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 SPECIFICO[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS

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

1. 10 February 2017, 03:34 SPECIFICO deletes some content (that's fine), with rationale "Delete BLP smear unproven libelous allegation against James Clapper";
2. 10 February 2017, 19:21 I revert him, arguing "Opinion is attributed and grounded in facts, not a BLP violation";
3. 11 February 2017, 00:22 He reverts me, violating DS/1RR by reinstating a challenged edit, with comment "BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law";
4. 11 February 2017, 07:13 I start a discussion on the Talk page, providing a detailed rationale behind my restoring the deleted material, and I urge SPECIFICO to self-revert until the question is settled by a proper debate;
5. 11 February 2017, 07:14 Thucydides411 restores the material, stating: "There's no policy saying that opinions that haven't been proven in a court of law can't be included" (which happens to be one of my 6 arguments for keeping the disputed contents);
6. 11 February 2017, 13:21 SPECIFICO replies with "Alert! This text is not worded to state "opinion" or "commentary". Edit warring. BLP violation." without rebutting any of my 6 arguments. The disputed text is fully and repeatedly attributed as an opinion by its authors, cited in a reputable newspaper. The accused person is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, his false testimony is a matter of public record (see James Clapper#False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs) and he even admitted having (unwittingly of course) misled Congress.
7. 12 February 2017, 20:28 SPECIFICO deletes a chunk of material from the same quote, while the discussion is ongoing between several editors, thus committing a second DS violation.
8. The text is restored by Thucydides411, erased by Volunteer Marek and reinstated by Guccisamsclub : 12 February 2017, 21:02, 21:48 and 22:19
9. Just noticed this while preparing this report: Right after his first removal of material which refers to Clapper's false testimony, SPECIFICO discreetly goes sanitize Clapper's own article, trampling on longstanding content which undermines his position: 10 February 2017, 03:41 and 03:45. I'm not reverting those out of respect for the dispute resolution process, but wow, this does stretch the limits of good faith!

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

Warned in May 2016 by Coffee, December 2016 by Sagecandor and January 2017 by Octoberwoodland. Participated in numerous WP:AE threads and launched some. I will take SPECIFICO's word that he never launched any AE proceedings; I must have confused him with somebody else; sorry. — JFG ^talk 03:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not only SPECIFICO violates sanctions that he knows well, but he also neglects to self-revert when warned, ignores the arguments against his BLPVIO stance and only contributes to the ensuing editor discussion via vague innuendo against an imagined cabal of "freaks and geeks" who are "glued to their computers 24/7" in order to "edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over". After other editors on both sides of the argument have exchanged some detailed and reasonable views, SPECIFICO comes back to say unconstructive stuff like: since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases, which I must admit I have trouble parsing. His inflammatory comments demonstrate a failure to hear other editors or participate constructively in a civil discussion, in which 8 editors argue to keep the disputed material and 6 to remove it. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin note: Removed text exceeding 500 words.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filer's note: Removed extra material on the content dispute which I had provided in response to other editors' now-deleted statements. Reworded and shortened my further comments on the merits of the DS case vs BLPVIO claim. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the BLP argument

Here is the disputed prose as it stood before SPECIFICO deleted the second sentence as a "BLP smear unproven libelous allegation":

Writing in the Baltimore Sun, William Binney and Ray McGovern criticized the report published by the FBI and DHS on December 29, commenting that it "fell embarrassingly short" of the goal of proving Russian hacking.^[1] Binney and McGovern wrote that given Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's false testimony to Congress over NSA surveillance of Americans, and his involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking are warranted. Binney and McGovern proposed that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider, rather than hacked and exfiltrated by an outside group.^[1]

A BLP statement can be removed on sight per WP:3RRBLP if it is libelous, biased, unsourced or poorly sourced. This paragraph is impeccably sourced and attributed no less than three times to the authors, at the start of each sentence. Absolutely nothing is stated in wikivoice. There is no libel, as Clapper's false testimony and his participation in the Iraq WMD story are a matter of public record. Here's Clapper admitting his "erroneous response" to Congress, as reported by The Guardian and cited in Wikipedia: On July 1, 2013, Clapper issued an apology, saying that "My response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize."^[2] If it is considered a BLPVIO to cite some intelligence experts who use this fact in their argument about another high-level intelligence controversy involving Clapper, then let's see the same dissenters purge Clapper's article from all such accusations, which are numerous.

Given this situation, I maintain that I was well within policy to consider that SPECIFICO's BLP claim was unjustified and to revert him, and that he breached DS rules with his counter-revert. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if we couldn't revert spurious BLPVIO claims?

Welcome to The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia according to SPECIFICO and OID — JFG ^talk 02:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Removed editors' names from chart title, as one of them felt offended. — JFG ^talk 06:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responses to boomerang claims against me

@Laser brain: Nowhere in my report did I allege that SPECIFICO reverted more than once in 24 hours. Rather, I showed that he re-instated an edit which had been challenged by reversion (violation 1), and then cut the text again while the discussion among many editors was ongoing (violation 2), without participating constructively in said discussion. — JFG ^talk 07:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Casprings: Your example is another case of me challenging the blanket removal of relevant material; it is perfectly legit, and you are the one who breached DS by reverting my challenge, although it would have been cleaner if another editor had done the counter-revert, for which I apologize. In today's case, several editors intervened on both sides of the argument, which unfortunately turned into a mild edit war. Had SPECIFICO abided by DS by leaving my revert alone, no warring would have occurred. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Only in death: You are ignoring the policy basis for my edits: SPECIFICO wrongly reverted challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page. His CRYBLP claim is untenable, as demonstrated above. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: My report was in no way retaliatory, I wasn't even aware you had commented on another AE case when I posted it (took me a lot longer than 15 minutes!). My decision to file this followed from your second violation of DS (diff 7), according to administrators' interpretation of the "do no revert a challenged edit without consensus" policy, and the frivolity of your BLP claim. Note that I didn't jump here on the first violation (diff 3), and I gave ample justifications of my actions in my edit comments, on the article talk page and now here. To your other point: if you have specific complaints to justify requesting a 6-month TBAN against me, please open a separate case. Finally, my "alternate world" post is a sarcastic illustration of the sorry path that Wikipedia might take if we followed your interpretation of BLPVIO; it's pretty obvious that we should definitely not go there. — JFG ^talk 03:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Steve Quinn: My sample chart of absurdity does not purport to show how wrong these two editors are (I have now removed their names to avoid offense); it just illustrates how wrong an extreme interpretation of BLPVIO would be for Wikipedia as a whole. This is the meat of the matter in this case; much more important than determining whether editor A or editor B has technically violated a DS restriction, or "who shot first" in unauthorized reverts. — JFG ^talk 06:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

 Done [1]

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO[edit]

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

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

I want to keep this as brief and to the point as possible. I did not violate the DS on this article. The text in question constitutes an egregious BLP violation. I’m sorry to see CRYBLP mentioned here. It’s not at all applicable either to the content or to any of my behavior on WP. It’s not my bag. My view as to this BLP violation was supported by half a dozen editors on the article talk page. That doesn't happen when there's a disruptive or disingenuous CRYBLP event.

On WP, I have learned that edit warring is pointless. I follow 1RR almost all the time on ‘’all’’ articles. If I see somebody undo a revert on a DS article, I ignore it or I go to their talk page and ask them to undo their error. That’s about as much as I engage with that behavior. Sometimes they thank me, sometimes they cuss. I don’t pursue it, and I don’t use such violations as an excuse to edit-war. I do cite wikilinks to policies in caps on article talk pages. I'm surprised to see that disparaged or mischaracterized as threats.

I’m disappointed that JFG filed this groundless complaint, which appears to be retaliatory, coming 15 minutes after I cited some 1RR violations in Guccisamsclub’s recent case. Also, for the record, JFG states that I have initiated AE cases in the past. I have not. It’s a false and irrelevant aspersion responding to the simple question whether I know DS is in place. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. I just looked at the article talk page to find more disparaging personal remarks about me and OID, deflecting BLP policy principles to personal remarks at this recent edit: [2] JFG then linked to this, amazingly, on this AE page. This casts false aspersions and attributes views that neither OID nor SPECIFCO has ever voiced. It also appears to misrepresent article text as if one of us had edited it inappropriately. As the subsequent thread indicates, JFG instigated numerous misrepresentations and personal disparagement with his post. Under these circumstances, I do think it would help the editing environment if JFG were given, a TBAN from American Politics. His attacks, deflecting policy discussion to personal remarks and false aspersions have been going on for quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this diff on this AE page] JFG again misrepresents me, falsely claiming that I requested a TBAN for him, when in fact I was endorsing the possibility of a boomerang mooted by one of the Admins here. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thucydides411[edit]

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by OID[edit]

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can help you with diffs as to if a restriction was actually breached:

• First removal - not a revert 03:34 10th Feb.
• Second removal - 1st revert 00:22 11th Feb.
• Third removal - 2nd revert 20:28 12th Feb. More than 24 hours since last revert. Does not violate 1rr discretionary sanctions. And even if it did, unless there is consensus the raised BLP issue is not a BLP issue, revert-restrictions are exempt for BLP-related removals.

On the other hand we have JFG:

• First revert 19:21 10th Feb
• Second revert 07:12 12th Feb. More than 24 hours since last revert but contrary to BLP policy for removal of material with a good faith BLP concern AND the discretionary sanctions which explicitly state "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."

So Specifico has acted according to both policy and the sanctions and JFG clearly has not. And thats just the specific BLP issue, there is other material which has been discussed to be contentious which has also been reverted multiple times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Guccisamsclub[edit]

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning Darouet's statement, I'm not removing it as I did the others because it has diffs and is mostly on topic. However, I find it unconvincing. I'm reputed to be the hardest of hard-liners in civility enforcement, but I can't find a clearly actionable incivility in the reported diffs. Making confusing and "edgy" statements is normally not enough for sanctions in individual cases. It may become actionable if it is a longterm pattern of conduct that inhibits or disrupts productive discussion

My list of quotes and diffs from the editor was meant to establish precisely that: a long-term pattern of nonsensical, unfocused, unsourced, fringe and inconsiderate contributions. This has been erased, due to the fact that most quotes lacked diffs. If this is really an issue here, I'd be glad to provide the diffs (which would take a couple hours to assemble given the sheer volume of contribs). Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Darouet[edit]

Prior to SPECIFICO's removal the paragraph clearly couched all content in terms of Binney's and McGovern's views: William Binney… has expressed doubt... In Harper's Magazine, he told Andrew Cockburn... Writing in the Baltimore Sun, William Binney and Ray McGovern criticized the report... commenting that... Binney and McGovern wrote that… Binney and McGovern proposed that... Sandstein, literally every sentence begins with attribution. A reasonable person would have easily concluded that the phrase "false testimony" remains a part of Binney and McGovern's voice, and many article editors thought the same.

SPECIFICO did not rectify the problem by simply quoting from the piece directly (as I did here), but removed it wholesale, and made no post on Talk to explain themselves. When they finally did comment, their explanation was so brief as to be incomprehensible. Contrast that with MelbourneStar's clear description of the problem, which allowed us to improve the wording.

Laser brain writes that JFG may be in breach of D/S by subtly but powerfully re-interpreting the D/S proscription: "it may be you who violated the provision not to restore challenged text without consensus." In fact the D/S text is, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The Binney and McGovern material was there for some time, and SPECIFICO's removal ("edit") was challenged.

Guy: if SPECIFICO is in breach of D/S, I think the violation is trivial: realistically, it is very difficult to be certain of who is violating what when everybody is reverting.

The more important issue is civility. The WP:ARBAP2 "Final Decision" states,

• "Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion… Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook…etc”’’

Now, consider this Talk comment made by SPECIFICO only yesterday, while they were simultaneously bringing an A/E request against Guccisamsclub:

• "Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all."[3]

What is SPECIFICO saying here, except that all the editors who volunteer their time here but disagree with SPECIFICO are trolls? When I attempted to interpret their comments charitably, they rejected that interpretation, e.g. they really were referring to everyone else on the page.

At one point on Talk SPECIFICO incorrectly accused me and other editors of breaching D/S:

• " "I shall..." shows admirable resolve -- but it is not apt to make any denials go more smoothly if there's an AE discussion about reinstating disputed text."[4]

SPECIFICO repeated the same allegation on my talk page (as they have done several times to me and other editors, without ever, to me, providing diffs). When I responded on Talk, they extraordinarily chose to hat my comments in response to their allegations, writing absurdly, "words unrelated to article improvement."

That is incredibly offensive.

These kinds of behaviors are exactly what D/S are supposed to prevent. I think it would be foolish to sanction SPECIFICO for a revert when everyone is reverting, but the personal attacks and offensive behavior poison the tone of discussion and merit a strong warning. -Darouet (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandstein: fair enough, but consider your reaction if I hatted the comment you made just now and replaced it with the text, "words unrelated to article improvement," especially if you were responding to an allegation against you. Further, while the phrases "disruptive editors... highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies" may be confusing, I fail to see why they are "edgy," instead of "personal attacks" and "assumptions of bad faith." -Darouet (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandstein: Your interpretation of the text of DS is contrary to what it actually states, as MelanieN, an Admin, clearly explained only a week ago on the Talk page, and relies upon conflating "edit" with "text." You're putting us in a situation where sometimes removing text from an article is protected by DS, and sometimes reverting the removal of text is protected by D/S, and other times both actions are violations. Which is it? Anybody trained in mathematics will observe this is an impossible situation. -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Casprings[edit]

The reporter, JFG, has a history of violating 1rr to support his POV. One quick example is here. [5], [6] Casprings (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JFG: I think the problem is that you are putting something that was stated in an OP that accuses a living person of a felony. Moreover, it is something they have denied. It would be one thing if it was needed for the article and directly linked to the subject, but this is un-needed. One could simply stop the sentence and leave that part out. That said, this is something that could be discussed on the talk page or in further dispute resolution. To me, it just seems like you run rough shot over the concerns of other editors and turn around and cry foul. Casprings (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn[edit]

Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks... are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited...

I am not characterizing this as Battlefied behavior - far from it. However, this seems to be in pursuit of a quarrel pertaining to a statement and source no longer in the article at this time. However, what possible outcome could be expected from this? I know things get snarky, but this is not that. Talk page guidelines WP:TALK essentially say everybody should try to get along, right? In any case, I think this should be considered when evaluating whether or not a boomerang is appropriate.

Statement by Space4Time3Continuum2x[edit]

I didn't log in at all yesterday and only just now found found a notification that I was mentioned on this page. I don't see my name in here and I'm not sure if my comment is (still) requested. I don't have any complaint against SPECIFICO, and I usually find myself on the same side of the issues as SPECIFICO and on the opposing side of JFG. If arguments on both sides get a little "spirited" at times, it's still no reason to go running to teacher. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning SPECIFICO[edit]

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

• @JFG: I need to do some more research tomorrow but on the surface, it looks like SPECIFICO did not breech 1RR in a 24 hour period. In fact, your evidence indicates that it may be you who violated the provision not to restore challenged text without consensus. You may want to purchase some protective headgear as a boomerang may be inbound. --Laser brain (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Waiting for a concise statement by SPECIFICO. Everybody else, please keep in mind that AE does not resolve content disputes and that we are not a discussion forum about the finer points of either US politics or BLP policy. Statements by editors who are not parties to the request should be limited to facts that help admins decide whether to act on this request - such as links to previous relevant sanctions or enforcement actions, or submissions of relevant evidence, in the form of dated diffs, of conduct by parties in connection to the request's topic.  Sandstein  12:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• My initial assessment: The content removals by SPECIFICO in diffs 1 and 3 were justified by WP:BLP. Although the statement at issue ("James Clapper's false testimony") was attributed to a source, it was phrased in such a way that a reader could understand it as Wikipedia (rather than the source) asserting that Clapper falsely testified. It could be argued that rather than reverting the whole addition, SPECIFICO could have rephrased it in such a way as to avoid this ambiguity. However, the source is a newspaper op-ed, which is clearly an inappropriate source for BLP material because by its nature an op-ed does not pretend to assert facts, but to voice an individual opinion. (If it is uncontested that Clapper falsely testified, then there should be much better sources for that.). As to the remaining edits by SPECIFICO, their merits are a content issue and therefore outside the scope of this board, but I don't immediately see a policy or DS violation in them. I would therefore take no action here. I remain open of being convinced otherwise by collagues, though. I'm also looking forward to Laser brain's research regarding JFG's edits.  Sandstein  12:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Concerning Darouet's statement, I'm not removing it as I did the others because it has diffs and is mostly on topic. However, I find it unconvincing. I'm reputed to be the hardest of hard-liners in civility enforcement, but I can't find a clearly actionable incivility in the reported diffs. Making confusing and "edgy" statements is normally not enough for sanctions in individual cases. It may become actionable if it is a longterm pattern of conduct that inhibits or disrupts productive discussion, but that would need more and better evidence in a separate request.  Sandstein  15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Based on the evidence provided by Only in death does duty end, it does appear that JFG violated the restriction against reinstating any edits that have been reverted without consensus. I think that a brief topic ban from US-Russia relations might be appropriate.  Sandstein  13:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This probably does not violate the letter of the DS, but it plainly does violate the spirit. The use of WP:CRYBLP is common in such cases, of course. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandstein: I disagree that the edits were justified by BLP - this might not rise to the level of nine separate sources but it's clearly correctly attributed and any purported libel is not our problem, as we're only reporting what was said. WP:UNDUE might be a valid argument, I have no real view on that. However, both editors should have taken it to Talk. It is hard to see either as better than the other here. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ...I am having a hard time discerning whether either side breached enforceable sanctions, nor whether this rises to AE enforceable vs a content dispute gone slightly astray but with editors who have largely correctly retreated to talk page discussion. I think that edge technical violations of policy may be present on all sides but really? Come on, whyfor AE when normal editor discussion dealt is dealing with it? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I can live with closing this with no action, given that there seems to be somewhat questionable conduct on both sides but nothing that jumps out as immediately egregious. All parties should go back to resolving issues on the talk page instead of using AE as a battleground (I know, easier said than done). Without admin objection, I intend to close this accordingly sometime this (UTC) evening.  Sandstein  08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appealing user

Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Casprings (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

24 hour block from editing 2016 United States election interference by Russia

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

01:45, 19 February 2017 ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yeah missed that. My apologies. [7] Casprings (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Casprings[edit]

I have been given a 24 hour sanction for this edit [8] . The block was done by User:El C here [9]. I appeal this in two regards. One, I was never made aware of the conversation to block me, which took place here. I feel that I should have at least been notified of the conversation that involved me. Moreover, I am unsure of the need to act quickly, as this was the only revert and I am unsure of the ongoing damage I was doing. Second, I think this is harsh. I reverted one edit by JFG and went to the talk page. That said, I understand the need to gain concensus and I have been working to do that, especially in this topic area.Casprings (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I didn't think I did anything wrong, besides use my 1rr. I see the point on consensus on adding now. Casprings (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record: You are not blocked. Sanction being appealed "24 hour block from editing" is false. No such block exists. Or you would not be able to write here, at all. El_C 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is moot now because 24 hours have passed.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by El C[edit]

As I told the editor in question, there is no block. There is a 24 hour topic ban, both for Casprings (Here) and My very best wishes (Here) for breaching the reinstatement [of] any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page provision. Guccisamsclub was blocked (Here) for 24 hours due to a 1RR violation. As for being unaware, I'm sorry, but as I found out myself, upon editing the article, the provision is clearly stated. Granted, it may not be that straightforward, which is why, again, at my discretion, there were no blocks issued for breaching it. But it came close. *** Basically, I felt everyone involved in the edit war needed a break from the article's subject. Return in 24 hours and carry on. El_C 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved SPECIFICO)[edit]

For the record: At the time of the cited event, in which Casprings violated DS by reinstating reverted content, no editor had yet placed the required ARBAP2 DS notice template on Casprings' talk page. Upon seeing his error, I immediately placed the notice on his talk page here, because I have observed him to be a careful and collaborative editor on WP, and it was clear to me that he had not been aware of the reinstatement provision. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that Guccisamsclub made various scattershot accusations in the course of his attempt to deflect attention from his violation of DS. But Casprings is a collaborative editor and a simple notice, which he received immediately upon his violation, was sufficient to prevent any problem. This sanction has no preventive purpose and I recommend it be reversed. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C: Yes, the DS have been placed on the article talk page, but what is your view as to the requirement that an editor be notified with the talk page template? SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't view it as a requirement. Any notice of the DS will do; doesn't need to be in template form. Anyway, as far as DS go, this is so mild, I wasn't even gonna bother logging it. (But I will if and/or when it becomes more serious.) Fact is, I don't see it as serious as most AE usually are. It serves as much as a warning as anything. El_C 02:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It surprises me to see that no user talk page notice is required, and I think it would surprise everyone who has been posting these talk page DS Notices on active editors' talk pages, I believe that none of us knew that the DS Notice, which is referenced in the instructions for this AE page, is unnecessary. Could you or @Coffee: give us a link to where it says we need not post these notices. It would be easier not to, for sure. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think the question remains: What is accomplished by this sanction, however mild? Casprings got his warning from me when I posted the DS notice on his talk page. This is punitive, however mild, and that is clear from the very strange way it was brought up. I have no problem with Gucci trying to formulate a good faith AE report once his block is done, but this is quite out of process, and a very bad precedent in an area where we need more not less predictable process and transparency. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how it was out of process, and proving a negative (you asking of the closing admin to: "give us a link to where it says we need not post these notices") seems like a bit of a stretch. Again, I felt that everyone needed a 24-hour forced break from the content dispute and edit war thereof. El_C 05:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coffee: has shown the language I was asking about. This is very helpful. Proving a negative would be asking you to prove their are no green zebras in New Jersey. Asking for an ARCA link is much easier. :) I have no further concerns about this matter. Thanks everybody. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn[edit]

• I pretty much agree with SPECIFICO. This block should consider whether or not Casprings actually had knowledge of the consequences in a 1RR environment.

He seems to be a collaborative editor inclined to edit according to Wikipedia standards, rather than his standards or other arbitrary standards. Steve Quinn (talk)

• Or, this block should consider whether or not Casprings is familiar with editing in a 1RR environment. I am guessing from the actions that led to this block, this might not be so. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not to sound like a broken record, but Casprings was not blocked. El_C 02:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just to be clear - I apologized to El_C for the misunderstanding on their talk page. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

I think El_C exercised good judgement here. No objections from me. I just came back from a break and quickly made a few edits without looking carefully. My apology. All rules must be respected including 1RR and others.

I do believe this editing restriction ("You...must not reinstate any challenged edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page") is unhelpful and brings more harm than good because it allows removing important and well sourced information, unless it has strong consensus for inclusion. This is frequently not the case simply because many people stay away of such pages, and there are simply not enough contributors willing to express their views on the article talk page (hence the consensus is not clear). If anyone made such restriction for all pages, that would be very harmful for the project. However, the rule must be followed as long as it remains on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The question of this particular sanction aside; it may be worth considering whether the "consensus required" and 1RR restrictions are fundamentally compatible (I believe they may not be, and that the "consensus required" alone may be preferable; 1RR is easily & often gamified); and it may worth considering whether there should be a lower limit on the duration of sanctions which can be appealed (I am ambivalent on this). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by Casprings[edit]

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

• It seems like to me that this was a reasonable and deserved sanction. The page restriction placed in the editnotice is considered an acceptable warning, as was found at ARCA, and additional warnings are not necessary before admin action. Therefore, I see declining this as the only logical course of action. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @SPECIFICO: While the warning at user talkpages requirement still applies to most of the articles covered under DS, it does not apply to articles that have had page restrictions imposed on them with a warning in the editnotice. From the Arbitration Committee policy:

    Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator.
    Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template (((ds/editnotice))).

  The only time the editnotice cannot be considered a substitute for the standard DS alert is if the edits were made via the mobile GUI (as the warning will not render). As that is clearly not the case here, the editor cannot claim they were unaware of the page restrictions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree with Coffee. Based on my review of the diffs and statements above, the short sanction imposed is reasonable. Therefore, I would decline this appeal. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User:Casprings has commented above that this is moot since 24 hours have passed. This suggests he won't mind if the request is closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Appealing user

Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Kyohyi (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

3 month block, imposed at User talk: Ranze

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[[11]]

Statement by Ranze[edit]

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on talk:Zoe Quinn asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that.

Laser did not like the edits I made to people v. Turner and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something.

I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made. This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain[edit]

Note: Ranze does not consider People v. Turner to be covered by the "gender-based controveries" topic area, from which he was topic banned for a year. During his last visit to AE, The Wordsmith and I both advised him that People v. Turner is indeed in this domain and the only reason he wasn't sanctioned is because his TB had elapsed. The content of his edits at the time wasn't really examined. This piece of background is critical if it's to be determined whether the current sanction is valid.

Ranze bumped around for a while doing other things but then decided to return to editing at People v. Turner. I advised him that his edits show an agenda and that he should stay away from that topic. The following edits are of concern:

• [12] - Removes mention that the victim was unconscious and intoxicated and adds text in another area stating both parties were intoxicated (only).
• [13] - Edit wars to keep it in after it's challenged and he's asked to discuss on Talk.
• [14] - Changes wording from "sexually penetrated ... with his fingers" to "digitally penetrated" which was wikilinked to fingering (sexual act), an article about a consensual sexual technique.
• [15] - Rewords a statement about Turner's sentence to say people called it light instead of it being light (he made a similar edit to Ethan Couch).

My impression is that Ranze's agenda is to soften Turner's image and marginalize the victim. He may believe he's editing neutrally but I think he's pushing a POV against the consensus established at this article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandstein: There's a bit of confusion going around about the TB so just for clarity: Ranze is not currently under an active TB in this area; it expired in 2016. However, it is my contention that People v. Turner is under DS as a "gender-based controversy". As others have pointed out, there is a strong argument for rape culture and campus rape falling under this topic area. So my administrative action is an application of DS for poor behavior, not a block due to a violation of a topic ban. I warned him to stay away from this topic after the above series of edits, and he returned anyway to continue pushing his POV. --Laser brain (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Wordsmith: I apologize for mischaracterizing your position—it was not intentional and I apparently didn't read your later comments carefully. I will note, however, that People v. Turner (and Zoë Quinn, where Ranze has also reinvolved himself) are eligible for DS under ARBBLP as well, so the question of whether it is a "gender-based controversy" isn't really as important as the question of whether Ranze is behaving poorly. I don't mean to play DS bingo here, but I think we owe it to the community for the focus to be on the behavior. If no one agrees he is pushing an agenda, then let's unblock and move on. --Laser brain (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kyohyi[edit]

First, I think it is important to point out that three out of four of Laser brain's diff's are basically a content dispute. His comments here, his block rationale on Ranze's talk page [16], and his "warning's" [17],[18] demonstrate that his motivation for blocking Ranze was due to him disagreeing on content with Ranze's contributions. This is pretty clearly WP: INVOLVED behavior for an admin. Further, Ranze is not subject to any gender based topic ban at this time, the last topic ban expired April of 2016. [19] --Kyohyi (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I would also like to add that all of the diff's provided by Laser brain date back to 2/4, and 2/5. Laser brain didn't block Ranze until 2/12. Ranze and Laser brain had discussion on Ranze's talk page until 2/7 when Ranze stopped editing until resuming on 2/12. What happened on 2/12 that warrants the block? The diff's provided from 2/4, and 2/5 shouldn't be applicable without something also from 2/12. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the scope of topic bans has come up again, (this was brought up the last time Ranze was brought to AE, though it didn't get resolved there) I'm going to link to our topic banning policy WP: TBAN and ask, is the article on the whole gender related, or are there just elements of the article that are gender related. Just because something is partially discussed in terms of gender doesn't mean the whole thing is gender related. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandstein: Are you implying that administrators get to determine what content is neutral, and non-neutral and can sanction accordingly? --Kyohyi (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the admins in the bottom, how are you not ruling on content? I recommend a good reading of WP: CONADMIN. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (uninvolved editor MjolnirPants)[edit]

This is just a quick interjection from someone uninvolved who has (probably stupidly) watchlisted this page. I looked through the edits in question and I agree that they demonstrate an agenda to minimize Turner's culpability, because the editor has made no edits to this page which had any other effect. The claim that these edits better reflected the sources does not account for the fact that we normally state uncontested claims from reliable sources in wikivoice to avoid stating facts as opinions. I'll recuse myself from sticking my nose further into this by unwatching the page, so please ping me if you have any questions or comments about my statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess who's back! I just wanted to point out that Ranze has responded to my comment above on their talk page by presenting an edit which shows (IMHO) that this POV pushing has been going on for several months, at least. I'm not going to say any more, but any admins who are interested can read my response at their talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by CIreland[edit]

@Sandstein: You asked for it to be "made more clear how this is within the topic ban's scope" given that "The identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female, respectively, does not seem to have been an issue in the case, nor their views on gender, or the case's impact on women or men in particular, or anything like that." I think your premise here is mistaken. Much of the coverage of People v. Turner in the press and elsewhere focused on the incident as a consequence of rape culture and our article mentions this fact. Additionally, there has been significant analysis following Turner's release of how the case reflects a normalization of violence against women and have specifically cast both the incident and the case as a gender issue. Here are some examples [20][21][22][23].

I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate that Ranze's edits are within scope but there is a further point I wanted to mention:

Sandstein, you seem to imply in your remarks that rape and sexual assault are not a gender issues. That is a reasonable and widely held opinion. However, there are also widely held opinions to the contrary. I think that you should weigh more cautiously this divergence of opinion on the matter and be careful not to base your decision only on your own perspective. CIreland (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]

@Sandstein: In the event that you did remove Ranze's block, would you be doing so procedurally, because you believe Ranze's edits don't fall under the topic area of 'gender-related dispute or controversy', or would you be doing so because you truly believe that their actions were helpful to the goal of building an encyclopedia? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

I will note that previous AE consensus determined that the Gamergate topic ban covered any articles or topics related in any substantive way to rape or sexual assault, and that I was thus prohibited from editing such articles while under that restriction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]

I don't see justification for any sanction here. Whether the topic is covered by DS or not, the only disruptive behavior is one (debatably bad) revert. If that standard were applied consistently we'd have no editors left in edit American Politics or any other DS topic. The rest is down to content choices which is not a subject for AE or administrative action. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

With regard to the discussion about whether the article falls under the DS topic. There was a previous clarification request regarding the GG sanctions and whether it applied to the Campus rape article which might be helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)[edit]

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

The diffs provided by LB show no violation. Some of the edits were removing Wiki voice, such as the one where the sentence was referred to as light, is that Wiki's opinion or some people? And I do fail to see how that article should be subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by Ranze[edit]

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

• @Laser brain: Could you please indicate which specific edits you blocked Ranze for, and why?  Sandstein  15:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks. Ranze contends that People v. Turner is not related to a "gender-related dispute or controversy" and therefore not within the scope of Ranze's topic ban the discretionary sanctions topic area, and I tend to agree. The article is about a highly publicized case of sexual assault committed by a man against a woman. However, I don't see what in the article or the edits at issue is particularly related to the issue of gender ("the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity"). The identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female, respectively, does not seem to have been an issue in the case, nor their views on gender, or the case's impact on women or men in particular, or anything like that. Even the offense of sexual assault, while presumably most often committed by men against women, can be committed by and against people of either gender. Unless it is made more clear how this is within the topic ban's scope, I would accept the appeal and undo the block.  Sandstein  18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amended comment to make clear that this block was apparently not a reaction to violations of a seemingly expired topic ban, but to the non-neutral edits by Ranze. I acknowledge CIreland's point that the article mentions that the case triggered discussions about rape culture, which certainly is a gender-related issue. I'm just not sure that the connection is strong enough to make the article as a whole covered by discretionary sanctions. What do other admins think? – If we were to conclude that this is within scope, I would probably consider the block within admin discretion, even if I myself might not have made it: contributors should edit neutrally, per WP:NPOV, and making edits only to advance one particular point of view violates this rule, even though it is sadly common.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, Strongjam for linking to a clarification request establishing that campus rape is covered by the discretionary sanctions. The article People v. Turner is about broadly similar subject matter and therefore also covered. On that basis, as explained above, I would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Since my comments at a previous AE have been brought up, I need to clarify that Laser brain misrepresents what I said. While initially I agreed that this article was within the scope, after discussing with other admins and editors I revised my position. See my last comment during that AE thread, which reads in part "Furthermore, after thinking more about the issue, while the "gender-based controversies" is absurdly vague, I do not believe it applies here. This is an article about an court case prosecuting a rapist. Courts are not gendered, and rape is not a gendered crime. The fact that this one happened to involve a male and a female does not make it gender-based. Many in the public believe the judge is sexist (which has been picked up by some RS), but that is a very small part of the article and not, in my interpretation, sufficient to make the entire article a gender-related controversy.

My position since then has not changed. I continue to believe that this article is not within the scope of WP:ARBGG, except for the snippets dealing with allegations of gender bias. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sandstein, I've had to reach for the smelling salts at the idea of People v. Turner not being a gender-based controversy, and that the "identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female ... does not seem to have been an issue". The case was suffused with male and class privilege, like a flashback to the 70s—the light sentence; the judge's focus on harm to the convicted and not to the victim; that the victim was questioned about what she had been wearing; the father's attitude; the apparent importance to the court that the convicted man was a swimmer. It's the very essence of a gender-based controversy.
  Looking at just one of Ranze's edits, on 4 February he removed that the victim was unconscious. That she was unconscious, and therefore could not have consented, was the key factor in the case, so that was a highly provocative edit. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree that P v Turner falls under gender-based controversy; rapes are nearly uniquely badly one such incident. I could live with a decision that commutes the block to a permanent topic ban and unblocks, but the edits seem inappropriate, the AE authority here clear enough, and the "that's enough" message reasonable under the circumstances. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I concur with the Boing! proposal below. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• People v. Turner appears to me to fall with the scope of gender-based controversies, for similar reasons as SarahSV. On that basis I believe the block should stand. I'd also support the imposition of an indefinite TBAN from the area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• People v. Turner clearly falls under the scope of "gender-based controversies" in my view. The block is entirely reasonable given the edit highlighted by SarahSV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• While not every rape case may do so, People vs Turner clearly comes under the scope of gender based controversies because it was, as Slim Virgin says, centered around gender, race and class. If that was the primary motivation behind the block, then it is definitely justified. --regentspark (comment) 00:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm rarely moved to opine on an AE appeal, but I'm seeing insidious POV pushing here of a very nasty nature that I can't ignore, in an article that is clearly within the "gender-based controversies" scope. I think the block is good, the appeal should be declined, and we need to impose an indefinite topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Recommend that we decline Ranze's appeal of the three-month block and support Boing's proposal to impose an indefinite topic ban from ARBGG. The phrase 'gender-based controversy' is not as clear as we could wish, but in case of doubt we can't go wrong by accepting Arbcom's view that it includes campus rape. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 DrChrissy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Jytdog_.26_DrChrissy_iban :

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

1. Feb-20
2. Feb-20
3. Feb-20

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Also see this

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The report at ANI has been titled "‎reporting myself (and Jytdog)" for some time. It is specifically about Jytdog. It is unfathomable that posting in an ANI topic about another editor which you are banned from interacting with is not a violation of the ban. By posting there DrChrissy also precluded Jytdog from commenting in that portion of the topic. This could be seen as baiting.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning DrChrissy[edit]

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

Statement by DrChrissy[edit]

Statement by Timothyjosephwood[edit]

See also this recent thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]

Again? In addition to Beyond My Ken's comments on DrChrissy's problems with following sanctions, they are just coming off their block for violating their GMO topic ban. Part of the GMO topic ban was because of the battleground behavior directed at editors by DrChrissy as well as a tendency to hound those editors on admin boards. That was especially a problem with DrChrissy and Jytdog interactions, which is why the interaction ban was added on with the topic ban.

That block was supposed to be for a week, but their emails with Sandstein suggested a block was no longer needed and it was lifted early on Feb 1. That block should have indicated that kind of behavior was not ok, but now it's going on with someone DrChrissy has an actual interaction ban with. There's a such a long string of DrChrissy not abiding by their sanctions just in the GMO case and follow-up AEs (not to mention their other topic ban) that I'm quite frankly out of ideas that could help them now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Capeo[edit]

Well, this is disappointing. It's unfortunately clear now that DrChrissy is watching anything that has to do with Jytdog like a hawk and seems to not want to drop the stick. There's this, the recent ANI report linked above where I tried to persuade DrChrissy to let it go, the recent, oddly timed emails to people Jytdog had some conflict with. It's all adding up to indicate DrChrissy is watching Jytdog's contributions, something someone under an Iban shouldn't be doing. Even jumping into KingofAces AE report above indicates they just can't let go of the results of the GMO Arb case and those editors involved. I'm not sure how to stop this from happening but it has to stop.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning DrChrissy[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Thucydides411[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Thucydides411 (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:ARBAP2, WP:ARBAPDS :

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

• Violation of Limit of one revert in 24 hours: 2016 United States election interference by Russia is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). See the below diffs:

#07:14, 11 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO

1. 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting Space4Time3Continuum2x
2. 21:02, 12 February 2017 reverting SPECIFICO

#16:52, 13 February 2017 reverting Only in death

1. 20:33, 14 February 2017 Here it appears Thucydides411 reverts two edits by Space4Time3Continuum2x. These are the two prior edits by SpaceTime: 19:35, 14 February 2017 and 19:40, 14 February 2017.
2. 20:34, 14 February 2017 Reverts Space4Time3Continuum2x again. This particular material was earlier removed by Space Time 15:05, 12 February 2017.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on10 January 2017
• DS notify template on user talk page: 15:11, 23 January 2017]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rather than allowing talk page discussions to take their course Thucydides411 resolutely keeps reverting other productive editors edits to their preferred version. These talk page discussions include

• Space Time 15:01, 12 February 2017, 15:09, 12 February 2017,
• Neutrality 19:44, 12 February 2017,
• Only in death 16:13, 13 February 2017, 17:25, 13 February 2017, 13 February 2017,
• Volunteer Marek 21:50, 12 February 2017 and *SPECIFICO 02:40, 12 February 2017.

It seems these edits are meant to be a temporary improvement to comply with Wikipedia policies, while the material is being discussed. As has been shown by diffs in this section, these productive editors are highly experienced, articulate, and have more than aptly pointed out the deficiencies with material they have been adjusting to bring into compliance. Thucydides411 has demonstrated a rigidity and an IDHT attitude, eschewing any kind of helpful feedback. That is demonstrated by the diffs in the above section. Instead, this person has become a one person authority who overrides established policies and meaningful feedback, as demonstrated by the continual reversions. I had in mind slow motion edit warring when I started this. This occurs when a user reverts a number of editors in a reasonably short time, contravening the spirit of not edit warring, or in this case 1RR. However, it may be there are actual 1RR violations. Of course, that is for the Admins to determine.

• Sandstein I am in the process of attempting to amend my complaint per DS. This is not a rehash of Clapper.
• Sandstein I have amended my complaint per your request. See amendments and corrections above. If this is not clear then please let me know.

• @Sandstein: and @EdJohnston: These edits termed "the same edit" by Darouet are not the same edit 21:02, 12 February 2017 (revert Space Time), 21:02, 12 February 2017 (revert Specifico).

These are two edits that happened within the span of a minute of each other. I know this because, I noticed these two edits appeared to have occurred within the same minute. This just means that Thucydides411 was fast. It doesn't matter that these happened during the same minute, it only matters there were two edits - two reversions. If you look at the ending of the urls each one is different - here is the first: one:oldid=765136639; here is the second: next&oldid=765142779. These are different urls because each diff has unique url.

• @Sandstein: and @EdJohnston: Likewise, the next two in the sequence above are different edits. First, as previously stated

"20:33, 14 February 2017 Here it appears Thucydides411 reverts two edits by Space4Time3Continuum2x. These are the two prior edits by SpaceTime: 19:35, 14 February 2017 and 19:40, 14 February 2017.

20:34, 14 February 2017 Reverts Space4Time3Continuum2x again. This particular material was earlier removed by Space Time 15:05, 12 February 2017.

Again unique urls apply. Here are the ends of the diff urls. First is: next&oldid=765502899. The second is: next&oldid=765510434.

Also, keep in mind, two edits by Space Time were reverted with this one the above first edit in the second sequence - so how does that add up under DS 1RR restrictions?

• I noticed this while I was filling out the form for the complaint - it stands out in my mind. It just means Thucydides411 was fast, doing these edits in under a minute during the first sequence, as well as the second sequence.
• Take a look at the diffs in this editing window - the urls are different. For clarity see this:

Here is diff number 1 of the first sequence: 21:02, 12 February 2017

Here is diff number 2 of the first sequence: [21:02, 12 February 2017

Here is diff number 1 of the second sequence: 20:33, 14 February 2017

Here is diff number 2 of the second sequence: 20:34, 14 February 2017

• Also, notice the second sequence actually shows one minute difference between each edit.

• It appears that Darouet doesn't have the complete picture. First I was unaware of any history with that edit, if there is any (16:14, 11 February 2017). Then, I opened up a discussion right away (16:23, 11 February 2017). Third, it was restored rather quickly by James J. Lambden (20:53, 11 February 2017). Also, please take a look at how many edits have I recently made to the article main-space compared to other editors. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @James J. Lambden: Thanks for the 3RR clarification - I guess Darouet pointed this out earlier.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 07:38, 15 February 2017

Discussion concerning Thucydides411[edit]

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

Statement by Thucydides411[edit]

From the original complaint, it's unclear what, exactly, Steven Quinn is accusing me of. Steven Quinn writes that, "Thucydides411 has demonstrated a rigidity and an IDHT attitude, eschewing any kind of helpful feedback," and cites a few talk page diffs to try to support this argument. Interestingly, none of those diffs are of my talk page comments, but rather of various other editors. I'm involved in active talk-page discussion of the issues that Steven Quinn is worried about. For example:

• [24] Discussing the quote by Pierre Sprey.
• [25] Discussing the Binney and McGovern article.

I understand that working on contentious articles like 2016 United States election interference by Russia is frustrating, and can lead to a lot of bad blood, and that one side can get the impression that the other side simply isn't listening. But there are a number of editors working through the various issues raised in this complaint (and in OID's comment below) on the talk page. As can be seen in the above diffs (and in the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia), I've been very involved in those discussions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: As MelanieN explained on the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia (in this comment), removal of long-standing content requires consensus: "Removal of longstanding material actually counts as an 'edit', which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus". I'm simply following this interpretation. If that interpretation is in error, let me know. Apparently, that interpretation of policy comes from a discussion between a group of admins on MelanieN's talk page: [26] [27]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What SPECIFICO is claiming is that I've violated policy on reinstating a potential BLP violation. First, based on DS policy, as explained by MelanieN to us, this would not be a 1RR violation, because removal of long-standing content requires consensus. So let's look at the BLP question. At first, the idea that mention of a famous incident involving a public figure (James Clapper) would be a BLP violation struck me as implausible. Even at the James Clapper article, there is an entire, well-sourced section on this incident, which would seem to argue against this being a BLP violation. I explained my rationale [28] in detail. The person who brought this AE complaint against me, Steve Quinn, even told me they appreciated my "well articulated" response ([29]). But after Only in death insisted on the talk page that mention of the Clapper testimony incident was a BLP violation and reverted my reinstatement of the text ([30]), I did not attempt to reinstate it again, but rather continued discussing the matter on the talk page (and it's been a long discussion now). I and several other editors think these claims of a BLP violation are spurious, and we've urged the editors who think there is a violation to go to the BLP noticeboard with their concerns, but we're still discussing the issue on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coffee: If I read your comment correctly, you're proposing giving me a block for editing in exactly the same manner as numerous other editors on the page - in a manner that MelanieN, an admin, explicitly told us editors working on that page was consistent with the 1RR policy. If I'm handed a block, it seems that consistency demands the following editors, who James J. Lambden showed below (with diffs) have edited in the same manner, receive equivalent blocks:

• JFG
• FallingGravity
• Volunteer Marek
• MelanieN
• James J. Lambden
• Neutrality
• EvergreenFir

Finally, the user who brought this case also violated the exact same restriction, according to your reasoning, as Darouet has shown below (with diffs):

• Steve Quinn

It would seem to me that at the very least, whatever decision is reached should apply equally to all editors who have edited in the same manner, including the user who brought this complaint. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: The interpretation of "longstanding" as referring to a length of time that a given text has been in the article comes from MelanieN's comments on the talk page ([31]), and the discussion of 1RR that she directed us to: [32]. Specifically, NeilN referenced a timespan of 4-6 weeks for heavily edited articles: [33]. If you feel there are valid BLP concerns, you should bring them to the BLP noticeboard, as several editors have asked you to do. But you haven't gone to the BLP noticeboard, and you've responded to requests on the talk page that you clarify your concerns with personal attacks ([34]), giving several editors the impression that you're using WP:CRYBLP to try to shield yourself from having to comply with 1RR. You should worry about WP:BOOMERANG as much as anyone here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by OID[edit]

Timeline for Sandstein:

12 February 2017 Case against Specifico opened which includes explicitly that Specifico had removed content citing a BLP objection.

08:08 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 commented here in the previous case so was obviously aware it had been removed as BLP issue both from the article itself and that it was currently at an enforcement noticeboard.

11:32 13 February 2017 My first removal of material. (Note my removal was actually less than other editors at the article being concerned only with the BLP aspect, not the wider NPOV/UNDUE issue)

12:36 13 February 2017 You yourself noted here the removals by Specifico appeared to be good faith BLP concerns (in part).

16:52 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts me, despite there being clear BLP arguments on the talkpage, this enforcement page, and in previous edit summaries on the article.

So to sum up: Thucydides411 was aware at the time they were reverting there were BLP arguments as well as wider disputes over the entire section involving the Baltimore Sun opinion piece. They were also aware it had been raised here. So violating both the BLP policy as well as the discretionary sanctions on the page itself. While the above was closed with no action, Thucydides411 was still reverting *after the enforcement action had been opened* and after they were clearly aware multiple people, (including completely uninvolved editors like me) had problems with that specific material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George, the article is already under a DS 1rr and the material was removed under a BLP rationale anyway.

Statement by JFG[edit]

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no new evidence in the form of diffs.  Sandstein  13:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EdJohnston's comment of 16 February 19:11 UTC notes that Thucydides411 reverted Space4Time3Continuum2x arguing "No consensus for removal" and that Thucydides "had it backwards" because he should get a consensus for re-inserting instead. This reasoning ignores prior edits in this sequence whereby the original sourced and attributed statement, included for over a month, was first removed by SPECIFICO (BOLD) and reverted by me (REVERT), upon which SPECIFICO deleted the text again (violating DS but claiming a BLP exception) and I opened a discussion (DISCUSS). Subsequently, several editors chimed in on both sides of the central argument: deciding whether Binney's statement about Clapper's false testimony to Congress qualifies as a BLPVIO (and that discussion is not settled yet). Thucydides has been an active participant in the discussion, and accordingly should not be sanctioned for "violating the DISCUSS requirement".

The unfortunate thing is that several editors also removed and restored the contentious material back and forth while the discussion was ongoing, prompting me to later open a DS/AE case that was just discussed and dismissed above. The DS behavioral question boils down to "who shot first", with Thucydides411 and others trying to enforce "return to status quo ante until consensus is obtained" per DS notice and guidance from admins NeilN [35] and Awilley[36], while SPECIFICO and others try to enforce removal of what they perceive as a BLP violation. Given lack of consensus on this question after a good week of comments and no less than three AE cases (Steve Quinn vs Guccisamsclub, JFG vs SPECIFICO and Steve Quinn vs Thucydides411), I agree with some other editors that the appropriate venue to settle the underlying dispute would be WP:BLP/N. — JFG ^talk 09:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also would welcome official guidance to clarify whether NeilN and Awilley's interpretation of DS wording — You […] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article — can be considered authoritative. This would discourage slow-warring as happened here and nip several similar disputes in the bud. — JFG ^talk 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A similar sequence just happened again:

• SPECIFICO deletes some longstanding content [37]
• I revert him [38]
• Geogene counter-reverts, violating DS [39]. Geogene did open a discussion but he should have left the restored text alone until such discussion reaches consensus. Even independently of a DS-restricted article, this should be basic BRD practice and courtesy.

I don't want to open a fourth AE case and we really need strong admin guidance on whether removing longstanding text is a challengeable edit or whether only text additions are challengeable (which would imho be an unbalanced restriction). — JFG ^talk 09:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Darouet[edit]

I'll post more after midnight UTC (am at work till then), but Steve Quinn has erased most of their complaint and left only examples of two instances of two contiguous edits. WP:3RR clearly states, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Under that well-known rubric, these consecutive edits ([40][41]) are a revert, and so are these ([42][43]). How on earth do Thucydides411's consecutive edits, made within one minute of one another, become transformed into multiple reverts? Or is there another policy you're thinking of, Sandstein, which explains why consecutive edits are not counted as a revert (and could you link it, please)? The page has already seen plenty of contiguous edits, reverting others and with admins present, that nobody considered to be DS violations.

Thucydides411 has been perhaps the most active and constructive editor on the Talk Page, and consistently eschewed the bitter tone that has prevailed there: blocking in that context almost comes across like punishment of civility. It is furthermore inappropriate to treat WP:AE as a changing menu where if WP:BLP fails, WP:DS is invoked. This is especially ironic since from a purely technical perspective, Steven Quinn has themselves

• violated DS sanctions 16:14, 11 February 2017
• edit had already been challenged by reversion 19:21, 10 February 2017

by "reinstating an edit that had been challenged (via reversion)" (direct quote from DS) for the content that is the basis of their second complaint in days (first against Guccisamsclub). Steve was not reported for this but has no consensus for his edit. Instead of doing the obvious and demonstrating good faith by making a post at WP:BLPN (as anyone with a genuine BLP concern would immediately do - and as Guy pointed out there is no obvious BLP problem), Steve is attempting to use AE as a supervote in a content dispute. -Darouet (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: the DS wording reads, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." As plainly described by MelanieN [44], the understanding on Talk page has been that the removal of longstanding article text, if challenged by reversion, requires consensus if it is to be removed again (see also [45] and [46]). Otherwise, almost every editor on the page (myself included, but also JFG, James J. Lambden, Guccisamsclub, Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO) are guilty of the very same thing in the same or related contexts.

All of us are trying to argue about what content should be in the article or not, while observing the DS restrictions. But it would be bizarre to enforce a particular vision of DS policy against one editor for one edit. It is also highly problematic to change the interpretation of DS after the edits have already been made. In the United States, most constitutional protections for editors/citizens are found in the Bill of Rights, but one was so important - the proscription against Ex post facto law - that it was included in the original document. It is not reasonable to demand different standards after the fact, and then apply them selectively. -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: Much might be said in response to your comment, but suppose for a moment we apply your particular interpretation, ex post facto. Right now, the OP Steve Quinn has removed material with a majority of editors opposed, when that removal had already been contested by reversion [47] (twice in fact). Are you going to propose a WP:BOOMERANG against Steve Quinn? What is your view on that? Sandstein, would you also support a Boomerang? -Darouet (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coffee: Can you be a little more specific in your reasoning? The link you provided does not clarify why longstanding article text can be repeatedly removed without consensus, but that restoring that text violates DS. In fact it appears to state, per Callanecc that the restriction applies to "some specific content that cannot be added or removed." The point is, why is the OP Steve Quinn allowed to carry out a third revert to remove longstanding text, but a majority of editors cannot restore it? This does not follow either from the DS wording or from the link you've given, unless I'm reading the wrong section. -Darouet (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]

@EdJohnston: There's a difference between:

• WP:BLP, which prohibits reinstatement of challenged content without consensus

and the warning you reference:

• All editors must obtain consensus ... before reinstating any edits, which prohibits reinstatement of challenged edits without consensus

The edit in this case - according to admins MelanieN [1] and NeilN [2] - would have been Space4Time3Continuum2x's removal of content, which Thucydides411 reverted, in line with the policy.

Was the intent of the language to prohibit restoration of content? If so it really needs clarification because in some cases they mean the exact opposite and it's managed to mislead even experienced admins. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @EdJohnston: The issue is: (c) a revert of someone else's change if there is a clear talk page consensus against their change As Darouet says almost every editor in the article has restored longstanding text without first gaining a clear talk page consensus for restoration. Just from a quick search:

• JFG
• FallingGravity
• Volunteer Marek
• MelanieN
• myself
• Neutrality
• EvergreenFir

Including an interpretation as part of the close would be very helpful. Your interpretation would make it easier to remove contentious material, which I think might improve the article but it's not the interpretation we've been operating under. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is getting too confusing.

@Steve Quinn: See WP:3RR which defines a revert as:

• An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions

Whether Thucydides411 hit the submit button once or a dozen times as long as his edits were sequential with no intervening edits, for the purpose of reverting they count as a single edit.

@Coffee: In the ARCA case (if I'm reading it correctly) Callenecc describes your restriction as a:

• "revert restriction which enforces WP:BRD"

Both diffs in this complaint - and there are only two per the definition of revert above - show Thucydides411 as the "R" in "BRD" meaning they comply with your restriction. But in your comment below you say he's violated your restriction. Have I misread the case or your comment?

We have a number of editors (and admins @MelanieN: @NeilN:) genuinely confused about what behavior the restrictions mandate. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

I'll present a single incident of Thucydides411's edit-warring and smug disregard for the DS consensus requirement. I removed a BLP violation at
00:22, 11 February 2017 here: [48].

Thucydides411 ignored the BLP violation and instead of seeking consensus to restore the text, he reinserted it at
07:14, 11 February 2017 here: [49]

Another editor, seeing the BLP violation, removed it. Then, on the talk page, @Only in death: warned not to reinsert it. However Thucydides responded by falsely accusing OID of a 1RR violation. OID's warning was at
16:13, 13 February 2017‎ here: [50]

Thucydides reinserted the BLP violation for the second time after Only in death's warning. The reinsertion is at
16:52, 13 February 2017 here: [51] Thucydides then went to the talk page to post a denial of the violation he had just made at
17:03, 13 February 2017 here: [52]

I hope this is clear and to the point. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now we're seeing a fog of somewhat imprecise claims about alleged ambiguity in the DS restrictions, as if any such ambiguity would permit an editor to aggressively edit within the circle of confusion rather than to stay extra far from the line or to seek clarification at Arbcom. The fact is that Thucydides reinstated a BLP violation after half a dozen editors warned him not to and after several editors had removed the violation in various forms under which it was edit-warred back in. And of course the comments on Thucydides' behalf on this AE thread are from a who's-who of those who, like Thucydides411, reinserted the content. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the excuses for Thucydides' edit-warring are now based on equivocation about "longstanding..." But none of the text under discussion was longstanding in the sense that it had been discussed on talk and a consensus demonstrated. Many articles have a set of issues that have come up on talk over an extended period of time during which active editors have commented and addressed any concerns. That is simply not the case with this article. It's not credible to claim that text that's escaped challenge for one month is "longstanding" -- when editors are poring over the deep dense thicket of references, many of them cherry-picked obscure opinions. It would go against the purpose of ARBAP2 if editors were only able to remove all this bad content immediately, otherwise it's "longstanding". Contentious articles need more editors and a diverse set of editors, not ideologues who are obsessed with the topic, with their POV, or who deny the mainstream view and seek out marginal media snippets, UNDUE opinions, and the like. The "longstanding" thing is a straw man. Many editors warned about the BLP violation. Why did Thucydides think it so urgent that he disregarded this so as to re-insert the disputed text into the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thycydides411: I do not see a definition of "longstanding" at the link to @MelanieN:'s talk page. If you have a definition that refutes my statement above, please provide the link. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Guccisamsclub[edit]

Do administrators agree that an edit can be either deletion of long-standing text or insertion of new text? If we agree on that, then:

• SPECIFICO made the initial edit (claiming, falsely, that the falsity of Clapper's statemetn is "uproven"),
• Was reverted/challenged by JFG (who claimed, correctly, that Clapper's testimony has been proven false in reliable-sources)
• Was reinstated (so much for seeking consenus) by SPECIFICO—in violation of 1RR and AE just a few hours later, who claimed that an official's testimony can be considered "false" only if the official has been convicted in court, reliable sources and facts be damned.
• Was reverted again, this time by Thucydides411, who objected to SPECIFICO's understanding of BLP policy.
• Was [reinstated again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=764885686] by Melbourne star.
• Finally, even this reinstatement was not enough (just removing mention of Clapper), and Steve Quinn removed the entire source without consensus.
• Eventually it was reverted again by JFG, reinstated, reverted again by James J. Lambden, reinstated, reverted again by Thucydides411, and reinstated again by Volunteer Marek, and reverted again by Guccisamnsclubs ... and was reinstated/reverted a couple more times, all in the space of a few days.

The only excuse for SPECIFICO's behaviour is the putative BLP concern, which the editor failed to adequately justify in her edit summaries. Sanctioning Thucydides411 here is akin to yelling thief. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Thucydides411[edit]

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

• Steve Quinn, didn't we just deal with this Clapper issue above? If this is something different, please amend your complaint to make it clear which specific restriction, such as a revert restriction, is alleged to be violated here, and add the diffs with which the material was added to establish that this is indeed a revert. – Everybody else, we do not need random opinions and comments particularly from people involved in the content dispute, so please limit any contributions to brief submissions of relevant evidence in the form of dated diffs, or your comments may be removed.  Sandstein  08:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• On first review, the talk page discussion is working and the edit warring on the article is staying short of 3RR. Contentious but it's working. I don't see anyone obviously violating normal standards. If it got worse I'd rather 1RR the article or full protect it than sanction any individuals; I think there's clearly multiple person support on both sides and if there is rule bending, it's bipartisan. Is AE the right venue? Is any admin action necessary right now at all? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As amended, the complaint does establish that Thucydides411 violated the 1RR rule that, it seems, already applies to the article. Unless another admin objects shortly, I intend to apply a one-week enforcement block.  Sandstein  07:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• But Darouet correctly points out that the edits at issue are subsequent to one another, and therefore are treated as one revert. Per Georgewilliamherbert above, I now consider this report not actionable, and redundant to the previous one, I'm inclined to close it with no action.  Sandstein  13:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree that Thucydides411 has not violated WP:1RR, but I am more concerned that he may have violated the discussion requirement: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)..." Though a reasonable discussion is taking place at this talk thread about Binney and McGovern, nobody is going to read that as a *consensus* to restore the claim that Clapper "gave false testimony regarding the extend of NSA collection of data". Thucydides411 made this article edit at 20:34 on 14 February, with the edit summary "Undid revision 765496263 by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) No consensus for removal". (Note that his key argument was No consensus for removal). If we are ever going to enforce the discussion requirement, now is the time to do so because the data is so clear. He is exactly backwards here: you can't restore material challenged by removal unless you have consensus for reinstating. I propose a block of Thucydides411 for violating the discussion requirement, though the length would be negotiable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That makes sense. No objection.  Sandstein  20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC) See later comment below.  Sandstein  11:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User:James J. Lambden: The discussion requirement seems to allow (a) first-time addition of *new* material without discussion, or (b) first time removal of material without discussion (if nobody removed it before), or (c) a revert of someone else's change if there is a clear talk page consensus against their change. Do you think any of these three exceptions applies to Thucydides411's restoration of the charges against James Clapper, that had previously been removed by someone else? We observe that (a) doesn't apply because it is not being added for the first time, (b) doesn't apply because it's not a removal, and (c) doesn't apply because there is no obvious consensus for adding the material (after a lengthy discussion that has not reached any result). EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Replying to User:Darouet:

1. Nothing prevents other admins including User:MelanieN from joining this discussion if they want to.
2. If my proposed interpretation of the discussion rule is accepted as part of this closure and if it differs from what others thought, we can close this with a warning rather than a sanction,
3. I will leave a ping for User:Bishonen who is the admin who imposed the discussion rule on this page in December 2016. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• One option is to close this with a warning to User:Thucydides411, and to leave a general warning on the talk page that a large fraction of all the active editors are breaking the discussion requirement. The current behavior of most editors and the sanction are not compatible. Some ideas to consider when this dispute comes to AE again: (a) abolish the discussion requirement, or (b) we could start giving out short-term page bans (one month) to everyone who breaks the discussion requirement after today. We would still keep the 1RR in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @EdJohnston: Your interpretation of the consensus required restriction is correct. Just so you're aware, when I originally created that templated restriction (which Bishonen applied to this page) it went to ArbCom for a full review where the wording ended up being tweaked to its current state. You can read through the entire ARCA here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree that the consensus required restriction has been violated here, and also agree that a block (negotiably from 24 hours to 2 weeks) is the appropriate course of action here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This really isn't that hard to understand. Above I said that EdJohnston's interpretation is correct, and he spelled it out quite nicely. But, I'll simplify it once more: The consensus version of the article always stands. If there has not been any consensus established for a particular edit, and that edit is challenged (via reversion or otherwise), that edit may be removed until consensus is established. Edits made to revert to an established consensus version, do not count against the WP:1RR restriction (see this discussion for more information). The end. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Coffee: "Edits made to revert to an established consensus version, do not count against the WP:1RR restriction" What??! No, I completely disagree with this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Add: Unless that is explicitly spelled out in an edit notice, talk page notice, or other special restriction. But that's not how the general WP:1RR works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @NeilN: I was referring to the system in place at Donald Trump, which is why I used the word "established" before "consensus version" and then linked to the relevant discussion explaining this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Yes, okay. I assume that was tweaked after August of last year? Might want to add something to the talk page as that's different from "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)" currently there. That article is a crazy trap for newbies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I was pinged here. My thinking on reverts can be found in User_talk:MelanieN/Archive_26#Same_or_different_material and User_talk:MelanieN/Archive_26#Does_removal_equal_reversion.3F --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'll leave the disposition of this request to the admins who are familiar with the Template:2016 US Election AE restriction, or who imposed it (Bishonen), or who wrote it (Coffee). It now seems to me, as an admin unfamiliar with it, that the wording "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" is not clear enough to be understood in the same way by all editors, and should be rewritten or omitted.  Sandstein  11:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I had not run into an issue with the current version (which was ArbCom approved), but I'm always open to making it better. Suggestions on the wording you would like to see would be most welcome. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looking at Donald Trump–Russia dossier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the block of CFCF for reinserting an image seems to me to be harsh. Per CFCF's talk, the edit appears to have been made in good faith, and at least I think it merits discussion here. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What part of "he reinserted a challenged edit without consensus" is not correct here? Furthermore, CFCF has been trying to push many statements that just cross the line of BLP, both there and in other articles regarding Trump I've seen him in. In addition, this is not a valid AE appeal. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone is blocked. The block is appealed on the blocked user's talk page and seems to me to be harsh. Thus, it's probably a valid appeal, so I brought it here to be discussed. Fie on process for the sake of it. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've copied CFCF's formal appeal from their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Appealing user

CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

24 hour block, no discussion — see block notice: [53]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Ping: Coffee Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by CFCF[edit]

The sanctioned edit was performed in the faith that it was both uncontroversial and in line with the current consensus. It was also performed several days ago, and the action taken against me occurring now is quite far detached from my edit and acts in my view to be WP:PUNITIVE. I realize that this may on certain occasions be appropriate, but the idea that I was acting out of line did not occur to me at the moment. The ongoing discussion on the talk page was not concluded but weighted towards inclusion as per my reading. Judged together with: a discussion consisting of a mix of voting; with non-voting discussion preceding this: and some users who had engaging only in one of the two — it may have been rash for me to conclude that I could so quickly determine consensus. I admit that it may have been wrong in my interpretation, but do not believe this should have incurred sanction. I may also have been rash to conclude that since the image was present for a longer period before being removed, that would fall under the ordinarily interpretation of meaning it was less than controversial. Judging these together I consider I was acting in good faith when I believed my edit would not violate any sanctions.

I realize that my actions can be interpreted as defying consensus, even though this was not my intent. However, the change was neither contested when it was made or in the period preceding this block, which I believe acts in my favor. No comments addressing me or that I was made aware of through a ping or similar were made. Any editor could have repeated the removal or commented with a differing interpretation of the consensus in a way that informed me. To me the block seems harsh, considering neither prior warning nor so much as a comment was directed towards me. Had anyone suggested I was acting incorrectly — the situation would have been very different and I would have attempted to rectify it immediately by self-reverting.

These may be some of our most contentious articles, but I did not act believing I was in defiance of rules, policies or other regulations as set by ArbCom — and would very much like to resume editing as per usual. I believe this type of block is harmful in part because it strongly discourages me (or others) from working in controversial subject areas if such risks persist — and these areas need quite a few eyes. Since I consider editing Wikipedia to be very important to me I am especially careful to avoid risks, and believe this goes for many of us — and this impacts which concepts I feel I can engage in. I hope you accept my sincere apology and regret and hope you would reconsider this block so that I can resume using one of my rarer free evenings to edit. Please also rest assured this has been taken as a strong warning and I will act more carefully in the future.

Statement by Coffee[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

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

Just reiterating what I wrote above, the edit was a reinsertion of a challenged edit that had no consensus to reinsert. As such, a block was warranted. I do notice that the block was undone by Bishonen and that seems to me a clear violation of ARBCOM rulings, an ARBCOM block can only be undone by consensus. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that a block seems excessive in this situation. I think a warning would have sufficed and been more appropriate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by CFCF[edit]

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

• CFCF has been a constructive member of the community since 2006, and this is the first smudge on his previously clean block log. I wish Coffee had considered this fact more deeply before hitting the block button. I believe CFCF was acting in good faith, and am generally convinced by his appeal above. I appreciate that he takes it as a warning, too. I've unblocked, possibly thereby violating the arbitration enforcement principle, but I invoke IAR. I'm not closing, in case others wish to comment. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • I'm fine with the unblock; would have done it myself but I was offline. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Block was okay, though a first and last warning would have been better. Unblock was fine, as the behavior CFCF was blocked for is unlikely to happen again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Appealing user

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of American politics 2, imposed here, logged here.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[54]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

I was indefinitely topic banned from American Politics per this AE request submitted by Casprings. I had not previously been sanctioned for my editing in this area, but I had been warned. There are several reasons why I believe the topic ban was excessive and unwarranted:

• Casprings's evidence was very weak, and was initially widely seen as such: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. One of the diffs Casprings cited as me "harassing" another user was in fact me simply addressing that user by their username followed by a comma. Three of the diffs listed pointed back to a single comment. (SPECIFICO also made a number of demonstrably false claims about me, including that in this diff, "TTAC (sic) vows that he will not heed any warning." Not only did I, of course, not "vow" anything of the kind, but I would argue that false claims of that nature are disruptive and turn AE into a circus—and could go on about that, but my appeal is long enough already.)
• I was not banned based primarily on Caspring's evidence, or even any of my alleged soapboxing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but rather some trollish and silly political commentary on my own userpage. Within hours of Volunteer Marek bringing up my former userpage, almost every admin changed their opinion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. While the BLP violations on my userpage had to be removed, and have been removed, I think it's a stretch to say that they were causing such disruption to the encyclopedia that an indefinite topic ban was the only recourse. In a previous case involving EEng's since deleted userpage—which is described as featuring "massive, massive BLP violations, including calling public figures 'pussies', extensive allegations of Donald Trump being a Nazi, snippets of speeches with things Trump rails against wikilinked to Jews, accusations of racism, antisemitism, and a whole lot that I could devote many paragraphs to"—there was "no consensus that any sanctions should apply against EEng ... wider community discussion is needed on what's acceptable in terms of "joke" and satire pages, but that's well beyond the scope of AE." TParis criticized the focus on my userpage as "smoke and mirrors," noting that "No recent evidence of poor behavior [in American Politics] has been presented."
• (MjoInirPants also objected to a "guest posting" I made on another user's page, which he asserted is "full of right-wing diatribes ... Pay close attention to the sourcing used for that." I urge you to read my comments in full and decide for yourselves if anything about them justifies admin intervention. I have no idea what MjoInirPants considers "right-wing" about my argument; my sources are The Intercept, The Nation, The Washington Post, and, yes, Forbes.)
• The previous AE case against me was not, in fact, any stronger--as JFG noted: "Please note that the previous AE request by MelanieN against TTACC was also ruled a content dispute. In one of the diffs levied against the accused editor, they were in fact removing BLPVIO material in conformity with prior consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#Rape lawsuit. The disputed content had been added in violation of longstanding consensus ... Therefore, any influence of the prior 'stern warning' against TTACC should be attenuated, even if there were anything substantial to complain about today on this board." Some editors were under the impression that I had violated 1RR, which was false and not supported by the original complaint. In fact, I had violated the prohibition against reinstating challenged material without consensus; this was my first offense, I was confused about the rules, and I apologized. Very recently, Thucydides, Casprings, and My very best wishes have copped short blocks/bans of between 1 day and 1 week for doing the same thing; by contrast, I was given an open-ended warning, which then resulted in an indefinite ban even for an admittedly weak complaint. The admin that warned me, Dennis Brown, also conceded: "As a community, it appears (to some) that we are more aggressive in policing one side of politics more than the other, which is not surprising given the nature of the project. Unquestionably, TTAAC screwed up but the type of mistakes beg the question whether or not this requires we use the heavy tools grated to us by Arb here at AE. From my perspective, the problems seem rather run of the mill and not really what AE was set up for." (One might well take the dramatically different community response to my userpage versus EEng's as a case in point.) Yet Dennis Brown retired shortly afterward, and therefore was in no position to help other admins interpret and apply his warning.
• The article at which I was sanctioned for violating the spirit (though not the letter—I had not violated 1RR or the restriction on reinstating challenged material) of DS—Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections—is no longer subject to active arbitration remedies, as Bishonen determined they were confusing users and had only exacerbated the conflicts on that article.

I fully admit to getting carried away with treating my userpage like a social media shitpost, and to referring tongue-in-cheek to Volunteer Marek as the "whitewasher-in-chief" (in the context of a discussion where he and I were in agreement, I was requesting his help, and he played along—though obviously my sense of humor may not translate well over the Internet), and have taken the time since my ban was imposed to reflect on my past mistakes. But I still think it was excessive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• SPECIFICO is referring to a banned user's attempts to frame me; indeffed sockpuppeteer User:Oneshotofwhiskey has been engaged in a sustained "joe job" to damage my reputation since October of 2016. Oneshot's latest sockpuppets—AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am and You'llNeverCare—made edits such as copying and pasting something I wrote on my talk page to another article to make it appear that I was violating my one month block; both accounts were confirmed by checkuser as belonging to Oneshot, not me. I was blocked for this one edit trolling MelanieN's comment "OMG - look at the link we are given to support this - RT!," and served my time. I have indeed emailed many users, both to defend myself from Oneshot's harassment campaign and to discuss issues related to American Politics; I do not believe that violates any policy. Guccisamsclub did not make any edits based on sources that I recommended to him, for example, but if he had—and he could defend them with his own words—there would be nothing wrong with that: Topic bans aren't intended to censor ideas or perspectives, but to suppress bad behavior.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I was going to let @Sandstein: speak for himself, but since both @Peacemaker67: and @Coffee: appear to be confused on this point, I have the same right to appeal as everyone else, as Sandstein later clarified: "You may appeal the sanction to AE or AN at any time if you believe it was wrongly imposed. But if you want to appeal it because you want me to lift it because it is no longer needed, please wait six months." Hopefully we can put that to rest and get back to substance.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I don't have the time today to address this in detail, but I refer to the original discussion and recommend declining the appeal in light of it and Coffee's comment below.  Sandstein  05:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Guccisamsclubs[edit]

It is still not clear why TheTimesAreAChanging was banned. It is true that his user page indicated that he might be a drag on the project. BUT a look at his contribs shows he's anything but that. I've had plenty of acrimonious conflicts with this editor in the past and vehemently disagree with him on virtually every political issue. So I know him quite well, perhaps better than any other editor. I can say with 100% certainty that the quality of his user page did NOT reflect the quality of his edits and arguments. He's one of the few editors I know that routinely makes quality edits which contradict his POV. Moreover, he has a tendency to bring factual and sourced arguments to content disputes, rather than sterile and self-referential wikispeak. He reads his sources closely and avoids making baseless assumptions. In sum, he's a "reliable" editor. We desperately need more readers like Times on wikipedia, seeing as these are a dying breed in the age of Web 2.0. Times' interventions on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, mainly demonstrated his reading comprehension skills and his erudition. Why he got banned for those (apparently, that's where the ball got rolling) is beyond me. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (SPECIFICO)[edit]

TTAAC, in the interest of due and clear process, please provide the Admins here with a summary of your behavior subsequent to your TBAN. Specifically, please detail your block evasion, TBAN evasion, sockpuppetry, email solicitation of meatpuppetry, harassment, and the resulting 1 month block and revocation of talk page access by @Bbb23:. It will be more straightforward if you do it yourself, rather than get other editors tangled up in this. I am notifying editors mentioned in TTAAC's plea above: @Casprings: @Volunteer Marek: @MjolnirPants: @MelanieN:. Also, TTAAC, your statement that there are not DS in effect at the Russian article is false – in case you wish to strike that. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TTAAC, please cover all the topics I listed above. "...My one month block..." Oh. And why were you blocked for a month, etc. Let's not turn this into another free-for-all. The facts will come out one way or another. Please just list the facts. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)[edit]

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

Result of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

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

• Six months has not passed since the imposition of the TBAN, which was imposed on 12 January. Six months is what was specified and I believe that should stand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The enforcement action specifically laid out that TheTimesAreAChanging "may appeal this restriction after six months have passed"; as it is not yet July 12th, and as I see no glaringly obvious issues with Sandstein's judgement, I move to decline this appeal. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I think is quite disingenuous to claim that the ban was in error when, just 3 days after being banned, TheTimesAreAChanging created a sock to evade the ban... just to troll an administrator. The ban should stand for at least 6 months for that alone, as I find overnight changes in ethics hard to believe. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Decline Sandstein summarized the responses of uninvolved admins before imposing the topic ban. I see no issue with the summation or his judgement when imposing the sanction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]