Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive222
Archwayh
edit| Archwayh is blocked for a month for violating their topic ban. Sandstein 19:25, 1 December 2017 (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. Request concerning Archwayhedit
Topic banned from "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people".
All diffs (or links to talk pages) listed below demonstrate that Archwayh has violated their topic ban.
On May 25, 2017, Archwayh was topic banned for one month. On June 2, 2017, the topic ban was extended to six months. Archwayh has said that they didn't know they were topic banned as they hadn't read their user talk page.[1] I actually find the explanation plausible: this explains why Archwayh continued to mark all their edits as minor even after they were told to stop it. On June 16, 2017, Archwayh asks Lord Roem whether talk pages fall within the topic ban.[2] Inbetween those edits Archwayh edits Talk:Donald Trump (example). Lord Roem explains that talk pages are included in the topic ban.[3] On June 29, 2017, Archwayh opens a discussion related to American politics with JFG.[4] When JFG informs Archwayh that they may be violating their topic ban, they claim that the topic ban "has nothing to do w/ page talk".[5] On October 10 and October 26 they make edits which to me appear to be perfectly fine, except that the edit summary refers to American politics. Rest of the evidence should speak for itself (edits about post-1932 politics of the United States, edits to pages about US politics, or closely related people). It seems obvious that Archwayh doesn't understand what they were topic banned from (and why), and I'm not convinced they will. Politrukki (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Archwayh&diff=813082793&oldid=803507767 Discussion concerning ArchwayheditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ArchwayheditI have not made any edit directly related to politics, or thous as such that could be debated as political-oriented & then be removed. And re: Bloomberg, that was a FIX to an error that should be applauded. That wasn't a political-motivated change or ad, but a FIX. The minor edit on Bush was related to small grimmer fix -- not some controversial or political-oriented one. If I didn't understand these term, then I obviously apologize. But, inn essence, this is a complete lie by a user who is conducting a political witch hunt against me, bc he doesn't like my views (and for COL, I am a moderate centrist & not some ideologue who pushed agenda in Wiki. All of these attacks against me were * being perused by this obsessed user, who's fixated on me for some reason. To contrast, he he is a right-wing ideologue who supports Ted Cruz, from what I know). If he won't stop, I plan to peruse other options to stop him from smearing me. I am planning to file a complaint about his alleged corrupt behavior later on. Edits that have been on some figures that may be political aren't related directly to politics, and they were commonly agreed or small fixes. Further, most edits were on user PAGES, and didn't even influenced Wikipedia. This user, that continues this obsessive witch hint, will hear from me. If I edited something that doesn't directly relates to politics, but could be perceived as such -- then I am obviously sorry. But I didn't violate anything at least knowingly, & my small number of edits were small, non-political & commonly agreed. That's my statement Archway (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by JFGeditI would tend to be lenient about occasional chit-chat about politics on a user talk page, as happened on mine a few months ago. However we cannot accept blatant requests for other people to edit by proxy on behalf of the TBANned editor. Either this is bad faith or gross incompetence. In both cases, a harsher sanction is warranted, perhaps a 6-month block with the usual avenues to get unblocked and return to collegial editing within the project's rules. — JFG talk 18:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning Archwayhedit
|
DHeyward
edit| DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2017 (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. Request concerning DHeywardedit
The article is under a 1RR restriction. DHeyward made FOUR reverts in less than 24 hours.
1. Note that initially I thought DHeyward only violated 1RR because he just popped up on my watchlist twice in quick succession. Feeling nice and assuming good faith I asked him to self-revert [14]. Only then did I actually look at the history and realized that he's pretty much started a full out edit war by reverting FOUR times on a ONE revert restricted article. In response to my courtesy request for self-revert (which was not required on my part) Dheyward decided to get cute. He did revert but... to his initial preferred version [15]. Basically he repeated his very first revert [16], completely removing the pertinent info in the article. Note that even if there was some doubt about consensus for the material on Nov 30 10:20 (time of first revert), there was no such doubt by Dec 1, 4:52, with User:MelanieN and User:Objective3000 who were initially hesitant to include, changing their minds by this point. This phony self-revert looks like an attempt at WP:GAMEing. I repeated my request pointing out nature of his fake self-revert [17] but he has ignored it. 2. The nature of the reverts itself raises serious concerns. First, there's the removal of well sourced information. Worse however, is the fact that when DHeyward realized consensus was against him and he couldn't remove the pertinent paragraph he purposefully rewrote the text to misrepresent both sources and the nature of the situation overall. In particular the text is about the fact that a woman, most likely associated with the organization Project Veritas, came to the Washington Post with a phony story about how Roy Moore got her pregnant. But the whole thing was a setup and an attempt to trick WaPo into publishing something false. Of course WaPo smelled something fishy, investigated, and exposed the scheme. This is what happened and what reliable sources happened. So how did DHeyward write it up? Well as can be seen he wrote it to make it seem like this was "just another false allegation against Roy Moore". He did this by removing or minimizing the pertinent context of the whole thing being a set up. He basically portrayed it as something opposite of what actually happened. This is a clear case of WP:AGENDA editing and done pretty deceptively at that. This isn't an isolated instance of such behavior; the same was noted just few days ago in the WP:AE request above concerning User:Anythingyouwant, by User:Drmies - [18], [19] Since the nature of the violation is quite egregious (4 reverts on 1RR article, sneaky manipulation) a broad topic ban is in order. @Masem - the "agenda" charge isn't really about Roy Moore though. It's about how DHeyward rewrote "Project Veritas tried to trick Washington Post into publishing a false story" as "a woman made false accusations against Roy Moore". I mean, yeah, she did. But she didn't do it to hurt Moore, she did it to try and discredit the women who have come out with their stories. Since these women are also "living people" in this instance the BLP (aside from the AGENDA misrepresentation) would apply the other way. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DHeywardeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeywardeditI apologize for edit warring. That was not necessary. I will raise some issues though. First, Volunteer Marek I believe is under a topic ban for articles related to Donald Trump. Trump is listed in the lead of the article in question. Trump has also stated that he believes Moore and not the women who have made complaints. This article is certainly within the broadly construed meaning of his topic ban and had he adhered to his topic ban, the collegial atmosphere of continuous editing editing would have continued just like this edit shows[21]. Second, there are not four reverts as Volunter Marek has exagerated. The links listed show the original rewrite (1:18 December 1) which is not a revert. The third on his list ([22]) was removing the "raped" allegation that VM pointed out in his edit. There are 2 reverts which is a violation of 1RR. The last revert was to a condition prior the version VM prefers. There was no way to satisfy both 1RR and CONSENSUS. VM pretends his version has consensus when in fact the only discussion is about the event. MrX who commented below has also violated 1RR with these edits. For a statement that he says has strong consensus to add, no other editors seemed compelled to do it and he had to violate 1RR to get it. Volunteer Marek provides a random collection of links implying there are related blocks that are relevant. None of those links are related to AP2. It was very deceitful to list any of those links as relevant here. He is mud slinging in an attempt at overreach. As for AGENDA, just review my edit. I described the false accusation as it relates to Roy Moore and sexual abuse allegations. That is essentially the topic of the article (see article Title). I did not remove any any relevant material and also argued that its nature makes it a poor fit here. Volunteer Mareks edit comment is very telling. [23]. WM states I apologize for edit warring. I'm don't believe a block is necessary and certainly not any AE sanction. If a sanction is deemed necessary then VM should be sanctioned for violating his Trump Topic ban levied only a few weeks ago and violating the consensus requirement as well as pushing unrelated an unsubstantiated claims into an article with sensitive BLP concerns. MrX also violated 1RR as shown above. I'd prefer just not to have any action against anyone. --DHeyward (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC) TonyBallioni @Volunteer Marek states: Statement by MrXeditI concur with Volunteer Marek's comments. The first diff is an attempt by DHeyward to defy firm consensus, and the first revert of this edit made two days earlier. This edit is an unambiguous and brazen violation of the 1RR restriction, in addition to being a second violation of WP:CONSENSUS. The other edits are arguably reverts and POV pushing. At the very least, they are aggravating actions by this editor indicating that he is not suited to edit these types of articles.- MrX 15:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by MONGOeditMeh...I see no talk page consensus for the addition and possible BLP violation restored by MrX here after DHeyward was seemingly boxed in. There is a complete lack of dispassionate editing here by MrX and others....but when one spends all their time working on politically charged topics, how can we ever believe that their goals are a neutral treatise? I find the plausibility of such to be completely unrealistic and therefore find condemnations of others they disagree with to be laughable.--MONGO 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by MastCelleditThis is an obvious 1RR violation, documented by diffs, with no relevant exemptions. It should be dealt with expeditiously. The idea behind discretionary sanctions is to make it easier and more efficient to deal with disruptive editing, so it's ironic and counterproductive when these sorts of obvious, straightforward cases become needlessly complicated as a result of the WP:AE mechanism. If an admin saw this case at WP:ANEW, they'd block and move on. I'm not clear why we allow AE to hinder the speedy resolution of basic conduct issues on the articles that need it most. The 1RR violation is compounded by the "self-revert", which was nothing of the sort; it was dishonest gamesmanship, as pointed out above. I think a standard block for edit-warring would be appropriate, and would personally advocate a topic ban (at least a time-limited one) given the bad faith described above. (I'm commenting here as an editor, not as an admin, because I have recently been involved in a discussion with DHeyward on WP:RS/N about sourcing questions on the Moore article. While I'm not convinced that noticeboard input necessarily creates "involvement", I'm commenting here, rather than below, to avoid sidetracking this clear-cut case any further). MastCell Talk 22:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning DHeywardedit
|
Nick.8.payne
edit| No action. Please use WP:DR and talk to each other first before making AE requests. Particularly, attempt to explain WP:OR to new users before reporting them here; see WP:BITE. Sandstein 09:04, 5 December 2017 (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. Request concerning Nick.8.payneedit
@Sandstein and SoWhy: Well, I agree with your decision. Could someone show the basics of WP:PAGs to this newbie (more than I did)? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nick.8.payneeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Nick.8.payneeditStatement by (username)editResult concerning Nick.8.payneedit
|
Atsme
edit| No enforcement action, but Volunteer Marek is warned that Roy Moore is within the scope of their Donald Trump topic ban, and Atsme is warned to heed the "consensus required" restriction and to not approach fellow editors with a battleground attitude. Sandstein 13:49, 5 December 2017 (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. Request concerning Atsmeedit
Personal attacks and clear WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude
Note that the personal attacks and the practice of discussing other editors without informing them has been noted by other users [32] [33]
Not sure. Too busy to check right now.
Oh boy. The user has participated in recent threads concerning the sanction. For example [34]. Indeed, the editor is currently agitating one of the admins active on this page [35] over this very sanction.
In addition to a straight up violation of the discretionary sanctions, the user also makes frequent personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS against others, as evidenced on User:GoldenRing's talk page. For example, referring to others as "POV warriors". According to them anyone who disagrees with them is a "POV warrior". This is coupled with insistence on using non-reliable, and fringe sources, including conspiracy and hoax sites while at the same time arguing that standard, reliable, mainstream sources are "fringe", should not be trusted and used. Basically they got it exactly backwards. This kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, especially the repeated insults and name calling has made it impossible to work collaboratively with Atsme, which is why most editors have taken to just ignoring them on the talk page. I am NOT under any TB from the Roy Moore article and I did NOT make a "revert while under TB". Atsme knows this because they have participated in recent discussions where this was brought up. Even if Atsme did not know this for sure, the proper thing to do would've been to ask or inquire, rather than edit war and violate DS by reverting. The excuse offered below is lame and false. Volunteer Marek 21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC) (GoldenRing has explicitly stated, in the same place where Atsme is commenting: " I wouldn't consider Roy Moore covered by it (the topic ban - VM)" @Masem: [36] this is NOT - by any stretch - a violation of the Donald Trump topic ban (commenting on DT per BANEX here). The admin placing the restriction explicitly stated that edits about Roy Moore which are not explicit about Trump are not covered. Neither is the DT topic ban "broadly construed" and the diff you provide does NOT show that (in fact the diff you provide - [37] - is about an appeal of an IBAN... are you confused?). Please strike your false statements. And look, this is a straight up violation of a discretionary sanction by Atsme. A discretionary sanction that Atsme was very well aware of. A discretionary sanction that Atsme tried to get OTHER editors sanctioned under. Yet violated themselves. This is a pretty clear cut case, exactly the same as the one which recently other editors have been sanctioned under. "Friendship" or no, editors need to be treated fairly and equally. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Atsme, you're just making excuses and trying to deflect from the fact you violated a discretionary sanction. That's it. Volunteer Marek 23:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC) @Lankiveil: (and others) - one more time. The topic ban on Trump was NOT "broadly construed". It wasn't closed as such. It wasn't logged as such. The notification didn't say it was. The admin who imposed it himself said that it DID NOT apply to Roy Moore. The issue was raised previously (once or twice) and both times relevant administrators stated that Roy Moore was NOT covered by the ban. There's no way you make this out to be a topic ban violation. Atsme knows all this. Atsme has participated in these discussions. Atsme is just trying to change the topic from their own violation of DS, personal attacks, and battleground behavior, and you're letting her WP:GAME it. Please focus on the issue at hand. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 01:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC) @Masem: Here is User:GoldenRing who is the one who imposed the sanction, quote: "The ban from everything Trump-related isn't intended to be a ban from all current US politics, so I wouldn't consider Roy Moore covered by it (so long as the edits aren't Trump-related)". Also, the topic ban is NOT "broadly construed". Volunteer Marek 01:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AtsmeeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AtsmeeditVolunteer Marek reverted my edit while he was subject of an AE TB by GoldenRing. Another editor was blocked for violating the TB broadly construed. I believed that editors who are under an active TB are not allowed to revert edits on topics for which they are topic banned. See this discussion which includes the violative edits (and diffs) of VM while under the TB - clearly involving a Trump related article considering the upcoming election as a candidate who supports Trump and was recently endorsed by Trump - broadly construed. I requested clarification from GoldenRing, and since there is such a gray area, the ambiguities need to be clarified or WP will end-up with far fewer active editors. Also, there is not a notice of the consensus sanction in the edit view which creates a major issue - it's on the TP which is relatively obscure from editors who are busy building an encyclopedia, and who are not interested in playing politics. I'm popping some popcorn and will quietly watch the pile on. Atsme📞📧 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Masem you said " I would be extremely careful using this as a means to justify the second revert," - I did not make a 2nd revert. I only reverted once so you are mistaken. Please correct your comment. Atsme📞📧 06:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by power~enwikieditI don't feel that Roy Moore or Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations should be covered by a Donald Trump TBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wisheseditI do not see how anyone can consider this edit as a topic ban violation with regard to D. Trump. The edit is about an opinion poll with regard to another politician. Of course that another politician was endorsed by D. Trump, and perhaps his election will help D. Trump. However, same can be said about almost any other significant politician in the US, whose elections, comments or whatever might affect the president. Telling this is covered by the topic ban is beyond belief. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000editWith a keg of dots and a predilection of connecting them, I suppose you can consider “broadly construed” as meaning anything. I think considering VM’s revert within the scope of the TBan is a bridge too far. I do think that the reinstatement by Atsme after 23 minutes clearly violated 1RR as stipulated on the article talk. Now, Atsme claims to have not seen the consensus clause of the DS warning. I accept that and merely reverted what I believed to be a DS violation with a polite note in the edit summary as opposed to taking it to AE or article talk. What bothers me is that Atsme then went to an admin talk and made repeated accusations against other editors without notifying them. What’s the point of such? Atsme’s actions simply don’t appear to be of a collaborative nature. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by involved editor MelanieNeditTwo points. First, I find it hard to believe that a topic ban from Trump-related articles, even broadly construed, can be considered to cover an edit about an opinion poll regarding a candidate for Senate. Was VM's topic ban actually intended to cover everything to do with current politics? Or maybe everything to do with Republican politics? Or everything and everyone on which Trump has ever expressed an opinion? If so, the decision should have said so - but the admin who imposed the ban does not interpret it that way.[40] Second, all of the discussion so far has been about VM and whether he violated his topic ban. Will there be any discussion about the subject of this report, Atsme - specifically the restoration of challenged material immediately after it had been challenged? I know that it is permitted, in cases of vandalism and BLP violations, to ignore the DS rules about reverts and restoration; is there also an exemption for cases in which a party believes the other party to be topic banned? In other words, if the TBAN actually did apply to VM, would that make it OK for Atsme to revert his challenge? Also, will there be any discussion about the personal attacks and battleground mentality cited here? (Disclaimer: I am WP:INVOLVED at the Roy Moore article, although I had nothing to do with the edits cited here or the discussion about them.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by MontanabweditI concur with the above commenters who don't think the "personal attacks" rise to the level of being actionable. VM is unhappy with Atsme, oh well. This is a controversial current event topic and emotions run high. There were not egregious policy violations here, so move on. On the other side, there is a large gray area about the details of VM's TBAN as well as the interpretation of DS as applied to this article, but he probably would benefit from clarification on that point. The appropriate response here is to explain equally to both parties what does and does not fit existing restrictions and how both parties are expected to proceed from here forward on this article and related topics. Then drop the stick. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43editI don't keep up with politics topics on Wikipedia, so I'll defer to others with familiarity on Volunteer Marek's topic ban, but it looks like at first glance it might be stretch of the topic ban to claim it was violated from what I've seen (though I'll let others dig on that). I mostly am commenting here because VM mentioned they didn't look up previous sanctions. A lot of users have been dealing with exactly the same behavior from Atsme that VM described on the battleground mentality. Those of us who frequent the fringe noticeboard are especially familiar with Atsme (one previous sanction was being banned from Kombucha for edit warring).[43] The snark and battleground behavior often directed at editors on article talk pages has previously caught the community's attention regarding BLP issues[44] and pursuing editors on noticeboards, etc. with vexatious claims like the claim of VM's topic ban here appears to be. Part of that pursuit of editors resulted in a block by Bishonen[45] where a site ban or noticeboard ban was also warned as a likely next step if not justified already.[46]. Bishonen also recently warned Atsme of a topic-ban in American politics if their behavior kept up back in August.[47]. The "popcorn" comments on this board[48] seem to indicate the snark and battleground mentality still permeates Atsme's interactions with editors. It's concerning that someone is bringing up these same issues again with Atsme in a controversial topic like politics when they are already on a short WP:ROPE, but it's pretty much the same stuff we've been dealing with in the past for other series of topics whenever Atsme's behavior finally gets brought up at admin boards each time. They usually seem to lash out at editors and admins[49] that try to warn them about this too and pursue that same battleground mentality, so regardless of the question of Volunteer Marek, Atsme's behavior does need a look considering the history. If VM's posts were squarely not a violation of the topic ban, then that would be more vexatious use of admin boards by Atsme that they've been boomeranged for before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by FyddlestixeditVM's edit should not be considered topic ban violation - if Goldenring wanted to topic ban VM from American politics more generally, they could (and should) have. But they didn't, and they have even commented here (in response to Atsme's own request for clarification) that the ban should not be interpreted that broadly:
I note that Tony has recused themselves here - it might be worth noting that Masem and Atsme have been the two most vocal proponents of a rather strict (and extremely contentious) interpretation of policy in a number of recent politics-related discussions: [50][51][52][53] to the point where Atsme is writing a rather one-sided essay about the topic that is made up largely of quotes by Masem, and has asked him for for backup on contentious American politics articles. For those willing to plough through it all, there is a lot of evidence of IDHT-type behavior from Atsme in those discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by SoftlavendereditI am uninvolved on this article and was neutral about this AE until I read Fyddlestix's comments and evidence above, and I now believe that Masem should recuse himself from this AE, as Tony did. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC) I recommend a warning to both editors for battleground behavior, but no action against either at this time because we've got too many mitigating factors: (1) The topic ban notice on Marek's talk page does not say "broadly construed"; (2) Atsme only made one revert, and even that possibly on the theory that Marek had violated his TBan; (3) The matter of whether Roy Moore comes under any Trump rubric, broadly construed or not, is solely a matter of opinion, and the boundaries obviously need to be spelled out to him by somebody; (4) At least four if not five experienced editors have asked Masem to recuse and to instead opine as a commenter; (5) The material VM deleted was a quote of a poll, not a BLP-vio. I think Lankiveil nailed it when he said "I'm seeing a clear battleground mentality from both participants here." I don't know how to resolve that part; Marek is already under a temporary TBan. I think they both need a warning to desist from any direct or indirect personal comments about the other (or indeed about other editors, period, except at ANI or AE), and to stick to discussing edits, content, policies, and guidelines. I believe they may eventually end up with an IBan if they fail to adhere to that. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOeditPardon me if the following is an evaluation without evidence, but Atsme is a diehard tendentious POV editor in many areas, most recently American Politics. She's generally civil and occasionally charming, especially to Admins, which has served her well. It's gotten her a free pass over and over. In general, however, she denies the validity of mainstream sources, which is fine -- good for her, but it doesn't work on Wikipedia. She crusades against mainstream-sourced content based on a kaleidoscopic array of illogical assertions that the mainstream is biased. She has plenty of weird interpretations of content, wing-nut stuff like on G. Edward Griffin, and she distorts policy to prolong talk-page disputes long after her views have been rejected. Anyway, feel free to hat this statement-w/o-diffs or ask for diffs if either is appropriate. My point is that there's plenty of context for this false charge that VM violated the TBAN, and we'd all be much more productive without Atsme editing in American Politics. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC) @Atsme:, Above you wrote: Comment by Shock Brigade Harvester Borisedit(edit conflict) Fyddlestix beat me to it. User:Masem is a good admin but should not act as an uninvolved administrator on this matter. He's of course free to weigh in with his views like the rest of us, but he should recuse just as Tony did. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by MONGOeditTrump is currently mentioned twice in the lede and at least one more time later. It may be a stretch to say this is not intertwined with Trump but not a long stretch. Looks like VM is hoping to rid himself of all opposition by expecting a very strict application of the sanctions be applied to others, but expecting everyone to grant him the benefit of the doubt. Based on my interchanges with him, I'd have to say his behavior is as bad a battlefield one in this arena as any I have encountered lately. VolunteerMarek's flat out comment "its staying" [55] certainly had a chilling effect. Maybe the thing to do is protect the page until after the election before half the active editors get sanctioned fighting over this total POS coatrack of an article. For the record, I'd likely vote against Moore if I were an Alabamian.--MONGO 02:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by AnythingyouwanteditThe material at issue began like this: "A week or so before the election, a CBS News poll revealed that '71 percent of Alabama Republicans say the allegations against Roy Moore are false'". I think we can all agree that the Republicans of Alabama are living persons within the meaning of our BLP policy, right? So it would be unfortunate if we slant the article in question to make it seem like those living persons don't care about child molestation, and/or support child molesters, instead of believing (as this poll indicates) that the accusations are false. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by TheValeyardeditI feel it necessary to parse this statement below.
Statement by DHeywardeditFirstly, the article isn't under AP2 sanctions, it's under BLP. The notification requirement is the BLP case. VM knows this. Second, VM continues to use the AE process to bludgeon opponents. He is under a topic ban for Donald Trump and it's an extremely obtuse view to not include articles regarding the election of Roy Moore as being unrelated to Trump. The man story in virtually all news outlets today is Trump's endorsement of Moore. Claiming Moore is unrelated to Trump in even the broad interpretation we use is like saying Rudolf the Reindeer is unrelated to Santa Claus. VM needs to be banned from filing these frivolous AE requests and sanctiond for violating his topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by WBGedit
Statement by Masemedit(Note, I believe I am truly uninvolved here since I've never edited that article or anything close to it, nor have any editor connections with those involved, only a concern for how WP is handling current events under NOT#NEWS in broad terms and the conflicts that have arisen over the last few years such as this one. But I'll respect the concerns that claim I'm not (I really don't think so) and have moved my comments from below to up here. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC) )
Statement by (Anonymous)edit(I've removed this unhelpful screed as an administrative action. Sandstein 08:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)) Result concerning Atsmeedit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Kingsindian
edit| No consensus to remove any of the existing sanctions. Any future action regarding the template and how it should be placed on new articles can take place on the template talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
Statement by Kingsindianedit[To clarify, I have described The Wordsmith as the admin imposing the sanction because they have in the past acted as a steward for Coffee's administrative actions.] I am here seeking a relatively narrow amendment.
The situation is as follows: In May 2016, Coffee created a template (linked above) which is used on more than 100 pages dealing with American politics. The template includes a "consensus required" provision: challenged material should not be restored unless it has consensus.
I propose that the template to be used as the "default" for post-1932 American elections contain the amendment I proposed. The amendment is modeled on the solution used in ARBPIA, and takes care of a very common justification for the "consensus required" provision (see TonyBallioni's comment linked above, for instance). This is a much more lightweight, well-tested and clearer sanction. To be clear: individual pages may still have the "consensus required" provision placed on them. In this way, collateral damage from what I consider a bad provision will be minimized. If ArbCom wishes to make an explicit statement either way (either rescinding the consensus required provision altogether, or to affirm it to be the "default"), they can also do so. See also this AE request, in which the solution I propose comes pretty close to being accepted, but somehow it never got closed one way or another. The above text is self-sufficient. In the following, I make a case for the badness of the "consensus required" provision. People can skip it if they want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I agree with you that your statement: There is absolutely nothing stopping the DS-levying admin from removing the provision if they want to.is about as logical as my statement. However, in practice, your version doesn't work. Why?
Statement by The WordsmitheditThis is in uncharted territory, given that I don't admin in Election 2016/Trump/far-right related articles and that one admin acting as a steward for another is also with little precedent. However, my own opinion, and one that I believe would accurately reflect Coffee's opinion, is that this Page-level sanction was never intended to be the default for APDS or one that could be accidentally applied. I do support vacating the provision from articles where it appears to have been accidentally applied, and forking the template so that the provision is an option, but the default template does not list it. I do not support vacating the CR sanction from pages where it has been deliberately applied, as that would be effectively overturning an Arbitration Enforcement action without a specific consensus about that particular sanction. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrXeditThis is a good proposal for any articles that are currently under, or will be placed under, editing restrictions requiring consensus for reinstating new material. It would prevent some of the usual WP:GAMING that allows users with throwaway accounts to gain undue advantage in content disputes. I generally agree with Sandstein's comments, and add that the DS talk page templates and especially the in-your-face edit notices are very important for notifying editors that articles are subject to DS restrictions. Admins can use Template:Ds/editnotice and add language specific to a situation, rather than simply using the Coffee version without modification. - MrX 11:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marekedit@TonyBallioni: " I strongly object to their removal from the Roy Moore article " - Tony, my understanding is that you can still have that sanction on the article, you just have to add it separately rather than as "bundled" with the other sanctions (1RR etc). As Kingsindian says above: "The provision can be applied for individual pages at admin discretion, but is not part of the template." This isn't a proposal to get rid of the sanction. It's (very much) more limited than that. Volunteer Marek 15:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC) @Tony - it's not a bad suggestion, it's just that Coffee sorta spammed that template to lots of articles and it was never clear if he really meant to add that restriction or was just slapping on the template. Also Sandstein is right - a GENERIC restriction template used to impose DISCRETIONARY sanctions is sort of an oxymoron. At the very least it violates the spirit and intent of how DS is suppose to work. Volunteer Marek 16:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Man, this is like observing "institutional inertia" inert itself. "We shouldn't change it because then we'd have to change it". Volunteer Marek 16:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosepheditCan there be clarification on if the templates are authorized by an Arbcom ruling or they are just placed there because an admin wants it? If it's the former, then shouldn't this be a discussion for Arbcom, via an amendment process? I filed an amendment request a while back, they voted on it, and I changed the template to match the new ruling from Arbcom. If the templates are not backed by an Arbcom ruling, then that should be spelled out in the template. Right now the template points to Arbcom ruling to give them enforcement ability so the templates should match ruling of Arbcom and Arbcom is where and DS rules should go for change, not AE which is an executive action, not legislative. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wisheseditI agree with Sandstein, Bishonen and Dennis Brown. According to template, All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This brings a number of difficult questions, even for experienced contributors. Was this particular edit a "revert"? Should someone count only an "exact" revert to a recent previous version, or one should also count edits that only partially undo something? And what does it mean "recent"? What if something "has been challenged by reversion" six months ago? And it is prone to gaming. Does this include reinstating content that was slightly different from the content challenged by reversion (two words were changed as during a recent AE case)? This restriction led to countless conflicts, unnecessary discussions and divisive complaints on WP:AE. Does this restriction help to establish good relationships between users? No, exactly the opposite. Surprisingly, it does not help to establish any WP:Consensus because people start discussing procedures (was something a violation) instead of discussing the content. Personally, I think that was the worst editing restriction ever made in the project. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Ryk72editReplace Statement by (involved editor 2)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by KingsindianeditI oppose the amendment, the consensus required provision is good its enforce WP:ONUS and nullify edit wars.I think that consensus required should be a standard in every discretionary sanctions area--Shrike (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Kingsindianedit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DHeyward
edit| Appeal denied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
Statement by DHeywardeditPer the Atsme decision above[56], Roy Moore is within the scope of Volunteer Marek's topic ban. Just as Volunteer Marek reported Atsme, he reported me for reverting him on the same article. In the interest of consistency, please reduce my sanction to the sanction that Atsme received. Reverting banned editors is not counted as reverts as the block of User:James J. Lambden after another user used his topic ban to avoid a 1RR sanction[57]. My reverts were consistent with WP:BANREVERT considering the result of the complaint against Atsme and the 1RR exemption afforded to PeterTheFourth when he reverted James J. Lambden on a talk page. Appealing Discretionary Sanctions is not "gaming the system." In fact, it's part of the process. Please stop threatening me with increased sanctions for following procedure. I commented on the above request because it was a) not an article and b) had direct implications to my sanctions since it was the same complaint made by the same editor. I have not edited any articles within the scope of my topic ban. Since the outcomes and findings were drastically different and Tony has stated he is friends with Atsme, I think it's fair to review his sanction with the Atsme consensus in mind. Uninvolved admins can reject the appeal but punishing good faith appeals is clearly out of bounds. --DHeyward (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC) I don't believe I have exhibited BATTLEGROUND behavior despite being called a ";iar" and "gaming the system." No diffs have been provided. I've only commented on your talk page in relation to your sanction and when I was pinged - all well within the norms regarding sanctions. I gave you the courtesy of undoing your action prior to AN and prior to coming here. . That is not battleground behavior. Also, I don't see how you can call this anything but a good faith challenge given the finding above. I wouldn't be here if the finding were different. I understand you disagree with it but that doesn't change the fact that it was closed with a decision that the article in question falls under the scope of VMs topic ban. Do you not see how that finding may be relevant here considering WP:BANREVERT? On your talk page you erroneously stated I did not bring that up when it was the very first statement I made. --DHeyward (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallionieditDHeyward was edit warring, plain and simple, and has continually tried to game the system on this sanction and demonstrated a battleground behavior both before and after the block. There is a current appeal pending at AN where there seems to be no consensus to overturn the sanction, and he filed this while that one was pending. I disagree with the above finding and warning by Sandstein, and the fact that the administrator who imposed the topic ban (GoldenRing), does not think that Roy Moore necessarily falls within the Trump topic ban is telling. If anything, DHeyward's continued attempts to game the sanctions, including commenting on an AE action from the article that he was topic banned for originally because AE does not fall within article space in my mind shows that he is likely to continue to be disruptive and attempt to game the discretionary sanctions system. If anything, I'd support extending the topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by StrongjameditIf you were only reverting Volunteer Marek, and appealed to WP:BANREVERT at the time of your edits, then I would agree that the community should assume good faith about your edits. However, you did not just revert Volunteer Marek. You reverted edits by Artw and MrX as well, and as far as I can tell Volunteer Marek wasn't even the primary author of this content. I don't see how WP:BANREVERT could apply in this case. — Strongjam (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)editStatement by (involved editor 2)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DHeywardeditResult of the appeal by DHeywardedit
|
Vyacheslav84
editDank Chicken
edit| Blocked for a week. Sandstein 20:52, 9 December 2017 (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. Request concerning Dank Chickenedit
Discussion concerning Dank ChickeneditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dank Chickenedit@Makeandtoss:, @EdJohnston: You're leaving out one important fact. The article I edited is not described anywhere in it as being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That is strictly your opinion. I've noted this in my edit summaries, which you conviniently forgot to mention in your little "block recommendation"... @Power~enwiki: And what excact agenda is that supposed to be? I am simply contributing with facts backed by reliable sources. Statement by power~enwikieditDank Chicken (talk · contribs) appears to be on Wikipedia to promote an agenda. Between his conduct at Demographic history of Israel/Palestine and his edit warring at Nobel laureates per capita, I expect administrative enforcement action to be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by HuldraeditUser:Dank Chicken: it is clearly stated on Talk:Demographic history of Israel/Palestine that this article is under WP:ARBPIA. Even without that label there, it would still be under ARBPIA: remember , ARBPIA is for: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Huldra (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Dank Chickenedit
|
DHeyward
edit| Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2017 (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. Request concerning DHeywardedit
I'm not taking any action myself because DHeyward has commented in the Mister Wiki ArbCom case where I am the filing party, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to take action personally. At the same time, I think this is a violation of the topic ban I imposed on him. While Mr. Paronto is not a politician, I think he squarely falls within the related topics broadly construed bit of
Discussion concerning DHeywardeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeywardeditI created this article months ago and my recent edits were to fill in gaps as it was placed up for deletion. The article is not about a politician, which I believe is the scope of my topic ban. I only added that statement because another editor, on the talk page, said that criticizing the former Obama administration (not Obama himself) was the only thing he was notable which is incorrect. I have now deleted the "Obama administration"[73] from the sentence as it is not necessary and is not about Obama. This seems frivolous and Tony could have made the edit himself in much shorter time than filing enforcement. Also, a talk page note would have had the same effect. I am concerned about how Tony came by Kris Paronto or why he didn't come forward and say he believes this person who is not in office nor seeking office is within the scope of the American Politician topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Isn't WP:ABAN the correct interpretation? --DHeyward (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by MONGOeditPrecisely as DHeyward has stated, the article was placed up for deletion and he was merely trying to add reliable sources to this article, one he had created. If there is a foul here it certainly is as minor as it can be, and obviously wasn't done maliciously. This is about as frivolous a report as I have seen lately and I am disappointed in the filing admin and see this as a possible effort to exact revenge for being repeatedly challenged by DHeyward on the topic ban he imposed on him.--MONGO 18:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning DHeywardedit
|
Seraphim System
edit| Seraphim System is reminded not to respond to 1RR violations with violations of their own. GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2017 (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. Request concerning Seraphim Systemedit
07:16, 26 March 2017 ARBPIA alert
User is aware of the 1RR violation per edit summary of
Discussion concerning Seraphim SystemeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Seraphim SystemeditThat edit was me reverting Wiking's third revert, which I think is exempt from 1RR restrictions in ARBPIA. I've made only one revert on the article today, and that was a series of edits with no intervening edits. I've asked User:GoldenRing if this new article can be exempted from 1RR while it is in development because I can't work on the LEDE or cleaning up the close paraphrasing tag while it is under 1RR. I restored the information that was removed during the edit conflict, I didn't remove anything - since the pov section was combined with other sections per the undue tag Icewhiz placed while tagbombing the article, I didn't think it could feasibly be restored. It's an absurd thing to bring to AE before even attempting a discussion. After repeated disruptive editing on the article including the COPYVIO I removed, and editors citing opinion pieces, and not following MOS:LEDE, close paraphrasing, tagbombing, and making multiple reverts, I am finally trying to get work done, and now this.Seraphim System (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not OWN, a lot of editors have added content and there haven't been any disputes or problems, aside from this. When last night's complaint didn't convince anyone, you brought something that wasn't even a revert. I don't know why you would do that, when two editors were working together to improve an article. It's not even a IAR issue, there is nothing to prevent here beyond Icewhiz continuing his usual disruptive behavior. Seraphim System (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianeditI read Seraphim System's edit summary the same way: they were reverting what they think is a violation of 1RR. I have a couple of comments:
The article was only started recently and received a lot of quick-fire edits. Nothing really bad has happened. I suggest that people be warned to be more careful and no further action be taken. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Question from Beyond My KeneditTaking no sides here, but a serious question: if an article is under a 1RR restriction, and an editor violates that, what do you do if reverting the 1RR-violating edit would itself violate 1RR for you? Does it first go to the editor's talk page to see if they will self-revert (which I believe wouldn't be considered a violation of 1RR, is that right?), then come here if they refuse or don't respond? I've never been in the situation and I'd like to know what to do if I ever am. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning Seraphim Systemedit
|