Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Editor assistance (Request)
Content disputes
Resolution noticeboard (Request) Get a third opinion (Request) Request comments (Request) Formal mediation (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Archived proceedings Ban appeals Talk
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Discretionary sanctions (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section: Request a new arbitration case Request clarification or amendment of an existing case This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case Arbitrator motions Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Discretionary Sanctions

Initiated by Seraphim System at 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Statement by Seraphim System

Does the awareness requirement need to be fulfilled before discretionary sanctions are applied?

When User:EdJohnston sanctioned me for a 1RR article in a topic area I was new to WP:ARBAA2, I was very surprised. I had not known that it was a DS topic area. I only later found out about the awareness requirements. When I asked him about he said "I believe I have correctly described the current practice regarding 1RR violations." - I am requesting clarification.

Here is the link to my discussion with the EdJohnston: User_talk:EdJohnston#Edit_Warring_block

I am requesting clarification of the DS procedure. I understand that there is no requirement to warn of individual editing restrictions, but I had not received any notice of discretionary sanctions in the topic area. I am requesting clarification of the following: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict.

My understanding is that awareness under the formal criteria is required for the topic area before any discretionary sanctions are applied, but that notice of the individual restrictions on specific articles is not required by the decision. If User:EdJohnston's reading is correct, then I believe the summary of the Arbitration Decision at Awareness and alerts should be modified so editors are aware of this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Without going into too much detail, there was no long-term edit warring, I restored an NPOV template that was properly justified and needed to be in the article. I added a refimprove template after my citation needed tags were removed. This is what is being called "long term edit warring". If the block was for "long term edit warring" that would be extraordinary and even less justifiable, but this would not be the place to discuss it.

I understood this as a hasty and passing remark by an admin, who was sanctioning for a clear 1RR violation, but EdJohnston can say more about it. EdJohnston clearly stated that there was a 1RR violation, I understood it to be a 1RR violation and he continues to defend it as a 1RR violation. I thought what happened here was a good faith mistake that needed clarification, so admins and editors would know what was expected in the future.

Long story short, it is especially important in difficult topic areas that blocks are preventative and not punitive. Part of that is editor's awareness of the discretionary sanctions, because intentionally violating 1RR is fairly construed as an intent to continue editing disruptively. If I had been aware of the restrictions, I would have certainly respected them. Admins should not unilaterally modify what has been decided by an Arbitration decision, since most editors will not be aware of their unilateral standards, as I was not in this case. Certainly, the decision as stated should say what it means, and the admins trusted with enforcing it should respect that. But before proposing any modification, I would like to see if there is community consensus about its meaning.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: My argument is exactly as you said - 1RR is part of discretionary sanctions. See this for example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Wiking - formal notice is required for 1RR. Even in cases where there are informal warnings. It has been discussed by the community and amended to clarify that formal notice is required. Can you explain what kinds of cases you think the DS warning template is for? AFAIK, AE has declined to sanction in 1RR cases like this.

(Where is the 1RR restriction logged btw? I can't find it here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2)

Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ed has said he sanctioned for 1RR and has refused to even explain what "long term edit warring" is when I asked him under ADMINACCT so let's focus on 1RR - an editor didn't have notice, it wasn't logged as AE, and admins/arbs can't even agree on whether it is AE or not. What a mess for an editor to get caught up in. Please get this sorted out. A few points:

• The practical distinction between general sanctions and discretionary sanctions is that the rules are different. You would not want to punish editors who generally follow the rules because they did not know different rules were in effect for a particular page, right? That is what the notice requirement protects editors from.

• I see a lot of comments assuming that I deliberately violated a DS that I knew about, I did not. If you review the complaint at WP:ANS, I even comment on it the first time I see it and offer to self-revert if someone points out the edit. There was no prior discussion or anything, so please stop trying to pretend Ed's actions were routine here. To this day I don't understand how my edits were "long term edit warring" even though I asked for an explanation under ADMINACCT. Not following WP:BRD is not sanctionable. I understand that I violated 1RR, but I did not know the restriction was in effect on this article. These notice rules are in place to prevent abuses.

• I have a different color scheme on my browser, and I think my font was mint green at the time. The box looks green, so probably I did not see the notice. There could be a million reasons why an editor would not see this. If you rely on the editing notices alone, experienced editors are the most likely to get caught up in it. (Bad for Wikipedia.) I already know the rules, so I don't read the fine print on every article and it is not reasonable to expect this. That is why the formal notice requirement is important. (Because in controversial areas like this where discussion sometimes breaks down, the community has put in place extra precautions and procedures in place to prevent abuses.)

I think it does create some unfairness in areas where an editor has previously been active, but the amendment is clear that currently informal notice is not sufficient. Judging from the comments, there may be some will for modification.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I didn't see it. Please compare it to the notices at ARBPIA with all the important stuff emphasized - I think there should be a template at the top of the talk page and the article page, and they should be in a consistent style. It doesn't benefit editors for the look/color of the templates to change from one conflict area to the other. All the DS notices should look the same. It is unhelpful when the same notices have different appearances on different articles. Experienced editors should not have to slow down to read different versions of the same notice they have read 50 times already. Most likely these issues have all come up in the past and ARBCOM decided that a formal warning for the topic area at a minimum was fair.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to also add that it is frustrating to be accused of lying, for no reason. I have managed to go all this time without a single 1RR sanction in ARBPIA. Most of my edits are constructive, including maintenance, vandalism patrol, pending changes review, AFC backlog, GA reviews, as well as just regular content creation. A 48 hour block for these edits?: [2] [3] - even if I had known, I would not have thought it was a 1RR violation, because of the near unanimous consensus among admins at AE that editing long-standing content does not count as a revert.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I can comment that I think even the topic area would be enough, but that it should be given before any DS are applied, including 1RR. The formal templates serve the purpose of making these types of problems less likely and keeping editors cool when working on difficult articles. Editors understandably get upset, some have quit, etc. When I know an area is under discretionary sanctions, I am more careful - I look around to see if there are templates or special notices, I edit more slowly. Generally, we want editors to slow down and edit more carefully in these topic areas, and the formal warnings topic area warnings are usually enough to achieve this. There are a lot of DS topic areas, I don't know all of them, and I don't want to live in fear that I may accidentally edit an article on GMO for example, and get hit with a DS with no warning and no discussion. I do think the font being larger, and the article restrictions being clearly stated, and the individual pages being more consistently templated in some of the less active areas would also help. But the warning comes first, editors should know they are editing in a topic area where pages may have special restrictions.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: The block absolutely was not reasonable, and you almost lost an editor for it, but if I had been asking for you opinion on the block I would have filed a desysop request. There seems to be consensus that the current rules did require a formal warning for at least the topic area. It sounds like you support modifying the current warning system - I don't support it and that was not my intention filing this. I would only support making the protections for editors stronger, I do not support weakening them. I wanted clarification on the current system - it seems patently clear, as the discussion has turned to modifying the awareness requirement, instead of clarifying it, there was an awareness requirement and what Ed told me under ADMINACCT was incorrect.
• If you have not please read my comment to User:BU Rob13 above on why the awareness requirement is important. No editor has asked for it to be modified and I don't think the proposal will receive community support. If a modification is going to be proposed, this should be discussed with the community in a formal proposal, not as a side matter in a clarification request.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• To summarize my position, I think that the current awareness requirement would have been enough to avoid the issue that arose in this case. I have never missed an editing notice when I have been aware of DS in a topic area. I don't think increased page-level notification is necessary and I am not asking for it. A topic area warning would have been sufficient to avoid this block. I'm not persuaded of the wisdom of trying to fix something that isn't broken. That wasn't my intent asking for clarification, I only want to know that I can rely on receiving proper notification of DS when I am editing in a new topic area, so I am aware that I should edit more cautiously if I edit about "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" or the "Shakespeare authorship question" for example. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Most articles are under WP:3RR enforcement, but a few have been placed under WP:1RR as mentioned in the WP:Edit warring policy. This kind of a restriction is attached to a page and applies to all editors of the page. 1RR can be imposed either (a) directly by Arbcom as in WP:ARBPIA3, (b) by individual administrators under WP:AC/DS or (c) by the community as in WP:GS/ISIL. The type (b) restrictions are described in WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions. Under the argument of User:Seraphim System, nobody could be blocked for a 1RR violation for type (b) article restrictions unless they had previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions under whatever decision was used originally to place the 1RR on the page. I take it he assumes he is only under WP:3RR until he gets this notice. This is a novel idea but I'm pretty sure there is no written-down policy that backs it up. I have never alerted Seraphim System to the ARBAA2 decision and I also believe I've never imposed a discretionary sanction on him. I did issue a block per WP:AN3 for violation of the existing 1RR at Armenian Genocide that was imposed by User:Moreschi on 27 January, 2008, as well as for a pattern of long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to Seraphim System's question about logging, here is where Moreschi logged the 2008 1RR on Armenian Genocide. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Brustopher

Checking Seraphim System's block log, he was blocked for violating 1RR on the Armenian Genocide page. When somebody edits that page, the following attention grabbing and clearly visible notice appears:

It is therefore close to impossible that anyone would be able to edit that page without realising it's covered by DS and 1RR. Failing to read such a massive attention grabbing notice would indicate competency issues. In my opinion the issue here is this: The Rules require that anyone hit by a DS sanction receive an individual notification beforehand. The rule exists for reasons of fairness. People shouldnt be sanctioned under rules they dont realise exist. But the above edit notice makes it practically impossible for a competent editor to be unaware that page sanctions exist. In such circumstances letting someone off the hook because they didn't receive a DS notice would be letting them off on a technicality. Brustopher (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish on DS

Yet another example of why DS is malfunctional. We were promised another review of DS and how it works/should work over two years ago (and haven't had one since 2013). This "notice" system is deeply broken. While I've recently commented [4] on the WP:GAMING problems inherent in it (people damned well aware of the DS and deeply involved in the topic can escape sanctions for gross disruption simply on the technicality of not having received a notice or their notice having expired), this request raises an equal-but-opposite concern, that gibberish notices someone assumes were understood or even seen may not be by editors new to the topic. This whole thing needs to be scrapped in favor of actual discretion: is the user someone who just now wandered into the topic and did a business-as-usual WP:BRD revert, or is this someone with a long pattern of being an asshat across a swath of related pages?

For an in-depth analysis of issues raised in the last DS review, see User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions 2013–2018 review. Over three years after the original November 2015 draft of it, nothing has changed [except that section 12 in it (DS applied to policy formation) has been partially resolved by an ARCA enacted on 11 February 2017 [5] (permalink to full discussion) which made most of WP:ARBATC moot and unenforceable].
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:58, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)

I fully support the idea of a bot notifying editors after they've substantively edited a page covered by DS. This would solve a lot of problems. See some recent previous discussion of this idea and how to go about getting it voted on (ping: JoJo Eumerus).

This should probably be done in an "after X number of edits totaling at least Y bytes of changes within Z amount of time" manner, to prevent typo-fixing gnomes and the like getting DS notices about virtually every DS-affected topic as they go about their cleanup work. (And don't "advertise" the algorithm, just leave it buried in code somewhere, per WP:BEANS and WP:GAMING, or bad-acting parties will just time their edits to skirt it. Maybe even change its timing periodically.) Sufficient substantive edits

Any edits should, however, trigger the bot regardless whether they were made to the article or its talk page, since way more than half the DS-applicable disruption happens on talk pages rather than through direct in-article editwarring.

Also, the {{Ds/alert}} template needs an overhaul to be less menacing and in plainer English. Right now it looks like a dire warning/threat (which is why people react to it as one about 99% of the time), and it makes no sense to anyone but ArbCom policy wonks. Maybe open a page for redesigning it and invite people from Teahouse, and other "editor retention" and "welcoming committee" pages, and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, for some consultation on this. It's not like this is the first time we've needed to get a message across without scaring or angering people.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Redaction. I've struck an idea above after thinking on it longer, for reasons explained at the related AE thread in this post. (Also pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus.) The short version: ArbCom and AE have unwaveringly maintained that {{Ds/alert}} is nothing but an awareness notice. No harm can come from simply being made aware that a page one might edit again is covered by DS. If you edit the page, you get the notice, period. Simple, no room for doubt or error, and we'll become so used to them so quickly any perception of them as menacing will go away.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: This is the typical reaction to even going out of one's way to explain that one does not like the DS template one is leaving and doesn't like that ArbCom requires them. Twice I've had people attempt to WP:ANI or WP:AE me simply for leaving them a {{Ds/alert}} at all. The only viable solution other than the bot proposal – or (as I've suggested many times) scrapping this farcical system completely – is to create a page for requesting delivery of {{Ds/alerts}} by uninvolved admins, at which the requests will be carried out in a timely manner and on good-faith assumption – pretty much exactly like how WP:RM/TR works. There is no harm – that's the central premise, anyway – in simply being made aware of something. If people freak out when regular editors make them aware of DS, then either an artificial or an administrative party needs to do it without any interest in the underlying dispute or who the parties are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

Looking at the first two arb comments below, is there a reason why we're distinguishing between the processes of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions? WP:GS/SCW&ISIL reads "In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that average inexperienced editor has no idea what is the difference between discretionary and general sanctions. I doubt most experienced editors do, either. If awareness of restrictions before sanctions are imposed is considered to be a "fairness" issue, I strongly suggest Arbcom/the community synchronize the requirements for both types of sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

It is ArbCom policy that page restrictions do not require a talk-page warning, as the editnotice warning does the job. As these edits were not done on a mobile device, the user who opened this is fully aware of that. As can be verified by clicking edit on the article. I wouldn't think Arbitrators were unaware of this, considering they wrote it (sanctions.page) to state:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}).

If it has been found sufficient in all the previous ARCA's I can recall about this, I imagine Arbs wouldn't change this rule suddenly for administrators now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: @Callanecc: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, since you've already commented below (seemingly without the realization that ArbCom wrote the policy to be used exactly as Ed used it here). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Then why was this not stipulated at the last ARCA I'm clearly referring to? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Perhaps a motion to add something to the effect of "if an editnotice is used to alert editors of active page restrictions, and the editor has not been previously warned (in the required time frame), administrators should allow the editor at least 5-20 minutes [Committee should decide what time] to undo their offending edit(s) prior to being blocked or otherwise sanctioned" to the alerts section of WP:AC/DS? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I rather like that one too... would definitely clear this up finally. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I refuse to sanction editors who are shown to be using the mobile or visual editors (this is always tagged in the history). Can we not make this an official policy until the devs fix that issue with warnings? Something to the order of: "if the offending edit is tagged as a mobile or Visual edit, administrators should not block for more than 24 hours unless the editor's knowledge of the page restrictions is clearly established"? Or would it be better to wait on the developers to have the notice more prominent in those two GUIs? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My biggest concern obviously is that putting it into written form makes it rather easier to game the DS system. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I will note I disagree with the use of green for any ArbCom editnotice. I was under the impression we could only use {{ds/editnotice}} anyways, is that not correct Doug Weller, Callanecc, Krakatoa Katie? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

First of all, until WP:AC/DS is changed, he had to be notified of the topic level sanctions before being sanctioned. Second of all, a talk page notice is definitely not enough, especially if not in standard color. They are there for lots of reasons - many BLP articles have notices that unsourced statements must be removed immediately etc, so I mostly ignore them. Third of all, any concerns about gaming can be resolved by quickly alerting users who edit the area. @Brustopher, editing Taylor Swift has a similar sort of notice, except it is for explaining BLP policy. I think a topic level notice should be enough to enforce page level restrictions, as it alerts that one must read edit notices in that area carefully. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding bot could place a notice on an editor's talk page after their first edit to a page under discretionary sanctions seems like a decent idea, if possible. My thinking is that the more alerts are placed, the more they become like they're supposed to be - neutral alerts, not alerts to be placed after a violation has occurred. This could be also manually done, using a script to see if someone has been alerted before and for what, so that people, when they notice someone doing a few edits in an area, can easily see if an alert is needed to be placed and do it. As an aside, definitely need to up the size of the "this does not mean anything bad" portion of the ds/alert template by like 5 times, otherwise there'll be loads of complaints if a bot is done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Makes sense. @Opabinia regalis: may just want to make it "semi-automated" - using script to make it a lot easier and a lot more common to put alerts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24

While I don't know Seraphim specifically, it is absolutely possible to scroll right past a notice of discretionary sanctions on a project talk page and have no idea that it's there, especially if you were working on that talk page before it was placed and already in the habit of scrolling past the top to read new threads. This might be a separate problem, but even after reading the page on discretionary sanctions, it's still not clear what they are, how they work or what the editors are supposed to do about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

From a practical standpoint, AE actions are intended to stop longterm abuse. The project shouldn't collapse due to the time it takes for an AE warning. This isn't vandalism. Nor does it require immediate action. If it did, there are other rules in place to get immediate action. Secondly, if a warning achieves its goal of stopping long-term abuse, then it has done its job and is much preferred to arguing over a sanction and whether a notice was given. The rush to apply a sanction is misguided and a form of "gotcha" abuse when it's very clear that any AE sanction can afford to wait until individual notice is given. No admin should invoke an AE sanction without being able to provide a diff of the listed methods of notification listed in the standard AE/DS procedure (no, an article talk page banner is not one of the notifications allowed). There is much confusion about who can place talk page notices and what they mean. It is simply not sufficient or necessary to rely on them. Asking admins to provide the notification diff is part of the heavy lifting necessary to implement a virtually irreversible long-term sanction. If they can't or won't, then it's not worth invoking an AE sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#aware.aware lists the precise number of ways an editor can be informed of discretionary sanctions. An edit page notice is not one of the listed methods. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#aware.alert specifies the precise method to be used to alert an editor. isaacl (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by slakr

I noticed some discussion below about wanting more input re: alerts and such (e.g., from @BU Rob13:). Typically I've interpreted ACDS and alerting, particularly when it comes to edit warring as it pops up on WP:AN3, as follows:

• If a page already has an ACDS sanction attached to it (e.g., a standard 1RR), I look first to see if there's an edit notice to that effect. If it's only on the talk page or absent entirely, I assume (in absense of anything else) someone might not be aware of it, so if they breach it without any other form of notification or evidence of awareness of the sanction, I typically just add an edit notice myself, send any incidental {{Alert}}s, and wait to see what happens. If there already is an edit notice (and it's been there since whatever breach happened), I've assumed that's fair game for blocking anyone breaching it, regardless of whether they've ever received an Alert in the topic area—though I don't apply any additional editor-level sanctions. For example, if someone violates a 1RR page-level restriction and they clearly should have seen the edit notice but haven't otherwise gotten an ACDS alert, nothing other than a relatively short-term block might come of it, but they'll still get an {{Alert}} from me as part of the package in case they decide to continue the dispute on other subject-area articles.
• If a person doesn't have an ACDS {{Alert}} in the past year and they're involved in an edit war (for example) on an ACDS-able page, regardless of whether the page has active sanctions or not, I typically add an {{Alert}} to the user and wait to see what happens. Therefore, if they edit war on a page that doesn't have an explicit ACDS restriction, is within the topic area, and they HAVE been Alerted, they might get a topic-wide 1RR restriction (but might not even get blocked).
• Regardless of ACDS applicability, if someone's obviously edit warring despite usual, non-ACDS warnings, they get blocked regularly (as a non-AE action).

So the general idea is that edit notices and user-talk-page {{Alert}}s, if "not seen" by someone, are assume-bad-faith within their respective domains (i.e., edit notice for page-level sanctions and page-level enforcement of those sanctions; user Alert template for user-level sanctions/topic-wide sanctions applied to a user). Someone doesn't need both an edit notice on the page AND an alert; it's just too difficult, in my opinion, for people to "accidentally ignore" either the obvious "you have messages" or the "stop! there's an active sanction" edit notices, while it's entirely possible for someone who's even been Alerted to not see the talk-page notice of "hey, there are sanctions for the page attached to this talk page." Thus, a single-page-level sanction (and enforcement action taken in response) are presumed "notified," most reliably, through that page's edit notice, while broad, topic-wide, user-level sanctions (and actions taken in response) are presumed "notified," most reliably, through prior Alert templating and/or recent participation in AE-type discussions in the topic area.

Hopefully that helps? If I'm screwing it up, please let me know whatever you guys decide. :P

--slakr^\ talk / 23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Naturally I kinda like the idea of a bot re: automatically alerting, too, but there are a couple of hitches I can imagine off-hand (i.e., things I'd raise to an operator before trialling a WP:BRFA):

• It can be a a little complicated to figure out when/if the person truly got alerted previously (or if they meet the "participated in an AE on the topic" portion). There's an edit filter to tag the alert, but if an alert already exists on the page (even if over a year old or in a different topic), the filter might not catch it, plus someone might later clear their talk page, etc.... That said, going forward, if everyone was okay with that minor dumbness in the bot to begin with (e.g., someone possibly getting 2 alerts within a year or something), it might not be as big of an issue in the long run. There's just the appearance of a bright-line with a lot of arb topics, and the Alert template's edit notice (sorry; confusing; "the edit notice alert that pops up when you try to use the Alert template to notify a user") has the perception that "you'll be doing a bad thing" if you over-alert, which is understandable, but also causes like me reviewing a bot to get much stricter with someone wanting to run one.
• Page-level restrictions might be complex and aren't necessarily reference-able by a bot in a unified manner, except perhaps in edit notices. {{Ds/editnotice}} can be used, but then there are also atypical ones like {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} and {{Editnotice GMO 1RR}} and others that might be out in the wild (I believe Callanecc might have felt my pain with dealing with some of these a while back. :P) Case-by-case exceptions could be made for the broad topics, but it might get awkward on the non-standard/free-form sanctions (e.g., 1RR in the context of specific content). Plus, there have been cases where an admin adds a sanction just as a new section on the talk page(!) and you have to play hide-and-seek in the archives to find it (or not find it if one never existed and someone just slipped in the template in the talk header). Either way, in my opinion, an edit notice should be the standard go-to for where a sanction lives, even moreso if a bot's going to be parsing through them.
• Changes to the sanctions on the page might(?) need to prompt subsequent bot messages for the user. For example, say a page starts with a "1RR over content pertaining to his birthday" but then moves to "1RR across the page," would the broader one need implicit followup alerts? The bot would need to track or be aware of that.
• Bots aren't always reliable, and reliance on them for critical notifications may be problematic.
• Bot notification can sometimes be seen as bitey or annoying in general. Even with SineBot people have complained about {{tilde}} or {{unsigned}}, and thankfully I can just say sofixit or "discuss on the talk page," but arb templates are more locked down.

For active page-level sanctions it still makes sense to me to have and standardize around an obvious edit notice, and if someone disables their edit notices, it still seems the onus should still be on them (I mean, if you close your eyes, you still have to stop at the stop sign, even if you don't see it). That said, if edit notices aren't being shown in different UIs to begin with, I feel that's a major problem anyway that should be addressed as a loss of functionality (might need to open a ticket if it's not in our hands to modify it locally).

Apart from the bot thing, though, I've noticed that even people involved in disputes on a page that's clearly under an ACDS topic frequently don't, themselves, use the {{Alert}} (et al) templates, quite possibly because they're otherwise obscure and buried deep within policy pages, and the ACDS topics themselves require a level of conscious searching and discovery + familiarity. Plus, most disputes seem to erupt over simple text issues instead of technical features or templates (once more, the audience isn't necessarily template, policy, or community savvy; doubly so with the mass-popularity topics like American Politics and BLP). So it usually take someone with a lot of experience who's ALSO conscious of what all the active DS topics are AND how to act on them to actually break out the alerts equally and without inflaming the situation, by which point a lot of anger, frustration, and disruption may have already taken place. In that sense, the more automated (or more passive but still unmissable) the alerting process could be, likely the better.

So I dunno. I still think it's a relatively safe/sane balance to have two domains of alerts (e.g., page-level = passive edit notice before taking action, topic-wide = actively {{Alert}} before taking action), but I'm pretty sure someone would be able to make a bot if that route wants to be tried, too.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I know that there are talk page templates which add a form of warning box to the edit box. Someone doing a vandalism revert wouldn't see that of course, but might we rig up some template to add some form of 1RR warning to a contested article, and, maybe, also rig it to give a warning on a revert? John Carter (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sidecomment about bots for alerts by JJE

Seeing as Opabinia has wondered about using bots for sending out alerts, there is a mini-conversational thread on WT:AE involving me, SMcCandlish and Thryduulf regarding this; the main counterpoint raised is that having a bot alert everyone making a typofix or something similarly minor may be problematic. I am too sleepy to post the "pro" arguments here, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re DS)

@Opabinia regalis: The problem is that when delivered to people who aren't actually editing the content (fixing typos, rescuing dead links, template parameter errors, etc, etc) such alerts will either be seen as meaningless spam (and spamming people is never a good thing) or scare new editors away, and anyone who gets an alert while copyediting and later edits content in the area will be formally aware (they've received an alert) but not actually aware as they will likely have ignored the (then) irrelevant message. I encourage you to read and contribute to the linked discussion (and look at previous discussions too) as there are very good reasons why bot delivery to everybody has been rejected previously, and until we get AI-level bots that can accurately distinguish someone engaging with the content from someone copyediting from someone fixing templates from someone engaging in subject-irrelevant vandalism then we need humans to determine who alerts are relevant to and who they aren't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Discretionary Sanctions: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Discretionary Sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Looking at your block log and the WP:AELOG, Ed's block wasn't an arbitration enforcement action enforcing 1RR but a normal admin block for edit warring. In fact in his comment on AN3 he says that you had engaged in long-term edit warring.

  Having said that, it's probably worth having a discussion on whether editors need to/should be individually notified about page-level sanctions before being sanctioned. If memory serves, I think (and this is testing my memory) that the original intention was that editors would not be sanctioned without previous notice.^ However, in practice, this hasn't been the case with admins sanctioning editors who breach page-level sanctions without prior notice (this is particularly the case for 1RR). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

^ In the original version (1) of the 'new' system, edit notices alone were going to be considered enough to make an editor sufficiently "aware" of page-level restrictions. However, in consultation discussions about it, this was rejected and removed in the second version of the draft (see (this summary). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• There are a lot of comments here about what decisions have been made in the past and contradictory decisions at that. I'd suggest to all those who are commenting that evidence of these past decisions (links) is needed, nor vague recollections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• @NeilN: Regarding a difference between those specific general sanctions and discretionary sanctions in general. The SCW&ISIL general sanctions were modelled on WP:ARBPIA3 which specifically included language about 1RR applying and that, in that topic area, editors could be blocked for 1RR vios without prior notice. That is, in both circumstances, blocking without notice was specifically approved by the Committee or community. Another difference is that under the discretionary sanctions system an alert expires after a year, whereas with the SCW&ISIL general sanction the notification doesn't expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Coffee: Nothing in the bit of WP:AC/DS you quoted says that the requirements of the Awareness and alerts section does not apply to the enforcement of page-level restrictions. In fact, neither the section on individual sanctions nor the section on page-level restrictions state that an editor is required to be "aware" because the Awareness section says No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Only that I didn't think of it then, I was actually looking at the 2013 review page earlier this year for something else so the memories of a previous discussion about edit notices it was relatively fresh. Looking back at threads on arbcom-l from the the AP2 ARCA it looks like the committee was discussing amending AC/DS to make it clear that editors could be sanctioned without being "aware" if there was an edit notice, but that either there wasn't enough of a consensus to do it, or that something else happened and we got distracted. Given the time of year, this might be a motion which the new ArbCom will need to consider. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think anything so specific is going to work. I'm not a big fan of giving editors a specific time limit to do something, as it can com across as an aggressive ultimatum, plus we're volunteers and there's no deadline. Consider a situation where a user makes an edit which they didn't know was violating, goes to sleep, wakes up and goes to work, then logs in to find themselves blocked). Plus any sort of time limit (IMHO) pushes it a little towards punitive rather than preventative. I'm thinking more along the lines the following as a new paragraph in either the awareness or page restrictions sections (not sure which would be best yet, though I'm leaning towards §awareness:

Uninvolved administrators may use their discretion to issue #sanctions (such as blocks or page/topic bans) of no more than one week in duration to editors who breach page restrictions but are not #aware of discretionary sanctions as prescribed above if the page in question includes an edit notice, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), which specifies the page-level restriction in force. This does not prevent administrators using the full range of #Sanctions against editors who do meet the #awareness criteria.

It needs a little wordsmithing. Note that # = link to the section on ACDS. This way, we're giving admins an ability to enforce page-level restrictions without an individual editor needing to be have been alerted (or otherwise aware) but not allowing them to impose any sanction without the editor being properly made aware. Otherwise, we're effectively creating a loop hole where any discretionary sanction can be imposed on an editor without them meeting the awareness criteria as soon as they breach a page-level restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: There isn't really a problem with you commenting in this section. It's really only formal decisions (e.g. motions, declining request) where there's an issue.
  I'm a little conflicted on that, I think it's important for editors to be aware of restrictions before they are sanctioned. However, even if an editor recessive an alert it's still very likely that they won't be aware of specific page-level restrictions as the notice they receive on their talk page doesn't tell them that. So, given that, the only way to ensure that they are aware is to give them an alert and tell them about page-specific restrictions in place. That's not really a sustainable approach both in terms of logging and administrative hoops to jump through, but it is my preference from a editor point of view.
  From an administrator and as someone who was very active with AE my preference would be that if the article has an edit notice the editor can be sanctioned (regardless of whether they've received a notice). The problem with that approach is that it's easily missed using VisualEditor and edit notices don't appear at all in the mobile version.
  So, I'm still on the fence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• To add (re BU Rob13), my preference is that an editor would both be aware of the discretionary sanction in the topic area (through an alert or otherwise) and that the page in question had an edit notice (plus, given the technical limitations, weren't using a mobile device). That, to me, seems to be best way to ensure that an editor is aware of the restrictions which are in place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I too cannot see how it is reasonable to apply page-level DS without individual warning. Our system for DS is sufficiently complicated that at the very least fairness require full notice. . DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

since I was asked for my general view. I personally consider the system of AE inherently unfair, unreasonable, and erratic. I have never participated in it as an admin, and I would advise other admins to use it only when there is no other solution. Unfortunately I cannot find an alternative, so all we can do is try to minimize harm. At least we can require explicit notice. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG that the entire discretionary sanctions and general sanctions systems is a mess. We should take a hard look at their wording and implementation, because I believe it is inherently unfair to sanction an editor if that editor is unaware of a possible penalty. The burden is on us as administrators to make sure an editor is aware, as unwieldy and burdensome as that is, and we need to make it as simple as possible in order for the system to work. I'm no coder, and I don't know if this is possible, but maybe a bot could place a notice on an editor's talk page after their first edit to a page under discretionary sanctions. Or perhaps an 'are you sure?' box like the one that comes up when we try to give the DS alert on a user talk page.

In terms of the specifics here, Seraphim System made fifteen edits to the page in question in just over 48 hours. It strains credulity that he didn't see the 1RR edit notice with that many edits. I could possibly believe it if this were three edits, but fifteen? It's even got a hidden comment that appears directly under the places where he added his maintenance tags. Does he need bright flashing lights and sirens? Katie^talk 11:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Coffee: It is my understanding that the DS notice is required to be posted as it is in the template, and that color modification (or any modification other than the topic area) is not allowed. Katie^talk 03:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• The block seems reasonable. I see the problem with VE and mobile devices, but I still think that an edit notice should be sufficient. I'm sure we can improve the system but my experience is that DS in general is avoiding a lot of problems we'd have without the system. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the comment by Seraphim System about the color scheme perhaps it could have been missed, so I’ll have to reconsider my comment. Doug Weller talk 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I think we should consider Callanecc's suggested wording. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • [[User:Darkfrog24}} makes a good point. I try to always start a new section with a clear heading stating that DS has been applied. Maybe this should be required. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• @DGG and Callanecc: Could you clarify whether you think just notification of discretionary sanctions in the topic area is necessary before sanction or notification of the specific page-level sanctions on each individual page? How does this opinion interact with the prominent edit notices typically used on articles under sanction? Would a notification of topic area sanctions in addition to an edit notice about the page-level sanctions be considered sufficient notification? Note I'm asking about what you think should be, not what you think is current practice/policy. Opinions from any other editors would also be appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As a procedural note, the Committee has no authority to modify general sanctions, which derive solely from the community. If we decide to alter the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions, the most we can do is encourage the community to adopt the same changes. Having said that, I think we need to seriously think about what the right standard of awareness is. Should an editor have to be actually aware of a page-level restriction to be sanctioned, or should they only need to have been in a position such that a reasonable editor of limited experience would be aware? For instance, if a particularly oblivious editor misses a massive edit notice with giant font saying "This article is under 1RR" (with appropriate wikilinks to explain), should they be sanctioned if they violate that restriction? As for the technical issues (mobile browsers, mostly), that is something we can presumably refer to the WMF to develop a fix. It would be technically doable to display edit notices in mobile browsers on a page prior to the edit window. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's my take on current policy and practice, for what it's worth. WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts makes clear that at least a topic area-level notice must be issued before sanctioning under discretionary sanctions. A page restriction derived from discretionary sanctions can only be enforced via discretionary sanctions, so this same awareness requirement exists before sanctioning someone for violating a page restriction. Currently, there is no requirement (in policy or in practice) requiring an additional notice of a page restriction before sanctioning an editor for violating it. There's no policy requirement for edit notices, etc., but in practice, we do expect administrators to place them. The conversation on changes to this policy should probably take place at a different venue with community feedback. As for this particular block, Seraphim System hadn't been notified of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, so he should not have been sanctioned. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Since it should be possible technically to place individual notices, there is no reason not to do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• If there's a legitimate doubt that an editor was aware that a restriction was in place, then better practice is to warn rather than block for a violation of that restriction—unless the edit was such as to be independently blockable in any case. We have had instances (I'm not opining on whether this is one) in which an editor was blocked and sincerely had no idea why; it is important that that should not happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Focusing for a second on the original question, are we all agreed that at a minimum an editor cannot be sanctioned under page restrictions deriving from discretionary sanctions unless they've met the awareness criteria for that DS topic area? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am, but I'd like to add (by motion) that there also needs to be an edit notice on the article (with a footnote that admins should consider that the footnote doesn't appear when using a mobile device). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I've started working on a draft at User:Callanecc/sandbox2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• OK, I've caught up on all the other ARCAs except this one, so I guess I can't avoid it anymore. This is thinking-out-loud as I'm catching up on the background reading; read it if you like arbs showing their work and skip it if you don't like long-ass posts ;)
  • My first reaction to all of this follows DGG and Katie's reactions that AE/DS is kind of a mess, and not only because it's unpredictable from editors' perspective but also because it must be seriously tiresome to be an admin on the receiving end of all the wikilaywering. This is not the only recent issue that centers on someone objecting to a short block and one way to manage that problem is to just deescalate the perceived significance of blocks. I'm perfectly happy to get blocked some more if necessary ;)
  • Slakr is definitely on the right track in not expecting that talk-page banners are sufficient to alert editors of the actual article. But in terms of editnotices on the article itself... I hate editnotices. Hate. For a long time I used a userscript to automatically hide them because there are so many and they're so bloated and they take up so much space on my little 11" laptop screen. (Obviously, I did not obey the one on this page that says "be succinct" ;) While I'm sure every incremental addition to every editnotice on the project seemed important and useful at the time, cumulative banner blindness is a real problem. There's also the issue Callanecc points out - editnotices are formatted differently, and often hard to read, and sometimes may not appear at all for editors using the Visual Editor or the 2017 source editor, and they're unavailable on the mobile site (and the mobile app?). Also, the edit tags indicating which editor someone used aren't perfectly reliable either, so not really a good way to judge whether someone "should" have seen a notice. In general, editnotices are not reliable methods for communicating information to editors. I was under the impression we'd already decided this once, but when I went back to look at the incident I was thinking of, the conclusion was almost the opposite of what I thought I remembered. (And for my own part, I see I was more concerned with a different aspect of AE/DS enforcement I consider problematic. I was unaware at the time of the "consultation discussion" Callanecc linked above.)
  • That being said, it is also obviously impractical for some editors on an article to be under the impression that they are working in a 3RR environment, and others to be subject to 1RR (because they've received the appropriate individual DS alerts, rather than because they personally are under an editing restriction). The best solution I can think of is a bot sending out automated alerts to the talk pages of editors to an article subject to a 1RR restriction, but I had the impression that had been considered before and decided against (either because no one wants to write the bot, or because of practical limitations that aren't immediately coming to mind).
  • Overall I think Callanecc's sandbox version is better than what we have now, but more broadly, I think the current mechanisms aren't effective in communicating restrictions to editors and are asking admins to do a lot of manual checking before sanctioning someone under those restrictions. Unless I'm missing an obvious drawback, I think we should revisit the bot-notification method. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks. I actually think that's a feature, not a bug :) When the existing alerts come from specific other editors, people tend to react to them as if they're aggressive acts or personal affronts. If everybody and their mother gets one, and they come from DSBot, they're less personal. (I assume the bot could deliver just one notice per topic.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the follow-ups - this is a bit of a side point, since a change of that scale would be better discussed somewhere other than the middle of an ARCA, but I'll go read the other discussion in the meantime. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Pseudoscience

Initiated by Iantresman at 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=522442641#Result_concerning_Iantresman

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [6]

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=522442641#Result_concerning_Iantresman

• To have the decision reversed

Statement by Iantresman

Over 5 years ago, I was topic banned under Discretionary Sanctions for discussing a source. I wish to have this decision reversed.

1. In 2006, I last edited and contributed to the article Dusty Plasma (history) Six years later in Nov 2012, I revisited the article, as I noticed that a reference I had used had been removed, on the grounds that was "unreliable", although material added to the article, based on the reference, was left in place, unquestioned. I chose not to revert the reference, but follow standard editing procedures, and discuss the source first (see "Reference restoration" in talk), as all the sources/facts I had, contradicted this view.
2. I feel that my discussion shows that I attempted to "Deal with facts" per WP:TALK#FACTS, eg. (a) noting the source was from an academic publisher (b) providing numerous references to reviews, (c) at least one quote from the book (d) author credentials (e) Citations to the source.
3. Other editors seemed to base their views on (a) the title of the book, (b) the fact (undisputed) that the editor has unconventional views on cosmology that are not included in the book (a simple quote from the book would counter this view). After I had been topic banned, other editors had the luxury of being able to continue the discussion concerning the reliability of the removed source ("Book 'Physics of the Plasma Universe"') in a style reminiscent of WP:FORUM.
4. Although I was banned under Discretionary Sanctions / Pseudoscience, I feel that the use of "Broadly construed" then and now, was outside of the permitted scope, and no editor could have known that the article was covered by it:

• The article Dusty Plasma has no connection to pseudoscience, and neither did any of the content I added (it was never questioned, and there is still material based on the source in the article to this day)
• "Broadly construed" in my case, seems to be quite contrived, and not too dissimilar from "Six degrees of separation":
• a. My source was edited by Anthony Peratt (who has impeccable credentials[7])
• b. Peratt has written unconventional articles on what is known as the Plasma Universe (scientific and peer reviewed)
• c. The "Plasma Universe" is also applied to, and is sometimes used synonymously with the subject "Plasma Cosmology" (also peer reviewed)
• d. The article "Plasma Cosmology" was incorrectly tagged with "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation"[8] before being removed.
• e. "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" was a sub-category of "Category:Pseudoscience"

The fact is, that I never edited the article against consensus. I don't believe that Wikipedia ever set out to ban editors who discuss sources in good faith, and didn't intend Discretionary Sanctions to be over-extended in this way. --Iantresman (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• Littleolive has hit the nail on the head, "damned if you do and damned if you don't". Since I was acused of Wikilawyering in my Discretionary Sanctions (DS) case (disputed by at least one other editor[9]), the last thing I'm going to do is go to ArbCom in case I compound the allegation. The problem with DS and Arbitration processes, are that there is no discussion; I can make a statement, and I have no idea whether it is upheld, ignored, or why it may be rejected. To this day, I do not know what I did wrong considering I felt that I was following editing guidelines to the letter with lots of WP:TALK#FACTS, and why other editors appeared to be taken at face value based only on their opinion. --Iantresman (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf Your wrote: "The root cause of (almost) every sanction is that one or more editors are unable to work constructively with the community". Not only do I agree, but I believe that in my discussion I was following WP:TALK#USE especially WP:TALK#FACTS. I would welcome any advice on how I can be more constructive and collaborative. --Iantresman (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf Thank you for your advice, particularly on where to find editing help. Presumably if old bans can not be appealed, then by the same logic, they can also never be used against me in the future? --Iantresman (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad One appeal that you may not find as it was made directly to Timotheus_Canens, and which I failed was a "Topic ban reconsideration" in March 2017, only 9 months ago. To put it in context:
  • Dec 2016: "Nomination of Pensée for deletion" I was asked if I wanted to contribute to the AfD, but declined(diff) because of my topic ban. Following discussion and taking advice, it was suggested that it could be a "test case" for me(diff). I took part, being the only person to provide references. I also checked with Timotheus Canens, which was positive.
  • Dec 2016: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos" Although another grey area, I took part in another AfD a few weeks later, again being the only person to provide references. I did not ask, as I felt that my previous participation was deemed OK.
  • Feb 2017. "Fringe sources identify someone as a scientist" Based on my previous participations, and my consideration that this was another grey area, and that I was not discussing either pseudoscience nor plasma physics, I took part (without asking). Timotheus Canens disagreed with my presumptions.

So technically I've been out of trouble for only nine months, though my paricipation was I believe respectful and constructive. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: I am currently "banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to plasma physics and astrophysics"[10]. I would obviously like to edit articles in these subject areas. I don't believe I will have any issue in following Wikipedia policies, though I did not believe I had any issues which resulted in my ban, as did at least two other editors (so I'm not trying to be defiant or bloody minded).

I would also like to point out that just because I am interested in certain topics, does not mean that I have a belief that those topics are correct (science and Wikipedia does not accept beliefs as evidence). And my interests were certainly not a problem when I earned my university certificates in astronomy, cosmology and radio astronomy from the University of Central Lancashire and Jodrell Bank in 2010 (certificates available to cynics on request). --Iantresman (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

This appears to be an attempt to relitigate the merits of a 5-year-old AE action instead of anything resembling a request to lift the sanction as no longer necessary. As I do not believe the committee should be entertaining requests of the former category five years after the fact, I do not intend to respond substantively unless requested by the committee. T. Canens (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) MjolnirPants

As a disinterested outsider with no familiarity with the events descriped by the OP, I can say that the OP makes a compelling case for having been wrongly sanctioned. Assuming -in my usual cynical way- that the initial discussion with OP was hair-pullingly frustrating for those who disagree with them, I still can't see that as requiring anything more than a 6 month topic ban at worst.

While the committee may not be interested in relitigating old disputes (which is some bullshit, all in itself; it's essentially saying that ArbCom doesn't make mistakes), I wonder if the committee is possessed of that typical human ability to read between the lines: The OP is requesting that a 5-year-old sanction which they have abided in good faith, despite believing that it was wrongly and unfairly imposed should be lifted because the OP has given 5 years worth of evidence that they are perfectly capable of controlling themselves in this subject area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: My point isn't that you guys should consider whether this was fair or not, but that you should consider whether it is necessary, given that Iantresman a) Obviously still considers it unfair and yet b) lived with it anyways. As far as I know, they haven't violated it at all. That's a pretty

I also don't think it's very reasonable to conclude that a failure to appeal is necessarily an acceptance of the merit of the sanction. It could well be that the OP felt that it would be futile to appeal (which, if it was wrongfully imposed, would very likely be true, as the imposing body would be the same body hearing the appeal). Or it could be that the OP simply felt that the sanction wasn't worth appealing, as they don't or didn't intend to edit in that area in any case. Or maybe the OP was afraid appealing it would be seen as disruptive and result in further sanctions (not a particularly reasonable belief, but then, not a particularly uncommon one, either). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24

I have to agree with MjolnirPants. If it is valid to say that a sanction is no longer necessary then it is also valid to say that it was never necessary. All our AE admins are volunteers and human beings, and it is possible for them to make mistakes. Even if the principal issue is whether the sanction is necessary now, regardless of whether it ever was, then "I didn't do X in the first place" is a point in the claimant's favor. It means he can be trusted not to start. It certainly shouldn't be held against him. If lantresman was willing to submit to the admins' authority and obey a punishment that he believes he did not deserve (even if he believes wrongly), that is also a point showing that he can work in a collaborative project. We all have to bite our tongues sometime. If pleading innocent is enough to get a request automatically thrown out, I have to wonder what editors who were or believe themselves to be wrongly sanctioned are supposed to do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As Thryduulf points out, topic bans, whether they are deserved or not, are held against the sanctioned editor forever. They're like a brand that says "filth." There should be some avenue toward having it removed. Surely no one here thinks that the admins are never wrong or that sanctioned editors have to apologize for actions that they did not perform. Even the best legal systems in the world make mistakes sometimes, and we're all amateurs here.

Also, there doesn't seem to be anything in WP:APPEAL or WP:TBAN that says there's a time limit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Another concern. The upshot of this thread seems to be "If you do not appeal your sanctions right away and in as loud a voice as possible, we will interpret that as a confession/guilty plea and you will permanently lose your right to argue otherwise." Think about that. Won't that just encourage people to appeal their sanctions at the earliest possible opportunity? People who would otherwise wait or give everyone time to cool down now have to move immediately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment by olive

Is there a time limit for asking that a sanction be reversed? Most often I've seen requests refused because enough time had not passed. This is confusing for editors. I agree with Darkfrog and Mpants. This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. What is there in this editor's history that says he is not worthy of a revisit to his sanction? Above all what is missing in most AEs is that admins and arbs do not ask questions of the editor applying. If you don't understand, ask him, communicate with him; don't assume you understand. The concern here is that an editor has no recourse. We should be trying to hold on to editors, helping them edit, to be productive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC))

• Thryduulf

Comment made before Thryduulf's cmt to Olive below... and thank you for your response. I understand the distinction but does every editor who appeals understand these kinds of distinctions before thy appeal. Do you see what I am saying?

While your explanations are sensible, logical and beautifully worded, they are the understanding of the admins and arbs not the editor who appeals. That an editor chooses "not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits" assumes that the editor knows how to word or create an appeal that is within the realm of how the admins/arbs believe and expect a case should be presented and worded. My own experience is that editors do not always know how to word an appeal, do not have that view into the perspective of those they are dealing with. This is especially true for editors with less experience. We are throwing out cases because they are not presented in a way that is acceptable rather than that they are with out merit seems to me. That's why its imperative to ask an editor what they are saying or asking for. Right now its a guessing game as to how to present a case as to what to say or how to present information. Admins and arbs are seeing this from one view editors from another. With experience sure, editors can become good at presenting their cases, but the less experienced in the ways of AEs are severely handicapped. While Wikipedia was not originally designed to be punitive we are punishing editors for lacking knowledge and experience in presenting their cases. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC))

• • I have seen that a wrongly designed appeal is a lost appeal, sadly. This is no one's fault in my mind just the way appeals have become.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC))

Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience)

(edit conflict) @Darkfrog24: The root cause of (almost) every sanction is that one or more editors are unable to work constructively with the community or a subset of it (which can be as small as one other editor), either generally or in relation to a specific topic area. Sanctions should be, and mostly are, preventative not punitive - that is intended to allow editors to be productive and constructive in ways/areas where they can be while protecting the project by preventing them disrupting other areas. People can change, people can mature and (relevant in some cases) real-world situations can change so that the restrictions are no needed. Indeed in an ideal world every sanction would at some point no longer be necessary. For this reason appeals should always be focused on explaining/demonstrating why sanctions are no longer needed now. Whether they were needed at some point in the past has increasingly little relevance the longer ago that point was. I also strongly agree with BU Rob13 when they say "Choosing not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits".

As for the specific sanctions here, I think that in December 2017 is completely irrelevant at this point whether they were required when imposed in November 2012, but that if they weren't required then they should have been appealed when they were still relevant. It's probably also worth noting that real world events seem to have changed, in that in 2012 Plasma cosmology was described as a fringe theory that had not been critically evaluated (or at least had not had a significant amount of critical evaluation). In the intervening five years though it seems that it has been evaluated and rejected - which could have a significant impact on how the need for sanctions would be evaluated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: There is a distinction being made here between appealing a restriction on the grounds that it wasn't required when imposed, and appealing a restriction on the grounds that it isn't required now. The first sort of appeal should be made relatively soon after the restriction was imposed (how long exactly will vary based on different circumstances, but certainly beyond a year I'd be looking for some accompanying explanation about why the appeal wasn't made originally and why it is still relevant - an absence from the project for unavoidable real-world reasons would be one possible example.). The second sort of appeal should, in contrast, not be made too quickly because to be successful the person appealing will need to show that one or more things have changed and that just isn't possible immediately. Again different circumstances will dictate different lengths of time but in most cases less than 3-6 months is going to require evidence that something significant in the real world has changed - an example being the various restrictions imposed in the run up to the 2016 US presidential election were set to expire when the losing candidate conceded defeat, even though this was only expected to be a few weeks away (maybe less), as many of the problems were related to speculation about the outcome and/or its consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: When someone appeals using the wrong sort of appeal the responses will indicate this - a very good example is the arbitrator's comments below. They don't have to know in advance, they just need to read the responses they get. We also have Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and we should have a similar one for appealing other sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: The editor has a choice of whether to listen to the advice they are given or not. If they choose not to listen then yes the appeal is lost. If they do listen then there are three ways it can go - (1) the appeal can be rejected, almost certainly without prejudice to a new appeal based on what the admins say they are looking for (although this will only work once or twice per editor per period of time); (2) the appeal can be withdrawn and new appeal made based on what the admins say they are looking for; (3) the appeal can be modified to include the information the admins say they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Iantresman: I have no interest at this point in reviewing five-year-old discussions to re-litigate a five-year-old topic ban, and the arbs below have indicated the same thing. If you want your appeal to be successful you need to demonstrate that your current behaviour and interactions mean that the topic ban is no longer required - whether it ever was is not relevant. I suggest that at this point it's probably best to withdraw this appeal, take a bit of time (a few days at least, probably at least a week is better. Certainly wait until after this appeal is archived) to work on a new appeal in your userspace that relates to your current behaviour - there are editors who will help you with this if you ask (although I can't remember where to find them off the top of my head, asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk will lead you to them if you can't find them directly). If you want to get advice on your editing style, then or now, then this is not the right forum in which to get it (Wikipedia:Teahouse or using the {{help me}} template on your talk page are). One thing though that will definitely count against an appeal is not listening to advice given to you. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Iantresman: re old bans, this is not a simple yes/no question. It is and will remain factual that you were topic banned and that you chose not to appeal it at the time (regardless of why), any sanctions you received for breaching it (I haven't looked to see if there are any) will also remain in your history. However, it should only be brought up where relevant and it will be ignored if it is brought up where it is not relevant (and bringing it up where it is clearly not relevant may reflect badly on the person bringing it up). Equally it will only impact anything in future to the degree that it is relevant to the particular situation at hand, and the longer ago the ban and, especially the longer ago any sanctions for breaching it, the less likely it is to be relevant and (generally speaking) the less significant any relevance will be. If you are (accused of being) disruptive in the future regarding Plasma cosmology or something closely related then your previous topic ban will likely be relevant, if you do/are accused of doing something completely different (say, introducing copyvios into Cephalotes eduarduli (example article selected by special:random) then it is going to be pretty much irrelevant. If you aren't disruptive at all going forwards then almost nobody is going to care about the five year old disruption and it wont trouble you at all. It is not possible to speak in absolutes though as Wikipedia is not a court and there are no firm rules. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: "If you do not appeal your sanctions right away and in as loud a voice as possible, we will interpret that as a confession/guilty plea and you will permanently lose your right to argue otherwise." That's not what I'm saying, and not what I interpret the arbs or anyone else (other than you) saying. The point is that you always need to appeal on the basis of why a remedy is not needed now. In practical terms this means that if you appeal in the first period then you need to show why the sanction was not necessary in the first place, and if you appeal in the second period then you need to show what has changed to mean it is no longer necessary (whether or not it ever was). The first period generally runs from immediately after the sanction was imposed through to around 2-6 months later, and the second period generally from around 6 weeks after it was placed and doesn't end (unless the restrictions expire or are lifted), although there are plenty of circumstances that can extend either period forwards or backwards. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: A couple of quick points. I'm not saying that if you don't appeal the merits of your sanction in the first period after it is imposed that this is a concession that it was valid, just that for the purposes of a later appeal it is rarely relevant whether it was or was not valid or required at the time (and so it's easier for everybody to just treat it as if it was) - i.e. explain why the sanction isn't required now, whether it ever was or not. Regarding timescales, as I said there are many factors that can move either period in either direction, and yes some can be quite significant in terms of time, but if you are making an appeal significantly outside the usual timeframe then I expect the person appealing to acknowledge this and note what the factors are that mean an appeal to the initial validity is still relevant after a long time or why something has changed so much sooner than would normally be expected (and obviously people may disagree about what is and isn't relevant). In terms of this appeal, I'm not seeing anything that convinces me that it is worth considering whether the sanction was valid 5 years ago, nor initially was there anything presented on which to judge an appeal regarding whether it is required now. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon

Holy exploding wikilawyering, Batman! Per MPants and Euryalus - just lift the sanction and move on... -- Begoon 12:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Too many ifs and buts. Lift the ban already. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC).

Statement by John Cline

• I am familiar with the precursors necessitating this request. I'd like, therefor, to squash the misnomers that Iantresman exercised a level of diligence less than what ought reasonably be due when he put this request forward, that he misspoke his request therein, or that he missed some threshold for timeliness that does not seem to exist.

Iantresman is not one to initiate discussion without giving consideration to all relevant matters before, including, in this case, the guide to appealing blocks and other such guides. He is meticulous and compulsively thorough, never slothful or indiscriminate. As such, when he opened this discussion seeking an amendment of discretionary sanctions, saying: "I wish to have this decision reversed.",^[11] he could not have been more clear or concise, nor, IMHO, more apt or astute.

I disagree with its having been re-framed as a request to modify the pseudoscience case^[12] by simply vacating the sanctions placed against Iantresman, therein.

I specifically contend the following points:

• It is no small distinction that Iantresman is not sanctioned for failing to adhere the restrictions imposed by the pseudoscience remedy bearing his name but instead by acts sacrosanct when accorded with WP:AC/DS; this should not have been marginalized by bureaucratic muddling.
• If ever there could be a sanction worthy of being expunged, a fair mind would be well taxed in trying to find one more worthy than what this placement seems to merit.
• That one could rightly assume Iantresman had accepted and agreed with his sanction is inarguable if his subsequent action, after abiding the sanction, had been to request its removal, as no longer needed (as members have advised).
• Iantresman should not, instead, be held to timeliness criteria that did not exist when his request was published (seeing the precedent for such mindset born in this discussion).

Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) SMcCandlish

I think the appellant's request for the topic ban to be lifted should be granted, since it's unlikely this serves any preventative purpose at all now. It's also fairly unlikely it ever did, though that may not be relevant to the decision.

I think what's happening here is some parties are bureaucratically treating this like a courtroom, and wikilawyering ("ha ha, he said 'have this decision reversed', and I can willfully choose to interpret that as 'have the record expunged' instead of 'have the effect of the decision terminated', and hot damn I'm clever'). It's patently obvious what the intent of the request is. Whether someone agrees with how the person feels about the nature and rationale of the original sanction when it was issued, and wants to litigate about whether someone should be able to appeal a sanction after X amount of time, it doesn't change the obvious underlying nature of the request.

That said, I would like to address the wonkish procedural stuff:

1. I have to agree entirely with Thryduulf on almost every point.
2. My one quibble is with Thryduulf's and originally BU Rob13's idea that failure to appeal a sanction in a timely manner equals concession that it was valid. That's just plain counterfactual, and we all know it, even if as a practical matter we might have to treat it as if that's the case, to stop people re-litigating stuff from 2004 when everyone who might contradict them is long gone. In reality though, any of these and more might result in a year+ delay:
   • Many editors simply become dispirited, even despondent, and leave for a while when faced with this sort of thing. No one likes feeling rejected by their intentional community, and some take it harder than others.
   • Others don't know the appeal process and find the prospect daunting and frustrating.
     • As I've learned from experience, it can be very inconsistently applied: I was directed and redirected in a farcical AN/ARCA/AE/ARCA×2 run-around and actually did not get the issue resolved until a neutral third party filed a second ARCA on behalf of me and the other affected parties, which met with further wikilawyering about whether such an ARCA was permissible. That kind of b.s. should never, ever happen again.
   • Others are simply temperamentally unsuited to deal with such a thing until after a considerable amount of time has passed. They vary:
     • They may be insecure and severely averse to conflict if it might affect them personally.
     • They may be prone to outage, and too apoplectic to really put together a coherent appeal for a long time. (And probably others between these extremes).
   • Some have high blood pressure, ulcers, viral conditions, or other problems that make them choose to avoid stress and conflict because of their physiological effects, until they no longer feel a strong reaction to the issue.
   • Plenty are just terrified of admins and ArbCom, and don't lose that fear until after a lot of observation about how an appeal can succeed.
   • Some also just have lives. They may have demanding careers, kids to raise, and so on. If a pleasurable hobby starts to feel like a crappy job with crappy co-workers, their interest in dealing with said crap is apt to be very low. It may take them a long time to remember that they actually enjoyed part of their time here, and to miss it, and to decide to make room for it again in their lives.
   • A few are kids. A whole lot of maturing and understanding can happen in a short time when you're smart and entering your teen years. This may include figuring out how to use a "political" process instead of posting a GFYs rant.
3. Thus, any kind of hard deadline for appeals of the actual validity of sanctions should be around the 18 month mark, if not longer (yes this means most non-indef sanctions would be appealable not just amendable for their entire duration). I took an almost-total wikibreak for a year myself, and it easily could have been longer. Furthermore, ArbCom and AE and ANI have no trouble at all dredging up stuff way older than that when they want to bring the banhammer down on someone.

   So, No double-standards, please. Especially since it's actually a triple standard: If you're not one of the AE in-crowd and attempt to use evidence more than about a year old, you may find yourself boomeranged for it, as I did, while those doing the boomeranging will themselves use even older evidence against you. If that sounds too hypocritical to be real, I assure you it is not. I've also seen an Arb, who was supposed to be arbitrating, turn prosecutor and go digging up extraneous dirt almost a year old looking for reasons to oppose an appeal, rather than weighing the evidence presented. Was several years ago, but it happened and nothing was done about it, so it could happen again. Give appellants a lot of procedural slack. We want to retain editors and get them editing as broadly as they're competent to contribute. ArbCom's goal is not to WP:WIN at being a moot court.

4. As for someone else's "If it is valid to say that a sanction is no longer necessary then it is also valid to say that it was never necessary" – A) Interpreted with the more obvious meaning, sure. People shouldn't be castigated for saying it – for objecting to the original sanction as (in their view) bogus – as long as they eventually get around to why the sanction's not needed now. (They should be aware that doing so may be detrimental to their amendment request, though, which is something some appellants don't absorb.)  B) Interpreted the other way, i.e. that a sanction not necessary now was never necessary, categorically speaking ... it just couldn't possibly be true. It would presuppose that people do not learn and grow, that sanctions cannot have a preventative and instructive effect. In the majority of successful requests to end or reduce/narrow sanctions, the sanctions were clearly needed when issued – or at least among the solutions available and reasonable, when some solution from among them was needed – and later became not-needed-any-longer.

   Normally I would automatically assume the first of these two meanings.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Changed name of case to Pseudoscience because that is the case under which discretionary sanctions were imposed. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm also not that interested in reviewing the merits of a 5-year old discretionary sanction, the time for that was more than 4 years ago. Very briefly though, Tim's justification that the article was within the area authorised for discretionary sanctions was reasonable at the time. The fact that it isn't (or likely wouldn't) be considered a fringe theory now is irrelevant to whether the sanction was (and hence is) valid. As this appeal does not request that the sanction be removed for any other reason, and that this appeal is about re-litigating the 5-year old decision, I am declining the appeal at this time without prejudice an appeal being filed at AE (or here) arguing that the sanction is no longer needed (not on its original merits since the committee will already have opined on that). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Edited, I meant what OR said after "except". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just wanted to reinforce/clarify that I'm not declining your appeal completely. What I'm saying is that, given it's been 5 years since the sanction was originally imposed, it's too late to claim that that the sanction either wasn't originally permissible (given the topic) or warranted (due to your editing) at this point in time. As Thryduulf points out, what you should do instead, Iantresman, is appeal on the premise that the sanction is no longer needed and that, in 2017/2018 it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. You can make that appeal directly to Timotheus Canens or to AN or AE, or even back to ARCA if you wish (though I'd suggest AN or AE first, before coming back here). An appeal that the sanction is no longer necessary should use examples from your more recent editing (6-12 months) to show that you are not being disruptive and that you are acting inside community expectations. The evidence (from the last 3-12 months) you include could be, for example, that you haven't been recently blocked or given a different sanction (warning or ban) but instead that you have engaged in calm discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• If we were to hear Iantresman's appeal on the assumption that they meant that the topic ban isn't needed now then there a couple concerns I still have.
  The first is that my general approach to AE appeals at ARCA is that I tend to consider whether the sanction was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion rather than whether the sanction is needed except where there extenuating circumstances. Given previous points made that it was 5 years ago, the answer to that question is yes, therefore I'd decline the appeal.
  However, even if, given the age of the sanction, I were to disregard that and consider removing it (that is, consider age as an extenuating circumstance), the appeal from Iantresman does not address whether or not the sanction is needed now but rather only addresses the original merits of the sanction so I'd decline it for that reason.
  My advice to Iantresman would be the same as above, it would benefit you to, instead of continuing this appeal and adding new stuff to it which will become convoluted, file a new appeal which addresses whether the sanction is needed now. I'd suggest that an appeal addressing whether the sanction is needed now would be best at AN or AE (or even to T. Canens on his talk page) rather than jumping to the highest level of appeal (that is, here) as a first step. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's never a good sign when an ARCA begins with "Over 5 years ago..." and then goes on with "In 2006..." ;) I was about to say what Callanecc said but he beat me to it. (Except that I think it would technically be OK to appeal here or at AE with an argument that the sanctions are unnecessary/out of date/whatever, as opposed to the current formulation that largely parallels the argument made in the original AE in 2012.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If the remedy was never needed to begin with, it should be easy to show that it's not needed on an ongoing basis, either here or at AE if you prefer. See the other appeal here for an example - useful input includes e.g. links to discussions in which you worked well with other editors or edited well about other topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • But, but, I have a copy of the Bikeshed Construction and Maintenance Safety Guide right here, and in chapter 4, section 3, subsection 6, paragraph 2, it says plain as day that notices must be posted at least two weeks in advance of any proposed color change and the notice must be in the color proposed for the bikeshed and it must specify whether objections to the proposed color should be posted at AE or ARCA or both ;) Fine, fine, I'm encouraged by the fact that several commenters I wouldn't call soft on fringe views are in support of this; let's just do it now. One thing, though - Newyorkbrad, can you link the past appeal you think we need to see first? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The links are in a couple of different places, and tracing them has been a bit of a trip down memory lane; I'll try to pull them together here tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with all of the above. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If a sanctioned editor believes they are wrongly sanctioned, they should appeal in a timely fashion. I would interpret what is "timely" quite generously - probably within a year or so of the sanction or within a reasonable time after returning, if they took a break from the project after being sanctioned. Choosing not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits, in my opinion. Administrators cannot reasonably be expected to defend the merits of a sanction they placed five years ago, which they've likely long-since forgotten about. If this same appeal had been made 4.5 years ago, the Committee would have seriously considered it as we do the vast majority of appeals on the merits of the original sanction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• As do I. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Per Callanecc and OR. Katie^talk 15:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Per Callanecc also, no prejudice toward filing a new appeal following the advice given. Alex Shih (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Happy to believe this elderly sanction can be removed. Suggest you post a request at AE indicating that whether or not the sanction had validity back then, it no longer does. I'd also be happy for us to do this right here, absent any fervent objection. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Putting the above a bit more bluntly: support lifting the sanction, essentially per MjolnirPants: whatever the original merits, let's not make Iantresman jump through more hoops. Instead, let's just lift it and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• In general I agree with Thryduulf's comments above. I also have a recollection of a prior appeal by Iantresman, which should be referenced in any future appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis and Iantresman: Upon further research, the earlier appeal I was thinking of was from 2012, so is a bit more ancient history and therefore a bit less relevant than I had thought. Given the age, rather than get into the specifics from back then, I'll ask Iantresman in any future appeal to address the direct questions of what topics he would like to edit that he now cannot, and whether he is confident that he'll be able to edit them consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My recollection is that you (Iantresman) hold views on some cosmology related subject that are or were not in step with commonly accepted understandings of the universe. That of course is your prerogative, but you know that we have policies as to how majority and minority theories are to be presented. Do you believe you will have any issue in following those policies, if you resume editing in these areas? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}

KA$HMIR

Blocked for 1 week. GoldenRing (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (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 KA$HMIR User who is submitting this request for enforcement  MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  KA$HMIR (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 enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  17:11, 19 December 2017 1st revert 17:19, 19 December 2017 2nd revert 17:26, 19 December 2017 3rd revert Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any  Blocked indefinitely on 19 October 2017 by Alex Shih (talk · contribs) for not disclosing his "old account". Still hasn't declared it publicly presumably to avoid scrutiny. 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, on [13] See also Talk:Kashmir conflict#Sanctions_reminder Additional comments by editor filing complaint  This is a clear violation of the editing sanctions placed on this page by this WP:SPA. And I'd add that this is not the first time that this guy has violated those sanctions.[14][15] —MBL Talk 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC) @NadirAli: If you think that those "stray IPs" are someone's sock, then file an WP:SPI. Throwing around groundless accusation of socking against established editors is not acceptable. Please watch your step. —MBL Talk 08:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC) And I think it's worth mentioning that NadirAli was warned "to focus on content, not nationality" last month (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive221#NadirAli), yet he has continued to make comments like, "The older text whose value Hindu POV pushers want to dilute.."[16], "There is a case here that Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors through these frivolous reports and when they fail they start to IP sock.."[17] Surely some administrative action is warranted here. —MBL Talk 08:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC) @RegentsPark and Lankiveil: I believe that KA$HMIR is in clear violation of WP:CLEANSTART and WP:SCRUTINY policies and therefore he should be topic banned or blocked. This makes it clear that Fahaddar65 (talk · contribs) is KA$HMIR's former account. KA$HMIR has used his former account as recently as December, 10.[18] KA$HMIR was registered on 23 September 2017, by this time he had already received multiple warnings, and an ARBIPA sanctions notice on his former account's talk page. He has engaged in similar disruptive editing with his new account and has received multiple warnings on his talk page too. KA$HMIR has also used his former account to make POV edits on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Pakistan, History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, History of Sindh, and for restoring edits of a disruptive sock, Towns Hill (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_10 for diffs. On Dhar (surname) Fahaddar65 removed "mostly in India" (which was sourced) and used Wikipedia as a source.[19] Fahaddar65 also made POV edit on Ethnic groups in Pakistan,[20] (that also violated WP:V, WP:OR, among other policies) similar to those made by KA$HMIR,[21][22][23][24] for which he received a yet another Level 3 warning on his talk page.[25] Dishonest editors like KA$HMIR shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. —MBL Talk 12:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  [26] Discussion concerning KA$HMIR 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 (KA$HMIR) Well I will make my simple case here but will abide by whatever is the board's final decision, whatever it will be, though this looks like a bad faith report. As far as I know regentspark [removed] the 1RR restriction from all Kashmir Conflict articles, if this is indeed one of them. Besides, there is an exemption from 3RR to remove content which is copyright and or added by blocked users, as anyone can see, I consistently removed the page's content on the basis that it has clear copyright violations which other users Josephus and Danish agree with me on. There is also a talkpage discussion ongoing and I am still compiling the evidence for those users who had requested it. Also a lot, if not most, of the article's content was written by a blocked sockmaster TylerDurden, who was recently caught socking again. Apologies if I have unwittingly violated any sanction. Will be extra careful in future. KA$HMIR (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC) @RegentsPark: as an example see this sentence in the first section's first paragraph. " From then on, Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of State troops It's source said this "But from this time onwards Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of J&K State troops." This is very closely paraphrased. There are more examples especially in the sentences which cite Saraf's Kashmiris road to freedom Volume 2 and other obscure primary sources which are not available online. Overall the wording in the article differs little from the sources. This [27] also shows the article with a 60%+ similarity. Article needs to be rewritten from scratch. We can not trust a sockmaster TylerDurden to have written this article properly. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by WBG His being a SPA and Alex's block are not much of a problem at their respective individual merits. Functionary Yunshui knows his alt-accs and AFAIK, the use of such accounts are permitted by our legit-socks criterion.Obviously, cases of 3RR and/or violation of ArbCom decisions needs to be looked at, though! Winged BladesGodric 04:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by power~enwiki A link to the copyvio tool: [28]. The top two matches are caused by properly-cited blockquotes. I don't see anything that justifies blanking the entire article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00 But problem remains that KA$HMIR is edit warring against consensus on multiple articles and often engaged in WP:BLUDGEONING. At least 3 articles (Violence against women during the partition of India, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Kashmir conflict) have been provided extended protection because of his edit warring. Capitals00 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Comments of Mblaze needs serious consideration. Despite the siteban+topicban by Arbitration Committee,[29] recent warning by BU Rob13, NadirAli continues to attack editors by commenting on race/nationalities by saying "Hindu POV pushers,"[30] "Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors"[31] and now "I am referring to Indians involved".[32] When other editors get topic banned for such attitude, there should be no exception for an all-time disruptive editor like NadirAli. Capitals00 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Mblaze is right about KA$HMIR that the account is suspicious and should be blocked since it is frequently engaging in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. You are not allowed to continue edit wars and disruption that you did with your previous account. Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3 The edit warring that occurred at the 1947 Poonch Rebellion is the most shocking I have seen in my three years of editing, not only for the spuriousness of the rationale but also the bombast with which it was carried out. Note the edit summaries: There were massive copyright violations in the article's old version. Admins please suppress [33] stop restoring copyvio else it could lead to you getting a block [34] whole article is copied from the sources used [35] Yet, when I quizzed it on the talk page, no evidence was forthcoming. KA$HMIR was certainly aware of the edit restrictions placed on Kashmir conflict articles because RegentsPark recently reminded every one of their existence. This is the apex of all the tendentiousness that the user has been displaying ever since he came on board. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Let us also note the obvious Tag teaming that has occurred in this edit war. These are the first ever edits by any of these editors on this page. Pure coincidence? But such coincidences are now occurring with increasing frequency all over the India-Pakistan space: Talk:Violence against women during the Partition of India, Talk:Annexation of Junagadh etc. At Talk:Kashmir conflict, a group of editors have repeated each other's RfC comments [36]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Well, after five days of continuous prodding, user KA$HMIR was able to produce one sentence of poor phrasing in a Background section, which is not particularly egregious and in no way justifies blanking an entire article. This is clearly shoot-first-and-think-later battleground editing, precisely what the ARBIPA sanctions are meant to control. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by User:EdJohnston For clarity, the current restrictions in effect for this article (from WP:DSLOG) appear to be: Kashmir conflict and all articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir (initially posted here. Modified Sept 2016: 1RR restriction removed and a first revert does not need to be explained on the talk page.): A 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block. A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block. A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block. An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors. --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Quoted from DSLOG by EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Dilpa kaur Looks like a bad faith report by a user who has been obsessed with maligning this user through hook or crook. I guess this request is another frustrated attempt after previous failures to rid the encyclopedia of this constructive editor. Previously MBlaze Lightning joyously joined in a ridiculous SPI against KA$HMIR, only to be confronted with the establishment of KA$HMIR's innocence. He also brought him up in a spurious ANI case which was based on such weak evidence (such as MBlaze' Lightnings mixup of my IP address and Danish Mehraj's) that even MBlaze Lightning had to withdraw it. The encyclopedia has also been recently hit by malicious IPs [37] [38], located in different Indian cities,[39] [40] looking to malign this user as a sockpuppet (the different locations of these obvious IP socks suggest collaboration and their knowledge of old SPIs indicate that these are older users IP socking to harass without getting their accounts sanctioned). I suspect a link between these reports and the malicious IPs who are obviously not new strays but old Indian editors who have a beef with KA$HMIR and Owais Khursheed and are IP socking to harass the Kashmiri editors. Overall this request is nothing more than the latest attempt to get rid of another good user who is a headache for the POV pushers. 223.225.246.200 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by NadirAli I'll have to agree with Dilpa here. The frequency with which these reports are getting filed show desperation that some of the mud flung will stick. Mar4d previously expressed the same concern in another frivolous AE request, that time against me, about Kautilya3 desperately trying to get rid of editors with another frame of mind. Since this looks like KA$HMIR's first mistake I would advise to go easy on him. We can all rest in peace that Yunshui has confirmed that KA$HMIR was not under any sanctions on their previous account. So a warning should suffice this time. As far as copyvio is concerned I am more concerned at the speed with which this is being used as a reason by not just KA$HMIR but several editors to delete content which no one can check afterwards was really copyvio or not, especially when the users getting the diffs suppressed have themselves restored copyvio content. Instead I call for a WP:BOOMERANG. The evidence Dilpa has shown has startled me. It is just not possible that stray IPs are able to link to old SPIs. There is a case here that Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors through these frivolous reports and when they fail they start to IP sock to frame these responsible users for sockpuppetry. The messages left by these IPs are quite telling. KA$HMIR - about me - Am an old user (Owais Khurseed) :D I hope indians you have not forgotten me am still doing edits for my friends TalhaZubair Butt. ha ha Indians can never catch me. #gayhind To Indians: User:KA$HMIR is me - ha ha - am doing edits for my friends Talha Zubair Butt a k a User:Towns Hill. Me and my friends has dozens of wikipedia. accounts cunning Indian Kautilya can never catch . HA H A HA Kashmir Banega Pakistan. I N S H A L L A H The case of collaboration is quite strong, not least because of the different IP locations within India of the users messaging with the same motive. I just recently expressed my concern at how some editors with no contributions to articles are suddenly arriving on the articles' talkpages as if they were requested by an invisible hand. This is part of a more extensive phenomenon of a particular set of users who participate in the same SPI, ANI and AE requests concerning editors in the India-Pakistan topic area and support each other on the talkpages on articles in the India-Pakistan project. I call for a warning to user:KA$HMIR to be more careful in future and a full investigation of the accounts frequently filing such bad faith reports and their links to these malicious IPs.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC) To MBlaze Lightning:, I should file an SPI against anyone I think is in violation. Obviously I am referring to the Indians involved. Do you want me to specify that every single time on every single thread related to this case? It would take up a lot of my time and space here. It was also a cruel thing to do in filing an SPI against me for the sheer sake of getting me and one other opposing user blocked, but you are just doing it again here by distorting my statements. Take care to refrain from such behavior in the future.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Yunshui Since I got pinged above, I'm just dropping by to confirm that KA$HMIR has indeed disclosed their original account to me and I'm satisfied that they are complying with the requirements at WP:SOCK. However, per an email conversation yesterday, they have advised me that they intend to abandon their former account entirely, in order to ensure that no accidental violations occur. I do not believe the former account is relevant to this case. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mar4d I see nothing actionable here. Agree with RegentsPark that a warning, and a note to be careful in the future, is sufficient. Mar4d (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93 In the absence of any evidence provided by KA$HMIR, I would concur that an AE block of a week would normally be in order. Given the time that has elapsed, I'm disinclined to place such a block myself, and would much rather give them an explicit warning. Copyright violations are an exception to 3RR, but for that very reason, crying wold over copyright should not be treated lightly. Vanamonde (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Result concerning KA$HMIR This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Looking over the evidence provided by MBlaze Lightning, I see that KA$HMIR was repeatedly asked for evidence of the copyvio but failed to provide it. I suggest they provide specific evidence above otherwise these will be viewed as bad faith deletions of sourced material and a violation of the 2RR without a talk page post sanction placed on these articles. If there is evidence forthcoming, then a warning to be more careful in the future is probably all that is required.--regentspark (comment) 16:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC) @KA$HMIR:. Still waiting for evidence of the copyvio. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, I don't see evidence that would justify repeatedly reverting 64K plus bytes of material without responding to requests or using the talk page as required by the - clearly stated - restrictions that are in place. I suggest a 1 week arb enforcement block but will let someone else decide whether to apply it or not. --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC) I too would like to see the evidence that RegentsPark has requested. If such evidence can't be presented, I'll assume it doesn't exist. If the evidence doesn't exist, this is 2RR and that would be unfortunate for KA$HMIR. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC). This looks like a clear 2RR violation, unfortunately. If no other administrators are expected to comment I will close this and issue the standard block. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC) User:KA$HMIR was given a chance to respond here in detail and back up their charge of copyright violation. They haven't done so. Agree with the block proposed by User:Coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

ScratchMarshall

No action. ScratchMarshall is warned that his views on how much detail is appropriate in an article are out of step with community expectations. Continuing to push excessive detail over a long period becomes disruptive and may lead to sanctions in the future. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2018 (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 ScratchMarshall User who is submitting this request for enforcement  K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  ScratchMarshall (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. The article (Unite the Right rally) is currently under ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES, including: Limit of one revert in 24 hours Consensus required This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia's general sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy [41] At 21:47, editor inserted contentious material about a recently living person against Consensus required clause on the Talk page. Several editors had previously objected to this material [42] at 21:14; [43] at 20:05, etc. The purported cause of death was reverted from the article multiple times (not originally inserted by Scratch): [44]; [45]; [46]. The Talk page discussion with Scratch (Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#More_stuff_that_looks_like_it_belongs_in_reactions) includes: You have been told this countless times. So I take it that Scratch knew the edit would be contentious. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC) [47] This revert at 19:48, combined with the edit above, appears to violate 1RR clause, as it's in addition to the edit at 21:47 that the editor knew was contentious. First edit by Scratch was: [48]. It was reverted here: [49]. Scrat then reinstated it here: [50]. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) The editor was alerted in August 2017 about the DS sanctions on the same article here: [51].--K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint  There are multiple prior discussions and warnings on the user's Talk page that pertain to the same article: [52] "Caution: Personal attacks directed at a specific editor on Talk:Unite the Right rally" [53] "Please stop your disruptive editing at Unite the Right rally" [54]: "PA warning" [55]: The DS alert linked includes a specific warning: "Particularly troubling is your turning that car thing into a "collision". Setting aside the question of the categories, that's pure POV editing. (...) 02:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)" Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  Editor has been notified here: [56]. Discussion concerning ScratchMarshall 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 ScratchMarshall special:diff/817497032 at 19:48 was me identifying the struck sedan as a Toyota Camry per Duggan of WashPo special:diff/817511202 at 21:47 was me identifying the cause of death as blunt force injury to the chest, per Porter of NewsWeek First I'll explain how K.e.coffman is misrepresenting the Camry issue. In Special:Diff/817496708 my larger edit was indeed reverted by ValarianB. However the summary said "This edit made proper grammar into atrocious grammar". Valarian did not actually object to my mention of the Camry in the summary, only the larger rephrasing that I did. On that basis, I was not restoring what Valarian's revert targeted (the grammar) but only the Camry identification, which Valarian did not object to. Thus my summary "minimalist restoration of details". Valarian's revert threw the baby out with the bathwater. Since only bathwater (grammar change) was objected to, and not baby (Camry ID) restoring it was not a restoration of what Valarian objected to, so this was an entirely separate edit and not a 1RR violation, because I did not "revert" Valarian's reversion, I noted his objections and made a completely different edit which did not change the grammar and only simply added the data. Second I'll explain how K.e.coffman is misrepresenting the COD issue. This is not "contentious" material at all. We already had consensus regarding that we should not state Heather Heyer's cause of death as being a heart attack based on her mother Susan Bro's comments during an NBC News interview. Our discussion was on whether or not we should mention those comments or the news coverage reactions to them generated. It was not on whether or not to list the official COD, which is blunt trauma, not heart attack. The "several editors" K.e.coffman refers to are: special:diff/817499023 Grayfell at 20:05 special:diff/817506831 K.e.coffman at 21:14 The problem is that both of these were replies to special:diff/817480803 where I was discussing Noor Al-Sibai's article regarding the "heart attack" quote, which did not mention "blunt trauma" at all. K.e.coffman is inaccurate in saying that these were "previous objections to this material" because it was different material we were discussing. Re the "multiple prior discussions and warnings" special:diff/796258874 August 19 Power~enwiki decided to leave a message conveying personal opinions that a car killed Heather Heyer, despite there being no actual statement regarding manner of death released at the time. Given that Newsweek didn't report on it until October 17, I don't even think cause of death being blunt trauma had been mentioned at the time. Power~enwiki's false accusation of my making "disruptive edits" was thus at the time, based on pushing a personal PoV which violated WP:BLPCRIME. special:diff/797772479 August 29 Drmies left thea false accusation of the word "collision" being "Pure POV editing", even though that word has been used in news coverage of the event, for example "Man accused in fatal Charlottesville collision back in court". Editors who persist in inserting the word "attack" are clearly upset by neutral language in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME like this. I do not put stock in people who levy false accusations and then abuse the flooding of templates on those they disagree with to try and frighten them away. special:diff/797802477 August 29 Doug Weller left an ambiguous warning without actually specifying the accusation. I followed up on his talk page: User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_46#request_for_clarification and Weller accused me of not AGF whilst ignoring people who already not AGF and harassing me. Weller calls "check a mirror" a personal attack when he accused me of not AGF, but if accusing someone of not AGF is a "personal attack" then this would be Weller admitting to engaging in personal attacks himself. Weller has been WP:INVOLVED with this article from the outset (check the talk archives) and was not a neutral party in warning me. He was ignoring unwarranted attacks on me and falsely portraying me as the attacker when I was simply defending myself. Situation was: Party A: "X is true. B is biased for saying Y." - no reason given Party B: "Y is true because reason. Given A persists on X without evidence, A may be the one who is biased." Party C: "B is making personal attacks against A! Stop doing that B!" special:diff/798752997 September 3, Acromion responded to Special:diff/798752389 saying it was "moving into personal attack territory" where I said "abusing reversion" and "dogpiling" regarding Valerian's behavior. This was at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#Color_of_other_2_vehicles where Weller had already weighed in to agree with Valerian (thus being WP:INVOLVED). Notable things supported do not become "excessive" or "trivial" based upon the unsourced personal opinions of Wikipedians. None of them were actually making arguments, just stating a lack of interest, or a lack of understanding of the value of detail, thus "dogpiling" did and still does seem appropriate for that, and it continues today. Re Sandstein, your suspicions are correct, diff 2 is not a 1RR violation, and not a revert at all. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by TheValeyard How do we deal with an editor who brings up the same topics over and over and over and over again? I'm trying to sift thru the maze of restrictions and rules that cover political pages, is there anything along the lines of "being super-unable to stop beating a dead horse" ? Look at this, Scratchmarshall has brought up the same topic, which has garnered zero consensus among editors at the article, over several months Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#OR_regarding_triviality_of_Toyota_Camry Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#Color_of_other_2_vehicles Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_5#what_is_brand_of_white_car_which_Dodge_Challenger_hit_then_pushed Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_5#Best_source_saying_Heyer_was_hit_by_Challenger Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_4#license_plates_and_car_brands Here's the topics started for the "heart attack" part, a notorious alt-right meme attack Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Medical_report_and_chest_injury Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#Cause_of_death (initiated by another user but Scratchmarshall takes same argument tack) Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#statements_from_Heyer's_mother Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#casualties_afterward_split Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_5#clarifying_Heather_Heyer_location_during_Challenger_incident Am I crazy or is this overboard? TheValeyard (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Doesn't much matter if sentiment is leaning against any finding of wrongdoing, but the silly assertions of and in archive 6 the first one to mention "heart attack" in the "casualties afterward split" is YOU are prime examples of the belaboured nitpicky focus this user has subjected editors to over the last few months. My, quote, "first mention", was to rebut this users suggestion that a casualty sub-article be created. The user then invoked the term "heart attack" as a part of subsequent arguments no less than a dozen times. What this behavior does is drive people away, so when say 10 people object the first time around, it drops to 7 on a repeated attempt, then 5 and on and on. Argument by exhaustion, it poisons the talk pages and makes everything just unpleasant. I've had my last say so do what you will. TheValeyard (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Add'l statement by K.e.coffman (filer) This has started with Scratch posting to my Talk page: "Your redaction", where he linked to this diff from the article's Talk page, which I had redacted two months ago. It looks like he's unable to let go of this fringe theory, and it's becoming disruptive and possibly BLP violating. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrX Sandstein is correct that there is no technically sanctionable violation of an editing restriction, however GoldenRing is correct that the behavior of Scratch Marshall is disruptive pushing of detail. In fact, it violates the principle of consensus, which is plainly established for this aspect of the subject. I agree with the idea of a narrow topic ban from the article (and related articles), but since this manner of editing from ScratchMarshall has been ongoing for nearly five months, I think the topic ban should be for at least six months, if not permanent, based on the WP:POV pushing evident in their contributions to the article.- MrX 14:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Perhaps I'm reading some comments wrong, but there seems to be a misconception by a few people that AE is only for sanctioning editors that breech article editing restrictions. That is simply not the case. Relentless editing against consensus is exactly one of the behaviors that Arbcom cases sought to stop in the two AP cases. Whether this case requires a sanction is a judgement call. - MrX 01:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Add'l statements by ScratchMarshall (target) Apparently a followup is fine so I have responses. firstly to K.e.coffman: you appear to be implying I agree with the fringe theory. I do not. I simply think the best way to deal with it is to acknowledge it is being spread (as sources show) and that it has been discredited, and supply the leading theory supported by the medical report. My objection here is that by censoring confused people who post that, they'll just keep posting it and nobody will actually be educated. Valeyard: it is not the "same topic" if I am bringing up new details. The recent discussion of the 2nd sedan's brand being "Camry" for example, I have never brought up before, I only recently learned of it. I view it as valuable when we are talking about a situation of 2 sedans making contact, to be able to discuss their brands. We already do so for the Challenger, doing so for the Camry is following an existing pattern. The archives you have linked to are on separate topics. A4 was asking about brands. A5 had Spem Reduxit suggest indictment sheet, implying to me agreement that it is valuable. I JethroBT said "until sources discuss it" regarding brand. Sources DO discuss it now, imlpying Jethro would now clearly see the value in how it is relevant to the content. A6 was you pushing the idea that car colors are trivial despite multiple sources commenting on color. You prematurely closed the conversation with under 2 weeks of activity, burying it to try and sink the line of discussion. Valeyard your description topics started for the "heart attack" part is a lie obvious to anyone who will check the sections. "Heart" does not appear anywhere in archive 5, and in archive 6 the first one to mention "heart attack" in the "casualties afterward split" is YOU. As for the September 13th "statements from Heyer's mother" section, that is a followup to the september 8 "cause of death" section where user:DIthewave posted concerns about people adding this to the article. The difference of topic is that rather than discussing whether that is a reliable source to Heather's CoD (it obviously is not, this was a grieving parent not a medical professional's statement), it is discussing what exactly was said, the reactions it caused, and whether or not the reactions (or reactions to the reactions) were notable. The present "medical report" topic is me acknowledging your valid concern over conspiracies, and what better way to combat theorists than to provide the report showing CoD is blunt force trauma and not heart attack? You regularly falsely accuse me of supporting the heart attack theory when I have never done so, and here was actively cooperating with you to debunk it. GoldenRing or Mr. X you haven't explained how my discussion of easily summarized details like Camry/CoD are disruptive. Discussing content is part of collaboration. I think I've been cooperative so far with consensus, dropping the topic for MONTHS after the irrational anti-color gangup. I came back when learning new information I had not previously discussed, to see if that new detail would be worth acknowledging. I think it is worth considering that the ones disrupting the article are the ones who keep removing valid sourced information from it based on personal feelings of aesthetics, as if their personal aesthetics are more important than being an encyclopedia. Words like "Camry" or "black" or "sedan" are short and cheap, look at the massive character count, how much would they really clutter? Informing people of detail is what encyclopedias do, and without us conveying that info, readers will not be easily able to tell which sources share details like these. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC) User:GoldenRing re special:diff/818251390, it seems like exaggeration to me that discussing general details like the model of car (which, since they are different, allows easy reference) is "all possible details". There are other less important details which I have been aware of but so far not even broached upon. The black Toyota Tundra (pickup truck) visible on the right side of the Challenger, for example. I haven't brought it up because even though it was there, the Challenger did not collide with it. The GVF 1111 license plate of the Dodge Challenger is a detail I similarly did not actually add to the article, I merely asked on the talk if anyone thought we should bother including it. The license plate wouldn't help people discuss the incident like memorable brand names like Challenger/Camry would, nor to understand video/photographs the way colors do. I believe this is probably why the sources I cited to support the information decided it was valuable to mention these details moreso than others. Rather than adding all possible information (ie original research, I personally saw "Toyota Tundra" in an image but didn't bother to check if any sources commented on it) I only added notable information reported on by reliable sources, which established their noteworthiness via the writers' decision to include them. "Complete exposition" would be doing things like listing the names of the other people who were there and have tweeted/facebooked about it. I didn't do that because while there were some isolated stories, it didn't seem well-covered enough to focus on. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72 On review of the diffs in the initial filing, it appears that there has been some misunderstanding. The initial diff31 does not show ScratchMarshall reinserting contentious material; it shows an insertion of reliably sourced information, in line with mainstream views on the subject. Neither do the next two Talkpage diffs3233 show discussion of the material included in that first diff. The next 3 diffs[34, 35, 36] do show removal of contentious content; but this is not the content which was added by ScratchMarshall. I am not a mind reader, but it would seem that with the first diff, ScratchMarshall has understood the objections of other editors to previous content, taken those objections on board, and acted accordingly. I cannot see that a sanction is warranted based on the evidence presented. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlish Outsider view: Agreed with Ryk72 and Sandstein. There's nothing AE-actionable here, even if some of this seems to wander into WP:TE and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE territory. This should have been taken to WP:ANI, and can if the issue continues. I tend to agree with ScratchMarshall's defense, point-by-point, but that's kind of not the point. A pattern can still be unconstructive even if no particular action in it was expressly sanctionable. So: a) Those who feel he's being disruptive need to make an actual case, not some "flailing with poorly-supported fingerpointing" thing. b) Scratch should take the hint and not make them build that case, since if they do then ANI will surely act on it, probably with the requested topic ban.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning ScratchMarshall This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I can't quite follow this request. As to diff 1, the restrictions prohibit "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". The report does not indicate that the content at issue was previously reverted. Talk page objections are not reverts. As to diff 2, the report does not make clear which previous edit this diff is a revert of, and what the diff of the previous revert by the same user is. It can't be diff 1, because there is nothing in the report to suggest that diff 1 is a revert. Without a previous revert, diff 2 is not a 1RR violation even if it is in fact a revert. Sandstein 22:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks for adding to the report. Diff 1 is still not actionable, in my view, because the text at issue in it ("died by blunt-force injury to the chest") does not seem to have previously been reverted. According to the wording of the restriction, it is not enough that the edit is contentious, but imposing a sanction requires that the content has been previously reverted. Diff 2 is also not actionable because I see no prior revert by ScratchMarshall that has been reported. 1RR prohibits the same user from making more than one revert in 24 h. But as reported, ScratchMarshall made only one revert. I would therefore take no action in this case. Sandstein 00:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: I think you're probably right that we don't have a strict 1RR / consensus required violation here. But I think the links to discussions by TheValeyard are pretty clear that this editor is disruptively pushing detail, often the same detail repeatedly, into an article where the material would be undue and the consensus is pretty clear that it doesn't belong. This seems to me obviously disruptive and something needs to be done about it. My gut reaction is a 3-month topic ban from the article in question, but would be interested to hear other thoughts before I go and do it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC) I see your point, but I'm reluctant to impose an AE sanction for talk page conduct that is not patently and obviously disruptive. We're not, I think, at that point yet, based on the material submitted here. The "car model" stuff is just weird, and while the "heart attack" material may well be motivated by non-neutral reasons (as e.g. described here), this is still ultimately a content disagreement, which is outside the scope of arbitration or AE. We only sanction disruptive conduct, not the questionable motives editors may have. Sandstein 13:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC) I take your point, but this has been going on for some months now and the editor's responses here show that they still don't get it. @ScratchMarshall: I suggest you go and read WP:NOT. In particular, A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Understanding this is pretty fundamental to editing here. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC) @ScratchMarshall: You're not getting this. Information doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia because it is true, or because it is verifiable, or because it is useful to someone. We aim for a "summary of accepted knowledge" about a subject, and if you can't see that the sorts of detail you're pushing aren't part of a "summary of accepted knowledge" then you're going to keep on running into trouble, whatever topic you choose to edit. You should be able to see that, because the sort of detail you're pushing has been rejected repeatedly over a period of months. The message here is that you need to recalibrate your internal "what is significant to go in an article" gauge, because it is out of step with the community's. GoldenRing (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC) It may appear "Consensus required" has been violated, but this is such a nebulous restriction, I'm loathe to enforce except under the most obvious of circumstances. Otherwise, I agree with Sandstein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC) The consensus required provision does not apply to talk page conduct, neither does the 1RR restriction. Close as no action is my call here. I will close as such if no other administrators intend to comment. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC) @Coffee:I think this has got to the stage of being disruptive, and the editor's most recent response here (paraphrase: "I didn't mention every possible detail so the stupid amount of detail I did mention can't be a problem") show's they're not getting it. If you're set on no sanction, I won't get in the way, but would appreciate any close at least including an appropriate warning. GoldenRing (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Coffee's on holiday now. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani

No action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2018 (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 Nishidani User who is submitting this request for enforcement  Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  Nishidani (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 WP:ARBPIA : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  [57] Nishidani's first revert [58] Nishidani's second revert, a bit after 24 hours Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any  Nishidani has a rich history of blocks in the WP:ARBPIA area, as well as voluntarily refraining from editing when caught redhanded but before being sanctiond Additional comments by editor filing complaint  Especially galling is the fact that content wise I am correct: archeological sites are manged, geopolitical areas are controlled. The sourced used by Nishidani clearly do not support his claim, and are trumped up as filling only. Such editing should be condemned. Especially in the WP:ARBPIA area. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  [59] @GoldenRing Then why did you block me when I made a revert some 3 hours after 24h? Now you show your true colors. I knew I didn't have much chance, but I just wanted to expose the hypocrisy of this forum. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning Nishidani 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 Nishidani Statement by Malik Shabazz I invite administrators to toss a boomerang to Debresser. For the relevant context, please see the past few days' history at B'Tselem and Talk:B'Tselem. Debresser doesn't like the way Nishidani spoke about his edit on that article, so he pursued this frivolous complaint about a trivial matter at another article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Nishidani This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is not actionable as reported. No specific arbitration remedy that is to be enforced is indicated, let alone how these edits are supposed to violate it. Sandstein 17:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC) DS does allow room for "these edits don't violate any specific sanction but they're disruptive and the editor should be sanctioned;" I agree this is a long way from that point, though. It's not even really close to a 1RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rod (User:Dailey78)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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 

Dailey78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Rod (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed 

I received a Topic ban from the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and similar articles in July 2014 for edits to articles that all admit are highly controversial.

WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2014#Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Administrator imposing the sanction 

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

Notification of that administrator 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=818511476&oldid=818440397

Statement by User:Dailey78

It's been several years since the ban was implemented in July 2014. It's time for a fresh start and a lift to this ban, as it's now 2018.

Statement by User:EdJohnston

• I am not in favor of granting this ban appeal. I've given a longer summary of the history here on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by User:Dailey78

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

• We've been here earlier this year - an appeal that, frankly, didn't go well. As Dougweller suggested at the time, "Rod, what I would suggest is that you spend six months editing in other areas that interest you. There must be some, and if you can find areas that do have issues that require careful work within our policies where you can show that you understand and can work within them well, I believe an appeal would be successful.". Since the user hasn't actually edited since, I'd suggest that this appeal probably needs to end the same way. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Kite. We need to see you editing other topics before we can judge if the issues that led to your topic ban won't crop up again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with the above. Sandstein 09:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

DHeyward

User:DHeyward is banned for one month from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. User:Andrew Davidson is warned to avoid hyperbole in future arbitration enforcement filings. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2018 (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 DHeyward User who is submitting this request for enforcement  Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  DHeyward (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  30 December 2017 DHeyward starts hostile section on Talk:Erica Garner This is the first of several edits which seek to disrupt and destroy this article. The subject was an activist in the Black Lives Matter movement, prominent supporter of Bernie Sanders and critic of Bill de Blasio, both being American politicians. 31 December 2017 Tags Erica Garner, suggesting that her life did not matter, which is a derogatory implication given her role in Black Lives Matter. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any  2 December 2017 DHeyward}} is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 December 2017 by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint  DHeyward is continuing to make vexatious attempts to delete and disrupt the Erica Garner topic, for example, at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 3 For clarity, perhaps it needs stating that, by making the edits to the Erica Garner topic, DHeyward violated the topic ban placed on 2 Dec. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  Notification Discussion concerning DHeyward Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by DHeyward As of the filing, topic ban is expired. [60]. Further it was limited to articles regarding Politicians and not other articles. Erica Garner is not an article about a politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC) BU_Rob13 The admin imposing the retriction noted how narrow it was (a BLP DS limited to articles American Politicians). It's not an AP2 sanction and didn't broadly construe to talk pages, wiki spaces or any other articles. It came up before and was ruled narrowly with no adjustment to the sanction. It included an apology for a previous filing[61]. It was not changed and certainly I've waited the appropriate time to be restriction free and avoided al larticles on American Politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC) To repeat, the expired restriction was not an AP2 restriction. --DHeyward (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 VM falsely states these are related to AP2 and my topic ban was an AP2 restriction. It was not. They are not. The reversal on Scarborough is a long standing smear and BLP violation. It's been removed numerous times. The others are unrelated to the restriction or after the restriction expired, which is not aP2. Also, they weren't significant or disrupive enough to even warrant a complaint. The restriction has expired and was extremely narrow as confirmed by the retraction of an earlier complaint. --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 in turn here are VMs complaints that he didn't make when the BLP US Politiciaon articles was in place: [62] BLP violation corrected after expiraton. [63] Talk page comment,not an article edit. I was nort barred from talk page comments. [64] The Mandell article is not about an American Politcian. the restriction was a BLP restriction on articles about American Politicians, not a broad ban on American Politics. The edit was not challenged nor was I asked to revert or explain. Also, out of an abundance of caution, I self reverted [65]. VM failed to note this. [66] This is also not an article about an American politician. It appears to me to be after the ban. Either way, it is not a violation of the very limited restriction. This was not an AP2 ban, it was limited in scope to American Poltician articles under the BLP arbco sanctions. I've avoided those articles like the plague since it was enacted. A complaint after expiration is pointless and is punitive rather than prevantive. the vultures arrived after the ban ecpired and their motives are clear. --DHeyward (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Cbs527 review the log and sanction. It was not an AP2 sanction. It was a restriction on "articles" about "American Politicians" filed under the BLP arbcom case. Nothing else was restricted. The narrow scope was confirmed in a previous discussion. I stayed away from bios on American Politians per the restriction and further clarification that it "only" incuded biographical articles on politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC) MastCell Really, how can I operate when this was the "clarification." [67]. I am not in violation s I've avoided all articles in the clarification. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 MastCell see self reversion above that VM failed to mention[68]. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 And per this WP article, the Scarborough removal[[69]] complied with BLP by refusing to link him to a conspiracy that he murdered an employee. BLP exenption is obvious per the Washington Post. [70]. We don't permit smears. Are you stil arguing I should be sanctioned for this edit? --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC) TonyBallioni TonyBallioni Joe Scarborough was BLP edit over a longstanding consensus. If you like, review the Article for Deletion. The deceased person had her article deleted in 2006. Even Jimbo weighed it. We don't allow baseless conspiracy theory smears on living people. Even smears by Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton didn't have Vince Foster killed either and you can try to insert that conspiracy theory to her article but it will be reverted by a number of editors (and by me regardless of your ban as it's a blatant BLP violation just like Scarborough) . --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) My edit to Scarborough was not a vio. It seems the majority of commenters are piping up after the ban expired over stale edits. --DHeyward (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC) TonyBallioni GoldenRing read the Joe Scarborough talk page. It's consensus that the account I removed is a BLP violation. It has been for years. It's not a new allegation. We don't put that alleged criminal activity in BLPs. It's a consensus BLP violation. Claiming it is not moves the bar. The false claims were removed when other prominent people said them as well such as Michael Moore and the Daily Kos creator. It's a long settled BLP issue. I added those high quality sources to highlight the BLP issues on the talk page as support for removal (the WaPo as much called Trump out for it). It was removed before the ban and it was removed during. The talk page clearly shows the 10 year history. Citing Kingsindian comments as supporting a vio is a gross misreading of what he wrote. I didn't edit anything about his political activity. --DHeyward (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I'll spell it out even clearer. on 11/29, before the topic ban, I removed that material and put the WaPo article on the talk page under BLP. It was not reverted or challenged. In December, the material was readded against BLP and consensus. I reverted that that addition. Again, it was unchallenged. I don't see how anyone in this forum can equivocate on the result of that consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem, TonyBallioni, Sandstein GoldenRing In closing, you can review mt last 30 days of edits. I've avoided politicians articles. I did it in good faith. I have not tried to evade the topic ban in any way and I'm sorry if the handful of edits look like I was skirting the edges. That was not my intent. No one alerted me to anything they thought was a violation at the time and it seems clear that it's the pile on comments, not the original filer that are being discussed. Also since the pile on charges failed to note the self-revert, it was clear they searched my history to exact punishment. None of my edits appear to be disruptive nor were they edit warring and it seems odd to file for a sanction after its expired with no disputes or disruption to solve. I am not currently under sanction and it seems a bit off to put me under sanction again for edits that are not contested or controversial. We're here to build the encyclopedia and that has been my motivation even after I shifted away from political bios. --DHeyward (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem You're statement about the Dec 19 edit is false. I self-reverted that edit. If you meant the Scarborough BLP violation I removed, it was December 31. Has anyone even read the talk page or the history of Scarborough to know that it was a long-standing BLP issue. It wasn't a new allegation and it's just as baseless today as it has been for years. Other editors remove the account while lots of IP editors keep trying to sneak it in (even in the last month). Go read it. Certainly with less than a day in the topic ban, I didn't edit an article that I thought would be covered. --DHeyward (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem Do really lack the good faith necessary to believe I intentionally violated a 1 month topic ban on the 30th day? That seems to be what you are saying even after acknowledging the BLP consensus? Come on. That was a good faith BLP removal. --DHeyward (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem Again, your statement is incorrect. I added paragraphs to Robert A. Mandell which were sourced. I removed EVERYTHING[71], not just sources as your statement implies. Another editor restored my edits because they were truthful and sourced. I have no control over that. You also are not clear that this had NOTHING to do with Scarborough. And yes, it was out of an abundance of caution that I reverted the Dec 19 edit to Mandell. --DHeyward (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph I suggest an immediate close to this, and a super-duper trout to the complainant. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Erica Garner was not a politician. Being an activist does not make you a politician. And finally, now that other diffs were brought in showing political relations, it should be echoed that the TBAN expired a couple of days ago. So again, I reiterate this should be closed with a large trout. Zero0000 The TBAN is expired so what TBAN violation is there? I agree with Kingsindian. If the TBAN was explicit, that is what the TBAN is. And in this case the TBAN was explicitly on ARTICLES, not EDITS and as such no violation of any ban occurred and this should be closed. And this should also be a warning to new admins that when they place a tban, they need to be sure and explicit on what is being banned. I was a victim of this as well, and I was blocked for a post that wasn't a violation, and luckily the admin unblocked me right away. It is also extremely ludicrous to call Scarborough a politician. I agree with MONGO as well. Reading the admin comments below it's as if you have no need for truth or facts. You are now talking about extending a TBAN that was never violated just to suit your leftist agenda. There is a reason why TBAN's need to be written clearly and this one did not mention edits, it mentions articles. And I echo yet again the fact that Scarborough is not a politician and calling him that is just showing a POV that should not be shown by people determining DHeyward's fate. Since Sandstein removed Mongo's comment because he shared truth, I will add some of my own comments. Shame on all of you admins. You are creating violations when none exist. So yes, I do see a political bias. I'm still laughing that Scarborough is considered a politician. I'm still laughing, but I'm also not laughing because this is why editing here is so toxic. Statement by Winkelvi Really, Andrew Davidson? I second Sir Joseph re: trouting. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Marek This edit is a pretty straightforward violation of the topic ban (de Blasio is a American politician) This edit is an even more blatant violation of the topic ban (it's about Donald Trump) This edit is also a blatant violation of the topic ban (not only is it about an ambassador but also Obama) Another blatant violation. It's about Michael Flynn. I mean, if that doesn't violate the topic ban, I don't know what does. There's a few more topic ban violations (ex. [72]) but the four right above pretty clearly show that DHayward apparently figured that no one was paying attention over the holidays and decided he could violate his topic ban with impunity. @Zero0000: - the topic ban is "broadly construed" and applies to "related topics". But even that doesn't matter since DHayward's violations of the topic ban are pretty blatant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Based on past reports, the appropriate action here is a short (day or two) block and a resetting of the topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @DHeyward: says "Zero0000 VM falsely states these are related to AP2 and my topic ban was an AP2 restriction. It was not" - this is an outright lie. I never said such thing. His topic is from articles on American politicians and related topics (such as de Blasio, Trump, Obama and Michael Flynn, all of whom he made edits about BEFORE his topic ban expired). The fact that DHeyward is trying to pull a fast one here should be an acerbating factor in any sanctions being considered. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @NeilN: - speaking of "inflammatory hyperbole", how about those comments here from Sir Joseph ("...just to suit your leftist agenda") and particularly MONGO, who's been going around making these kinds of attacks throughout Wikipedia as of late, (" None of these persons wishes this encyclopedia to be a neutral treatise on these articles...they want a slanted, biased left wing view on them, always" and "disgusting left wing bias"). That's WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAPBOX right there. And people wonder why this topic area is such a battleground? (Note nobody is going around flinging accusations at DHeyward, MONGO or Sir Joseph about their supposed or imagined "agendas" and these outbursts by these two were prompted merely by someone pointing out that a topic ban has been violated).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz I recommend administrative action. Please see this edit, in which DHeyward restored shitty material (poorly written and misspelled) to the lead section of Blue Lives Matter, an article covered by WP:ARBAP2, with a personal attack in the edit summary. To be honest, a revert like that makes me wonder whether DHeyward is competent to be editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Cbs527 Nominating an article for a merge and commenting on an image is "hostile" or "disruptive"? Nonsense. None of the examples the the complainant/article creator has given seem to violate the topic ban. However, the examples Volunteer Marek provided above clearly do violate the topic ban and occurred during the topic ban time frame. Since the topic ban has expired I'm not sure what actions can/should be taken at this point. CBS527Talk 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by D.Creish MastCell: your last visit included several edits and a partisan comment on Carter Page. You shouldn't be commenting in the "uninvolved administrators" section. D.Creish (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kingindian I suggest that the problem lies with the phrasing of the topic ban more than any action by DHeyward. In an earlier AE request by TonyBallioni, who instituted the topic ban, Sandstein clarified: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. This left DHeyward in a state of uncertainty. Therefore, all the edits mentioned by VM are not really violation of topic bans. I suppose Joe Scarborough could tenuously qualify (since he's a past politician), but he's a TV anchor now, so I don't think one can reasonably call it a violation. The other one which could qualify is on the talk page of Michael Flynn. As far as I know, talk pages are generally covered under topic bans, but DHeyward seems uncertain, and the talk page comment wasn't disruptive. I suggest: No action here. The topic ban has already expired, and there's no need for sanctions based on past violations which may not be violations. In the future, topic bans should be standardized (it would have been best to use something like ARBAP2) so that everyone knows where they stand. Topic bans (for example in ARBPIA) are usually about edits, not pages -- since the purpose is to keep the person away from topic area. And talk pages should be covered unless specified otherwise. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Scarborough hasn't been a politician for 17 years. The lead describes him as is an American cable news and talk radio host. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: Yes, you said what I said, except that you were less precise: "former" in this case means "17 years". If you wanted the ban to be so "broadly construed", why didn't you just topic-ban from ARBAP2? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC) About the Scarborough edit, please read this talk page section and this WaPo article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72 In the 20/20 vision of hindsight, the topic ban really should have been the standard AP2 topic ban, or nothing at all. The wording, which bans the editor from mainspace only, and only then pages relating to American politicians, explicitly not American politics, is neither clearly topic ban nor clearly page ban. It leaves a wide corridor of uncertainty at its edges. The clarification in the previous, withdrawn, AE filing makes things no clearer. There was opportunity for explicit clarification of the logged sanction at the time; it is a pity that it was not taken. As it was not, it left open the possibility of edits like those complained about here; with a reasonable expectation that they were not within the scope of the ban. There are rare times when I disagree with Kingsindian. This is not one of them. Endorse their recommendations in full. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by MONGO I'm removing this disruptive statement in my capacity as an administrator; see the separate enforcement request concerning it below. Sandstein 19:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by power~enwiki I wouldn't interpret Erica Garner as falling under the TBAN as phrased, and don't see any violations of the TBAN in the diffs presented by Andrew Davidson. I don't want to get into the details of whether there were any other violations, and I feel Erica Garner falls under AP2 discretionary sanctions. If the TBAN is extended I would recommend using a simpler wording (all BLPs in the AP2 area, or even all of AP2) for the new TBAN due to the confusion the current warning has presented. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by SkyWarrior I haven't really looked into details concerning this request, but it should be noted that DHeyward edited another user's comment in direct violation of WP:TPO and then proceeded to readd it when rightfully reverted. He also redirected his talk page to AE, something I would argue is very disruptive, almost to the point of vandalism. SkyWarrior 19:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning DHeyward This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. All I can find here are examples of DHeyward using legitimate processes to advance a content disagreement. I don't find anything actionable. Zerotalk 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Oh, now I get it. The question is whether the articles in question here fall under the banner "articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed". If they do, there is a topic-ban violation here. My initial impression is that articles about activist in US political movements do fall under the topic ban. Zerotalk 02:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC) The additional topic-ban violations brought by VM seem rather blatant and I don't think that a warning covers it. I propose the ban period be restarted, plus a warning that further violations may lead to a long block. Zerotalk 03:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: It makes no difference if the topic ban has expired now. It only matters whether forbidden edits were made before the topic ban expired. None of this is stale either; it is quite recent. Zerotalk 05:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @DHeyward: Yes, your 19th Dec edits at Robert A. Mandell concluded with a self-revert so we can discount them here. Zerotalk 05:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) We don't even need to make a determination like that, Zero0000. Topic bans cover "parts of other pages that are related to the topic" even if the page itself isn't related to the topic. An edit directly related to an American politician is a topic ban violation even if the page has nothing to do, generally, with American politicians. I recommend a strong warning that the next violation will result in a block and an extension of the topic ban to 1 month from the close of this discussion. I'm not a huge fan of a block here, but if there is a block, no more than 31 hours. ~ Rob13Talk 03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC) It would appear, from the diffs provided by Marek, that DHeyward has repeatedly violated his topic ban over the past month. (Technically, there are two possibilities: A) he didn’t realize that he was violating his topic ban, in which case he lacks the competence to edit a highly charged topic area, or B) he realized that he was violating his topic ban but made the edits anyway. DHeyward claims A), while B) seems rather more plausible. In the end, the distinction is academic since the remedy is the same in either case). The proper remedy here is not a warning. If warnings were effective in this case, we wouldn’t be here. DHeyward has already been warned, and topic-banned. The proper remedy is a block and a reset/lengthened topic ban (of 3-6 months), ideally with less wiggle room in the wording for wikilawyering and feigned incomprehension. MastCell Talk 04:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Since I was pinged: the topic ban was for articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. I see one unambiguous topic ban violation here with an edit to Joe Scarborough, who is a living American politician (he was a member of congress), and is certainly a closely related topic even as a political commentator. I also believe that this edit violated the topic ban as a closely related topic since Robert A. Mandell is a political appointee to an ambassadorship and the material that DHeyward inserted was about his political fundraising for Obama. The edits in the original filing by Andrew Davidson are more borderline, but considering that the article at the time discussed Ms. Garner's political activity during the 2016 campaign for Bernie Sanders, and that she is an American political activist, I would consider her a related topic more clearly than the previous filing under Kris Paronto. By my count, even by the narrowest construction, there is one direct edit to article space of an American politician, and two to clearly related topics. I will not be adding sanctions myself here, as the last time my attempt to make them narrow led to confusion, but I would support MastCell's suggestion of a new broader topic ban with clearer wording. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I'll also add, per Zero0000, that since the Robert A. Mandell article ended with a self-revert, I don't think it alone would be enough for sanctions. I'm also not particularly convinced by the argument that edits to the Flynn talk page don't count, since talk pages are typically viewed as extensions of the article for TBAN purposes. If it had just been these on their own, I would be inclined to let this go with a warning since one was reverted and the ban did say article. At the same time, I do think combined though we have at least one unambiguous TBAN violation on an American politician and related topic, one on a recently deceased political activist who is a related topic, one violation that was reverted, and one potential violation on the Michael Flynn talk page. Taken as a whole, I think that does paint the picture MastCell describes. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian: he's a former congressman who has been the subject of frequent political speculation on the possibility of his running for office since his retirement and who is a political commentator on one of the big three US cable networks. This doesn't even get into the frequent issues he has been having with Trump. His article is an article on a living American politician, and related topics, broadly construed by any reasonable definition. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian, I would echo MastCell's comments to DHeyward here to you: if you really think that Joe Scarborough is not covered by this topic ban, you really shouldn't be commenting on things related to American politics. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) DHeyward, I don't consider the text you removed to be a blatant BLP violation, and I think that the conspiracy theory being used as an attack by the President of the United States against a former congressman and member of the media, and the subsequent reporting on Trump's actions by high quality sources such as the ones provided by Kingsindian, mean that the BLP case can be argued either way. Your removal certainly wasn't exempt from this topic ban. @Sandstein: as this has been appealed several times and confusion has been claimed, I think it would be better for another administrator to handle this one if there are to be sanctions. I think there is consensus by the admins on this page that multiple violations did occur, and in my view at least one was pretty blatant. BU Rob13, what are your thoughts on switching this to a general AP2 topic ban to help avoid any claimed confusion, as the original was construed under the BLP sanctions? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I as well support a 1 month reset and making it explicitly AP2 per Masem and MastCell. I tried originally to keep it narrow, but I think given MastCell's analysis above AP2 would be better. I'd also support changing the wording to cover the entire topic, and not just articles. I would also support a formal warning of Andrew Davidson given the rhetoric. The BLP case would likely be the best place to log that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I'd have to agree with Tony that some of the diffs should fall into the "broadly construed" language (and were within the 1 month ban); I'd also consider that a ban placed Dec 2 for a month does not expire until Jan 2, not Dec 30/31 (which some of these edits are). There's reasonable course for further action here. That said, I would also suggests a very large trout if not something stronger (like an admonishment) for Andrew's assessment of the diffs, which show an incredible degree of bad faith and attempts to personalize the issues and mis-characterize the intent of the revert/removal, particularly the "[DHeyward] suggesting that her life did not matter" by suggestion of a merge). We absolutely do not need editors trying to go that direction. --Masem (t) 07:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC) The one clear problematic diff is the Scarborough edit (first VM supplies) as a former politician and done on Dec 19; that's broadly construed in the topic and clearly within the month. The original diffs from Andrew about Garner do not apply, they only were to include how she was connected to a politician but in terms of the wording (not an explicit AP2 one) its outside that scope (in additional to the outright bad faith assumptions from Andrew). I don't think all of the others from VM are as clear as the above one, but they do wear at the edges. I am sympathetic that the language of the TBAN was different enough from AP2 that where the lines are to be drawn are not as clear, and would support a "reset" of the one month, but making it explicitly AP2. --Masem (t) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Ok, the 19th edit was self reverted but that you were self reverting due to topic ban should have been stated (Since the next restored the material you added on the apparent basis you removed sources). But I would still consider the 31st edit a problem. The past talk discussion does show concsensues to keep out, just concern about presentation. New attention was brought to light in Nov so the issue may need to be revisited. As wordeD the removed text seemed appropriately in line with BLP, so a tBAN exception is not 100% clear. But that comes back to the broadly construed part of the tban. Its meant to keep editors a good buffer away from topics, and I do feel this articles falls into that. --Masem (t) 19:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC) In cases such as this one, where a violation of a discretionary sanction by a still-active administrator is alleged, I'm of the view that the sanctioning administrator should decide what to do about it. Sandstein 09:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Broadly per Masem - there appear to be violations here (one absolutely clear and several nibbling around the edges of the ban) and IMO a reset of the one-month ban is the appropriate remedy. But the way the ban is presented is verging into sanctionable territory too, IMO - if the ban was not in place, suggesting a merger is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and interpreting it as a judgement on the significance of the subject's life is inappropriate and unhelpful. GoldenRing (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Agree with GoldenRing. Reset topic ban and formally warn Andrew Davidson for using inflammatory hyperbole. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Agree with User:Sandstein that the sanctioning administrator, User:TonyBallioni is the best person to decide what to do. TonyBallioni says above, "I as well support a 1 month reset and making it explicitly AP2 per Masem and MastCell." As an aside, a one-month ban is almost too short to be worth the trouble. By the time it is fully litigated through all the discussions and appeals it will be over anyway. Better use warnings in such cases, and if a case is grave enough to deserve a topic ban start with 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Removing my side comment about short topic bans, since it may cause confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC) EdJohnston, thank you for your comments. Could you mind clarifying your edit summary, which seems to suggest you support a 1 month ban, but your comment says three months. I'm also troubled by the actions mentioned in SkyWarrior's comment, especially DHeyward's edit warring on his own talk page to redirect it to AE during this request. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO

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 MONGO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

MONGO (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

WP:ARBAPDS :

3.3) MONGO is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

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

1. January 4, 2018 Gross incivility and personal attacks on three editors
2. January 4, 2018 Restored gross incivility and personal attacks on three editors
3. January 4, 2018 Wanton accusation without a shred of evidence to support it.
4. January 4, 2018 "threats from POV pushing zeros are to be ignored" in response to a polite warning
5. December 5, 2017 "Looks like VM is hoping to rid himself of all opposition by expecting a very strict application of the sanctions be applied to others, but expecting everyone to grant him the benefit of the doubt."
6. December 4, 2017 "Bullshit. It was right after DHeyward was sanctioned. You two calling people liars, doing nonstop character assassinations here and elsewhere deserve whatever wrath you get. The admin corps doesn't seem to want to reign either of you in...but that doesn't surprise me one iota considering their track record for blatant bias."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

See block log, Findings of Fact: ((4) MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility ([73][74][75]) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ([76][77][78]). ), and evidence presented in the Arbcom case in which he exhibited the same overt hostility and politicizing of content disputes.- MrX 19:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[79]

Discussion concerning MONGO

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 MONGO

When did I last make an edit to article on American politics(ians) on a page or a talkpage that was a violation of the arbcom remedies. My comments are here at AE where I will gladly impose a self exile. I'd like to see diffs showing I have been disruptive in article space please. I may have been but would like to see them.--MONGO 19:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I originally posted this comment to Sandstein's page--MONGO 19:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition, Sandstein below states I have a long block log. I have not been blocked since 2008...nearly a decade ago. This is precisely the kind of unjust insinuation and unfair aspiration he claims I have made that he says is at least partly grounds to topic ban me from articles I have not even been active on! You want to tell me to avoid noticeboard cause I can't keep my cool that's fine of course. But I am sick and tired of seeing he same names popping up all the time where they are seeking penalties applied to their political opponents based on even the tiniest piece of evidence. I will however confess that my comments made regarding DHeyward now closed AE case were made in anger and disgust and I retract them and apologize. I retire from this noticeboard voluntarily and indefinitely.--MONGO 20:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement Volunteer Marek

I was just looking up the details of the AP2 case after seeing MONGO's attacks above and was planning on commenting on it above myself. MONGO was specifically admonished for EXACTLY these kinds of statements (the ones in MrX's diffs) and barely escaped a topic ban. Seeing as how the admonishment has done squat to change their behavior, I think it's time for an explicit topic ban.

(Note: I commented in the AP2 case where I actually opposed MrX, but that was three years ago and enough is enough - a topic ban for MONGO is long overdue) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I find this action very troubling. I am also very excited that the admins are now going to enforce civility. I look forward to bringing items to their attention and seeing swift action. To the rest of you, please note that if you think this doesn't look like political grandstanding, you do need to check yourself. There's a reason why people stop editing Wikipedia and it's because of things like this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Serial Number 54129

Well, Sir Joseph, these are egregious violations, rather than the usual small potatoes curried at AN/I. And I think aspersions are in any case far more troubling, just on principle; incivility is rude, and then over. Aspersions, on the other hand, leave a footprint behind for someone to step into later, intentionally or otherwise. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, more as an FYI for procedure, Alex Shih is half wrong  ;) a statement has been made. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning MONGO

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

• I agree that the statement by MONGO in the AE request above concerning DHeyward is disruptive and have removed it. I'm waiting on a statement by MONGO concerning this request. Sandstein 19:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• I have a feeling that MONGO probably won't make a statement concerning this request. Alex Shih (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• It looks that way. The request has merit. The edits at issue egregiously violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS. Such conduct is unacceptable regardless of whether one feels that one is oppressed by the Wikipedia establishment. Editors must in all cases comment on content, not on fellow contributors. MONGO was admonished against such conduct in the original case and has a long block log for disruptive conduct. I intend to impose an indefinite American politics topic ban on MONGO, appealable after 6 months of constructive editing in other topic areas, considering that MONGO does not seem to be able to adequately handle the stress associated with editing in this topic area. I'm leaving this thread open for the time being to allow other admins to comment. Sandstein 19:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm certainly not going to take MONGO's block log into account, because he hasn't been blocked for 9 years; however the admonishment was only two years ago and the diffs presented are way out of order. I'd agree with Sandstein's suggested remedy immediately above this. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• No evidence has been presented that shows MONGO has been disruptive in article space. However, MONGO has already been admonished for adding hostility in the topic area and has engaged in more of the same activity. MONGO, assuming there's no new article space-related evidence, how can we stop these outbursts of yours without a full topic ban? I genuinely would like to know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Propose a a six month topic ban on talking about the AP area. They could still do their RC patrol and make uncontentious edits that don't require discussion. Per this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• If it were a case that MONGO's comments were made to counter the hostile commented from filer Andrew D. in the above, I could understand (to a degree) but the comments were clearly attacking other editors commenting on the case. I would think that AP2's "broadly construed" line would include any AN/ANI/AE case where AP2 is evoked, particularly if we are talking about civility in that topic area which will carry over from main/talk pages to noticeboards. --Masem (t) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• I'm torn, and should perhaps stay out of this. I may not be able to be impartial wrt MONGO. It's no secret that we're friends — if you look at his talkpage, you can see my socks (some of them even more fire-breathing than MONGO) cavorting there. I'll just make a couple of points. Firstly, MrX's link to MONGO's block log, where the last block is from 2008, is kind of silly, as Black Kite points out. Apart from being old, the blocks that are there, from 2006 to 2008, were AFAIK for incivility (losing his temper) in the course of defending Wikipedia from the onslaught of conspiracy theorists wrt 9/11. He was right on content, and I for my part was never happy about the civility blocks his hot temper earned him in that area. Content is king, not patience. (MONGO's own content work is amazing, btw.) Secondly, however... I wish quite fervently he didn't get so hot under the collar today, in the context of American politics. I don't like the attacks on Volunteer Marek and MrX that are diffed above, not even a little. I'm sorry to see this. MONGO, I hope you'll have some suggestion in response to NeilN's question. And, speaking personally, how about a short break to recover your equanimity? You have done too much for the encyclopedia to go out in flames like this. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC).
• In a topic area that suffers sharply from too little discussion and too much reverting, I have serious concerns about a sanction forbidding someone from discussing their own edits in the topic area. If a topic ban in some respect is needed, it should be a normal topic ban from the area. I think six months is harsh, though. Two is more in the ball park. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Again, there's no evidence MONGO's article space edits are disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with NeilN and their proposal. MONGO has shown hostility in AP topics, and should be restricted from making comments in that area if it's only going to be divisive; although six months may be too long in my opinion. I also fail to see disruption in article space that warrants a general sanction there. Alex Shih (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)