Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AE)

DebresserEdit

Debresser blocked for 2 weeks for violating WP:GAME, also noting that without some pretty strong assurances that he'd be able to exercise better judgment in the future, a broadly construed topic ban from the ARBPIA topic area is likely. Supreme Deliciousness is also warned (logged) to watch for WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in this as well as other sensitive topic areas. Finally, Debresser has appealed my sanction (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser), an appeal which at the moment remains pending. El_C 18:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: with the appeal having been declined, an indefinite broadly construed WP:ARBPIA topic ban has now been imposed. I will stress that Debresser is encouraged to commit to addressing the concerns of the editors and admins who commented in both the AE request and appeal. Unfortunately, it looks like Debresser intends to leave the project over this, which is a sad outcome to be sure. If that happens, I'm sure I speak for many when I say: thank you, Debresser, for the many years of dedicated, high-quality work. You will be missed. El_C 16:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning DebresserEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
One Revert Restriction (1RR) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Blocked many times for edit warring: [1]
  2. 16:55 30 September 2015 has been blocked for 1rr before.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Has been warned many times about the 1rr at his talkpage: [2] [3][4][5][6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

PackMecEng, it definitely does meet WP:AWARE: "2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" You are right about the Maqluba edits so I have removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, he is not allowed to violate the 1rr in a content dispute. Also, the Birthright Israel website mentions the trip going to old Jerusalem and Golan heights:[7] neither of these are internationally recognized as Israel, so he is violating the 1rr to violate npov which is a wikipedia policy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, relax and be calm, I made 1 single revert at the article and I used the edit summary to explain my reasoning for the edit:[8]. So there was no need to open a discussion at the talkpage at that point of time because it would have been the same as I wrote in my edit summary. As it has now been reverted again, I am now planning to discuss at the talkpage before any further changes to the article. Thats the next step I was planning to do, to open discussion at the talkpage if my explanation in the edit summary was disagreed. Concerning "absent the customary self-revert request"... is this a compulsory rule I'm not aware of? I was actually thinking about asking him to self revert first but then when I saw his giant block log almost all of it for edit warring and the large amount of warnings he has gotten from numerous editors for edit warring:[9] [10][11][12][13] I decided to open a 1rr enforcement as he has a long history of not following the 1rr. Why warn him again after all the warnings he has received over the years? When is enough enough?

El_C, was the 2012 diff the only one I brought? Or did I also bring diffs from 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018? The point was to show a long term pattern of refusal from Debrasser to abide by the 1rr despite several warnings over the years. To show that he has exhausted AGF, so why would I AGF again after his long history and give him another warning? Thats why I opened this 1rr enforcement request. If it is important for you that I ask people to self revert first, then I will keep that in mind going forward and ask people to self revert if they violate 1rr, even if they have a long history of not following it like in this case. As I said before I did 1 single revert and I discussed it in my edit summary, so at that point of time there was no reason to open a talkpage discussion. After that, there was reason to discuss at the talkpage and I did and that was my plan to discuss at the talkpage if my comment in the edit summary was not accepted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified


Discussion concerning DebresserEdit

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 DebresserEdit

No problem, Self-reverted. 1RR had completely slipped my mind, especially with other editors' edits in between. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that 28 hours have passed since my first revert (not counting the mistaken revert and the self-revert), can I now safely undo that edit? Especially since the talkpage discussion shows no consensus for it. I am asking about 1RR or other WP:AE-based objections, not content-related objections, obviously. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Done now, after another 4 hours, before the beginning of the Jewish Shabbath, with explicit permission expressed on my talkpage and in view of the lack of objections here. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir JosephEdit

This is more of SD's MO of making the IP conflict area into a battleground. RS say Birthright is a trip to Israel. Indeed, the ref right at the end of the sentence says that a few times. We're always told that Wikipedia is RS (not necessarily truth), it should also apply when you write Israeli themed articles. Regardless, even if SD thinks this is a violation, it's the custom in the IP area to let the person know first and give a chance to self-revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEngEdit

Two things, from what I can tell they do not meet the WP:AWARE criterial. Also at Maqluba they were reverting someone that was that was below the 500/30 threshold which is exempt from 1RR. PackMecEng (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the past stuff, my mistake on aware. PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NableezyEdit

Bright line rule violation, in addition to an absurd edit. As far as awareness, the 1RR does not require awareness to be enforced. He should of course be offered the opportunity to self-revert. But this is a straightforward violation of a restriction Debresser has been sanctioned for violating repeatedly (see the block log). nableezy - 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see this clarification request on awareness requirements. nableezy - 01:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thats a definite gaming the system. Knowingly edit-warring to purposely violate NPOV is not a good look imo. nableezy - 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by OnceinawhileEdit

Whilst he has clearly made a mistake, this doesn't look like intentional game-playing to me, on the basis of his edit comment. More like a misunderstanding, followed by some over-zealousness. The 2 week block strikes me as surprisingly harsh. FYI Debresser and I usually find ourselves on opposing sides of discussions in this topic area. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning DebresserEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm pretty much beyond sick of the over-bureaucratization of ARBPIA. So, it's good that Nableezy's aforementioned ARCA shows the Committee cementing that sentiment. Therefore, nitpicking WP:AWARE when it comes to veterans of the topic area, especially, has now become a thing of the past. I suppose it's debatable whether the practice of a courtesy self-revert request prior to reporting (which I do not believe is codified anywhere) counts as that, too. I lean toward retaining it, myself, because sometime people lose track of time, so it can often reduce a lot of needless friction. Now, Debresser has a lengthy record of AE/EW blocks for violations concerning ARBPIA (and near-ARBPIA) pages and edits, often accompanied by unblocks (my own included). Which gives the impression that, at the very least, he is skirting the line a lot more than he should. And that he has been doing that for a long time. None of that, though, explains why Supreme Deliciousness failed to observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, including why they haven't edited the article talk page even once. Nor, to boot, why they seemingly jumped to weaponize the AE noticeboard, absent the customary self-revert request. Methinks a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order... As for imposing sanctions on Debresser, I'm on the fence about that, too. On the one hand, no self-revert request could mean they may have simply lost track of time after a sleep cycle or whatever. But seeing as it is only 15ish hours, I'm struggling to conceive how he might explain carelessness to such an extent. My immediate impulse, then, is to sanction both editors, but will keep an open mind. El_C 02:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Supreme Deliciousness, a complainant telling me to relax and be calm..., I admit that this is a first for me here at AE. Anyway, if you think bringing up diffs all the way back from 2012 bolsters your case, well, that just surprises to me. The point is that you did not bother discussing the dispute even before Debresser violated 1RR (after Sir Joseph reverted, for example), or seemingly at any time after. That's besides the point. I'm not viewing your conduct here in isolation from your editing elsewhere. To that: the impression I've been getting for a while now is that you act too aggressively in highly sensitive topics. To me, that is a problem for which discretionary sanctions may serve to remedy. El_C 09:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Debresser, did you really just post (at 12:00 UTC) about how you've now self-reverted, only to then a mere 2 minutes later (at 12:02 UTC) go on to post again, asking if enough time has passed now for you to immediately undo that same self-revert? Because that probably would count as the most astounding thing I've ever heard in the history of ARBPIA editing! What sort of game do you take this for? El_C 14:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Debresser for 2 weeks for this blatant WP:GAME violation (diff). I am now inclined to close this complaint, also with a warning to Supreme Deliciousness (haven't decided whether it will be a logged warning or not yet, though). Will keep this report open for a while longer before doing so, however. El_C 15:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Negative, Onceinawhile. If anything, quite lenient. In fact, I am likely to impose a broadly construed ARBPIA topic ban on Debresser unless I get some pretty strong assurances they are able to exercise better judgment. I have already warned him about gaming the system and wikilawyering multiple times over the years, but this crosses a line for me. El_C 18:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

ReinheartedEdit

As mentioned, I'm confident hopeful User_talk:Reinhearted#Notice_about_prohibited_WP:ARBPIA_editing will do the trick. El_C 00:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: well, at least it was a valiant try. Blocked for 48 hours for continuing to engage in prohibited editing after multiple warnings. El_C 22:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Update 2: re-blocked for one month after making the exact same edit which saw them blocked the first time! El_C 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning ReinheartedEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Spudlace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Reinhearted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#WP:A/I/PIA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 january 2021 3rd revert
  2. 15 january 2021 2nd revert
  3. 15 january 2021 1st revert


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 27 December 2020
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have never done this before so do be gentle if I've made mistakes in the filing.

@Reinhearted: first caught my eye with edit summaries that raised flags non-neutral editing on falafel. I reminded them of the article's 1RR restriction [14] but they continued to revert the same content.

Does this edit falls within Arab-Israeli conflict? [15][16][17][18] and these edits come after this [19]

I hope the editor is here to contribute productively but they have only 145 edits and there has been a lot of edit warring on falafel recently even with open and unresolved discussions still open about these changes.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning ReinheartedEdit

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 ReinheartedEdit

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning ReinheartedEdit

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DebresserEdit

Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)El_C 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed
2-week block for WP:GAME violations at the WP:ARBPIA topic area. El_C 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrator imposing the sanction
El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
I am the one who copied this appeal from Debresser's talk page, so all good on that front. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DebresserEdit

There was no gaming involved. After 28 hours I asked the other editor's permission in the section above on my talkpage[21] and I even asked other editors for their opinions at WP:AE,[22] and after another 4 hours had passed, making that 32 hours after my original revert, and the other editor had agreed there was no 1RR violation involved,[23] and no objections were raised at WP:AE, I made my edit. I think that calling such upfront behavior "gaming the system" is doing me an injustice. Please also notice that he whole WP:AE report has been run by only one admin so far, and although I have only good things to say about them, I'd like to see other admins' take on this. (In addition, I see no reason to limit my editing privileges at other articles, surely not for such an exorbitant length of time, and I thank Onceinawhile for his sentiments in this regard.) Debresser (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_CEdit

See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser

As mentioned, I've warned Debresser multiple times over the years about gaming the system and wikilawyering concerning their conduct revolving around ARBPIA (or near-ARBPIA) pages and edits. As also mentioned, their latest violation, which followed a self-revert (noted at 12:00 UTC) only to then immediately have it followed by seeking to undo that very same self-revert (posed at 12:02 UTC), and which was finally acted upon a few hours later, is just a step too far for me. I believe I am well within my discretion to apply Committee-authorized sanctions to interpret this as a WP:GAME violation which warrants the present sanction. As I also feel it would be within my discretion to impose a broadly construed topic ban on Debresser from the topic area, overall, if he were to fail to provide some pretty strong assurances that he'll be able to exercise better judgment in the future. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from Debresser's talk page: Debresser, look, I don't want to belabour the point, but what is the point in self-reverting when you intend on undoing that very same self-revert a mere 2 minutes later? I realize the action itself happened, as you say, 4 hours later... But still, the absurdity of that notion, I'm not sure how, short of getting the sanctions ball rolling, I could meaningfully convey to you that, as an approach, it is not okay. That it has led to problems in the past and that it is likely to lead to problems in the future. El_C 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thryduulf, oh, a topic ban is coming. That was the original plan (diff), and it remains so. El_C 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
That is to say: myself imposing such a ban is predicated on this appeal being declined first. Only once that happens formally, will I go ahead with said ban, which will be an indefinite, broadly construed ARBPIA prohibition. El_C 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I just want this for the record. Sir Joseph has attacked me on Debresser's talk page by asking the following non sequitur (totally out-of-the-blue) question immediately below my most recent comment there: So the topic ban is punishment for filing an appeal? (diff). Needless to say, I believe this reflects poorly on him, which is why I have admonished him for this in no uncertain terms (diff). El_C 06:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir JosephEdit

I haven't checked the logs or timeline, but isn't GAME for something like 24+1 or 25-26 hours past the 24 hour deadline? If it is as Debresser said, 32 hours, is that now also considered gaming? In addition, after the 24 hours, he did post on the talkpage, it should not be considered gaming, especially when posting something that is BLUE. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)Edit

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DebresserEdit

  • Wikipedia policy forbids edit-warring in general, not just bright-line 3RR (or 1RR) violations. Self-reverting to avoid 1RR, but then almost immediately self-unreverting does seem like an issue. Debresser had 3 edit-warring blocks in 2020; their appeal doesn't suggest to me that they will avoid edit-warring in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I really can't think anything more GAME-y than self-reverting and then re-reverting because the original revert that you self-reverted was now more than 24 hours ago. At the least one would think an editor would wait 24 hours from the self-revert until the re-revert, but even that would be gaming. Once an edit is self-reverted, the editor who self-reverted should never re-revert that edit again, and, I mean, duh! It defeats the purpose of self-reverting if one re-reverts afterwards. BTW, this is why we should change the rule to "do not repeat edits without consensus". The "revert" terminology offers too many holes, such as this one. Levivich harass/hound 17:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by DebresserEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I would decline this appeal. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong decline, the offense was clearly Debresser using a self-revert to justify edit warring just outside of the 1RR window, in spite of the fact that it had been made clear that the edit was objected to (per their own evidence). Edit warring over a disputed edit on an article with 1RR, on the pure basis that the contested edit would not technically be a 1RR violation because you've self-reverted and waited until the window had closed, is about the biggest, gamey, slap in the face to the page restriction that I can possibly think of. Block was straightforward, especially given the fact that it is consistent with previous warnings against this exact behavior from the blocking administrator. I not only endorse the block here, but I don't see how any other action would have been reasonable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If anything, a two week block without a topic ban is too lenient given how obvious it should have been that the behaviour was completely inappropriate - doubly so given the previous warnings. I strongly recommend declining the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Self-reverting to avoid a 1RR violation, only to reinstate the edit four hours later, is indeed a form of sanction gaming – and not a very successful one, since the maneuver does not mitigate the fact that the appellant has engaged in edit warring. I concur that the appeal should be declined. — Newslinger talk 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixoteEdit

AnonQuixote is warned against editing —especially in such a sensitive topic area as WP:AP2— in a manner which is contrary to a consensus which was arrived at through a dispute resolution request closure. The way to challenge that is through a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Greater care is expected on their part from now on. El_C 19:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: warning was not heeded. A broadly construed WP:AP2 topic ban for 3 months has been imposed. El_C 00:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning AnonQuixoteEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
AnonQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 17 January 2021 Continued edit-warring over the "charges" text in the infobox, in direct violation of the consensus at the BLPN discussion they started.
  2. 17 January 2021 Comment at RFD contradicting BLPN consensus.
  3. 17 January 2021 Edit-warring after AE request.
  4. 17 January 2021 Edit-warring after AE request.
Relevant discussions
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • 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

AnonQuixote has been edit-warring over the wikilink in the "charges" field of the infobox at Second impeachment of Donald Trump, which they have continued today even after a consensus was reached against their preferred version in a discussion they started and participated in extensively. They had opened discussions in three venues to address this issue, where their argument that piping a link from "incitement of insurrection" to sedition is WP:SYNTH was mostly rejected. The BLPN discussion was recently closed by Eggishorn with a consensus that linking to sedition is acceptable. In that discussion, AnonQuixote demonstrated a general failure to get what others were saying. I gave them a DS alert during that discussion, after they had already been warned for violating WP:3RR. Despite these warnings, and the consensus at the BLPN discussion, they edited Second impeachment of Donald Trump today in violation of the consensus. Pinging participants in BLPN discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Note: AnonQuixote made two more problematic edits after I made this AE request. I've added them to the list above. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[24]


Discussion concerning AnonQuixoteEdit

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 AnonQuixoteEdit

The BLP/N consensus was that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" in the second impeachment of Donald Trump article. The discussion also established that no known reliable source supports this claim.

The sequence of events after the discussion was closed were as follows:

  • Per the consensus, I changed the wording from "incitement of insurrection" to "sedition", and added a CN tag because this is an unsourced claim (edit 1).
  • This change was reverted, in an apparent effort to disguise the unsourced claim with a piped link.[25]
  • I repeated my edit with a more detailed explanatory message (edit 3-4). Note that these edits were made prior to my being notified of this discussion ([26]).

I believe these edits are consistent with Wikipedia's policies, but it's possible that when making the changes the second time I violated some revert restriction, in which case I apologize for that.

Edit 2 is a comment in a related discussion, which is clearly not edit warring in any way, but a constructive contribution to the discussion. I believe the fact this was included demonstrates that the real goal of these accusations is to silence my dissenting opinion.

As my edit history attests, I have made many constructive edits to the article in question and other related articles. I do not believe sanctions are justified. AnonQuixote (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the comments from El_C and Eggishorn are fair. I want to remark that the conclusion of the BLP/N discussion I quoted was taken directly from the rationale for closing at the bottom of the section, which all involved editors except myself supported. However, I will refrain from changing the wording in the infobox without further discussion. Thanks, AnonQuixote (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by EggishornEdit

AnonQuixote is a new user who has jumped into an area which is contentious both in real life and on-wiki. This is what we want to see happen but there is a learning curve and some gentle counselling is likely needed. They say above that the BLP/N discussion's result is that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" when this is not an actual quote from the close. I closed the thread with the result "...the piping of "Incitement of insurrection" to the Sedition article is supported." The differences between those two statements are significant in terms of what would and would not be valid edits. To remove the piping with an edit that claims to implement that consensus and double-down on that mistake here is plainly not following WP:CONSENSUS. To continue to claim that there is no support for the claim when every other editor in a thread they started disagreed is a very good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't think that AQ needs any DS leveled at this time but they do need to develop a better understanding of how consensus and the core content policies work. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tartan357Edit

@El C and Eggishorn: at RfD, AnonQuixote is continuing to claim that equating "incitement of insurrection" with "sedition" is "misleading". This is now the fourth venue they've made this argument in. They are also falsely claiming there that I've made ad hominem attacks against them and have attempted to get them banned. I would like to see AQ accept that the BLPN thread was closed with a clear consensus, and not continue to WP:FORUMSHOP and litigate this issue elsewhere. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning AnonQuixoteEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I have reverted (and refined) AnonQuixote's edits and have instructed them to stop. El_C 04:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • AnonQuixote, I don't think anyone has proposed sanctions at this point, but you should not be editing contrary to a consensus which was arrived at, essentially, by a closed dispute resolution request. If you wish to challenge that closure, your next step is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 06:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to chalk it up to a misunderstanding and therefore close this complaint accordingly. El_C 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-close note: Tartan357 has added their above complaint after this request was closed. I will note, though, that I have addressed their concerns both at the RfD (permanent link) as well as on my talk page (permanent link). Bottom line: AnonQuixote's participation in that discussion wasn't in any way inappropriate, and therefore, does not meaningfully alter my closing summary. El_C 20:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AnonQuixoteEdit

Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user
AnonQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)AnonQuixote (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed
Topic ban from post-1932 American politics (WP:AP2) for 3 months, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#AnonQuixote, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2021#American_politics_2
Administrator imposing the sanction
El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
[27]

Statement by AnonQuixoteEdit

This sanction arose from a dispute surrounding the second impeachment of Donald Trump. I raised concerns about whether Wikipedia should state or imply that Trump was impeached for "sedition".

  • My initial approach was to remove the claim from the article as potentially libelous.
  • I then opened a BLP/N discussion, the outcome of which was that it "the piping of 'Incitement of insurrection' to the Sedition article is supported".
  • After the BLP/N discussion, I changed the wording in the article infobox to reflect what I thought was the consensus. However other editors disagreed with this change, resulting in an enforcement request against me.

The outcome of the AE request was that my edit was reverted by El_C and I was warned to discuss before making further edits.

Since that time, I do not believe I have done anything non-constructive. I have refrained from anything that could be considered edit warring and stuck to raising the issue on relevant talk pages and related discussions.

Although I believe El_C's initial actions were fair, this admin appears to have become personally involved in the dispute and is now unjustly interpreting my actions as disruptive.

They have themselves made several improper actions, demonstrating their bias against me:

I believe this admin is enforcing an arbitrary policy that I am not allowed to discuss this issue further. However the issue still needs to be discussed as there is still no consensus on the central question: whether Wikipedia can state that "Trump was impeached for sedition".

I request this ban be revoked by an uninvolved admin and that El_C be asked to refrain from further participation in this issue.

  • Additional comment in response to the El_C's remarks about the last two items. Nothing I have done since the initial warning merits a ban. I have complied with the warning in every respect, and even gone beyond Wikipedia's policies to avoid conflict - for example by notifying the admin about the RfC,[28] discussing a related edit on the talk page rather than going through the WP:BRR cycle,[29] etc. That I was banned anyway, despite my exemplary conduct, is arbitrary and unjust. AnonQuixote (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Further addendum: I have no wish to challenge El_C's conduct in general, only the specific actions cited above including the topic ban. I believe these actions, despite being made in good faith, were unwarranted and demonstrate a lack of impartiality in this matter. AnonQuixote (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Additional remark: El_C, can you provide links to diffs I made after the initial warning that you believe were disruptive or non-constructive? AnonQuixote (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Specific edits alleged to be disruptive by El_C:

  • [30] Summarizing another user's counterargument, which had been hidden by admin.
  • [31] Pointing out the definition of an ad-hominem argument, in a thread discussing such an attack against me.
  • [32] Making a change to an article, with refs, that had previously been discussed and approved on the talk page.
  • [33] Creating an RFC to seek consensus on a question that had not yet been directly addressed.
  • [34] Explaining my actions on El_C's talk page.

Since all of these edits are civil and constructive, I believe this clearly demonstrates that El_C's claims of disruptive behavior are false and the ban is unjustified. AnonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am quite puzzled by the numerous decline votes all citing the same reason that "warnings were not heeded" despite the lack of any edits that could be considered in violation of Wikipedia's policies. I would appreciate if someone could explain why they believe any of my edits were not constructive, so I know what to avoid in future. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_CEdit

  • I believe my longstanding record at WP:AE and WP:AEL speaks for itself. The grounds for the claim that I became "personally involved" are extremely weak. Even if we were to look at the AE board just at the present moment, I have participated positively in each one of the 9 requests currently listed, and have closed 5 of them myself. Not to mention the years and years of similar positive AE participation. The notion that, somehow, when it came to this particular case, I got so swept up so as to have become WP:INVOLVED — that assertion is without basis. This user was given a firm warning and was extended every courtesy, but they persisted in editing disruptively, so this sanction, which is rather brief, was imposed. El_C 01:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Modifying closed AE discussion to ban me — this isn't the first time that this misapprehension was expressed by the appellant. But it is, in fact, perfectly acceptable to amend closed AE requests, most especially if this is done by the original closer (in this case, me). Naturally, when a report is closed with a warning, but that warning isn't heeded, a sanction can still be imposed afterwards, with said report amended accordingly. I'm a bit surprised that I even need to explain this to AnonQuixote a 2nd time. In fact, I just did the very same thing yesterday for a different AE request (an ARBPIA-related one) which I also recently closed with a warning, but then escalated to a sanction, with the AE request updated to record that (diff). El_C 01:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • GizzyCatBella, except your ban was of an indefinite duration, which you successfully appealed after 2 years. This ban is only for 3 months. El_C 02:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree with AnonQuixote's followup. They have continued to edit tendentiously and they have continued to bludgeon discussions, including but not limited to casting aspersions on multiple individuals. El_C 02:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to AnonQuixote's post-followup addendum: their claim that I am not impartial in this matter is, again, without basis. Not only do I not hold a strong opinion on the "seditious acts" versus "incitement of insurrection" question, the entire thing doesn't even interest me that much. El_C 02:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • BTW, two appeals (other one) happening at the same time — I think that's a first for me! El_C 05:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Gwennie-nyan, I went with 3 months because of the possibility that AnonQuixote's misconduct may be due to insurrection and impeachment fever. Perhaps, otherwise they'd be able to edit WP:AP2 productively without incident. Who knows. But if not, imposing an indefinite ban would be easy and can happen with immediate effect. El_C 06:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • AnonQuixote, here is a non-exhaustive list (not interested in discussing these with you at this time, though, if that is what you're after): [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. El_C 13:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tartan357Edit

  • Recommend decline due to continuation of WP:IDHT that precipitated the ban, both with regard to content and conduct. The fact that AQ, in this appeal, is still insisting that there is no consensus on the central question speaks volumes. Also, they have just made baseless WP:ASPERSIONS about El_C becoming personally involved, which are similar to the false accusations of personal attacks they made against myself and Gwennie-nyan, which they chose to continue despite multiple warnings. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with El_C that three months is sufficient for a first-time ban. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Gwennie-nyanEdit

As an editor who has seen issues with this editor regarding this case and attempted to notify them of issues while trying to steer them in a better path, I think this implementation of ACDS was generous and appropriate. (I've seen less behavior been given short blocks at ANI.) Since joining this wiki less than three weeks ago, this issue with Trump, sedition, and incitement wording has been something they've been oddly attached to. No matter what other editors say, even El C formally warning them to tread lightly, hasn't resulted in much deviation from WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type behavior. Their behavior confuses my good-faith brain enough I wonder if it's simply not possible for them to behave in a manner consistent with being WP:HERE. I also concur that this editor has engaged in poor behavior in response to attempt to gently correct or criticize them. Please decline this appeal. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 04:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  Note: Due to the imposition of the ACDS, I procedurally-closed the talk section AnonQuixote brought on Talk:Sedition in regards to the Second impeachment of Donald Trump. If appeal is granted and sanctions lifted, feel free to unclose. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 04:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Awilley: regarding your last bit, yeah they didn't strike me as a new user either. In fact they went straight into Wikipedia namespace shortly after joining and are adept at wikilawyering. Do you think SPI might be warranted? ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 05:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Replying here: I'm not an expert on SPI, but in my limited experience, unless there's someone specific you suspect them of being, it probably won't go far. If this is someone who created a fresh account to disrupt American Politics articles, I think the topic ban will ultimately be nearly as effective as an SPI block. ~Awilley (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Awilley, given their repeated behavior, if it can be considered, I'd argue for extension of, maybe even indefinite, American politics sanctions. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 05:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WingedserifEdit

Please decline. I was on the receiving end of AQ's potent combination of WP:Wikilawyering and WP:IDHT on the Talk:Sedition discussion, which carried over to the BLPNoticeboard—I had to leave to avoid getting heated. I very much appreciated the contributions of Tartan357 and Gwennie-nyan to those discussions. —WingedSerif (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My KenEdit

I concur with Awilley's final sentence below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AnonQuixoteEdit

@AnonQuixote - I am sorry, but I don't see those diff's as an "involvement". I also believe that attacking hard-working and trusted administrators to get sanctions lifted is not the way to go. I'm sympathetic to your appeal since I was topic banned for a very long time, and I know how challenging it is to have that imposed. Still, I would advise you to strike the attacking part and focus more on your behavior and seek to convince reviewing administrators that this will not occur again. Good luck. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@El_C Exactly...3 months is nothing...and the sanction is automatically discarded after that time period... that's actually a pretty mild sanction.

@AnonQuixote try to learn from this experience regardless of this appeal outcome; it will help so much if you are planning to be a good, long-term contributor.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by AnonQuixoteEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • So far as I can see, I think El_C's actions here were reasonable. I don't see anything wrong with modifying the previous close of the AE thread, and the reverts were obviously done in the capacity of an admin responding to the AE report, not an editor invested in the article. And for what it's worth, AnonQuixote does not strike me as a new user. ~Awilley (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline. AnonQuixote has had plenty of warnings and even more advice but has apparently chosen not to listen to any of them. A 3 month topic ban is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline. Warnings were issued, and were not heeded. I can't see how any of EL C's actions were unreasonable or out of process. GirthSummit (blether) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline. AnonQuixote decided not to heed the warnings. SarahSV (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline. The editor disregarded warnings and persisted with disruption in the AP topic area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The topic ban is justified, since the appellant has repeatedly edited against consensus even after receiving warnings, which is a form of disruptive editing. I concur that the appeal should be declined. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Spartan7WEdit

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 Spartan7WEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Spartan7W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :
Principles 4.1.6, 4.17
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 10:09, January 20, 2021 - User makes edit to lead section of Donald Trump article (despite notice asking users to discuss before making controversial changes)
  2. 11:14, January 20, 2021 - User restored same edit on with false edit summary "Revert vandalism," after bold edit is reverted with explanation ("rvt; cherry-picking from transcript, undue weight, misleading, etc.").
  3. 11:25, January 20, 2021 - After being reverted by another user, restores same content with false edit summary ("User made no effort to explain any rational or use sources to remove information")
  4. 11:27, January 20, 2021 - Restores content yet again with "Cutting out censorship without discussion"

After the user is politely warned about the DS in effect, including the 1RR in effect in this page, the user explicitly refuses to comply, calls the edit challenging his/her edit "vandalism" and suggests that those challenging the edit "should have taken it to the talk page" (which ignores that the lead section of this article has been extensively discussed already, and also ignores baseline ONUS/consensus/1RR principles). In a "no, you" moment, this user spammed two editors ([40] [41]) with the same warning that he himself was given.

This is not an isolated incident. This edit has engaged in disruptive edits at various articles on political figures and topics at least as far back as 2017, including at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (warned at 23:19, March 13, 2019), including edits so inappropriate they had to be Rev'deled); Presidency of Donald Trump; and Michael Flynn.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • This is a straightforward (and very obvious) refusal to follow arbitration remedies in effect, as well as a failure to observe the general ONUS principle.
  • The false references to editors challenging the user's edits as "vandalism" and "censorship" is a classic battleground mentality/misdirection.
  • The refusal to respond to polite requests and instead to "double down" and edit war are worse because this is to an article linked from the main page.
  • We cannot, cannot have disruption on ultra-high-visibility articles like this. This user has been editing since January 2011 — ten years! — and there is no excuse of ignorance here.

Tagging SPECIFICO and Politicsfan4, who witnessed the conduct at issue. In sum, this is a slam-dunk case for an speedy, and indefinite topic ban against Spartan7W. Neutralitytalk

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Spartan7WEdit

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 Spartan7WEdit

I would like to it be explained to me why I, a long-time editor, can add good-faith, sourced information to the lead of an article, with rationale, and then that that edit can be reverted, with no discussion in the talk page, nor rational given as to why it was objectionable, but should I find his edits objectionable, I am subject to "enforcement"?   Spartan7W §   16:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

[To El_C:] Wouldn't it be nice if you address my statement?   Spartan7W §   17:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
[To El_C:] Will you explain to me exactly what I did wrong? The undo to my edit was arbitrary, baseless, and not discussed. On the border of vandalism. Why is the editor responsible for that edit not also subject to penalty? What rules did I violate in my initial edit? None. That editor's desire to editorialize is superior to my ability to make factual, good-faith, and justified contributions?   Spartan7W §   22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
El_C Well you could first explain to me why I am to be subject to disciplinary action for editing an article, with sources, in good-faith, to add balance to its content? I don't understand why the arbitrary actions of another editor, without base, can therefore result in my permanent inability to make edits to an article.   Spartan7W §   04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My KenEdit

With all the factors cited by Swarm below, it would seem that a block would be called for in addition to an AP2 topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning Spartan7WEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Spartan7W, you are subject to enforcement because that page (probably above all other pages on the project) is covered by the terms of the WP:AP2 topic area and therefore subject to WP:ACDS. Note that I have applied an indefinite partial block to Spartan7W from the article. While I cited WP:DE in the block log and block summary, this is actually an AE action, so I will log it momentarily. Not sure if this is enough to close this complaint, or whether additional sanctions are also warranted. El_C 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Spartan7W, I did. See the part above that starts with you are subject to enforcement because [...] El_C 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Spartan7W, I'm not sure what explanation you're expecting me to provide you with. As far as I'm concerned, the filer of this complaint has already provided an explanation. I agreed with it and proposed to remedy it with sanctions. Not sure what else there is to say as far as that is concerned. Also, I have already moved your comments twice from this section. Again, please restrict yourself to your own section. We don't really do threaded discussions on this noticeboard. El_C 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Awilley, revdeleted not suppressed (which is why we are able to view it), but indeed, holly editorializing BLP ghost! Anyway, unless Spartan7W can demonstrate some measure of cognizance regarding these problems, I actually don't see any other option. El_C 00:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Spartan7W, I don't know how else to reiterate this. Neutrality has filed a complaint detailing violations that he alleges you have committed, which I am tasked to evaluate. My evaluation is that Neutrality's complaint has proven its case. If you wish to refute that, you need to address their evidence and so on, not continue requesting me to repeat it in some form or another. I don't see how that would help anything. El_C 05:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Everything Swarm said. I'll highlight Neutrality's warning to Spartan7W (diff), which they then copied back to them, for some reason (diff) — what is going on here? Not to mention just general WP:CIR and being unresponsive during the course of this very complaint (I'm okayish with the former, but much less so with the latter). Anyway, I, for one, don't think we should leave this report open for much longer. El_C 16:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm just about ready to impose the sanction (indef BROADLY AP2 TBAN) — Awilley (or anyone), any objections? El_C 21:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If anybody's curious, the suppressed edit to AOC [42] added 5 paragraphs of random criticism sourced mainly to Fox but also to Newsweek, CNBC, and Daily Mail. Stuff like green new deal criticism, a conservative foundation going after her for giving her boyfriend a house email address, and her living in a D.C. apartment with an infinity pool. It's obviously UNDUE and poorly sourced, and therefore a BLP violation, but it was also over a year ago, so I'm having a hard time seeing it as justification for a topic ban in addition to the (well-deserved) partial block. ~Awilley (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Despite being in 2019, it's also in Spartan7W's last 50 edits to Wikipedia, which of course also include the current issue, which doesn't bode well. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @El_C I can see the POV pushing but also some helpful infobox work. I don't have strong feelings either way. ~Awilley (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Edit warring over contentious content, calling the reversion "vandalism", falsely claiming that the reversion was unexplained, claiming they're being "censored", refusing to communicate about disputed changes, trolling responses to warnings, responses here show no degree of self-awareness, good faith, competence to understand what they're doing wrong and indeed competence to even communicate effectively, plus a history of POV-pushing in this topic area. Agree with the above, an AP2 TBAN is obviously needed here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

GoodDayEdit

Withdrawn by OP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning GoodDayEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Sdkb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1992_cutoff) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 1/22/2021 GoodDay edit wars to reintroduce content to Donald Trump that was previously challenged less than 24hr ago, despite the page's 24hr BRD restriction.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 9 November 2020 Partial block from editing Donald Trump and the associated talk page for edit warring
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 or diff.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At Donald Trump, there is a messy situation regarding the phrasing of the lead paragraph now that he has left office. An attempt to agree on consensus for wording a month in advance of the inauguration stalled after no one stepped up to close it, leading to an unstable situation with no clear articulation of the status quo to fall back on. The lead has been modified numerous times since then and a bunch of overlapping talk page discussions have sprung up scrambling to figure something out. One sticking point among several that has emerged is whether to use was the 45th president or served as the 45th president. A contingent of editors, including myself, argued that, given that the prevailing consensus at the monthlong discussion seemed to lean toward "was" rather than "served as", and that "was" is plainly closer to the status quo of "is" than "served as", it should be considered the default fallback while discussion takes place seeking a more definitive consensus. GoodDay was aware of this rationale, having commented on the talk page in response to it. They have offered no argument justifying a different default fallback, only arguing for their preferred language, "served as". They have now changed the lead from "was" to "served as" twice 12 (the first time they self-reverted; this time they have not). I warned them on their talk page that they were in violation of the 24hr BRD restriction the page is under, and they responded dismissively. They are clearly engaging in edit warring behavior on a page where that is expressly disallowed. I request that the discretionary sanction scheme at Donald Trump be enforced. {{u|Sdkb}}talk

In reply to Chrisahn: Two quick points that I think are relevant: (1) per the analysis another user did here, previous presidents have a mix of "was" and "served as", so I do not take the argument that there is a precedent that should favor "served as" as the interim. (2) You mentioned the current consensus item noting lack of consensus, but that was only changed today. For most of the period since the inauguration, it has been this, indicating consensus for "was". With that said, I broadly take your point that we ought to try to de-escalate. Seeing that GoodDay has self-reverted, I will return the gesture of good faith and would like to withdraw this request. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff


Discussion concerning GoodDayEdit

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 GoodDayEdit

I wasn't aware that I breached anything, when I put into the article Donald Trump, "served as", in place of "was". PS - I humbly apologise for that blunder. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I restored the previous version (now that I'm aware of the apparent seriousness of my previous edit) & promise to leave it as such. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisahnEdit

The situation at Donald Trump is indeed very messy. We haven't been able to develop a consensus about the first sentence. Sdkb says there has been "prevailing consensus" for using the word "was" instead of "served as", but that has been disputed, and the relevant item #17 on Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus currently simply says "Note that this item is obsolete given that Trump is no longer the current president".

Sdkb argues that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the status quo, which was "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States", and replace "is" by "was" while changing little else. That's a reasonable position.

But others have argued that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the wording in other articles about former US presidents, which is "X is an American [occupation] who served as [n]th president of the United States". That's also a reasonable position.

So the problem is that we neither have a consensus for a long-term solution, nor a consensus for an interim stop-gap solution.

In the last two days, several users (roughly half a dozen) changed the first sentence to "served as", and Sdkb repeatedly changed it back to "was" (here, here, and here).

Sdkb added warnings about edit warring and sanctions on other users' talk pages (here, here, and here), using the words "you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree". But these words would also be a correct description of Sdkb's actions on Donald Trump in the last two days.

Now Sdkb is trying to sanction other users. But based on the same criteria, other users would be justified to try to sanction Sdkb.

In conclusion: Yes, the situation at Donald Trump is messy, but neither "was" nor "served as" is a terrible solution for the first sentence. As long as we don't have a consensus, it will probably be changed back and forth a few more times. But let's not make the situation even messier by starting a back and forth of enforcement requests. Let's cool down, everyone.

(Disclosure: I had previously made basically the same edit as GoodDay. Sdkb later reverted it and warned me that I might be sanctioned for it. I hope I managed to provide a reasonably neutral perspective anyway.)

Chrisahn (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning GoodDayEdit

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

ScrupulousScribeEdit

Closed without prejudice. Not an WP:ACDS matter. El_C 16:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning ScrupulousScribeEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
ScrupulousScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 21 January 2021 Immediately after the ban, considering appeal because others are apparently gaming the system, user talk page will show several warnings that they should move on afterward
  2. 22 January 2021 Participating to an ANI thread related to the topic they are banned from
  3. Special:Permalink/1002154515 Another article creation that appears to violate the above topic ban.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 20 January 2021 COVID-19 subtopic ban (lab leak claims and conspiracy theories)
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:
    5 January 2021
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I suggest that the topic ban was too narrow, but that despite that, the editor is playing with its scope and testing its limits, possibly voluntarily as a time sink.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1002173933

Discussion concerning ScrupulousScribeEdit

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 ScrupulousScribeEdit

Statement by Nsk92Edit

Setting aside the substance of this request for the moment, my impression is that procedurally the request is filed in the wrong venue. The topic ban has been imposed pursuant to General Sanctions rather than to any Arbitration case. As such, I believe the proper enforcement venue for violations of this topic ban is WP:AN. In principle, COVID-19 related discretionary sanctions and topic bans can also be imposed under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. However, it appears that ScrupulousScribe never received a user talk page notification about WP:ACDS in that case, and until such notification happens, the Pseudoscience AE discretionary sanctions can't be considered here. On the substance, I think that the first diff[43] is still covered by the WP:BANEX exemption, as a discussion (albeit rather lengthy) of the topic ban itself. The third diff[44] does not appear to violate the topic ban, which was specifically limited to the Covid-19 lab leak theory and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, the second diff[45] does appear to be a topic ban violation as the ANI discussion in question specifically concerns the Covid-19 lab leak theory. Nsk92 (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by AtsmeEdit

Wrong venue, and a bit premature. The t-ban was specific in that it was a Community t-ban that is restricted to Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, so this is not only the wrong venue, there is some ambiguity that needs to be sorted out. Boing! said Zebedee, who is feeling under the weather right now, has already responded to the concern and asked for patience until he can thoroughly investigate the issue. My intention is not to condone or pass any judgment on ScrupulousScribe, a shiney new editor with a lot to learn; rather, my intention is to allow Boing some time to investigate and clear-up any ambiguity that may have created a cloud over the way forward. Having said that, I do hope ScrupulousScribe will voluntarily remove himself from editing anything related to the COVID investigation, or risk being subjected to a wider ranging t-ban that is "broadly construed". Atsme 💬 📧 09:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said ZebedeeEdit

I placed the topic ban under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. It was not placed under any sanction enacted by the Arbitration Committee, and so this venue is not applicable. If someone wishes to request a topic ban under any applicable sanctions enacted by the Arbitration Committee, they will have to request it (as a whole new sanction) under the applicable rules. I suggest that this request should be procedurally closed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning ScrupulousScribeEdit

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

Friendly BatmanEdit

Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 05:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Friendly BatmanEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Friendly Batman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 11:58, 12 January 2021 changes Mughal emperor to Mughal invader
  2. 10:04, 13 January 2021 changes he is regarded as an icon by many Indians to he is regarded as an icon by Indians with an edit misleading summary of Fixed grammatical errors
  3. 12:03, 13 January 2021 removes referenced content with an edit summary of Removed vandalism to the article
  4. 12:08, 13 January 2021 amends content with an edit summary of Removed vandalism to the article
  5. 12:27, 13 January 2021 removes referenced content and replaces with massed of unreferenced content including WP:BLP violations with an edit summary of Removed vandalism to the article and added content.
  6. 12:43, 13 January 2021 reverts to add "Decisive" back to the infobox (against the instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict) with an edit summary of Fixed vandalism
  7. 13:32, 13 January 2021 replies to me saying I checked your timeline of edits. You have been vandalizing all the battle pages of Hindu as well as Indian victories. IMO you are some islamist who is vandalizing factual analysis based information/article accroding to your own ideological inclination
  8. 15:11, 13 January 2021 refers to other editors saying Certain content moderators who are radicals ideologues and have Pro islamists views are not allowing academics/historians to fix the factual errors related Hindu history as well as Indian history. They have been vandalising and deleting factual information on several battles involving Hindu kings & India and pushing pro islamist narrative
  9. 16:32, 13 January 2021 removes referenced content with an edit summary of Removed vandalism
  10. 18:49, 17 January 2021 amends content in lead (that's supported by text in the body) with an edit summary of Removed vandalism
  11. 15:19, 18 January 2021 removes referenced content with a misleading edit summary of Added content and removed revision (they appear to have begun using the term "revision" as a substitute for "vandalism"
  12. 17:55, 19 January 2021 removes referenced content, including details about Muslims, with an edit summary of Removed political vandalism to the article
  13. 15:13, 23 January 2021 drastically reduces to the lead to an unacceptable size by removing all mention of his Muslim wife and adding (apparently unreferenced) gushing about the subject
  14. 15:32, 23 January 2021 removes referenced content about the subject's mother being Muslim with an edit summary of Removed political vandalism
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked from editing an article for two weeks due to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Nationalist POV pushing, personal attacks and accusations of vandalism by Friendly Batman

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was informed at User talk:Friendly Batman#Comment on vandalism. and User talk:Friendly Batman#January 2021 2 not to use the term "vandalism" in inappropriate contexts. User appears to be pushing a right-wing Indian POV, and objects to any mention of Muslims. The constant referral to any content they object to as "vandalism" isn't helpful.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified


Discussion concerning Friendly BatmanEdit

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 Friendly BatmanEdit

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning Friendly BatmanEdit

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

WanderingWandaEdit

Speedy closed. The Committee is already on it. El_C 21:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning WanderingWandaEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 11:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
WanderingWanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions: "standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. ... [O]nce an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any ... appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 06:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC) – Worst GRAVEDANCING ever (and more literally so than usual):
    1. Fantasized about continued battlegrounding with Flyer22 in afterlife. Grossly inappropriate "humor", obviously would bait Halo. Caused him considerable distress (e-mail evidence available to ArbCom).
    2. False, no-evidence claim that "some" (who?) editors accuse ArbCom, or case participants, of causing Flyer22's death. Typical distortion, smear-mongering. Grandstandingly vulgar about it. Pure BATTLEGROUND-stoking. [Reality: Several of us feel ArbCom allowed Workshop in this case to trainwreck; Flyer22's defamation stress during her final days illustrates why RfArb rules-enforcement matters.]
    3. Insinuation ("Flyer's reported death") that Flyer22 is alive and pulling snow job with Halo_Jerk1 (there is already consensus on Functionaries list this is not true). See JBW warning below; part of longterm pattern of socking aspersions.
      • Hypocritical: a central issue of the RfArb and previous DR is WW's upset that Flyer22 asked whether WW had previous account (lots of us did at ANI and SPI, but WW only hounded Flyer for it; intensely, weirdly personal).
    4. Insinuation that only WW and their FACTION "stepped forward with honest and good faith reports about some of [other party]'s behavior".
      • Case opened to examine WW as much as Flyer22; conclusion evenhanded and mutual, not finding fault on Flyer22's part but innocence on WW's.
    5. Claimed to "understand emotions are going to run high in a situation like this", yet apparent point (and clear result) was to inflame, at worst possible time.
    6. "Flyer's absence means there's some slack to pick up. I suppose it's time to get to work." Shameless baiting of Halo and dogwhistle to FACTION to resume PoV pushing where Flyer22 formerly patrolled.
  2. 13:03, 23 January 2021SilkTork pinged WW to self-revert post, advised "following the intention of the case which is that you do not comment anywhere on Wikipedia about Flyer".
  3. 20:35, 23 January 2021 – Last straw: WW response just POINTy, selfcentered WIKILAWYERing; designed to generate more strife, had exactly that effect [46], until an Arb intervened [47].

     Also relevant:

  1. 21 January 2021 – Proposed Decision in case, as of closure upon Flyer22's death. Two so-far unanimous WW remedies: "WanderingWanda, Flyer22, and Halo Jerk1 are subject to an indefinite mutual interaction ban, broadly construed"; and "Parties to the case are reminded to avoid enflaming discussions with flippant or dismissive commentary, and to focus on content, rather than contributors." Didn't pass as formal remedies (as WW was quick to wikilawyer), but do constitute multi-admin warnings based on much evidence/analysis. WW completely disregarded; inappropriately discussed Flyer22, directly baited Halo (and pretty much everyone). It's GAMING that shouldn't be tolerated; transgressed both DS in topic area and previous administrative warnings.
  2. 15 July 2019 – Attempt to use death of a subject as smear weapon against editor for daring to challenge a trans subject's notability.
  3. April 2019 – Self-declared GREATWRONGS / TRUTH agenda to lobby against years of solid GENDERID / DEADNAME consensus.
  4. 2 August 2020 – WW's "Battleground Comment" screed about what Wikipedia needs to do with editors WW labels "transphobes" (a smear with no evidence, as usual); perfectly describes how Wikipedia should approach WW, if you replace WW's labels/targets with "PoV pushing in this topic".
    • Stark demonstration that activistic borderline SPAs of this sort who migrate here from social media don't/won't understand difference between "You won't let me push my PoV here" and "You're pushing an equal but opposite PoV against mine." Here's WW doing it again (with more "us vs. them" aspersions against unnamed whole class of editors who don't agree with WW, whom WW ridicules with absurd caricature [48]. WW just refuses to accept that "opposed to using WP for activism" != "opposed to trans activism in particular" (or WW's specific variant of it, at odds with others).
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 23 August 2019El_C's ANI close: "I advise the respective parties ... to treat one another with an abundance of good faith and goodwill."
  2. 14:03, 24 January 2020JBW warning for "deliberate policy of harassment", baiting, attacks, and socking-accusations toward Flyer, Halo, and other editors (e.g. Crossroads). "I have seen enough, and if I see you harassing or baiting her again I am likely to block you from editing."
    • 22:06, 24 January 2020 – JBW at ANI: 'The trouble with "WW be admonished" is simply that if that were going to work it would have worked long ago.'
  3. 14:32, 24 January 2020Ivanvector warns of ARBGG I-ban, and "WanderingWanda, this is your opportunity to disengage. I would anticipate it being very unlikely you will get another."
  4. 23:59, 24 January 2020JzG [then an admin] ANI close: If Flyer22 Reborn and WanderingWanda don't stop knocking six bells out of each other ... they will shortly begin to experience blocks and interaction bans.
    • 27 January 2020 – QEDK) reclose at same ANI, same diff: "Do not pester other editors while they are away." [There's no more "away" than deceased.] And: "drop the goddamn stick. ... the only outcome if it gets worse, will be some sort of disciplining ... WanderingWanda, you are hereby warned that further egregious behaviour (including hounding or casting aspersions on Flyer22 Reborn) may result in strict sanctions."
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 16 December 2020
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These unseemly, WINNING-oriented attempts to exploit Flyer22's death to further a wiki-political and PoV ADVOCACY agenda are, under the DS of this topic area, block- and/or topic-ban-worthy, given all the previous warnings. How could WW possibly think it a good idea to post this stuff anywhere on WP much less right on an ArbCom page, immediately after narrowly escaping at least an I-ban?

The doubled-down, selfish heartlessness of today's WanderingWanda disruption is especially galling, given WW's attempt to paint Flyer22 as heartless for citing a source WW doesn't like [49] (even after Flyer22 tried to appease by changing the Wikipedia-voice summary – nothing's good enough if WW's decided you aren't within their specific fold in this schism between various left/progressive and LGBT+ doctrines). Diff also establishes WW knows all about dogwhistling.

  • WW's is using their typical crafty, studied SANCTIONGAMING / CIVILPOV / FALSECIV technique, of sculpting their wording juuust carefully enough to maybe have CYA wiggle-room (and apparently hoping that reviewing admins will in the majority agree enough with WW's PoV to repeatedly excuse the aspersions and battlegrounding).
  • See nearly every thread presented as case evidence; the pattern is very consistent.
  • Sometimes it's much more direct, as against Halo here.

In summary, this editor has had many chances and an unusual amount of leeway to adjust to writing an encyclopedia among peers, versus writing a personal socio-political blog that attacks enemies. Their behavior's gotten much worse not better, so they need to be removed from the topic area. WanderingWanda's behavior triggers so many points of WP:NOT policy it isn't worth listing them out. I don't think this is a bad-faith problem, but a severe CIR / NOTHERE / SOAPBOX issue.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Extension request

Requesting a limit extension (presently 23 diffs, some only because case pages are blanked, so regular links to sections don't work; and about 1100 words, much of it quotation). Pinged no one other than non-Arb admins whom I've diffed taking action about this editor before. Unless pinged back to answer questions (or verbally attacked :-), I don't plan to respond here further, but just let AE admins assess the evidence. If an admin wants to trim this to what AE most wants to see, I'm okay with that as long as it does not cripple/skew the report. I need some sleep, though.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion concerning WanderingWandaEdit

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 WanderingWandaEdit

Statement by BilorvEdit

I found WanderingWanda's comment sensitively written and genuine, so I cannot agree with the insinuations suggested. I was much more upset by some of the responses to somebody trying to express positive thoughts in a uniquely difficult position, which quite genuinely saddened me when I first read it this morning. Remember that there is a person behind each username and you do not know about that person's life experiences.

In my seven years on this site, words people have written about me have made me cry. They have rendered me unproductive with my real-life responsibilities for a full day due to anger or hurt. They have made me take actions I have regretted. Each of these are possible consequences that you will not see when writing something anything less than formal and polite towards somebody.

We must be very careful not to hold individuals involved in the suspended ArbCom case responsible for an event far beyond their control—it has a huge potential of real-world harm. From my own experiences in life I have seen a glimpse into what it can feel like to hold yourself to any degree responsible for another person's death and I do not wish that on anyone. If that sentence resonates with anybody then they are welcome to email me. From what I have seen, SMcCandlish has been very careful to spell out explicitly that such blame is not his intention wherever he even touches this topic, for which I commend him. I encourage others to be similarly careful and humane.

I would actually ask WanderingWanda to consider not making a statement about this enforcement request, to avoid inflaming tensions further, though doubtless a lack of response will enrage some, as will any response they could possibly make, and any possible outcome of this enforcement request. To others, I would say: if you've spent less than an hour writing your statement, and not stepped away from the screen before submitting, then you might wish to consider whether the rawness of emotion in your words is desirable. — Bilorv (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Feyd HuxtableEdit

Editor Bilorv's comment is excellent except for the first line. Some of Wanda's post Arb case editing has indeed been highly problematic. If they say one more objectionable thing about Flyer I'd agree they warrant at least a 6 month block. I'd also not have a great problem if admins want to give Wanda an immediate 1 month block on a "prevent disruption, not necessarily uphold justice" bases. But must strongly object to they way Wanda's been characterised by SMcCandlish

SMcCandlish has done a phenomenal job defending both Flyer & encyclopaedic values, saving the need for many others to put the days of time & energy needed to rebut some of the nonsense that was posted at the case. But at this point he has maybe lost a bit of perspective. To take one specific example this WW diff isn't Wanda implying anyone else is heartless – it's almost the reverse. I use that language (or similar like "you'd need a heart of stone…" ) quite often in RL as an oblique way to appeal to a decision makers emotion (which one obviously wouldn't do if talking to someone one considers heartless.)

Wanda themselves is quite the opposite of "selfish heartlessness" / "severe CIR" etc. Not a single of the neutral editors who looked carefully at Wanda's conduct in the Arb case said anything that supports Wanda being a negative editor outside of the feud. In fact several sitting & former Arbs said the opposite. E.g. "shows promise as an editor" (workshop) , "has the potential to be an excellent editor" (PD) etc.

Wanda's recent problematic edits are not due to lack of Competency, studied falseCiv etc. It was due to considerable stress over what happened. E.g. saying "reported death" indicates part of them can't fully believe whats happened. I've never had contact with Wanda before & am in no way even a faint wiki friend of theirs, but on seeing the ridiculous line about looking forward to an afterlife shouting match, I immediately emailed them to say 1) events must have severely effected them for them to say something so insensitive. 2) to suggest a short wikibreak. Without revealing their reply, it wasn't inconsistent with them being under significant stress. Flyer is a completely irreplaceable editor and their loss is among the worst possible imaginable tradegies. She was also someone who deeply cared about this project and Id submit the worst way to honour her memory is to have further divisive debate at this point in time.  SMcCandlish would be an excellent choice to lead lessons learnt / reform efforts type work on this, but only after a few weeks gap so the initial shock of Flyers loss can be better processed.

So I'd beg any admin reading this to speedy close the AE before this gets more hearted, ideally as No action, or maybe a short disruption preventing block for Wanda, but without endorsing any of the negative analyses against them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning WanderingWandaEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I too found Special:Diff/1002308582 to be troubling because after the previous removal it just felt relentless, but like Bilorv and Feyd I can imagine WW is under tremendous stress right now and perhaps isn't thinking their straightest. I think everyone involved needs a chance to get some distance from this. Is it possible to close without prejudice to refiling after a couple months? —valereee (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • [Moved from summary:] Closed with great prejudice (not toward the filer). I'll just use this closing summary to express how utterly shocked I am by WanderingWanda's gross insensitivity. I'll stop at that because I'm almost certain to regret saying anything further about that. In any case, this matter should not be decided by AE admins. The Committee itself needs to handle this directly. El_C 15:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WEBDuBEdit

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user
WEBDuB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)WEBDuB (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed
Banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the Balkans topic area
Administrator imposing the sanction
El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by WEBDuBEdit

Firstly, I was warned for my rhetoric and WP:ASPERSIONS. Later, I started the discussion trying to explain the situation and solve the problem.

Did I really break the rules so badly that I got a topic ban?

I think that on Balkan topics, these are unfortunately common situations that often should to be endured and silenced. I was a victim myself, and rarely did any of the admins step on my side. Many times, I was labeled both as a neoliberal anti-Serbian editor and as a Serbian nationalist POV pusher and propagandist. Has any of the admins ever reacted?

I have been the target of similar (and worse) rhetoric that I am accused of. For example, I was even accused of “ultranationalist CONTENTforking”, of justifying and of relativizing and downplaying war crimes, while Mikola22 said (1, 2) that I am boring and alluded to WP:CANVASS using the terms “your editors”, “your friends”, Serbian POV pushers etc. He was also reported for promoting fringe and genocide-inspired theory, supporting far-right editors from hr.wiki, calling Yugoslav and Serbian historiography “a fairy tale based on nothing”... Several non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing (1, 2, 3). How did that result? Have I even violated any of these rules? There were other false accusations and aspirations.

Ktrimi991 called me “silly”, “dumb” and said that I have the battleground mentality. At the same time, he violated the 3RR in the article that initiated this whole dispute (1, 2, 3) and deleted two warnings mocking me and another editor. He was also reported for many other similar conflicts and he was warned for disruptive editing, as well as he even threatened (1, 2, 3) other editors. How did that result? What about the WP:BOOMERANG now? Have I even violated any of these rules? Am I, after all, the one who deserves to be banned?

In every Balkan topic, several editors have been labeled as Serbian ultranationalists, are accused of canvassing, etc. Has any of the admins ever reacted? I have personally reported about five times for various forms of harassment, including long-term abuse, personal attacks, disclosure of personal information (some example: [50] [51] [52]), but without any response. To be honest, only the oversight team helped a few times. What is wrong with my comments? What in my case is bad rhetoric and false accusation without evidence?

Aspersions charges (Potential evidence of WP:HOUNDING)Edit

Extended content

Why am I calling for WP:HOUNDING and WP:CANVASS? I have the impression that a group of editors is constantly following me. They always appear in articles with a similar topic, unconditionally supporting each other. This time, three editors came to the article (the article that initiated this whole dispute) soon after me even though they had never contributed or participated in the discussion before (1, 2, 3). Where did they come from in that article at that very moment? And again with identical changes and arguments. It happens literally day by day. Furthermore, I've noticed a strange form of WP:HOUNDING, which included some kind of “countermoves”. More precisely, similar changes to the articles that the user seems to have perceived as a kind of parallel events. I’ve even seen editors literally copy my sentences, just enter other personalities or states.

This was evident during my work on the article Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, which was followed by similar changes to the articles that the previously mentioned Mikola22 seems to have perceived as a kind of parallel events. When I contributed something on April 27 ([53] [54] [55]), he made changes to the article Milan Nedić for the first time, without previous contributions in this article in his history ([56] [57] [58]) When I contributed something on May 24 and 25 [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]), he soon made similar changes to the articles The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia ([64], [65] [66]), Banjica concentration camp ([67]) and Chetnik war crimes in World War II ([68]) for the first time. I really doubt that the articles about the Holocaust in occupied Serbia, Banjica camp and Milan Nedić are on the watchlist of the editor who works mostly with Croats-related pages. When I contributed something on July 5 on the Novak Djokovic article, he made a “counter-change” to the Dražen Petrović article the very next day. On the Great Retreat (Serbian) talk page, several editors who mostly edit Albanians-related topics wrote almost identical comments in a short period of time (1, 2, 3). Is my suspicion founded? Is my expression of doubt unjustified and is it a violation of the rules worthy of a topic ban?

The final moveEdit

When El_C informed me that I was subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction he cited this change which followed the warning.

However, that was really an accidental and stupid mistake. I wanted to delete it from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article because those courts were made later. . In the meantime, there was a problem with link redirection. Or I simply missed the article I was in. If I had noticed that I was on the wrong article, I would have corrected the mistake myself.

This change with the Genocides in history article was completely misinterpreted. It has nothing to do with Balkan topics. Regardless of the fact that the content related to Bosnia and Herzegovina was found there by chance. With numerous changes, I condemned the denial of the Srebrenica genocide and all nationalist moves by Serbian politicians (it can be seen in the articles about Aleksandar Vučić, Ana Brnabić, Tomislav Nikolić, Bosnian genocide denial, Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević...). I also created an article about the anti-war movement in Serbia and the protests against the Siege of Sarajevo, etc. No one can attribute nationalist label or POV-pushing or anything like that to me. Moreover, I added the most critical and negative content in the articles about politicians and politics in Serbia, authoritarian rules, and media freedom. Even the 2020 Serbian parliamentary election article I wrote to a large extent was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the WP:ITN section on 24 June 2020. If anyone was impartial in Serbian-related articles, then it was me. I wrote both good and extremely bad things.

Let's get back to the topic. After the warning, I apologized and did not enter into any conflicts or break any of the rules. I complied with everything from his warning, except for this stupid mistake.

SummaryEdit

To conclude, I did not break any rules after the warning. Once again I ask what did I do so much worse than the others? I have research experience, as well as access to many documents and books (which I often added as sources here). I really think I can contribute a lot to this topic in the future. I think the sanction is too strict. Please consider my appeal. I promise that such situations will not happen in the future. I hope you will understand. Thanks. --WEBDuB (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ReplyEdit

@El C: 1. Though I also noted their perplexing removal of 30K-worth of text today, as well - I have already explained that it was a stupid mistake. It is easily corrected, no problem remains. Most importantly, it has nothing to do with the warning, nor with the Balkan topics.

2. Take for example them falsely conflating, in this very appeal, between having an action called "dumb" as opposed to them, themselves, being called that. - Ok, is it an example of good communication when someone calls another editor's action dumb?

3. Their largely WP:NOTTHEM approach to this appeal itself further affirms that notion, I think. - This is certainly not WP:NOTTHEM. First, I mentioned other editors to show that my accusations are not false, that I was really attacked and called by various names. You asked for evidence, I presented it. Fruthermore, I wanted to show how there are far more serious violations and worse examples of communication on Balkan topics. Did I threaten anyone that way? Have I ever been sanctioned for edit war? Other editors were forgiven for more serious violations, even though they were reported by dozens of other editors. Why am I an exception and immediately banned only because of one dispute? Is such a restriction justified and fair? Why no one protected me when I was the target of WP:ASPERSIONS? My so-called aspersions related to that. I didn’t start it first, I just responded to it.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El CEdit

My assessment has been that WEBDuB too often tends to cast aspersions with evidence-less claims. And that when they do actually provide evidence, it is often irrelevant to what is actually being discussed. Like when they kept conflating between fly-over IPs and regular editors (in good standing) of the topic area, despite having been warned to refrain from doing so — which was key to me deciding to impose the sanction, and which I made clear to them from the outset (diff). Though I also noted their perplexing removal of 30K-worth of text today, as well (diff).

Anyway, there's a problem here that has to do with proper communication, with due diligence and with the maxim of assuming good faith — all components that are necessary for editing such a fraught topic area. Attributes that, I believe, WEBDuB currently lacks. Take for example them falsely conflating, in this very appeal, between having an action called "dumb" as opposed to them, themselves, being called that. No, this editor is a liability to the topic area at the present time time. Their largely WP:NOTTHEM approach to this appeal itself further affirms that notion, I think. El_C 20:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Griboski, happy to defer to any admin who is familiar with the topic area. So, to that prospective admin I say: if you're out there, please step up! El_C 21:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
WEBDuB, this noticeboard was always there for you to report other editors — that you didn't do that is on you. I was asked to examine you, not other editors. Anyway, again, it is you who is repeatedly making claims about WP:HOUND without proof (even now). How is that not an WP:ASPERSION? To reiterate, the evidence you provided wasn't relevant to anything of the sort. I understand and can appreciate that you suffered some abuse by an WP:LTA, but how does that connect to you taking these liberties in accusing established editors that they are out to get you, and so on? Also, I think you are now well over the word limit, so maybe you'll wanna trim, especially if you wish to continue responding. El_C 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, thanks for endorsing my action as well as for taking the time to comprehensively lay out all of this valuable information Tis much appreciated. El_C 00:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Peacemaker67Edit

I am an admin familiar with the topic area, but should probably be considered involved because I have reverted WEBDuB on a number of occasions and taken contrary positions on contested issues. This report has been brought to my attention by several editors due to El C asking for input from admins with experience in the Balkans subject area. For an uninvolved admin, I suggest consulting EdJohnston, who has a good track record on dealing with problems in the area. Given the significant uptick on POV-pushing and battleground behaviour on Balkans articles over the last nine months which I have mentioned a number of times on various noticeboards, this action is welcome and overdue. I have been collating evidence and preparing to report WEBDuB and a number of other editors to this board for some months, focussed on their editing to minimise Chetnik war crimes during WWII in particular. Given their prompt appearance to support each other on diverse articles across many time periods of the Balkans, I have no doubt that there is some serious off-Wiki coordination going on betwen these editors. Putting together a successful case on long-term POV-pushing is difficult, so it is a positive that El C has acted decisively based on the evidence presented. El C rightly points out that WEBDuB has demonstrated that they lack important attributes necessary to edit in this fraught area, and I consider that they have demonstrated this consistently over a long period of time. I would like to highlight further evidence of POV-pushing and battleground behaviour on Balkans articles by WEBDuB, as follows:

  1. To show that the deletion of the Srebrenica genocide (and other genocide) material on Genocides in history may be part of a pattern of minimising Serb involvement in genocide, see Chetnik war crimes in World War II [69], [70], [71] & [72] despite the fact that at the time of these edits, there had been considerable discussion on the talk page, and WEBDuB clearly did not have consensus for their edits downplaying the seriousness of Chetnik war crimes and the sources that say they constituted genocide.
  2. accusations of other editors being "nationalist POV-pushers and sockpuppets" (indicating an inability to reflect critically on their own editing behaviour) on Talk:Chetnik war crimes in World War II [73], there are no doubt more comments of this nature to other editors that oppose their POV, but I don't have time to trawl through their prolific contributions to locate them
  3. a series of problematic edits on Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians including removal of justified tags on the Kosovo section they had added which included some highly biased and dubious sources [74] & [75], and removal of counter-balancing information in the same section [76]
  4. their comments in defence of the extreme POVFORK Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs created by the indefinitely TBANed long-term POV-pushing Balkans editor Antidiskriminator, which was subsequently deleted

This is just a grab-bag of additional diffs and material I could quickly put my hands on, as I am going to be largely offline for 24 hours shortly, and felt that I should comment promptly having been asked to do so. Normally if I had the time I would categorise their behaviour into themes and list diffs against each one. I have no doubt that if I put in some effort I could file my own 20/diff AE report on POV-pushing and battleground behaviour by WEBDuB (and several others), and this action by El C encourages me to clear the decks of other stuff for a bit and get on with it, despite the time it takes to do so in a clear, concise and professional manner. WEBDuB not only edits prolifically in the Balkans area, but in the most contentious articles (involving the Chetniks, Kosovo, war crimes, religious persecution and genocide) of what is already a highly contentious area, and they do so in a way that is not in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, because they are consistently pushing a pro-Serb POV and battlegrounding. There should be less toleration of this sort of wikibehaviour in an area covered by a long-standing ArbCom case, and I therefore endorse ElC's TBAN. That is not to say that there are those that oppose WEBDuB are squeaky clean (many aren't), we should be more robust with misbehaviour in the subject area on all sides, and I acknowledge that as an admin creating content in parts of the subject area I perhaps have let too much of this slide. However, on the basis of the evidence provided (reinforced by my own, above), I think the action against WEBDuB on this occasion is appropriate. Let them show they can edit constructively and neutrally in other areas of Wikipedia for six months and we can look at reviewing the TBAN then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I should have added that Griboski should be considered involved in any discussion of this type about WEBDuB's editing behaviour. They are often found promptly backing up WEBDuB on various pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)Edit

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by WEBDuBEdit

When WEBDuB was warned here , his response here wasn't perfect but he also apologized and acknowledged his mistake. Meanwhile, the other diff which precipitated this ban (here) was a mistake on his part as he was trying to remove content that was out of scope with the article, except he mixed up the general Genocides in history article with the newly created Genocides in history (before World War I).

While some of WEBDuB's reactions are strong, he's not all wrong. For instance, there is a LTA dynamic IP here who has been following and harassing certain editors for some time, but in particular WEBDuB, so much that some of his edits were removed from public view. This is enough to perturb anyone editing in this area. It's also not a secret that there are POV blocks in the Balkans area and that much worse type of behavior has gone on there, which is incomparable to a recent slip-up from this editor who from his history has been an otherwise productive editor for over a decade.

In short, this is a drastic measure and an overreaction from an admin, who with due respect, is not that familiar with this editing area. --Griboski (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by WEBDuBEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I recently consulted with El C about this kind of a restriction about user Sadko, and they struck me as someone who would not apply it lightly. Nothing I've read above comes close to convincing me that we should doubt their decision in this matter. It's apparent that there's been a lot of tit for tat, a battleground of sorts, with way too much claptrap that certainly caters to various grievances, but doesn't actually contribute much to the encyclopedia. The correct way forward is more restrictions to enforce the rules of decorum, not less. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

LotteryGeekEdit

Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 14:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning LotteryGeekEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Darren-M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
LotteryGeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [77] - soliciting users in connection with Alex Jones
  2. [78] - POVPUSHing around drug laws in the United States.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [79] - unblocked from a NOTHERE block by GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and substituted with an AP2 topic ban.


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


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

N/A

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[81]

Discussion concerning LotteryGeekEdit

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 LotteryGeekEdit

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning LotteryGeekEdit

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