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

Request concerning DHeyward[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS, "banned for one month from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed" and [1]

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

[2] That would be an edit "about" Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Scarborough. I have this vague notion that these individuals have something to do with "post-1932 American Politics".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See above

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

See above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Sorry about this, but this appears to be a blatant violation of the recent topic ban, which looks almost WP:POINTy to me. I don't know, maybe DHeyward has some explanation for it.

(DHeyward does not mention or bring up his topic ban in that edit so this cannot be reasonably construed as an exception which seeks to clarify the nature of the sanction)

@NeilN: - wasn't his appeal already declined? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning DHeyward[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 DHeyward[edit]

Statement by Mendaliv[edit]

Bleh. Just looks like a ham-handed attempt to appeal the appeal that got closed at AN the other day. I don't think AE should do anything about it since, honestly, it's pretty clearly just an attempt to appeal to a higher power. That said, DHeyward should understand that if not for the fact that it appears to be an appeal a sanction to Jimmy Wales, who presumably has authority to overturn the sanction, that post would not be a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: He actually does obliquely bring up the appeal. The first diff is DHeyward's edit to the Scarborough article that factored into the ARCA, and the second diff is TonyBallioni's statement in that ARCA that the Scarborough article counts. I'll grant you that it's not an obvious "Hey overturn this ban!" (which, knowing how Jimmy Wales' talk page works, wouldn't accomplish anything), but it's pretty obviously what DHeyward is going to try and sell eventually if he gets a response. Even if DHeyward isn't going for a full-on appeal, he's at least trying to get Jimmy Wales to say it looks like his revert at the Scarborough article falls within BANEX, which he'd then march down here to start the whole appeal process over again claiming (incorrectly) that the entire ARCA rose and fell on the edit at Scarborough. Anyway, my point is, petitioning the higher powers for relief or clarification isn't something AE should be in the business of prohibiting. If DHeyward goes beyond that, then by all means lower the boom, but not at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]

Common sense anyone? Another editor gone, what a proud moment! Happy 2018! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kingindian[edit]

Jimbo's talk page is recognized on Wikipedia as a special page, and functions as a de facto forum for many things. Please don't be pedantic and block for this. It is really petty of Volunteer Marek to even bring it here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

Jimbo has no authority to resolve this. Therefore, talking at his talk page about Clinton can not be viewed as a "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" by any reasonable account. The comment by DHeyward was a forum shopping on a talk page of a WP administrator. I agree with Dennis Brown. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course this could be easily left without action. However, one needs to consider the behavior pattern by the user, i.e. appealing their one-month editing restriction on AE, AN and Arbcom and simultaneously violating their topic ban on the talk page of Jimbo and retiring. I think you should do something unless you want to allow making a mockery of WP:AE, and the only reasonable course of action is the one suggested by Dennis Brown. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

I think rightly or wrongly, most people here are under the impression that TBAN's don't apply to Jimbo's page. I also echo Kingsindian's comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

Having myself been topic-banned in the past, I made a couple impassioned (but fruitless) posts on Jimbo's talk page arguing my case, and was not sanctioned for it. I feel like engaging in lengthy discourse might be construed as disruptive of the ban, but as noted above, Jimbo's talk has traditionally allowed this. I did not enjoy editing under the topic ban precisely because I didn't want to have to look over my shoulder every edit wondering if someone was going to jump on me and drag me to this dramaboard - so as much as I have disagreed and continue to disagree with DHeyward, I empathize with him. I suggest that for everyone's sake, we step back a bit. Egregious violations would be one thing, but this is not that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ryk72[edit]

I had tentatively drafted something glib here, and then thought better of it. This seems, for want of a better word, incredibly petty.

Some editors, when they feel slighted, maligned or wronged, lash out with personalised accusations of incompetence, bias, and auditory failure; others might drop a perhaps pointed note on the Talk pages of the great Jimbo. The first behaviour, discussed above, below & elsewhere, seems to be, if not acceptable, then at least accepted. Traditionally, the other has been covered as Render unto Caesar. One would hope that this instance could be considered accordingly; that this be swiftly and summarily closed; and we could all move on with "improving Wikipedia". NOthing is bettered by this filing remaining open, least not ourselves.

I'll also note that a recent pattern of referring WP:AE filings for ban breaches to the previous sanctioning admin is not always conducive to removing heat from situations where the sanctioned editor might already feel victimised. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning DHeyward[edit]

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

• I came here after Andrew Davidson's statement at ARCA that pointed out what Davidson considered a TBAN violation based on these edits to Brian Krzanich, the CEO of Intel, where a significant portion of the article discusses Krzanich's interactions with Trump. I was expecting (slash dreading) seeing an AE request on that. I consider these both to be edge cases (I can see Mendaliv's arguments that it was more of an appeal to Jimmy Wales of the original sanction). At the same time, I consider both of these edits to follow the pattern of testing the limits of a topic ban: the coversation on Jimbo-talk was part of a broader conversation on a perceived anti-conservative bias on en.wiki, and was using his sanctions as an example. I'm not sure either quite crosses the TBAN line (the Jimbo-talk certainly would if it weren't for the factor of the original sanction.) Given that this is at ARCA, I think we should be very careful about how this is handled, and would welcome more views from my colleagues. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, just as a note, that while I do not consider myself involved i.r.t DHeyward as I have only had administrative actions towards him, I think it is unwise for an admin who's sanction has been appealed to arbcom to be the one blocking or taking other actions while the appeal is pending. I made my statement above as the original sanctioning admin as that view is often requested. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• In my view, this is an actionable topic ban violation. The ban is being appealed at ARCA, but as the various templates and procedures make clear, a ban remains in force until an appeal is successful. The edit at issue relates to contemporary US politics and politicians and is therefore within the scope of the topic ban. An enforcement block is therefore appropriate. In view of the block log of DHeyward, I recommend a block from between 72 h to 1 week. Sandstein 16:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I found the comment to be rambling and unhelpful, but I wouldn't have thought about it in the context of a topic ban (if I had known about it at the time). It's a technical violation, but I would not overweigh it. On the other hand, Tony makes a good point about limit testing. If there is a sanction, I think a short block is sufficient, to underline the seriousness of the TBAN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Arbitrator comment. I am one of the arbitrators who is reviewing the ARCA appeal. The AE administrators can do as they think best, and I don't speak for any arbs other than myself, but it will be much easier for me to review a sanction appeal if the situation is not a moving target. Addendum: I see that DHeyward has posted a retirement notice today, while I was in the process of reviewing his appeal and this thread. I am sure that is not an outcome that anyone here desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In consideration of Newyorkbrad's request, I think we should hold off from acting on this enforcement request until the ongoing appeal is resolved. As to the retirement notice, my experience is that almost all such notices posted under circumstances such as these are temporary, so there's no need to take the notice into account. Sandstein 08:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• From a technical persepective, this is unquestionably a violation of the Tban. From an enforcement perspective, this is an edge case for obvious reasons, including the place where the violation took place and the lack of disruption it caused to readers and editors (exactly zero). We can ignore any other appeal (that is outside of our jurisdiction) and ignore any "retired" banner (which history has shown us is usually temporary). This is one of those cases where my gut says the sanction rage would be from "very strong warning" to "24 hour block", or better yet, extend the tban another 30 days. It is a Catch 22, I'm aware, which is why extending is likely the best solution. I don't think we can completely ignore it, but looking at the totality of circumstances, we need to be careful to not go overboard on sanctioning or it quickly becomes punitive. He knows what he did, a block isn't likely going to be effective in preventing disruption past the expiration of the block. If our goal is to create a situation that has the highest likelihood of encouraging them to NOT violate the terms again, extension of the tban makes sense. We could block in addition, but it seems pointless given the total circumstance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have no issue with waiting until the appeal has run its course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I would view discussing a sanction at Jimmy's talk as somewhere on the outer edge of the "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" language of BANEX and am very reluctant to sanction for it. GoldenRing (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Had the discussion focused on the sanction rather than the merits, I might agree. I'm even willing to cut a little slack for most anything on Jimbos page, but my reading of the diff is that he focused on the content being wrong or right and not so much on whether the sanction was wrong or right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hold until appeal is resolved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Volunteer Marek: It's at ARCA (where you've posted) and the arbs haven't dismissed it out of hand. I'd like to hear what they have to say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 8 January 2018 (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 Anmolbhat[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anmolbhat (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 enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.

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

1. 09:53, 10 January 2018 Here Anmolbhat says ″I also doubt the credibility of your account as well as Dilpa kaur. Registered during 18-25 October 2017 and engaging in same POV pushing on same days.″ This is a violation of the good faith requirement as its basically casting WP:ASPERSIONS against me.
2. 10:34, 10 January 2018 He has removed part of his bad comment but not fully. This part (″ I also doubt the credibility of your account as well as Dilpa kaur″) remains.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16 December 2017 Blocked for copyright violations after several warnings.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Besides casting aspersions in spite of the good faith sanction on all Kashmir conflict related topics, not only has Anmolbhat broken them in full awareness of his violations, but he even has a history of being blocked for introducing copyright violations[4] despite being warned several times for their copyright violations.[5][6][7][8]

I don't think this user is willing to learn or abide by our policies and since their editing is generally tendentious and unconstructive[9][10][11] they should be blocked. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Anmolbhat[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 Anmolbhat[edit]

I am not sure if there are such restrictions. Behavior of JosephusOfJerusalem is too concerning. He is edit warring on Kashmiris, showing his incompetence in judging sources at Talk:Kashmiris#Kautilya3's new edits, and Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus where he is also denying the responsibility of Hizbul. Also that he has to cite outdated diffs as justification for this report. As far as my block is concerned after my block on Copyright Violation I haven't violated any policy but JosephusOfJerusalem can show if I have. On talk page, he was asked about it, but he couldn't backup his claim, but it seems that he prefers to stand by his misleading statement.Anmolbhat (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4[edit]

Filer should consider reading WP:DR. It details "what to do when you have a dispute with another editor". Just don't expect others to block your critic over the things that happened more than half a year ago. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Anmolbhat[edit]

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

• RegentsPark is the administrator that imposed this restriction, perhaps it is best if he reviews the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  RegentsPark hasn't edited in a few days, and I'm researching some other aspects of the case, which shouldn't stop anyone else, but wanted to update here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 12 January 2018 (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

Raymond3023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Raymond3023 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

WP:ARBIPA [13]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Diff of notification.

Statement by Raymond3023[edit]

I am sanctioned for "misrepresenting what sources say and a repeated failure to understand this issue", there hasn't been any "repeated failure to understand this issue", I have never been alleged of misrepresenting sources ever. NeilN said I am responsible for the misrepresentation of the source on an article,[14] that I was originally attempting to rescue from a G5 deletion, "mostly because it is notable and meets WP:LASTING".[15]

Though he is correct about it and I will always remember that and that's something I had already acknowledged that I should be more cautious with checking the content on the article that I am rescuing from G5,[16] NeilN still went ahead to sanction me despite without giving any other admin a chance to discuss, despite he had echoed that unless "another admin objects, I'm thinking of implementing a three month topic ban".[17] Again, I will be more cautious with checking article and sources when I am taking responsibility of G5, but I find this sanction to be unjustified. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NeilN, I have been always editing a number of different subjects. As for the diff that you have shown as "in the past", you need to know that my edits were accepted.

Since the article(2006 Bhiwandi lynching) is going to be kept I am not understanding what you actually deemed to be disruptive. You could've simply asked me to modify the article in place of a topic ban. It seems largely WP:PUNITIVE for something that has been already fixed before you placed topic ban. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NeilN, it seems that you are misrepresenting my statements. I was only asking you to clarify your objections, and the article had already went through enough changes when I replied to your message, it was already going under the process of editing now, and I was collaborating with that in place of reverting others. You seem to be implying that I was deliberately misrepresenting sources when that was not my intention at all, I was working to make the article better after agreeing with the suggested edits.[18][19] And again, the only problem here was that I had to be more cautious with taking the responsibility, but I have acknowledge that, didn't I? Raymond3023 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NeilN: it didn't took me any longer to acknowledge where I was wrong, same with Forbes, given my major aim was to get rid of it since there were many problems with the statement, as I had described on talk page and most editors agreed with it, with one editors had also said that Forbes is not enough for such a claim. But finally, my version was accepted. Same as here, it doesn't take me time to acknowledge where I am wrong. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NeilN, I had acknowledged on talk page that Forbes link was a reliable source, however there was no consensus on talk page to include it. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @NeilN: You had mentioned that "I would be willing to go with a formal warning about sourcing, indicating that further similar instances will result in a topic ban/block", I am ready to accept it and guarantee that you won't have to revisit this issue again. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @NeilN: Yes some sources were either unreliable or contradicted the mainstream opinion as discussed on talk page of these articles, and my aim (on Vastu Shashtra) was that more sources could be discovered for the information that was being removed, as suggested by other editors as well. I also found the sources as well, the then disputed section was is now backed up with the sources that I had discovered. In fact I had fixed the misrepresentation of source on one of these article.[20] I would say that these were simply content disputes. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Vanamonde93, you are misrepresenting the source[21] here by calling it a "forbes list". Yes that source is an opinion piece since it was written by a contributor not staff, there have been many WP:RSN discussion about such sources and there was discussion about this particular source on Talk:Dangal (film)#Estimates, where we agreed not to add the opinion piece in question. The "article critical of Dalit politics" that you mentioned, you should know that information like "'epidermic determinism' of V.T. Rajshekar" was redundant for the article and it was not fitting on a section like "Religion" at all, although I did merged the content that could be merged into other sections. And the last edit that you mentioned was adhering to WP:BRD and had been supported by most other editors and was in compliance with the TFD outcome. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had been only restoring what was removed without explanation[22][23] on Achieved status. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NeilN: let me confirm a few things here. Some diffs are exaggerated here, for example [24] was not a revert, but we were attempting to reach consensus by editing. What do you mean by "confirmed" users? 10 edits and 4 days or 500 edits and 30 days? There are less than 600 "confirmed" users on Wikipedia. What if the user is violating BLP/copyrights? No question about other points though. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NeilN: Sure, let's move on with these terms. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sitush, I missed your message here earlier. I can still clarify that my "position regarding notability" is correctly represented by D4iNa4, I only said on talk page that if there was a policy to merge all stubs to a bigger article, we would go for it but right now policy allows you to make stub that pass notability policies, thus we can retain small articles. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by NeilN[edit]

This comes out of a discussion here. Raymond took responsibility for article content here and here. Editors looking at the discussion on Bishonen's page will see the very first post identifies the issues with sourcing. My query to explain how the references backed up article content was ignored. A follow up reveals that Raymond did not see anything that was unsupported. A third post (repeating Vanamonde's points) finally got them to admit the text misrepresented the sources. Given there are issues with the sockpuppet's other articles Raymond restored and there are edit summaries in the past like this, I felt it would be good if Raymond could show how careful he is with sources in other areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Raymond3023: The article is the symptom, not the core issue. The core issue is your misrepresentation of what sources said and complete failure to understand the issue. Vanamonde93 clearly pointed out the misrepresentations in their first post. You made several subsequent posts, finally asking, "What do you actually find unsupported there?". This indicates you either didn't read the sources after Vanamonde93's post or actually did read the sources and somehow came to the conclusion that "Muslim mob" and "two radical Muslims" was supported until it you were confronted again about it by me. Editors cannot behave this way about sources, especially in this area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Sandstein: Not quite. It's not my view Raymond3023 took responsibility. He stated he took responsibility twice as shown in the diffs. And please see my subsequent post above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If admins think the topic ban is too harsh then I would be willing to go with a formal warning about sourcing, indicating that further similar instances will result in a topic ban/block. I am concerned about this editor's ability to read sources given the unrelated Forbes diff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• D4iNa4, the reason why articles should be G5'd in this area is because they're often filled with POV that the sockmaster is trying to push. Your characterization of this on 2006 Bhiwandi lynching as "rather a minor issue" is concerning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• GoldenRing, what do you think about Raymond3023's statement about about the Forbes source? "[G]iven my major aim was to get rid of it" is in no way a good justification for a misleading edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 42.111.133.233, please disclose your prior account per WP:SCRUTINY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• GoldenRing I believe the sanction was appropriate but am always open to what is "more appropriate". Raymond3023, do you have any comments on the evidence presented by Ms Sarah Welch? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I have the process right, Raymond3023 can re-appeal any modified sanction I place upon him so in the interests of not doing this all over again, I'll propose it here first:

Fox six months Raymond3023 will:

• Not remove any WP:G5 tags from WP:ARBIPA articles
• Abide by WP:1RR on WP:ARBIPA topics (IPs and unconfirmed editors excepted)
• Ensure the sources he's using fully and accurately back up the content he's proposing. He will be required to produce the necessary excerpts from sources if challenged by an experienced editor
• Take care not to misrepresent the validity or reliability of a source

Failure to abide by any one or more of these conditions may result in an immediate topic ban or block. Raymond3023 do you agree to these conditions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Re-pinging @Raymond3023: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Reply[reply]

@Raymond3023: You will have to observe WP:1RR with all autoconfirmed editors - 10 edits, 4 days. WP:1RR has the same exemptions as WP:3RR - reverts for vandalism, BLP violations, etc., don't count. See WP:3RRNO for the full list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've recorded the modification here. Issues were raised about other editors but I believe they have little merit and the appeal should be closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]

Since I brought this to NeilN's attention, let me supply that evidence once again. Here is the sequence of incidents which prompted this ban:

1) I tagged a number of articles created by the blocked sock John Jaffar Janardhan for CSD#G5, including 2006 Bhiwandi Lynching.

2) Raymond3023 reverted my tags, including on the aforementioned page.

3) I restored the tags, including at the aforementioned page.

4) Raymond3023 posted to the talk page of that article, "taking responsibility" for it.

5) I noticed that the article contained severe source misrepresentation, and posted to Bishonen's talk page, asking her to deal with it.

6) Despite being asked explicitly by NeilN about the source misrepresentation, Raymond3023 denied any wrongdoing, and judging by the appeal is still unable to see that what he did was a problem.

So, I recommend this appeal be declined. Vanamonde (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Sandstein: Please take a look at the links I have provided here. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Sandstein and GoldenRing: If the issue were limited to simply flouting WP:V, I'd agree with you. As Sitush says, though, the text in question flouted verifiability with the obvious intent of pushing an anti-Muslim point of view. Religious and nationalist conflict is at the heart of our trouble with ARBIPA topics, and violations such as these are not to be taken at all lightly. Vanamonde (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC) (re-sign for ping Vanamonde (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

• I could take a good guess as to the identity of the IP, but they are likely to complain about outing if I do so. So, until they disclose their account, let me just say that when an IP who admits to having a previous account jumps to the defense of an editor who was protecting the work of a blocked sock at an obscure noticeboard, I find it very suspicious. Vanamonde (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @NeilN: If we're now looking at further instances of a problematic approach to sources, there's plenty of evidence at hand. There's another instance of referring to a Forbes list as an opinion piece. An instance of removing an opinion piece critical of Hindu-nationalism, and a scholarly article critical of Dalit politics, but keeping an opinion piece critical of Zionism. Oh, and there's this gem, too, which is particularly ironic given the articles which Raymond attempted to keep, thereby beginning this dispute. Vanamonde (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• More, admittedly only partially related to Indian politics: the addition of completely unsourced original research related to achieved versus ascribed status. Vanamonde (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4[edit]

Raymond3023 had to be guided about WP:G5 that when you are taking responsibility you are responsible for every word of the article. But that's it. Looking at the content in question, it is not even vandalism, copyright or BLP violation. It is rather a minor issue and Raymond was collaborating on talk page.

FWIW, Raymond is correct about the notability of the article, and should be appreciated for contesting the unwarranted speedy deletion. Compared to most of the editors in this area, Raymond is not disruptive, he is rather a knowledgeable editor who already realized his mistake prior the topic ban. Since the sanction was unwarranted and apparently punitive, I am supporting removal of the topic ban. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

I've done a very small bit of very significant fixing at the 2006 Bhiwandi lynching article and opened a significant discussion on its talk page. D4iNa4 characterising the problems there as being "minor" is very disturbing. The article was quite obviously an anti-Muslim hatchet job and I'm afraid that as such it falls near the very heart of our existing discretionary sanctions regimes. Stoking communal pressures like this is not a "minor issue" and I am alarmed at that suggestion from someone whom I've seen editing Indic articles quite a lot. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: D4iNa4 also incorrectly represents Raymond3023's position regarding notability of the article, as that talk page makes clear. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Raymond3023[edit]

Comment by Winged Blades of Godric[edit]

• Comment--A G5 deletion tagging can't be classified as warranted/unwarranted.Also, when you're taking responsibility for G5ed articles you ought to be very sure about the content, for the community does take a very dim view of sockpuppets and any knownful association to them.Winged Blades^Godric 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Ms Sarah Welch[edit]

There are serious sourcing issues with Raymond3023 edits, far beyond the article in question. See, these three articles for example:

• Vastu Shastra: Raymond claims sources are reliable and support the text. No, they are not per Joshua Jonathan, and more detailed analysis confirms source misrepresentation and OR. See the whole talk page for more tendentious arguments by Raymond3023, such as here.
• Bhimbetka rock shelters: Raymond3023, my response.
• Kalki: Raymond alleging "enough sources" and misrepresenting something as fringe, my response asking for sources to back up their allegations. No response from Raymond3023. Mere repetition and TE: Raymond's claim, my response, Raymond alleges scholarly sources are unreliable, my request for evidence. No response again.

I support NeilN's ARBIPA action. Maybe it was too short, measured, modestly trying to encourage behavior modification, as NeilN's actions generally tend to be. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NeilN: Raymond senses the issue here but is not fully understanding our concerns. Finding more sources is not our concern, we welcome such good faith efforts. The concern is that his summaries do not reflect the source, and repeatedly reflect an intent that is neither neutral nor constructive. The edit warring with admins and seasoned editors such as Joshua Jonathan to restore misrepresented dubious content makes it worse, repeatedly running to RPP for full page protection of articles with dubious / POV-y / inflammatory content more so. Their willingness to quote wikipedia rules far exceeds their willingness to quote the source. All this needs to stop. Plain and simple, without defensive arguments. Raymond comes across like a smart person and one who can possibly reform as Kautilya3 notes, but he needs to consider some behavioral changes. Here are three suggestions: [1] Voluntarily accept no more than 1RR in ARBIPA space articles if the other editor is admin or a significant contributor (>2,000 edits); [2] If in dispute, he must quote a few complete lines/excerpts from the source plus give link or source info with page number on the article's talk page, with that 1RR; and [3] Less trips to RPP when the other parties are admins/seasoned editors. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by (IP)[edit]

This is a user from Hyderabad India ,I used to edit Wikipedia but quit in 2016,If anyone wants to know my previous account can disclose it privately.The Edits were made by User:John Jaffar Janardan not by Raymond3023 who neither reverted nor added the content only removed the deletion tag as the subjects are clearly notable .If there is a case of pushing anti-Muslim point of view ,It was done by User:John Jaffar Janardan the articles created when I used to edit were done in 2016 and were never edited by Raymond3023 until they were tagged by Vanamonde .This article Paras Rajput was POV deleted after being tagged by Vanamonde .It was No consenus in a AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paras Rajput hence should not been speedy deleted .Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should not be used to settle disputes over content issues of Vanamonde and other editors.Again the issue over sources discussed in talk in Vastu_shastra is a Multi editor discussion Ms Sarah Welch should have disclosed her previous account User:ApostleVonColorado and was earlier under sanction which the user is concealing. 42.111.133.233 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:@MastCell: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should not be used in content disputes which are multi editor and almost all of them have discussed in talk and it was never reverted or inserted by the concerned editor but done by another editor in 2016 a editor only removes the deletion tag and there is no revert warring.42.111.133.233 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Capitals00[edit]

@Sandstein and GoldenRing: You have analyzed what Raymond did, but admins should also look at the misconduct of Vanamonde93.

As per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion", yet Vanamonde93 still tagged the article that is likely going to survive a deletion discussion and policy also notes that "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions", but Vanamonde93 edit warred over the tag [25] and made a misleading claim on edit summary that Raymond is "an involved editor", regardless of the fact that Raymond never edited the article before. This battleground mentality doesn't end here. After restoring the tag in place of bringing it to Afd, Vanamonde93 made no attempt to fix the content issue and made no input on talk page either,[26] but went to report an admin without notifying Raymond by using the Echo notification system or by posting a message.[27]

Given that neither has clean hands, I think both Raymond and Vanamonde should be warned. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Kautilya3[edit]

I support NeilN's sanction. Raymond3023 has been walking on the edge for a long time (see Ms Sarah Welch's input), and it was only a matter of time before he got caught out. I also think Raymond is capable of reform, and three months will likely do it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by Raymond3023[edit]

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

• @NeilN: Am I summarizing the reasons for your sanction correctly as follows? 2006 Bhiwandi lynching was (and is now again) nominated for speedy deletion. Raymond3023, in their only substantial edit to the article, removed the speedy deletion template with the reason "per WP:BANREVERT, subject meets WP:LASTING". You took the view that, in doing so, Raymond3023 took responsibility for the article's contents, including the first two references, which do not back up the assertions in the first two sentences of the article, namely, that "a Muslim mob" burned two Indian policemen alive. When challenged by you about this, Raymond3023 said that they were mainly concerned with notability and that "next time I would be more cautious when contesting G5". On the basis of these facts, you topic-banned Raymond3023 for three months "for misrepresenting what sources say and a repeated failure to understand this issue." Is this about it? Sandstein 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, Vanamonde93, I missed the part where Raymond3023 wrote that they were "taking the responsibility of the article". Under these circumstances, I think NeilN was correct to characterize this behavior as improper, namely, adding content not verifiable by reliable sources relating to a highly sensitive topic, i.e., murder and religious violence. Whether it deserved a sanction for misconduct, and specifically this sanction, is less clear to me. Verifiability issues are primarily content issues, and arbitration does not address these. Egregious misregard for core content policies such as WP:V does rise to the level of misconduct, but I don't think that's what we have here. While it is true that Raymond3023 does seem to have some competence problems, the one edit at issue here did not directly add the problematic content, but only assumed responsibility for the article as a whole. They also had no previous relevant sanctions. Under these circumstances, I'd probably have left it at a stern warning and not directly imposed a topic ban. The topic ban is more defensible if one takes the very pragmatic view that all less than completely competent and experienced editors should be removed from DS topic areas, but that's not been our practice so far, and would be very difficult to implement.

  Nonetheless, I'm aware that this is only a different admin's perspective on the issue, and not necessarily a more objective one than NeilN's, who as enforcing admin has wide latitude to impose discretionary sanctions. Such sanctions should only be overturned if the applicable rules and procedures were clearly violated, and not merely because of a different assessment of the situation. This case seems to me to be on the border between the two situations, and I would therefore welcome other views on the matter. Sandstein 17:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article content was problematic and the user took a long time to get the point of that. This seems within process and admin discretion to me and I see no formal grounds to overturn it. However, it's not what I would have done; if it was me in that situation, once the user has admitted there is a problem and committed to fixing it, I'd let it go with a warning and keep an eye on them. @NeilN: Would you consider commuting this to a warning off your own bat? GoldenRing (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @NeilN: it's not particularly impressive but it's also not a major game-changer in my view. However, my question was really whether you would consider changing your mind; if you're confident that the sanction was appropriate, I see no grounds here for us to overturn it and it should stay in place. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Having reviewed this case, NeilN applied appropriate due diligence, and the 3-month topic ban is well within administrative discretion for the issues at hand. I don't see any grounds for granting the appeal or for overturning or commuting the topic ban. If anything, I'm concerned that we'll be back here in 3 months, since Raymond2023 doesn't seem to understand why his actions were problematic. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 8 January 2018 (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 Anmolbhat[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anmolbhat (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 enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block. :

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

1. 05:24, 13 January 2018 Anmolbhat has made an accusation of meatpuppetry (″ Looks like a botched attempt of meat puppetry″) against another user on a page which is under Regents park's good faith sanction whereby any suggestion that another editor is not acting in good faith will lead to an immediate block.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16 December 2017

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has not just been blocked but had received repeated warnings about his incorrect behavior but still he does not show any sign of improvement.1234 and has also been warned many times to stop their unconstructive editing.56 7 The user JosephusOfJerusalem also filed a complaint against Anmolbhat for breaking the civility restriction but the closing of that complaint has only further emboldened this user to break ARBIPA sanctions even more. You would have expected he would learn but he is still doing it. And if unsubstantiated accusations of meat puppetry is not a personal attack (WP:NPA#WHATIS) I do not know what is.

@GoldenRing:-The accusation of meatpuppetry was by Anmolbhat, a editor whose account is only a few months old (myself am a long time IP contributor before registering), against a senior decade old editor NadirAli who has made edits to the article[28][29] beforehand. NadirAli is no new user. This is obviously not civil on Anmolbhat's part. I don't see any incivility from the others. Winged Blades of Godric has confirmed [30] that the first sentence of Anmolbhat's contribution was cherrypicking, so JosephusOfJerusalem's rigorous objections were justified and not incivil. Capitals00, who is part of Kautilya3's tag team,[31] does not honestly mention that. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

Discussion concerning Anmolbhat[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 Anmolbhat[edit]

Statement by Kautilya3[edit]

I don't know about "meatpuppetry" but an obvious of WP:Tag teaming to game the edit restrictions in place for Kashmir conflict-related articles.

NadirAli's previous edit to the page was on 9 January, when Anmolbhat's text was already present. NadirAli raised no objections then. He has made no talk page comment on this page ever, until the current one. Looking at what he writes: So far no response has been forthcoming nor is the provided source going to support the 13,000+ kB of POV content, it is clear that he has neither read the disputed content (which has multiple citations for every bullet point) nor looked at the "provided source". He is just doing a ninja revert to help out his mate.

As for civility, let us look at Josephus's revert justification. Apparently the edit was a "POV edit" and a consensus-less edit which is totally unacceptable. It is supposedly still violating our copyright policies and constitutes a very poor write up. Hence, he demands Anmolbhat to explain why [his] edits are acceptable or else he would face ARBIPA penalties for tendentious editing. All this for one innocent edit! What kind of pompous claptrap is that? No evidence of "POV" or "copyright violations" have yet been provided on the talk page. This is just an effort to WP:BLUDGEON a newish editor and intimidate him into submission.

Having contributed to Kashmir conflict articles more than any one else here, let me say that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Anmolbhat's content. It is entirely factual with multiple citations for every line, no copyright violations (I have checked), and nobody has given the authority to JosephusOfJerusalem to demand explanations from editors as to why their content is "acceptable". As for his "credibility", which Anmolbhat has questioned before, who believes that this three month old account with 150 edits (mostly to talk pages) knows enough to give countless user warnings, knows so many admins, and is able to raise an ARE complaint?

Dennis Brown has closed the previous ARE case rather too soon it seems. It would useful to let this one run its course, and find out the results of his research into the other aspects of the case.

I would also like to ask RegentsPark how to address the tag teaming that is going on to game his edit restrictions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree with GoldenRing. This kind of thing should count as a violation of the edit restrictions. But, given the context of this talk discussion, where Josephus himself was uncivil from the get-go, I would say the temperatures had been raised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (JosephusOfJerusalem)[edit]

I had indeed filed the report which Dilpa kaur points to, Dennis Brown seemed to have given Anmolbhat a lenient second chance which it seems he has not been grateful for. How many chances are we going to give him before he brings down the encyclopedia?? He should know better than to cast WP:ASPERSIONS on pages under civility restrictions. As for Kautilya3's WP:TEXTWALL, the content dispute should not be brought up here but since he has already brought it up I will say I have raised and outlined the problems in just the first sentence of Anmolbhat's contribution alone (the subsequent text being more or less the same POV) on the talkpage but there has been no satisfactory response, just WP:IDHT, red herrings and edit war by seeming tag teamers such as MBlaze Lightning who have extremely little to no contribution on the talkpage. I asked MBlaze Lightning (who contributed only a very vague sentence to the talkpage discussion (0)) to cite his evidence from the book (1) which he claimed supports the content and restore the last stable version, as is the rule of WP:NOCON, while the discussion was ongoing, following which NadirAli, who has had previous contributions to this page, had to restore the last stable version,(2) which Anmolbhat once again disruptively reverted.(3). JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by WBG[edit]

• After spending some time on scrutinizing the details, I don't think any sanction is deserved.When there are user-boxes stating IP addresses may overlap, brand-new editors (or rather SPAs) behaving like decade-old contributors with knowledge of every finest details of policies and choosing to work in extremely volatile atmospheres, sparks will fly and one needs to have a thicker skin.And, as a side-note, unless and until good-faith is discounted via objective processes, everyone ought to have a less inclination for the undo button and casting random aspersions, at-least at the article t/p.Winged Blades^Godric 14:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Whilst, one part. sentence looked like cherrypicking to my eyes, it doesn't mean that I am much/any supportive of JJ's version, either.There were no problems of copyvio et al as claimed and to start with threats of ARBIPA sanctions doesn't bear very well with me.Winged Blades^Godric 13:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Capitals00[edit]

@GoldenRing: Have a look at Kautilya3's message for understanding the background. What I am seeing is that Anmolbhat was questioning the edit summary and asked the editor to clarify it, because the editor removed 13,000 bytes of content with a dubious edit summary and also provided superficial reasons on talk page.

JosephusOfJerusalem has falsely accused Anmolbhat of making "POV edits", and violating "copyrights",[33] which is without a doubt accusation of editing in bad faith. NadriAli's false accusation of "POV content", and "misrepresentation" is just same.[34] And these accusations have no merit.

Most people have agreed here that there is some suspicious activity going on with these accounts and currently there is an ANI thread[35] running against this issue. Capitals00 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Anmolbhat[edit]

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

• As usual, I would leave the enforcement of the request to the admin who imposed the original sanction, RegentsPark (talk · contribs). Sandstein 08:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I agree that RegentsPark should look at this, but I pinged him last week with no effect. On the merits here, it would seem Anmolbhat's comment was in reference to someone warning someone about removing large amounts of text, while they themselves were removing a HUGE block of text. Regardless, I don't see this as something that breaches WP:CIVIL and wouldn't support sanctioning. I can't possibly see how the restriction could have been imposed to remove all blunt comments, stifling normal discussion, which can be a little blunt or mildly rude sometimes. I see claims of personal attacks on the talk page, but it just makes me wonder if it is a setup to complain at AE. If RegentsPark doesn't respond within a short period, I would close without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Dennis Brown: RegentsPark is a victim of TFA due to a phone change, he's currently searching for his scratch codes, I wouldn't wait for him. —SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ah, thanks for the info. Since I closed the last one after a good long wait, I will leave this open a day or two in case others have a different take on the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Please note that CambridgeBayWeather just full protected Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, an option I was about to exercise myself. There are problems on that article (not the least of which is the formatting, but that is content, not behavior). Everyone, including Anmolbhat, needs to cool their jets and calmly use the talk page, particularly since they can't edit the article. Blocks and sanctions for small things are NOT what will improve the article. Cooperation is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Kautilya3, to clear up one point, I can assure you that I examined other aspects of that case, in tremendous detail, with the help of others, privately. The newness of some accounts and the unusual familiarity with policy did not escape me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I managed to find those (elusive!) scratch codes and am back online and will comment later today. --regentspark (comment) 13:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't see the need for any sanctions on AnmolBhatt here, though this is fairly close to the border. While meatpuppetry accusations should be used with care, suggesting that there may be meat puppetry going on when dealing with relatively new accounts that are hovering around an editors content space is not necessarily problematic (see WP:MEAT) as long as it is expressed in civil manner. The civility injunction does not mean that legitimate concerns cannot be raised and I think that is the case here because we do have a number of new editors displaying strong policy knowledge and working on the same content. All that said, I think that the onus is on AnmolBhatt to justify inclusion of the content under contention and it may be a good idea for it to stay off the page while it is being discussed (but that's not a matter for AE so this is just a thought).--regentspark (comment) 22:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RegentsPark: I am happy to close this as no action, but I do have some difficulty squaring what you have written with the sanction you imposed. Accusations of meat-puppetry seem an obvious accusation of editing in bad faith. Since your restriction states that any accusations of editing in bad faith will result in an immediate block, I can certainly sympathise with those who are expecting a block to result from this report (whether such an outcome seems necessary, equitable or good for the encyclopaedia or not. GoldenRing (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Fixing broken ping of User:RegentsPark GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That's why this is close to the border. The good faith restriction was placed by me to prevent things like "Pakistani views" or "Indian views". Allegations of meat puppetry were not the intention and it is not unreasonable to allege that when new accounts appear to be editing in tandem. That wasn't the spirit of the restriction. Dennis Brown's suggestion below is a good one and I'll modify the restriction. Meanwhile, it may be a good idea to remind AnmolBhatt that proving meat puppetry is difficult and that such allegations should be made very carefully. The way I see it, a meat puppetry accusation is not by itself uncivil, repeated such accusations without using a formal process would be a problem. --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rather than have a long drawn out discussion on it, I would like to see RegentsPark change the line "Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block." by either removing it altogether (first choice), or something along of the lines of "Serious breaches of civility may result in sanction without warning". Removed is preferred because we already have policies on civility, and no two people can even agree on those. Besides, the section below it called "An ethnicity claim restriction" already covers the most likely cause of stress on those articles. I agree with GoldenRing that people may be lead to think that minor things will result in action, when a consensus of admin wouldn't take that action, so as worded, it is doing more harm than good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks Dennis. I've modified the restriction accordingly. --regentspark (comment) 15:07, 14 January 2018 (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 Al-Andalus[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

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

1. 01:34, 12 January 2018: Al-Andalus added disputed content about the use of the term "collusion" in public discourse about the Donald Trump-Russia dossier; e.g., "Although the term 'collusion' continues to be used, in most cases mistakenly, by many people discussing the allegations in the dossier, including by profesional political commentators, it is widely acknowledged that no actual allegation of 'collusion' is alleged. Rather, 'conspiracy' is what is meant by most of those who mistakenly use the term 'collusion'. ... "
2. 01:46, 12 January 2018: Al-Andalus was reverted by Volunteer Marek.
3. 13:58, 13 January 2018: Al-Andalus reinstated nearly the same challenged text with some modifications; e.g., "Although the term 'collusion' has been used by many, if not most, when discussing the dossier's allegations of Trump's interactions and coordination with Russia, including politicians, media personalities and cable commentators, no actual allegation of 'collusion' is made by the dossier. The allegation has, in law, always been one of conspiracy ..." Al-Andalus did this while ignoring a related talk page discussion that found no consensus to remove "collusion" from the article and without engaging Volunteer Marek to better understand his objection.

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [36]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Al-Andalus has a history of disruption at this article, including restoring inaccurate claims about the dossier being funded by the The Washington Free Beacon to the lead multiple times from 1 November 2017 to 4 November 2017. Although I cannot produce the diffs because they have since been removed from the public logs, Al-Andalus's behavior resulted in this discussion and a warning from MelanieN: "PLEASE STOP re-adding this inaccurate material to the lede. I have invited you to the talk page to discuss this. I have warned you that the article is under special restrictions so that you can't just keep on re-adding your own version. I do not want to have to report you for violating the Discretionary Sanctions, but that will be the only recourse if you keep on ignoring messages and edit-warring misinformation back into the lede."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]

Discussion concerning Al-Andalus[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 Al-Andalus[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Al-Andalus[edit]

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

• This seems a fairly clear-cut violation of the "consensus required" restriction. I would like to hear from @Al-Andalus: and perhaps also from @Coffee:. GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• These were done on a mobile device which to my knowledge means the editnotice isn't visible (unless that has changed recently, which I've been hoping for), are we sure they were aware of the discretionary sanctions system when they made these edits? Was there a warning on their talk page? I'd be interested in hearing their statement here though. Also, if they continue without commenting here they should face an immediate block for refusal to cooperate with an Arbitration ruling. But, I'm willing to hold back the hammer here @GoldenRing: if they hadn't received proper notification. These areas always get tricky when dealing with mobile edits... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GoldenRing: I messed up the original ping. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GoldenRing: Looks like they actually were made aware very clearly by Melanie right here as is required to enforce the restrictions. With this knowledge, I'm for an immediate block. I see no need to wait for their input when they haven't responded to concerns about their edits in weeks, after a review of their contribs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Coffee: Yes, after looking into this a bit more I agree, the user has been asked not to repeatedly re-insert the same material on this article over a period of months. I've followed your suggestion and blocked (1 week in this case) but IMO the next sanction (should there be one) should be a long AP2 TBAN. GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @GoldenRing: 100% agreement here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @GoldenRing: One of these days I'll stop auto-pilot typing a space in your name when trying to make successful pings... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:24, 16 January 2018 (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 Sir Joseph[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sir Joseph (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

Biographies of Living Persons

• I'm filing this under BLP because it's a BLP vio, but it's also a [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 American Politics 2] issue.

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

1. 15:28 January 18 2018 Accuses a living person of having been "caught lying" without a source.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20:16 January 12 2018 Recent related controversy and warning by User:MastCell
2. [38] Previous block related to American Politics BLPs noting "a pattern of disruptive behavior" along with a warning that if this pattern continues the user is "heading for an indef" [39]
3. [40] A (short) topic ban from another American Politics BLP, followed by
4. [41] a block for edit warring despite the topic ban

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

• [42]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a straight up BLP violation, following shortly on the heels of related problematic comments at other articles and ANI and part of a long term pattern.

@Admins - last time I asked somebody to retract a DS violation I was accused of "threatening" the editor and threatened myself with a block "if I did that again". So hell no, I learned my lesson, I didn't ask him to retract first. Neither am I required to - he just needs to be notified of the discretionary sanctions, which he has been.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dennis Brown: - Dennis, you link to a ... google search. I mean, for funky sake, all you did is google "Durbin lies" and that's it. And claim that "finding a source is easy". Is it? The first source I get says "Someone is lying about that 'shithole' meeting. And I think I know who." The "I know who" is NOT Durbin. The second source I get says "Here's exactly how Dick Durbin destroyed Kirstjen Nielsen's 'shithole' explanation". Yeah, I don't think that source supports "Durbin lied" either. Third source says "Tom Cotton, David Perdue, and the Trap of Lying for Donald Trump" - that's not "Durbin caught lying" either. And that's putting aside that the "caught lying" remark was not in reference to Trump's "shithole" remark but supposedly happened during Obama administration. Sir Joseph was clearly saying that Durbin had a history of lying. Without backing it up (also, frankly, it's not your job to find sources for him). That's a clear cut BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here is the thing - pretty much all sources in that google search you posted Dennis, refer to SOMEBODY ELSE lying, not Durbin. You should have at least put the search term in quotes. Searching google properly is not hard. Now, there are a couple (two precisely) sources that say that Durbin has a history of lying. Guess what? One is a ... sports forum, 247Sports.com and the "lying" is just commentary from users. The other is a non-reliable source which routinely attacks individuals (Daily Wire). Jeez christ, I didn't think I'd have to say this to an admin but WP:COMPETENCE is required.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Masem - it was GoldenRing a few months ago. It will take me a bit of time to find it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dennis - which reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MelanieN & Number57 - the big difference is that MrX provides a source. Actually three. In his second comment he just refers to his first comment. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Sir Joseph[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 Sir Joseph[edit]

So the first I notice about this is an AE notice on my page, no questions or comments, especially since I posted the source on the same page before. In any event, here's the Politico source frmo 2013 where Durbin lied about a closed meeting and the White House had to shut him down. [43] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also don't think this should be closed with a trout, VM should be sanctioned for bringing frivolous AE actions. This is not the first time he has done so. And he has shown himself to be not the most neutral editor, and he is being a little deceitful with the list of blocks (not that most of you care about those), he has listed a short block for violating a TBAN (none of which are BLP issues anyway) but he doesn't list that I was unblocked less than 5 minutes later because it wasn't a violation. Those are BLP violations against me and should be dealt with. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]

Just a quick question, did you ask him to (a) retract it or (b) source it, before launching the kitchen sink at him? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could find no evidence of any such request. This seems to me to be a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Trouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RegentsPark I'm now curious, if he had said Lance Armstrong was caught lying, would the same BLP violation (as you perceive it) apply, and a warning be necessary? We're going to need to start high alerts on all talk pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the big deal here either. This is classic throw the kitchen sink behaviour which really needs to be stopped. Simple communication may have resolved this issue before any drama board, yet here we are, people saying individuals should be warned, sanctioned etc. For one statement which is generally held as true anyway. Wikipedia is tending to destroy itself, this just exemplifies that. This should be speedy closed, with a suggestion that Joseph cites or removes the claim, not with tepid warnings or sanctions. People must do more to resolve such trivial issues before resorting to this kind of timesink. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volunteer Marek you openly question the competence of some admin(s) here, yet like me, several of them would like to know why did you not request the edit be sourced or removed before opening such a drama festival? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dave[edit]

Saying a BLP is lying is not a DS violation by any stretch of the imagination ..... As TRM says the best course of action would've been to ask them to either provide a source or retract it. I urge the Committee to Speedy Decline this case. –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to add obviously saying "X is lying" should be avoided and could perhaps be considered a BLPVIO however IMHO it certainly isn't a DS issue, Also again just to add if this AE was about the shithole comments then it might be a different story but if we're judging purely on that one diff then I don't see a violation. –Davey2010^Talk 16:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

Joseph has repeatedly violated DS and is a generally disruptive editor at the American Politics articles and associated talk pages. I think Admins here should focus on enforcement at whatever level is needed to prevent future disruption. I see no basis to hope that further warnings from Volunteer Marek would somehow change Joseph's behavior. Dear Admins: There's not enough patrolling of these articles by our volunteer Admins. Then when non-Admin editors take the time to report an obvious violation, their report too often ends up in a long drama thread at AE and extensive appeals and recrimination and deflection. I think a better model is simply for AE to carry out the escalating sanctions Arbcom mandated in the AP2 decision. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

Uninvolved comment This should have been resolved by asking for a source, not jumping immediately to AE. I don't see any attempts to request a source in that discussion or at Joe's user talk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I'm not entirely convinced that the daily wire is an unreliable source (with the necessary corollary; I'm not convinced they're not, either), and it does explicitly support this content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MelanieN[edit]

(Disclaimer: I am involved at that article, so I am commenting as an ordinary editor and not as an admin.) I would note that in the same discussion, on 18 January, User:MrX accused three people of lying under oath at 14:04 and again at 14:12 - in fact that was the very comment to which Sir Joseph replied, at 15:28. For some reason, VM didn’t find MrX’s repeated accusations to be reportable. I am not saying that MrX should be considered for sanctions too, not at all. My point is that 1) at talk pages (as opposed to articles) people are sometimes a little free with their comments about living people, and 2) VM seems to have been very selective in his outrage. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

I'm somewhat confused by assertions above that one can use a talk page to abuse a living person on Wikipedia.

The banner at Talk:Hillel Neuer reads:-

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

Notwithstanding this, SJ repeatedly defamed a living person.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer The Hillel Neuer AfD , SJ repeatedly made wild, partisan remarks saying it was a ‘fact’ that Richard Falk, Princeton professor of international law, and a human rights specialist, was an antisemite. I thought that was a breach of the rule set down in the talk page banner. See

• here
• here,
• here

I told him to drop these serious BLP violations. Though his accusations completely skewed the known facts, and indeed defied the facts, he still persisted in calling on a talk page a distinguished international jurist an antisemite Whatever is done here, some clarification should be given regarding whether BLP applies to remarks editors make on a talk page. Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Sir Joseph[edit]

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

• I'm not sure I would be so quick to sanction someone over an uncited talk page comment when finding a source is so easy. [44]. I do not think this is the type of activity that our policy on BLP was designed to cover, as it isn't abuse in any way, just an absence of citation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • VM, my point was only that others are saying the same thing, and in reliable sources. I'm not claiming it is factual, only that at least some RSs are saying the same thing. He COULD have produced a citation had he been compelled. He should be more careful, but what he said could be WP:Verified in an WP:RS, at least the fact that some people DO think he has lied before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I guess I could have just linked [45] from that list, or one of the others [46]. That doesn't mean I agree, only that his statement is verifiable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ditto both TRM And Dennis. Sir Joseph should have been approached first to ask to redact or quote/source the statement before AE. And I would agree this is less an AE issue and more an AN/ANI issue related to behavior rather than sanctions. (see "shithole"_countries the recent ANI related to editors' behavior over Trump's "shithole" comment which shares similar aspects here). Suggest no action (though caution SJ when using BLP Claims on talk pages, and trout VM for rushing to file). --Masem (t) 16:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Volunteer Marek: last time I asked somebody to retract a DS violation I was accused of "threatening" the editor and threatened myself with a block "if I did that again". Diffs please for review. --Masem (t) 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• At the least a caution is warranted here. BLP applies to talk pages as well and making generic negative statements about a person should not be acceptable. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  TRM, I don't see the big deal here. Should one say, without sources, that an individual has been caught lying? I'd say no. Is doing that worthy of a sanction, probably not? Should we caution the editor to be careful how they make negative unsourced information about a living person? I'd say yes. Lance Armstrong is not the issue here. --regentspark (comment) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This appears to be a tempest in a teacup. I'm not seeing anything that justifies AE involvement. I think even ANI would be a stretch. While I believe they were acting in good faith, VM probably should have taken a deep breath (or two) and considered other options before bringing this here. I suggest we move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree with Ad Orientem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ad Orientem is probably right, although I would also caution Sir Joseph, given his experience in these areas, to not make such statements without backing them up with a RS. If sourcing is so easy, just do it, save us all some trouble. Because, as RegentsPark points out, BLP applies everywhere and it is never acceptable to throw around statements that "X is a liar" without proof. For example, I can say "Donald Trump has frequently lied" but only when I supply a RS, it is OK per WP:BLP. Regards SoWhy 17:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment were any of the other editors who accused various public figures of lying brought here or warned? On the same talk page I see accusations that Trump, Nielsen, Cotton, and Perdue had all lied. Number 57 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• For the purpose of discussing article content in which alleged lies by politicians are an issue, discussing alleged lies by politicians is admissible. Of course, as regards WP:BLP it would have been better to phrase the comment as "[Source] has accused Senator Foo of lying", but at least on a talk page I think that this is not conduct particularly worth sanctioning. Especially if one considers that the accusation or indeed the practice of lying, in current top-level US politics, doesn't seem to carry much of a stigma any more, but has become part of everyday political discourse. I would take no action. Sandstein 18:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @VolunteerMarek: I've just been through all my edits since august trying to find where I said that to you. I found instances of me giving exactly the opposite advice, but the only time I can find where I suggested blocking you was for calling another editor a liar. So, can you provide a diff, please? GoldenRing (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (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 Greggens[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) and WP:BLPDS :

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

1. 18 January Added lengthy entry on Elizabeth Warren to "List of impostors" after being warned that future edits in this vein would result in an AE filing
2. 17 January Does not listen to editors explaining policy to him, instead declaring that it doesn't matter what the sources say, because Either one is an impostor or one is not. In this case, she clearly fits the definition of impostor. Why can't we call a ♠ a "spade?"
3. 17 January When this edit is reverted and challenged, declares that based on the reports from the above-named sources, it seems clear that, by definition, Elizabeth Warren is indeed an impostor, for the same reasons that Rachel Dolezal is an impostor and that It should also be noted, BTW, that even to this date, she has yet to have her DNA tested for Native American ancestry, to settle the questions once and for all.
4. 17 January Added Category:Impostors to the BLP of Elizabeth Warren

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions for American politics and biographies of living persons here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user is apparently deeply convinced that Elizabeth Warren is an impostor, and absolutely insistent that Wikipedia must factually describe her as an impostor. This is despite the fact that reliable sources do not do so, and thus we cannot. They have come up with a million and one excuses and demands, and have ignored multiple editors explaining to them why they cannot do what they seek to do. I am asking that this editor be topic-banned indefinitely from anything have to do with Elizabeth Warren, as their edits are contrary to basic content policies and are wasting the time of other editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified here.

Discussion concerning Greggens[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 Greggens[edit]

Recently, one of my good faith edits has been reverted based on one user's opinion of what constitutes a "violation" of Wikipedia policy. User: NorthBySouthBaranof has been telling me lately that Elizabeth Warren does not belong in Category:Impostors based on his/her interpretation of WP:SYNTH. While I respect this person's point of view on the matter, I have not ignored what he/she or any other editors have told me about this subject. I have merely offered rebuttals, listing reasons why I believe my original edit adding the Warren article to "Impostors" was not a violation of policy. The edit in question was based partly on information written in sources already cited in the article, and partly on common sense definitions of the word "impostor." NorthBySouthBaranof's opinion is based solely on personal interpretation of policy, not on concrete fact. For example, this user claims that putting the article in the Impostors category would be inappropriate because "No reliable source here calls her an impostor." Since when does the media have to use a term on a given politician before Wikipedians can have permission to use that exact same term on that exact same politician?

For the record, I have not attempted to restore the disputed edit; rather, I have sought consensus as to what should be done. Also, I have not made any edits to any page which I have been explicitly told not to edit. If I believed that an edit I was about to make was against Wikipedia policy, I would not make that edit.

So far, the only comments that I see are from those involved with the "Impostor?" discussion on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. By rule, results concerning me are only to be made by uninvolved admins.

These charges are frivolous, unfounded, and unwarranted. Please rescind them. If you don't want me to categorize this article under "Impostors," then fine. I won't put the article in that category. No need to impose any sanctions. Greggens (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Greggens[edit]

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

• Unless any admin objects, I am preparing a one month topic ban for Greggens from American Politics and six months from Elizabeth Warren. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:33, 19 January 2018 (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 KU2018[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

KU2018 (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:ARBAPDS :

(Note Breitbart News is subject to editing restrictions. See Template:Editnotices/Page/Breitbart News

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

1. January 15, 2018 Removes "Far-right" from the lead, ignoring the hidden comment advising not to do so.
2. January 19, 2018 Removes "Far-right" from the lead, ignoring the hidden comment advising not to do so.
3. January 19, 2018 Restores the challenged edit against consensus

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is also repeatedly adding poorly-sourced content to BLP Alex Jones. See recent history and warnings: 1, 2.- MrX 🖋 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Despite of multiple warnings and being reviewed at WP:AE, this user continues to insert the same content that violates WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:RS: [47][48][49][50]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

Discussion concerning KU2018[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 KU2018[edit]

I first removed the text, which I shouldn't have done. However, I realised when going on to the talk page that I was wrong to do this. Earlier today I put in a compromise - putting the 'far right' label further down the page. This helped restructure the sections of the lead. I did not remove the far right label on the second and third edit, as stated in this request.This was consistent (Breitbart talk archive 3) with the previously agreed consensus as this stated quite vaguely that the far right label could be used in 'some circumstances'. I reverted this once as the text was removed even though it was consistent with the consensus. I did not revert a second time as I was aware that the 1RR was there. I would not have chamged the far right wording if it was against the consensus of the discussion. I will not be editing until monday. KU2018 (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

It is worth noting that KU2018 had previously agreed to stop pushing for this change to the article, in the face of unanimous opposition and a large opposing consensus. See this edit, dated Jan 15th. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandstein:Your proposed TBAN sounds like the best possible solution. I get the impression that KU is not incapable of becoming a very productive editor, but that their involvement in politics has the potential to ruin that. I had been trying to provide some mentorship on their talk page, which seemed to be helping, right up until I saw this report and realized they'd gone back to edit warring at Breitbart. The three months stipulation is a good one, as it gives them the opportunity to resume their primary area of interest within the foreseeable future, provided they demonstrate a good ability to contribute elsewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dr. Fleischman[edit]

While we're on the subject of administrative sanctions... not an AE issue specifically, but KU2018's username, which refers to Kingston University per their user page, appears to be a violation of our username policy. I mentioned this on their user talk, got no response. Their user page raises meatpuppetry-related issues as well, though I see no evidence of bad faith here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning KU2018[edit]

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

I'm of the view that page-level restrictions should be enforced by the administrators who impose them, in this case, Ks0stm (talk · contribs). Sandstein 14:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That being said, the edit-warring to include unreliably sourced WP:BLP material in a US politics-related article, The Young Turks, is immediately actionable. As political advocacy or state propaganda websites, Breitbart and RT.com are not reliable sources for controversial BLP material related to US politics, much like their counterparts on the other side of the ideological spectrum would also not be. Edit-warring such material back in after it was removed is also prohibited. KU2018 has made only 86 edits so far and has only edited controversial US politics-related articles. It is apparent that they lack the Wikipedia editing experience to do so competently and reliably. I intend to impose an indefinite topic ban, to be lifted after they demonstrate at least three months of productive editing in other topic areas. Sandstein 15:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To stop the immediate edit-warring, I have blocked KU2018 for 24 hours as a normal admin action. Sandstein 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree with Sandstein. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm confused. @Sandstein:, are you suggesting that page level sanctionss should be enforced only by the person who added them? I don't think there is anything in policy that supports such a restriction or that your suggestion reflects current practice. I could of course be wrong. @NeilN: were you agreeing on this point or just on the topic ban? Doug Weller talk 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Doug Weller: I was agreeing with the topic ban. As to the other matter, most page level sanctions should be enforced by any admin. Some custom sanctions can be confusingly worded (I'm guilty of that too) and clarification should come from the admin who added them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for being unclear. Although of course any admin may take enforcement action on another admin's sanction, I think that whoever imposes sanctions should also take the responsibility of enforcing them. I don't like it when admins drop a lot of sanctions on pages and then count on others to do the enforcement work. But that's just my view. Sandstein 17:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per Doug Weller, I don't believe that admins imposing page-level restrictions should be the only ones to enforce them, though as a practical matter they are often the admins most familiar with the subject and therefore in the best position to assess complaints. Otherwise, Sandstein's suggestion seems good to me. GoldenRing (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• FWIW, I will enforce my page level sanctions when I've been asked to do so, but I also think it is often better for an admin who isn't the sanctioning admin on the pages to be the one who does the enforcing. Separation of powers or something like that. No views on this case, but saw it mentioned at ANEW and then thought the meta discussion was worth weighing in on. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Page level sanctions can be problematic, and I agree with Sandstein in that the admin that imposed special restrictions on a single page should be pinged and given the opportunity to adjudicate the case. It was their restriction, they know *why* it was restricted to begin with while we may not without doing some homework. And yes, often the restriction can be confusing, so the most fair thing for the editor in question is have the person who imposed the restriction do the enforcement, when possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• FYI, when KU2018 was pointed towards an RfC on Breitbart which I closed in 2016, they pinged me [52] to complain about the close (to which my obvious answer was "Er, I don't think so"). Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I support the idea of a indef TBAN in AP2 topic area, reviewable after three months with good consensus-building interactions in other topics, makes sense here. KU2018 appears to be a novice editor and while I can understand the desire to improve articles on American Politics, it is not a good first area to a new editor to start in, by any means, particularly at the present time in real-world politics. Actions here show a problem with consensus building that is better handled if they get better skilled in any of the other non-AP2 topic areas we offer. We don't want to force new editors to learn the ropes (that goes against WP's open spirit) but sometimes we do need to ask them to lurk and learn. --Masem (t) 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I believe Sandstein's view on which admins can enforce page restrictions is a minority view, and while I can't speak for the Committee as a whole, I would be surprised if we clarified otherwise were that question brought to ARCA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Checkuser shows a connection to the blocked User:Oscar248, and the edits from Oscar do show the same inclination as those of KU2018's. I'm going to block them indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2018 (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

Greggens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Greggens (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic bans from the subject of post-1932 politics of the United States and topics involving Elizabeth Warren, "broadly construed," imposed at

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Notified here

Statement by Greggens[edit]

Statements that are crossed out have been withdrawn by the appellant

I have always been a proponent of WP:BLP, adhering to its instructions as best as I possibly can. In fact, one of the things that I enjoy is, when I find something that is unsourced, I find a source to back it up and insert it into the appropriate article. As for my recent attempts at inserting a category or adding to a list, I misread the policy and thought I had all my ducks in a row each time. That's my bad. With respect to these edit attempts, even if there had been no sanctions imposed, I would not have restored the edit, anyway, since there was no consensus in favor of it (I believe that gaining consensus for restoring such reverted edits is one of the things that WP:BLP mentions, in WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE). To prevent future misunderstandings of WP:BLP, I'd be happy to talk with other admins about how to clarify the letter of the policy.

In the meantime, I'll be more careful when exercising the liberties granted to editors, and I'll continue, as I always have, to follow the rules with respect to WP:BLP and also encourage others to do so as well.

On January 17, I added Category:Impostors to the page Elizabeth Warren, after which it was immediately reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof. This same user then posted a vague warning on my talk page, telling me to stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced information…to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. (diff) I then explained to this user the reasons why I believe my original edit is not a violation of that policy. (diff) I then went to Talk:Elizabeth Warren to open a discussion on the subject to get consensus on what should be done. (diff) NorthBySouthBaranof then claimed that my original edit violated WP:SYNTH. I then assured this user that I would not restore my original edit unless and until consensus in favor of such was established on the article's talk page. (diff)

When NorthBySouthBaranof submitted the request for enforcement, it was only after I had edited another page that wasn't a BLP (or recently-deceased person). It was merely a list article, and even then, my edit followed this user's guidelines for referencing information. (diff) But NorthBySouthBaranof reverted that edit too, and then filed the AE request, accusing me of making a "lengthy" edit on that other page (it was only one line long). Besides that and the original edit I made, the only other diffs that this user provided to make the case against me were excerpts from Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Those excerpts only show me making honest arguments as to why WP:SYNTH does not apply here. (diff) Just expressing honest beliefs on a talk page is not grounds for sanctions.

I refer you now to WP:NOTSYNTH, to demonstrate how NorthBySouthBaranof's interpretation of WP:SYNTH is too broad and ubiquitous, namely, that SYNTH is not: a rigid rule, nor an advocacy tool, nor mere juxtaposition, nor summary, nor explanation, nor presumed, nor a catch-all, nor a policy, nor just any synthesis, nor unpublishably unoriginal, nor ubiquitous. As is says in one section of WP:NOTSYNTH, "If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH." I was merely stating an obvious conclusion when making my original edit.

In addition, NorthBySouthBaranof exaggerated the extent to which I allegedly ran afoul of policy. (diff) For example, only two editors told me about policy pertaining to BLM and such on the article talk page, and I never once "ignored" anyone in that thread; if anything, I responded to them quite eloquently and civilly. (diff)

As for the imposer of the sanctions, NeilN, he didn't even wait an hour after the enforcement request was filed to impose sanctions, nor did he allow a discussion to take place among other uninvolved editors. (diff) The sanctions imposed are, therefore, too hastily imposed, too severe, and unwarranted.

I request that all sanctions be lifted immediately. In the meantime, I also request a stay of sanctions until a final decision is reached in this matter. Thanks. Greggens (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Edited by Greggens (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by NeilN[edit]

Greggens is not new editor. In the past, their editing has almost exclusively focused on American highways, reality shows, and celebrities. This past week they've made edits to a variety of American Politics articles on controversial subjects, all problematic.

• Tagging, no discussion
• Tagging, no discussion
• Major removal, no discussion
• Tagging, major removal, no discussion

This prompted the one month AP topic ban. An editor who has been here since 2014 and with almost 3,500 edits should know better. If they don't, then they need to take the time to see what the community expects in this area. The six month Elizabeth Warren topic ban was prompted by NorthBySouthBaranof's evidence, specifically [53], [54], and [55] coming after discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This filing at ANI also shows that despite being warned and notified, Greggens does not understand our BLP policy. "Eventually, NorthBySouthBaranof submitted a request for enforcement against me, anyway, but only after I had edited another page that wasn't a BLP (or recently-deceased person). It was merely a list article..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did look at Greggens' edits on other BLPs when developing the sanctions and they seemed for the most part gnome-work and uncontentious. Major expansions like this have minor sourcing issues at first glance but they are understandable. The Warren edits were unusual for this editor as the few major BLP edits Greggens has made are more like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

Greggens, you ignored those warnings by duplicating the objectionable edit on List of impostors. BLP applies to all content about living people anywhere in the encyclopedia. You cannot evade its requirements merely by moving a BLP-violating edit to some different page. This is why myself and other editors have urged you strongly to review our policies before editing in these areas — you clearly do not understand how our policies work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH." The fact that you desperately want it to be "obvious" that Elizabeth Warren is an "impostor" does not make it true. It is not, in fact, "obvious" - the reliable sources cited go into great detail to explain that there is no proof of her ancestry either way. Stating that someone is an "impostor" is a statement that someone has knowingly lied about their identity. Given that no reliable source states that she has done any such thing, we cannot use such a label. Your continuing failure to understand this obvious fact is the primary reason why you have been appropriately topic-banned. I again hope you take some time to read and understand how our policies work and how we write about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

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

• Comments from EdChem:
  • I have closed the discussion at talk:Elizabeth Warren as the proposals made by the appellant are clearly prohibited by policy.
  • Greggens has posted at ANI, a thread closed as retaliatory by Swarm, who offered some sensible advice that Greggens has not appreciated.
  • Greggens, take some advice and a hint... when you have dug that deep, try changing directions. You are wrong here about policy and your proposed and reverted edits are unquestionably in breach of policy. You are adding negative statements about a living person without acceptable sourcing. If you don't want to have your bans lengthened or becoming broader, you need to develop a far better comprehension of policy and learn to listen to others, even when you disagree. Consensus against you on this one is close to unanimous.
    • An example: your appeal states that ... I had edited another page that wasn't a BLP (or recently-deceased person). It was merely a list article ..., but what you were adding to it was a negative statement about a living person. The WP:BLP policy applies to edits about living people on any page, not merely on biographies in article space. It applies to talk page posts, to Wikipedia space, and everywhere else, and anything else would be absurd. As an example: what would be the point of WP:BLP if it prevented editors posting "Politician X is a total [insert derogatory term] and is guilty of [list of serious crimes]" on X's biography but not from adding it anywhere else X's name was mentioned?
    • Another example: It was pointed out to you that your ANI thread was a topic ban violation, a statement with which you did not agree on the grounds that your post was about user conduct. However, your post was about user conduct in the area from which you were topic banned, posting diffs of edits in the area from which you are topic banned. Thus, your posts were very much talking about Warren and your views, even though you did not use the words "Elizabeth Warren." You could have been blocked for that ANI post, easily. You were fortunate that the thread was closed and your topic ban violation allowed to stand. Even in this appeal, you do not have unlimited scope to discuss the topics from which you are banned... the extra scope that you are allowed goes as far as is necessary to make your appeal and no further. A ban from a topic covers that topic on all pages, and discussions of it in all forms beyond making appeals permitted by policy.
  • Recommendation to uninvolved admins... if Greggens doesn't change directions and fast, something less subtle than what NeilN has already used will be needed. EdChem (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by Greggens[edit]

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

• The original report supports the sanctions imposed. Honestly, given that the problems spread farther than the Warren article (such as posting masses of maintenance tags without dropping the slightest hint as to what the problem might be, even in the edit summary, let alone on the talk page, and the huge undiscussed removals), I see more than enough disruption to justify them. Greggens is clearly capable of making valuable contributions in other areas, so I'd advise to use the time off from American politics to do that, and if you return to this area, reconsider the bull meets china shop approach and be much less combative. They're sensitive areas and require careful and thoughtful editing and a willingness to hear others who disagree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I also note that Greggens objects to the speed with which the AE report was closed. It's common for people to not entirely understand how that works, so I suppose that should be clarified. An AE discussion isn't required at all before an uninvolved administrator imposes discretionary sanctions, nor is it required to run for any given length of time if it does take place. As soon as an admin sees something they believe to clearly justify sanctions, they may place those sanctions. The entire point of discretionary sanctions is to enable a rapid response in areas that see a lot of problems. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per Seraphimblade - the sanction is not only within discretion but richly warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Per Seraphimblade and GoldenRing. The actions leading to the topic ban, and the actions since both clearly demonstrate the need for the topic ban. BLP should really be understood as "Biographical content about Living and recently deceased People" rather than literally applying only to biography articles, and a ban from all BLP content rather than just Elizabeth Warren would not have been an excessive reaction to your actions. When you find yourself in a deep hole and other people confiscate your spade, it is recommended to take the time to understand why they have done so before resuming digging. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The sanction is clearly merited. This appeal would even be a basis to extend it. I would also decline the appeal. Sandstein 11:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Vexatious litigation. A mere half hour after appealing here, Greggens also took the matter to ANI (where it was promptly thrown out as a "bad faith, retaliatory report") in an attempt to get NBSB sanctioned for "harassment". Clearly they don't understand why that was a bad idea. Also, they still don't seem to understand how egregious it was to take their BLP violation to "merely a list article" after being warned off Elizabeth Warren's bio. That's all quite worrying. Also, Greggens complains that Neil "didn't even wait an hour after the enforcement request was filed to impose sanctions, nor did he allow a discussion to take place among other uninvolved editors", and thinks the sanctions imposed are, therefore, "too hastily imposed, too severe, and unwarranted." No, they're not; in an obvious case, there was no need for Neil to wait for discussion; that's not how it works, as others have pointed out. Now, somebody who's not at home on the noticeboards can certainly be excused for not knowing how AE in particular works; but why didn't Greggens ask/complain to Neil directly about that, rather than run straight here? Their quick appeal here is misuse of AE, IMO, just as their ANI attempt to get NBSB sanctioned was misuse of ANI. It's unfathomable that they would assume they understand AE practice better than Neil, to the point of not even bothering to ask him before coming back here. I hope a ban from American politics + Elizabeth Warren is sufficient, but I wouldn't object to a stronger sanction, especially for conduct after the sanction was given, per Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• At the least he should be banned from both AP and BLPs (ie a BLP ban which includes all BLP material) for six months, and given that his topic ban from Elizabath Warren, which he broke, was already six months perhaps longer. I can see no excuse for his List of Imposters edit unless he is truly unable to see the problem, in which case he may need to stay away from these topics completely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 12:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per Seraphimblade. The speed and type of sanction was proportionate to the issue. He could have justifiably used harsher sanctions, so from my perspective, he showed restraint. Dennis Brown - 2¢
• Especially given the contents of this appeal, I'd have gone for an indefinite topic ban so that we can get some reassurance that the behavior won't recur before lifting the ban. That said, decline. T. Canens (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Appeal has no merit. The sanction was more than within the discretion of the imposing administrator, and was highly justified based on the editor's actions. This appeal should be declined forthwith, and the current sanction should be extended at a minimum to a year in length and broadened to include the BLP topic space. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This appeal has no merit and indicates an absence of clue on Greggens' part. Accordingly, the sanction presently in place is the minimum that should be applied. This is a textbook example of why we have this AE process. The retaliatory complaint at ANI is a topic ban violation and an aggravating factor. I also note that tag-bombing articles without a corresponding discussion on the relevant talkpage is usually considered disruptive, and apart from the current, justified sanction I would advise Greggens to be prepared to offer thoughtful explanations for their actions and to make an effort to listen to the concerns of other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2018 (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 Ihardlythinkso[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ihardlythinkso (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:ARBAPDS

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

1. January 21, 2018 Violates topic ban by posting several comments at an AfD directly related to American politics
2. May 14, 2017[56][57] Edit warring on an article closely related to American politics. Warned by several editors: [58] and [59]. His final response: "fuck me!"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. May 10, 2017 (notification) indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American Politics
2. January 31, 2017 Blocked for personal attacks
3. November 7, 2016 AE sanction
4. August 2, 2016 Topic banned
5. August 2, 2016 Blocked for personal attacks

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on May 10, 2017 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The purpose of the May diffs was to show that restraint was exercised by not reporting him for those violations, even those he displayed vulgar disdain for the explanations he was given.

Dennis Brown I'm perplexed by your comment on several levels. I'm not aware that there are technical topic van violations and non-technical topic ban violations. Also, IHTS's comments in the AfD exhibit a profoundly-shallow, if not obtuse, understanding of what race is commonly understood to mean. When an editor starts referring to respected Journalists and fellow editors as ignorant and uneducated, the quality of the discussion goes right off a cliff.

Given IHTS's colorful history of personal attacks, I think a week duration block is insufficient, but of course, that's not my department.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60]

Discussion concerning Ihardlythinkso[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 Ihardlythinkso[edit]

• Thx for your comments, Dennis. But I don't know what the Q(s) are to "respond" to. It's clear I feel an encyclopedia s/ not use sources that are demonstrably uneducated/ignorant, no one else seemed to see those flaws at the Talk. It's embarrassing. I added some education there at my own risk, to improve the encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the mission. So shoot me. --IHTS (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC) (moved here from wrong section below. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC))Reply[reply]
• "Mexican", "Latino", and "Hispanic" are not race. (They are not even ethnicity! Look it up.) Apparently MrX wants to redefine the word "race" according to popular misconception. One w/ think that's below standard, for an encyclopedia. --IHTS (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Galobtter[edit]

So I trawled through his edits and I found these two diffs in September among the thousands of minor chess edits - "was only "shocking" to Hillary supporters, was "delightful" to Trump supporters, so tell me this isn't typical liberal WP bias, duh!" and this on Dina Powell, the U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy to President Donald Trump. I don't know how much relevance it has being months old; just thought I'd add here, being blatant violations (and showing a pattern of violations). There's also another edit to Shooting of Kathyrn Steinle here in July. (later addendum: probably not really a violation as not editing the part of the article related to politics, though toeing the line) There's four edits to the talk page of illegal immigration in the united states (marked as being under AP2 DS) in June. first diff (another addendum: not Those are essentially all the edits that could be violations of the t-ban since June. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also don't know what Dennis Brown is on about - Ihardlythinkso's statements definitely added some hostility to the debate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding those edits to Talk:Illegal Immigration - incivility of Acts like yours is one reason WP sucks.. I would say those diffs are violation of the restriction. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think for repeatedly violating t-ban (blatantly too) with incivility a longer block is necessitated Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Ihardlythinkso[edit]

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

• This looks like a clear topic-ban violation. I suggest a week-long block, followed by escalating blocks if the breaches continue. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Dennis Brown: This comment by IHTS specifically references a particular politician. Regardless of them referring to a reference as well, they clearly violated the topic-ban. A 1 week block is what is in order, and I don't think I see that in any way as a "drastic" measure. Regardless, I too would like to hear from Ihardlythinkso as soon as they are online. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agreed, this is nearly as plain as violations come. I'd support a one-week block but won't impose one until IHTS has had a little time to respond. GoldenRing (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Absent a compelling defense from IHTS, a block seems to be in order. I would go with 72 hours but one week is acceptable too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The May 2017 edits, though undoubted violations, are too old to worry about much, but the comments at the AfD are recent and are certainly violations. One week seems reasonable. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• The May diffs are too stale to consider. The January diffs are violations, but I can't help but notice his focus was on the accuracy of the sources (or lack thereof), not about the politicians, so the violation is really a technical one. Not that it matters, but his points raised interesting questions about the sources, so it added to the discussion rather than disrupt, although he still needs to not do that since a topic ban IS in place. I don't think anything drastic is required, but it would be good to hear from IHTS, if he chooses to participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dennis, I don't agree that IHTS's argumentative comments in the AfD are merely 'technical violations'. They're actual violations. See for instance the comment about NYT's supposed bias, or about Paul Ryan's (and Mr X's!) "level of education". Bishonen | talk 16:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• I said "The January diffs are violations", so I'm not taking away from that. My comment is on the disruption causes and the content, so I'm not arguing against sanction (Coffee), I'm merely stating I don't we need drastic sanctions. A short block wouldn't be drastic. A month would. I read the comments in detail, so I'm quite familiar with the content. I think too much is being read into my comment, which were a comment on the case, not on other admin's comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 21 January 2018 (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 Doncram[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Doncram (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

[61] (time to re-impose the interaction ban suspended by this announcement); also see below

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

In response to the announcement about the suspension of the Doncram case's interaction ban, Doncram promptly proceeded to attack the other party in the ban, as well attacking the same party in the discussion about case names versus numbers. When I left a note saying "this is precisely the kind of behavior prohibited in the announcement", he proceeded to attack me. Note the complete lack of evidence: you can't get a better example of WP:WIAPA point #1, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. We routinely issue first-time blocks to editors who make this kind of attack, but Doncram's been significantly sanctioned for this precise kind of behavior in a past arbitration case, but he's still bringing up issues from five years ago to attack multiple editors. After this long, it's obvious that he'll not decide to comply with NPA. It's time to lock the door and throw away the key.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. New announcement, which started the discussion
2. Doncram's block log
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram remedy 2.1

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

Discussion concerning Doncram[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 Doncram[edit]

Statement by Mendaliv[edit]

Honestly I think part of this is post-litigation frustration, kind of like how blocked editors are sometimes given some leeway for sounding off in ways that would otherwise be sanctionable. Considering this is 100% Doncram, I am hopeful that the outcome here is just with respect to Doncram. Maybe a block, maybe a short one-way IBAN until Doncram calms, but not immediately reversing the Committee's decision to let the IBAN lapse. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternatively this could be kicked to ANI to let the community handle it as a general NPA situation. My hope at the ARCA that got the IBAN lifted was to terminate Committee oversight of a very old case. Frankly, I believe Doncram's conduct here is objectively indistinguishable from an attempt to force the reinstatement of the IBAN by triggering the reinstatement provision of the Committee motion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thryduulf: My mentioning the age of the case is intended as a reference to my arguments for suspending the IBAN that I made at ARCA. The short version is that I believe people should be expected to exit the arbitration sanction system at some point, and that the duty to handle problems should revert to the general community processes. The Committee has a pretty strong abstention doctrine with respect to case requests, but when it comes to relatively penny-ante stuff like this, which would swiftly get handled at ANI if not for the previous case, the Committee tends not to release its jurisdiction. One of the reasons I gave to support the lifting of the IBAN is that getting caught up in Committee processes is extremely burdensome, and in most cases much more so than an ANI thread. Half the point of getting the IBAN lifted, frankly, is to not have to worry about getting dragged to AE over something debatable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DHeyward: I generally concur with your assessment, with a couple caveats. First, I don't think the admins here are estopped from taking admin actions that would be otherwise appropriate even in the absence of a Committee sanction. Inasmuch as the comments Doncram made constitute personal attacks, and Doncram has a history of such conduct, an admin could take action on it. Perhaps a one-way IBAN isn't obviously authorized, but I think it would be a creative alternative to an indefinite block. This doesn't mean it would be a good idea to do either; I believe this is more in the nature of "blowing off steam" and does little actual harm to the project or to Sarek. Second point: I don't think Doncram's complaints are "legitimate inquiry" into the nature of the ruling. In the case of this comment, which rolls a bunch of complaints about the ruling into a comment about a completely different Committee procedural change, I don't see any inquiry, and I question the venue. Similarly, this comment directed at Nyttend at the Committee noticeboard has nothing to do with the ruling and simply consists of unsupported accusations of misconduct. I don't see either statement as legitimate or appropriate, and believe they could be grounds for sanctions. But, as I said, I don't think sanctions are so necessary at this point in light of the facts. The best option, in my view, is to give Doncram a stern final warning that his comments were disruptive and objectively indistinguishable from someone gaming the system to get the IBAN reimposed, and that continuing to do so would result in sanctions very likely to include an indefinite block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

Three points:

1. Given the timing, a trout is more appropriate per Mendaliv. The rush to AE so soon after ARCA is unfortunate.
2. The comment was made to ArbCom about a motion that affected them and perceived harassment. ARBCOM is well equipped to deal with this and really has no place here. The diff is part of the proceeding, not an attack. A trout for the editors and admins thinking to punish a legitimate inquiry at the appropriate venue. If ARBCOM wishes to amend their ruling, they are able to do so. This proceeding is inferior to the one that took place and should not presume to overturn that motion. Good faith dictatesthat ArbCom will act to patrol their own space.
3. The proposal of a 1-way IBAN is not a discretionary sanctioned allowed per the ruing. The ARCA request was clear that the ARBCOM remedy of a 2-way IBAN could be re-imposed but didn't contemplate a 1-way IBAN as part of the motion. A one-way IBAN was not part of the ARCA or original case. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mendaliv: I don't disagree with your characterization of the comments, rather the venue was in ArbCom space about arbcom actions concerning him (obviously the IBAN motion is directly related while the naming of his case is related to case naming - when a remedy is a two-way IBAN, I can see the concern with a case name listing only a party). The Nyttend attacks are more concerning but that's not covered by AE AFAIK. Since all occured in ArbCom space patrolled by both clerks and arbcom members, it's one of the areas of wikipedia where virtually all participants can handle disruption. ArbCom is a heated space and it's just a bad idea to have AE move in those spaces. For the same reasons it would be bad for AE to drag editors that comment in evidence/Workshop/proposed decisions, I think AE should be reluctant to sanction in any ArbCom space. My 0.02 --DHeyward (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Doncram[edit]

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

• I think what is warranted here is a short block (1-2 weeks is my initial thinking) for the attacks against Sarek and Nyttend, and an indefinite one-sided interaction ban regarding Sarek of Vulcan. I don't think a two-way ban would be fair on Sarek at this time as one has just been suspended and they have not made any comments (that I am aware of) that would come anywhere close to being actionable in other circumstances. I would also strongly caution Doncram that any future breaches of the iban or personal attacks against other editors will result in lengthier blocks. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Mendaliv: Why is the age of the case relevant? Either restrictions are warranted or they're not. It seems to me that they are regarding Doncram but Sarek has done nothing wrong since the Committee made their decision hence I'm explicitly proposing a one-way ban. Sarek's ban will remain suspended and hopefully expire, but if Doncram's fears do come true then I'm sure he'll be brought here (or to ARCA) quick-sharpish and appropriate action will be taken. I don't have faith in AN/I's ability to quickly or reliably separate wheat from chaff in cases like this. Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm inclined to let Doncram off with a vigourous trouting here, mostly for the reasons suggested by Mendaliv. With an additional warning that if there's even the slightest hint of another breach I will advocate coming down hard on Doncram. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• I think any action other than re-instating the IBAN would have to be a normal admin action, as DS are not authorised here. And I agree with the thought of others that this hasn't risen to that level - yet. I'm not sure that Doncram (as others have suggested) is making a deliberate attempt to have the IBAN reinstated, but if it becomes obvious that this is the case, I would argue for an indefinite (but not infinite) block as a normal admin action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Thryduulf: some empathy is needed here. Take a look at what Doncram has been saying, and try and empathise. He said I don't want this (in the edit summary) on 17 January, and then edited for a couple of days and then was absent for a couple of days between 19 and 21 January (the ARCA motion closed on 20 January and I can understand that this caught him off guard as that is very quick, only four days). He then said this, which includes statements that he was 'depressed', finds this 'unpleasant', that he is 'apprehensive', and that the situation is 'depressing and demoralizing'. As far as I know, things were OK with this situation, and the ARCA filing has had the unfortunate effect of stirring things up again (this looks like a case of a new arbitration committee wanting to be efficient and not stopping to consider the human impact of their actions). The impression given is that you and Nyttend are following the letter of the law here, and not seeing the human effects of the ARCA request, and the effects of your actions and proposed actions. Please also look at the comments here (WT:AC/N permalink) where the tone seems to be against imposing immediate sanctions. By all means warn Doncram, but please take into account his feelings. Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• After reviewing the "attacks" I do not find them of high enough severity to warrant arbitration enforcement action at this time. @Doncram: is reminded that he is still within the 6 month window where AE admins have the discretion to re-levy the recently rescinded IBAN if they are found to not act in a manner consistent with our community norms, especially in their dealings with other editors. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't think he's forgotten that. GoldenRing (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I can not speak to another editor's current memory. I can however state what the reality of their situation is. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I see some drama-mongering and venting but not something that requires the ban stick. A warning is due, but reinstating the iban or changing it to one way is premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• As a note on the idea of a one-way IBAN, admins cannot impose that at AE under the current motion. On the other hand, if uninvolved admins at AE determined a one-way IBAN was appropriate rather than restoring the two-way IBAN and recommended that to the Committee at ARCA, the Committee could consider that. Alternatively, all usual non-AE possibilities are available, including blocks and initiating a community discussion about a one-way IBAN. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: why the focus on the legalese and what is appropriate in the strictly limited sense of AE? What is really going on here is that of the two parties to a two-way interaction ban, one of them asked for it to be lifted (SarekOfVulcan) and one of them asked for it not to be lifted (Doncram) or at least made clear he was not happy with it being lifted. SarekOfVulcan saw the interaction ban as an impediment to any future RfA (at least he thought that way in 2014 and the arbitration committee didn't ask if that was still the case). Doncram sees the interaction ban as protecting him from harassment. Regardless of who is right or wrong about that, those differing perceptions are a massive problem. The question here should really be why the Arbitration Committee did not see this problem that was right there under their noses and went ahead with suspending the interaction ban when it was clear that suspending it would lead to problems (at least that seemed to be clear to Callanecc, DeltaQuad and Newyorkbrad). It was also clear to the arbitration committee that declined the previous ARCA in 2014. Read what Salvio and Seraphimblade said back then. If this does come back to ARCA, the committee should consider whether they need to re-examine their initial decision (the one in January 2018), and whether the decision was made too quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan has pointed out (by email) that he re-passed RFA (in 2015, I had forgotten that), so I've struck that bit. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • When I supported the motion to suspend the interaction-ban after five years, I did not believe "it was clear that suspending it would leave to problems." I supported the motion because I thought that suspending and eventually lifting the interaction-ban would most likely not lead to problems. In my comment, I asked SarekOfVulcan to maximize the chance that things would go smoothly. I still anticipate, and hope, that Sarek will not do anything that could reasonably be understood as targeted at Doncram. Similarly, I hope that Doncram can move on from this matter—raising any genuine issue that hypothetically might arise about Sarek's behavior in the appropriate forum, but otherwise doing his best to put this chapter behind him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Have struck that bit now as well. I don't envy you all having to deal with this. Hopefully it will work out. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I think that we should not take action here, irrespective of what one thinks about the conduct of Doncram. The remedy reads in relevant part: "this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator". But I think that it is not appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to delegate this kind of case management authority to random admins who (like me) may know nothing about this apparently longstanding case and the parties. The arbitrators themselves are, by virtue of their familiarity with these elements, much better suited to take any action that may be necessary - either collectively or by delegation to one among their number. The matter should therefore be referred to WP:ARCA. Sandstein 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]