how you can call this anything but a good faith challenge given the finding above. I wouldn't be here if the finding were different. I understand you disagree with it but that doesn't change the fact that it was closed with a decision that the article in question falls under the scope of VMs topic ban. Do you not see how that finding may be relevant here considering WP:BANREVERT? On your talk page you erroneously stated I did not bring that up when it was the very first statement I made. --DHeyward (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

DHeyward was edit warring, plain and simple, and has continually tried to game the system on this sanction and demonstrated a battleground behavior both before and after the block. There is a current appeal pending at AN where there seems to be no consensus to overturn the sanction, and he filed this while that one was pending. I disagree with the above finding and warning by Sandstein, and the fact that the administrator who imposed the topic ban (GoldenRing), does not think that Roy Moore necessarily falls within the Trump topic ban is telling. If anything, DHeyward's continued attempts to game the sanctions, including commenting on an AE action from the article that he was topic banned for originally because AE does not fall within article space in my mind shows that he is likely to continue to be disruptive and attempt to game the discretionary sanctions system. If anything, I'd support extending the topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not threatening for more sanctions because of the appeal: I have no problems with my actions being reviewed, and never have. I do have a problem with continued WikiLawyering to try to find every possible way to justify edit warring on a 1RR article, and the continued battleground behavior you have demonstrated towards Marek both at AN, here, and on my talk page. That is not the same as having an issue with your appealing: I don't. I have never threatened sanctions for that, and would never. Also, my friendship with Atsme would likely have me taking the exact opposite stance you are implying: she and I disagree on this point, and she thinks Marek did violate his TBAN. I also don't think its fair to call the Atsme ruling consensus, if you count my view, you have 3 admins commenting on both sides of the TBAN issue (Drmies, GoldenRing, me/Sandstein, Lankiveil, SoWhy), 3/4 if you count Masem as well. That's far from consensus on the topic in my mind, and I think GoldenRing has made it clear he did not intend it that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The battleground behavior was with Marek, who DHeyward keeps fighting with across multiple pages, not me. Commenting on an AE action on the article that he just landed a topic ban on to continue fighting with him because the wording of the sanction combined with the behavior shown on the article seems to me to be an attempt to find ways to get around the DS system. Additionally, I'm not particularly pleased that DHeyward us misrepresenting what I said: I said DHeyward also didn't seem to come to this belief that it fell within Marek's topic ban until after he was at AE. This is true. None of his revert edit summaries mention BANREVERT, he never mentioned it anywhere on that article's talk page, he never raised it on Marek's talk page, and he didn't raise it when Marek alerted him to the 1RR. He appears to have been completely unaware of it and were just content to edit war on a 1RR article, and only came up with the justification when he was brought to AE. That is disruptive, regardless of how people view on Marek's topic ban. Additionally, as I mentioned, there is not consensus of administrators as to whether Marek's ban applies to Roy Moore, and even if it did, he reverted editors other than Marek, and then in self-reverting removed all the content that he objected to. I'll let other admins decide whether this is justified, but I did feel the need to respond to this since my words were being misrepresented. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

If you were only reverting

• I would not act on this appeal because it is forum-shopping. A concurrent appeal by the same user at
  WP:AN#Odd AE sanction appeal remains pending. Moreover, the reason for the appeal is unpersuasive. Every sanction is imposed for its own reason and stands or falls on its own. Because sanctions are imposed individually by different admins, they will usually not be consistent with each other, and there is no expectation in any applicable regulations that they should be. An appeal must be based on the circumstances of the sanction being appealed, not on the circumstances of another user's sanctions. Sandstein 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • +1. Nothing to add to the above comment except my complete agreement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • +2. It's not often I find myself agreeing with Sandstein in every detail without so much as a quibble, but that is the situation here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Vyacheslav84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FProtectorate_of_Westarctic&type=revision&diff=791839849&oldid=791770703 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2017_December_5&type=revision&diff=814173295&oldid=814035143

Administrator imposing the sanction

Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a

diff

of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Vyacheslav84

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protectorate of Westarctic and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 5#Protectorate of Westarctic

Protectorate of Westarctic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · of Westarctic Stats

)

Based on these sources, I'm asking you to restore a separate article on this topic as significant on the Wikipedia:Notability. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 5#Protectorate of Westarctic --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a pang of conscience that I put the article on the removal and now it will be me dreaming. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GreenMeansGo

Suggest closing this with a strongly worded warning, that bludgeoning an AfD that they themselves started, bludgeoning further at DRV, and now this, is beginning to look an awful lot like a competence issue. GMG^talk 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Vyacheslav84

This doesn't appear to be the right venue. You want Deletion Review, at

• I do not see how this is actionable. The user just needs to
  drop the stick.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @ValarianB:, it has already been to DRV.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Dank Chicken

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dank Chicken (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 :

Diffs

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

1. 1st revert The editor is not authorized to edit Arab-Israeli conflict articles, he still has 200 edits while 500 as minimum is required. He violated
   WP:1RR
   by reverting twice in less than 24 hours despite being warned twice on his talk page by other editors
2. 2nd revert

If

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

Discussion concerning Dank Chicken

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

Statement by Dank Chicken

@Makeandtoss:, @EdJohnston: You're leaving out one important fact. The article I edited is not described anywhere in it as being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That is strictly your opinion. I've noted this in my edit summaries, which you conviniently forgot to mention in your little "block recommendation"...
Dank Chicken (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Statement by power~enwiki

• The user was alerted to the ARBPIA sanctions per this edit on November 24 by
  500/30 prohibition on ARBPIA topics. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Concur. Blocked and closed accordingly. Sandstein 20:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Topic ban

Diffs

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

1. [63] creation of article about Mr. Paronto, including overall Benghazi attack template
2. [64] directly adding information related to criticism of the Obama administration by Mr. Paronto
3. [65] adding link to Benghazi attack article
4. Other significant edits to Kris Paronto since the topic ban: [66], [67], [68],

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 December 2017 by me.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not taking any action myself because DHeyward has commented in the Mister Wiki ArbCom case where I am the filing party, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to take action personally. At the same time, I think this is a violation of the topic ban I imposed on him. While Mr. Paronto is not a politician, I think he squarely falls within the related topics broadly construed bit of articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed as he is a public figure only because of the Benghazi scandal and has been the focus of articles from news organizations such as POLITICO about his role in the events that caused the scandal [69]. Additionally, even if we are being generous and don't consider Paronto himself to be a part of the topic ban, adding information about his criticism of the Obama administration like he did in this edit, certainly is. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, I've struck the creation diff. Sorry for that: I misread the dates after seeing this article at AfD. I still think the edits following the topic ban, and in particular the addition of his political activity, fall within its confines and are violations. Adding information about a criticism of living politicians to a BLP who is a central player in a political scandal falls within the topic ban in my mind, which covers related topics broadly construed, and shows that you are trying to push the limits of the sanctions, which was the concern that originally led to the TBAN to begin with. I've updated the filing with that diff and others to the subject, who because of his central role in Benghazi, I feel is covered here as a related topic.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article when I saw it at AfD this morning. I am an AfD regular and often scan the daily log. The topic ban was quite clear. It applied to living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. A controversial figure in the Benghazi attack, which was one of the central scandals involving Hillary Clinton, is certainly a related topic, broadly construed. I find it hard to believe that DHeyward didn't know this, considering an article he cited as justification for keeping it in the AfD says Critics charge Paronto with being politically motivated, he said, an accusation that continued through the 2016 presidential election. [70] This is in addition to the POLITICO article cited above that described Paronto's version of events in relationship to the political scandal involving Clinton and the Obama administration. I also think its worth bringing up here that the only edits he has made to mainspace since receiving the topic ban have been to this article or creating a redirect to someone else related to Benghazi [71].

As for how even the small edits violate the TBAN: topic bans cover all edits to articles that fall within them, not just edits related to the conflict area. I think by adding information involving Benghazi, he certainly violated the TBAN, but by my interpretation Paronto as a central figure in Benghazi is a related topic to American politicians, and any edit to his article would have been a TBAN violation. I think that the only edits DHeyward has made to articles since receiving his tban have been to this topic, make that violation worse. There is no effort at revenge here, I just don't think that a user should be allowed to continue to push sanctions to their limits. A topic ban is a topic ban, and when the only edits he has made to articles since receiving it have been in violation of it, that is an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[72]

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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

Statement by DHeyward

I created this article months ago and my recent edits were to fill in gaps as it was placed up for deletion. The article is not about a politician, which I believe is the scope of my topic ban. I only added that statement because another editor, on the talk page, said that criticizing the former Obama administration (not Obama himself) was the only thing he was notable which is incorrect. I have now deleted the "Obama administration"[73] from the sentence as it is not necessary and is not about Obama. This seems frivolous and Tony could have made the edit himself in much shorter time than filing enforcement. Also, a talk page note would have had the same effect. I am concerned about how Tony came by Kris Paronto or why he didn't come forward and say he believes this person who is not in office nor seeking office is within the scope of the American Politician topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I restarted editing that article after being notified of a PROD request (since denied). An editor that has a history of following me to articles made a comment about "political advocacy"[74]. That does not make Paronto an American Politician and it would be difficult to do so. There are many people critical of presidential administrations and that does not make them politicians. Nearly all our articles on celebrities has a "Political views" section but it doesn't make them politicians. Lastly, we're here to build the encyclopedia and no edit was disruptive and all added sourced detail. How did you even come across it?--DHeyward (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has listed this diff a violation[75]. How?? --DHeyward (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Benghazi attack is not about an American Politician. I edited Kris Paronto, the article I created months ago because it was put up for deletion. It's not testing boundaries at all. We're not a bureaucracy and nothing I added was partisan, political, reverted or challenged. Nor was anything I added about an American politician. Nor is the article about a politician. I am curious as to why this even showed up on your radar as I fear you are being played. --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, are you really holding me to account for what sources said, rather than what I wrote? I didn't write anything about the political nature of the Benghazi attack. I mentioned in passing the trial of one of the suspects that was not reliant on any politician and that is very clear since I removed mention of any and all administrations without any change in meaning. This article, broadly construed, is not about an American politician and noting I have wrote about him is about a politician. My motivation was certainly not to violate the topic ban and you are casting aspersions and have now switched horses midstream after I pointed out I created the article months ago and not since the topic ban which seemed to be your original premise. Do you think it serves the encyclopedia to remove all my edits to that article or do you think they were neutral and sourced content? --DHeyward (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't

Precisely as DHeyward has stated, the article was placed up for deletion and he was merely trying to add reliable sources to this article, one he had created. If there is a foul here it certainly is as minor as it can be, and obviously wasn't done maliciously. This is about as frivolous a report as I have seen lately and I am disappointed in the filing admin and see this as a possible effort to exact revenge for being repeatedly challenged by DHeyward on the topic ban he imposed on him.--MONGO 18:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DHeyward

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

• I think that this is technically not a violation. The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. To encompass all described by
  WP:TBAN, I usually use wording like: "topic-banned from [topic]". Sandstein 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Request concerning Seraphim System

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Seraphim System (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#Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified (1RR)

Diffs

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

1. 02:33, 12 December 2017+ 02:14, 12 December 2017+03:08, 12 December 2017+03:15 12 December 2017+03:40, 12 December 2017: series of reverts (one has a claimed copyvio exception), I'm clumping the whole series here despite an intervening edit by Murchison-Eye as that edit was relatively minor (bolding of text).
2. 06:16, 12 December 2017 - revert. User is aware this is 3rd revert per edit summary - "this is the third revert on a 1RR article, I asked for an exemption but for now its still a 1RR article Undid revision 815012980".
3. 07:00, 12 December 2017 + 07:08, 12 December 2017 - attempted to correct edit conflict, but still removed several POV-tags and undue tags and some information. (may be a competence issue/mistake - wouldn't have reported JUST for this).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 03:59, 14 October 2017 block for edit warring on Armenian Genocide.
2. 01:44, 2 November 2017 block for edit warring on Greek War of Independence.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

07:16, 26 March 2017 ARBPIA alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User is aware of the 1RR violation per edit summary of "this is the third revert on a 1RR article, I asked for an exemption but for now its still a 1RR article Undid revision 815012980". and has furthermore engaged in a long user talk page discussion with a user:Wiking 03:50, 12 December 2017 (first diff of a thread on Wiking's talk page regarding 1RR on this very article prior to reverting. Revert clump #3 may or may not have been intentional - however it removed several tags and some information, so am posting this for completeness.

re I restored the information that was removed during the edit conflict, and since the pov section was combined with other sections per the undue tag Icewhiz placed while tagbombing the article, I didn't think it could feasibly be restored - Seraphim System has also removed an undue tag from the "In December 2017, more than 130 Jewish studies" paragraphed which I allegedly "tagbombed" after a discussion, by several editors, in the article talk page. Moving the Jewish reactions paragraph to American reactions (which should similarly be pov-sectioned now as unbalanced - however I cannot per 1RR) - does not alleviate the POV tag concern - and the stmt below makes clear removal of the tag was not by mistake.Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re claiming the 02:14 diff was a self revert - even if true, the rest of the reverts in the edit chain between 02:14 and 03:53 were not, and Seraphim System was aware of this given the edit summary at 06:16.Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown:@GoldenRing: Please note that this - 00:35, 13 December 2017 is a further 1RR violation (bringing this to 4RR - and this when the initial revert clump (with a minor (non-marked) intervening edit is counted as 1 revert, 5RR otherwise) in relation to the diffs above. Not that I disagree with the edit (though it left in user:Rupert loup's characterization of just about every Jewish organization in America as "right wing" - [76]) - but it did undo a big block of text (which was duplicated by mistake) - including connecting text (that was not duplicated, Rupert added The statement comes in contrast to the declaration of the... to connect the two paragraphs - that was removed) - and this while on notice here for 1RR breach on this article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Note awareness to 1RR here - post to Rupert loup's talk page at 00:23, 13 December 2017.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re boomerang - In revert#1 I clumped all edits from 02:14 to 03:40, ignoring claimed self-reverts and a copyvio claim, these three: [77] [78] [79] are clearly reverts. revert #2 06:16, 12 December 2017 is unquestionably a revert. This followed by revert #3 07:00, 12 December 2017 + 07:08, 12 December 2017 - which removed tags and some contents (and was not fully self-reverted - though I'm not pressing this point). This was all prior to this complaint and discussion. Then some 16 hours later (and within the 24 hour window of the initial clump) - revert#4 00:35, 13 December 2017. It is constructive? yes - and I said so (note this didn't just remove duplicated text, but also connecting text, but still constructive). Does

WP:OWNish issues?Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

notified

Discussion concerning Seraphim System

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

Statement by Seraphim System

That edit was me reverting Wiking's third revert, which I think is exempt from 1RR restrictions in ARBPIA. I've made only one revert on the article today, and that was a series of edits with no intervening edits. I've asked

For example this is a self-revert [80] that I made to address issues Icewhiz raised on talk, which I assume he is aware of since he was complaining the section was UNDUE. My counterproposal here would be a

WP:BOOMERANG. The only thing here that might be a second revert, is my reverting the 3rd revert of another editor, but from other proceedings I think I remembers admins saying that reverting 1RR violations is exempted.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Icewhiz, I may have unintentionally removed a tag - it said "should not be in separate section" so should I have added that after combining the sections? I don't know, maybe add a new tag? I can restore it, but I don't think it is necessary while there is an open discussion on talk, do you? Other editors recommended you open an RfC about it, which I think is better then tagging something as undue after it has been discussed by multiple editors. As for POV section, I'm not a mind reader and you didn't discuss it with me, so I didn't really know if it should be added to the new combined section. If you still think the entire section as it is needs to be tagged for POV you can add a new tag. I really don't think this needed to be brought to AE. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian I remember it from a past discussion, but it may have been a comment from an editor and not the admins. I will self-revert and remember in the future.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Rupert thanked me for the edit, so if it was agreed upon between two editors and third editor should not be bringing it to AE. Fundamentally, the purpose of AE is to stop disruption. An edit that removes duplicated text is not a revert by even the broadest definition of revert. What would be the reason to block me? To prevent non-controversial cleanup of the article? I think at this point this should be a BOOMERANG or at least a warning for Icewhiz about making disruptive and frivolous complaint. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So breaking down the alleged 5RR:

• One is a COPYVIO. For my benefit I would appreciate clarification on this, one sentence that is a copy and paste of creative language or another persons writing is a COPYVIO and should be removed on sight. That is my working understanding. (It doesn't make a difference in this case because I think it is one of the continuous edits anyway)
• One is the cluster of edits, that is my one intended revert. There is no intervening edit minor or otherwise. 2:14 and 2:33 were self-reverts of my work after a talk discussion that Icewhiz participated in, and there should be a BOOMERANG for this.
• There was my second revert, which was a good faith mistake revert of a 1RR violation. This was self-reverted.
• There was the removal of accidentally duplicated content on what is a reasonably high-traffic article right now. When Rupert got my messages on his talk page, he thanked me for the edit. Not a single word was removed or altered.
  WP:BOOMERANG for this also. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's not OWN, a lot of editors have added content and there haven't been any disputes or problems, aside from this. When last night's complaint didn't convince anyone, you brought something that wasn't even a revert. I don't know why you would do that, when two editors were working together to improve an article. It's not even a IAR issue, there is nothing to prevent here beyond Icewhiz continuing his usual disruptive behavior. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I read Seraphim System's edit summary the same way: they were reverting what they think is a violation of 1RR. I have a couple of comments:

• 1RR doesn't work that way: you can't break 1RR to revert somebody else's violation. That's edit-warring.
• People should first talk to the person involved before bringing them here. It is easy to break 1RR by mistake, and most people self-revert when asked.

The article was only started recently and received a lot of quick-fire edits. Nothing really bad has happened. I suggest that people be warned to be more careful and no further action be taken. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Beyond My Ken

Taking no sides here, but a serious question: if an article is under a 1RR restriction, and an editor violates that, what do you do if reverting the 1RR-violating edit would itself violate 1RR for you? Does it first go to the editor's talk page to see if they will self-revert (which I believe wouldn't be considered a violation of 1RR, is that right?), then come here if they refuse or don't respond? I've never been in the situation and I'd like to know what to do if I ever am. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't diligent enough in reading, I guess that's what Kingsindian is saying just above me -- is that the proper procedure? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Seraphim System

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

• I largely concur with
  WP:ARCA, but I don't think the committee would want to encourage this sort of piecemeal exception-seeking. No action required here, but don't do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Completely agree with GoldenRing on all points. And the remedy for someone violating 1RR is to take them here and let admin deal with it, assuming you've templated them for the proper ARB restriction prior. Any further action would be warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Icewhiz, I'm not going to sanction someone for correcting an obvious mistake, particularly when they identify it clearly in their summary. Just looking at the diff itself, it is easy to see the information was a dupe of other info, so the edit had nothing to do with removing content or reverting content, it was a technical edit to make the article consistent. The actual information contained in the article was not changed by that edit, so it can't be considered a revert for the purpose of WP:AE. This is like correcting spelling or grammar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]