Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive201

DerAnsager

Being handled as a conventional behavioral issue for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 24 October 2016 (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 DerAnsager User who is submitting this request for enforcement NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested DerAnsager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 17 October 2016 Reverted unreliably-sourced claims. 17 October 2016 Same as above, after discussion initiated by another user. 24 October 2016 After subject came up on BLPN and more discussion resulted, simply reverted again. 24 October 2016 Again reverted after being told the sourcing was unacceptable. At this point, began simply revert-warring these unsourced attacks. 24 October 2016 Yet another stale revert of unreliably-sourced negative claims. 24 October 2016 Again reverted this poorly-sourced material - only stopping because an administrator stepped in to revert and protect the page after this request was filed. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Notified of discretionary sanctions here, with several previous non-template discussions of policy and advice to examine sourcing requirements. Additional comments by editor filing complaint User is persistently inserting poorly-sources, highly-negative claims about a living person (Markus Gabriel) into their biography - to wit, assertions that the subject has commited plagiarism. The only source cited for this claim is the personal homepage of the accuser and a letter from Markus Gabriel's university stating that an investigation found the claims to be groundless. Clearly, without a reliable secondary source commenting on the issue, it does not belong in the biography. Myself and other users have attempted to discuss sourcing requirements and policies repeatedly with his user, and are met with nothing but flat denials and blind reverts. The user has very few edits outside the topic area and seems to be on a personal mission to push these claims against policy and good sense. A topic ban seems warranted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC) I'm trying to do this from a phone, which is rather more difficult than I expected. Thanks for your patience. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Debresser, as you can see from the user's talk page, repeated attempts were made to get the user to stop edit-warring poorly-sourced negative material into the article, to absolutely no avail. They are simply dead-set on believing they're right and nothing anyone says gets them to stop, until I filed this request which led to Drmies stepping in to revert and protect the page. If you have a suggestion for what I or anyone else could have done differently here, please let me know. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified here Discussion concerning DerAnsager 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 DerAnsager Statement by Debresser The user is active on the German Wikipedia. So he understands the principles of community editing. I see absolutely no reason or justification for blocking or banning people for behavior related to a what is basically a content issue on a single article. I am confident that a bit of explanation is all that is needed here. Talk about overkill. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning DerAnsager This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It seems to me that NBSB isn't quite finished with this report, but in the meantime I have reverted the editor, warned them, and fully protected the article for the time being. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Given that the editor's only, or most important, interest here is adding that poorly sourced content to a BLP, I have no objection to an indefinite block. But I'll settle for a topic ban from this BLP, for instance. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC) User:DerAnsager has continued to respond at User talk:DerAnsager#October 2016 after Drmies made his warning. The material is defamatory and the sources are not good. But there is no sign that DerAnsager is going to take the message on board. I've gone ahead with an indefinite block as a conventional admin action, for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WaunaKeegan11

Appeal denied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:32, 25 October 2016 (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. 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 WaunaKeegan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 72 hour block for violating the 1RR on United States presidential election, 2016 (Log) Administrator imposing the sanction Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator I am notified. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by WaunaKeegan11 "The consensus clearly states that anyone with access to 270 electoral votes or above is allowed in the infobox and a block is unjustified to fix this." Copied from their user talk page per their request. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ks0stm Original, Revert 1, Revert 2. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by WaunaKeegan11 Result of the appeal by WaunaKeegan11 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. On the face, it seems simple. Earlier in the day, information was removed. [1]. WaunaKeegan11 then reverted to add it back [2], it was removed by someone else [3] and WaunaKeegan11 instantly reverted a second time.[4]. From a technical standpoint, there is a clear violation. Violating the 1RR restriction is only allowed under very specific circumstances, such as an obvious BLP violation. Saying "but I am right and there is a consensus" isn't a valid exception, even if you are right. I would recommend declining the request to overturn or unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC) As long as they promise not to make the same edit again, I would support their unblocking. They were clearly in the right making those edits and should not have been in a position where they needed to revert twice in one day to restore a consensus decision. It seems particularly unfair if the editors violating that consensus received no sanctions for their edits. Number 57 12:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC) As Dennis says, being "right" isn't usually considered a reason not to block or to unblock. The unblock request shows no indication that the editor believes that it was wrong to violate the 1RR restriction and in any case promising not the make the same edit isn't the same as promising to abide by 1RR. Suggesting that it might be seems a bad precedent. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Righteous block, and the request shows no understanding of the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC) I see no reason to lift the block at this time. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant 2

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (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 Anythingyouwant User who is submitting this request for enforcement Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [5] [6] [7] [8] That's four reverts on an article under 1RR restriction. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Right above Additional comments by editor filing complaint I am filing this per User:Seraphimblade's comment in closing the above AE request [9] Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one.. While I agree with the closure of the above request, and that THOSE two edits were justified on BLP grounds, THESE FOUR reverts are not. This appears to be a case of Anythingyouwant running wild and interpreting favorable comments on the previous issue as a carte blanche to revert at will. In this particular case, the edits being reverted are NOT a BLP violation as they are strongly sourced AND there is consensus for the wording on talk [10] (note that because Anythingyouwant started to move other people's comments around some of the flow of the conversation got compromised) This comment Anythingyouwant clearly indicates that they are aware that "sexual assault" is a potentially valid and sourced way to describe what happened - forcible groping and kissing is "sexual assault" (and ATW agrees). So EVEN IF Anythingyouwant prefers a different description they cannot invoke BLP to make the change. The fact that they did so indicates they are acting in bad faith and making attempts at WP:GAMEing policy. It seems that Anythingyouwant is trying to use the fact that they were correct in ONE PARTICULAR instance as some kind of twisted mandate to exempt themselves from 1RR... or even 3RR. And seriously, starting another edit war, and making four reverts on a 1RR article WHILE there's an open AE request on you for the very thing is just... uh, bad form. Or it's a brazen flaunting of the rules. Tiptoe, Masem, you're trying to argue about content as a way to derail the discussion. But the problem is the 4 (or is it now 5?) reverts in 24hrs on a 1RR article done under a false pretext. You can discuss the issue on talk page if you want. The question here is simply did these edits violate 1RR. Which of course they did.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Just a quick comment on people who are saying something along the lines of "both sides should be sanctioned or neither". No. Yes, there are two sides, and there is disagreement. But disagreement by itself is not sanctionable. What is sanctionable is making 5 reverts on an article under 1RR. And ONLY ONE person has done that. Anythingyouwant. Come on! Shortly before he went on his edit warring spree Anything was agitating for other editors to be sanctioned for making a SINGLE EDIT! Not five, one. And it, unlike Anything's reverts, had consensus too. If that's not WP:BATTLEGROUND I don't know what is. Same goes for several of his supportive commentators.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant 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 Anythingyouwant Will deal with this tomorrow, gotta get sleep.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Might I suggest tweaking the top-level header to distinguish it from the other identical header? I probably won't get to this until late tonight (it's now 1:46 PM where I am). In the mean time, please note that an almost identical complaint was brought up yesterday toward the end of the other Anythingyouwant section, and I wrote some responsive material there,[11] and that section was closed with this statement: The originally reported edits were good faith reverts as potential BLP problems and so were exempt from revert restrictions. Therefore, no violation of 1RR occurred from these edits. Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one. All editors are reminded that a clear consensus is required to revert an edit which notes it corrects a BLP problem.[12] So, when I respond to the present issues tonight, I assume that the originally reported edits presented in this current section are what I need to justify or defend (not separate issues that may be subsequently raised here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Okay, I have some free time now. I'll probably have my response posted here within the hour.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I won’t repeat what I already said about this accusation when it was first made in the previous section here at AE, but I will add to what I already said (as briefly as possible). It is amusing that Marek has the chutzpah to bring this action after trying to get the word "rape" into the lead.[13] As noted above, that attempt was rightly deemed a BLP violation here at AE, though Marek somehow escaped sanctions. Someone else clamoring for sanctions against me here is My very best wishes who likewise sought to violate WP:BLP by jamming "child rape" into the lead of this BLP.[14] He somehow escaped sanctions too. Isn't it amazing? But I still hold out some hope, and therefore request boomerangs against them both. Marek accuses me now of violating 1RR, and he provides four diffs. I suppose the third diff could technically be considered a revert, because I did not explicitly mention WP:BLP in my edit summary, though Marek did not (and cannot) provide any previous version reverted to. As for the first second , and fourth diffs, they all explicitly cite WP:BLP in the edit summaries which were all directed at pretty much the same thing, respectively: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault' is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape." "Reverting repeated insertion of 'sexual assault' into the lead in place of more specific language that does not include rape. Per WP:BLP." "Per WP:BLP, reverting to Dr Fleishman. Mr X, see WP:Game, 'Removing a large addition for a minor error'. You undid edits about which there was no dispute. In so doing, you have implied rape." We recently had a decision at AE confirming that explicit discussion of "rape" and "child rape" is not currently suitable for this lead, per WP:BLP. My contention is that insinuating or suggesting rape fails the same test, for basically the same reasons. Vaguely saying that Trump is accused of "sexual assault" obviously suggests that he may be accused of rape or attempted rape. That’s why I have urged being specific, and have urged saying that he has been accused of forcible kissing and groping, in the lead. I do not rule out use of the term "sexual assault" in the lead, but it has to be used carefully (like I did here), in such a way as to not suggest or insinuate allegations of rape. Anyway, I stopped pressing this point via BLP edits before this AE section was even started, and will continue to let these POV-pushers have their way until a decision is made here at AE, because I do not relish the prospect of a further bogus topic ban. And that's all I have to say for now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @User:Drmies, you say "Equating rape with sexual assault and thus claiming the same exemption is not going to work." I emphatically didn't do that. As I said above: "I do not rule out use of the term 'sexual assault' in the lead, but it has to be used carefully (like I did here), in such a way as to not suggest or insinuate allegations of rape." Rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault generally, and the number one form of sexual assault on college campuses,[15] and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault.[16][17] According to the lead of our Wikipedia article about sexual assault (until it was just edited by a participant in the present case), "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead has to be done carefully so as not to suggest possible rape accusations. I would be glad to stop editing the Trump article until after the election if that will save me from a topic ban, but I think you're mistaken to green light deliberate insinuations of things you've already barred.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @User:Drmies, well, I stand by what I said too. It's like putting in the lead of your BLP that you're a convicted criminal because you once committed a slight misdemeanor. Technically correct but grossly and unnecessarily misleading. Got it now? People see "sexual assault" and very often think "rape".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @User:Tataral et al., "On Political positions of Jeb Bush...it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy." I've never edited any of the abortion material in the Trump article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @User:Drmies, when people hear the word "sexual assault" the last thing many people think of is kissing. And I have reliable sources to back me up. See, for example, this piece in Huffington Post: "'Sexual assault'—an incredibly loaded term—can mean a lot of different things in different contexts....I said I’d come back to the issue of kissing. Remember that this counts, in the AAU survey, as 'sexual touching' - and therefore (possibly) a form of sexual assault....I expect that many people will be tempted to roll their eyes. Kissing? Sure, it might be unpleasant if you weren’t expecting it, but is it really in the same 'category' as rape?" It is indeed in the same category, but most (or at least many) people don't know that, and you, sir, are supporting a highly misleading lead in one of our highest-profile BLPs. But thanks for supporting a shorter topic-ban.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @User:Seraphimblade, I agree with you that the number of sources using the term "sexual assault" regarding Trump allegations is overwhelming, and my willingness to put "sexual assault" into the lead is also overwhelming as long as we indicate what we mean by it. There is relatively little sourcing for use of the term "sexual assault" regarding Trump allegations without describing the kind of sexual assault. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read....The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." You are grossly mistaken in your assertion that a preponderance of reliable sources support using the term "sexual assault" without clarifying that the allegations do not involve rape or attempted rape. I recommend to you the comment below by User:Dervorguilla for further details.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Admins, ‪"While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." ‪Paludi, Michele. Campus Action Against Sexual Assault, p. 56 (‬ABC-CLIO, 2016). No one here has offered any evidence suggesting that "sexual assault" is not usually seen as rape. By putting "sexual assault" in this lead without elaboration, we would be defying the vast majority of reliable sources regarding the allegations against Trump (which do clarify the form of alleged sexual assault) and suggesting to readers that the allegations involve (or at least may involve) rape. This is a clear and obvious BLP violation, not to mention horrifyingly bad writing. If that's what you want, then please by all means give me a topic ban and proceed as you wish. My conscience is clear. As administrator Lankiveil says, my position is defensible, and I don't think you should be dishing out topic-bans for defensible positions, while letting all the indefensible insertions of the explicit word "rape" into the lead go completely unaddressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC) @Admins, one need not be a genius to understand that Wikipedia has the potential to be the biggest source of free knowledge in human history, or the biggest propaganda machine in human history. Maybe it's one or both of those things already. My goal has always been to steer it from the latter to the former. But I see from several of the admin comments that the usual forces in favor of the latter are hard at work. Instead of direct and biased censorship of article content, one can try to get rid of editors who get in the way. As long as User:Jimbo Wales wants this kind of baloney to continue it will continue, and when he is gone there may well be no way to stop it. The structure of dispute resolution at Wikipedia is deeply flawed, and you need to decentralize. Please think about the immense advantages that would accrue from asking (or even requiring) a group of random editors in good standing to decide each case fairly based upon clear rules. A vertical hierarchy is a recipe for disaster, whether it's elected or not. Thank you, and pardon me if I take leave of this particular coliseum.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC) @User:Dennis Brown, thanks for your reasonable comments. The term "sexual assault" can mean anything from an unwanted peck on the cheek to unwanted sexual intercourse. The reliable sources that use the term with regard to Trump almost always clarify exactly what they mean. For us to use the term in the lead without clarification is to insert a suggestion of rape into the lead which is not present in the reliable sources. There is no doubt about this whatsoever, and so if admins want me to stop removing this poorly sourced suggestion from the lead on BLP grounds then you can either ask me politely or topic-ban me; either way, I'll stop doing it. But under protest against such silliness.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC) It appears that the admin consensus is to look the other way as an insinuation of rape is put back into the lead of this BLP, by using the term "sexual assault" without elaboration (and contrary to the sources which do elaborate that it refers to forcible kissing and groping). Many people will understand this use of the term "sexual assault" as a reference to rape. "'Sexual assault'—an incredibly loaded term—can mean a lot of different things in different contexts."[18] "While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...."[19] The leading law dictionary in the United States (Black's) gives a primary sense and a secondary sense of "sexual assault"; the primary sense is "Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent" and the secondary sense is "Offense of sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." So you're making an extremely poor decision. Not sure if I care to appeal though, since many of you would be involved in that process too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by MrX Of the four diffs listed by Marek, at least three are unambiguous reverts within a 24 hour period. Doing so under the shelter of the WP:BLP policy is blatant gaming. Regarding this edit, numerous reliable sources have characterized the allegations against Trump's as "sexual assault".[20][21][22][23][24] In this revert (5th; not in the above list) Anythingyouwant claiming that material must be restored to an article because of WP:BLP. WP:NOT3RR#EX7 does not afford any such 1RR exemption. In addition to edit warring and abusing the WP:BLP policy, Anythingyouwant continues to try to WP:GAME the system to gain an advantage in content disputes on Donald Trump-related articles: Steeletrap started this RfC On October 15 at 19:27. Anythingyouwant changed it to a non-RfC and then started a competing RfC a little over two hours later. Note the question posed: "At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, "Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election." Is this number of words in the lead not enough [insufficient], for the time being, regarding this subject?". Not only is this awkwardly worded as noted by several commenters, but it begs the question. In my view, this does not represent a good faith effort to determine consensus, but rather an attempt to control consensus by framing the questions with a particular outcome in mind. Anythingyouwant used similar tactics in this RfC, attempting to influence the closer of the RfC by Wikilawyering over the term "firm consensus"; using the presence of citations in the lead as a reason for opposing; asking the closer to consider a completely different version of the proposed content; and creating a competing RfC six days after the original one was created. Anythingyouwant also seems intent on polishing Donald Trump's reputation, in violation of WP:NPOV, by first formulating material that whitewashes plain facts, and then finding one or two outlier sources to support that formulation. Here, he wants to change the simple fact that Trump bragged about sexual assaulting women, to Trump bragged about his capacity to grope and forcibly kiss women: Talk:Donald_Trump#Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women). Sometimes he lobbies to add random material, apparently to dilute anything critical about the subject: Talk:Donald_Trump#Removal of sexual misconduct allegations. Filibustering about a fringe point of view by cherry-picking sources: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_29#Our obligations when media sources differ Misrepresenting sources: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_27#Description of donees from the Foundation Center Wikilawyering to override the clear consensus from an RfC: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_24#Discretionary sanctions issue Using WP:OR to make something bad sound better. [25] [26] Apparently, Anythingyouwant has been emboldened by escaping sanctions in the previous two AE cases in which his behavior was scrutinized. At his point, I think a 6 month topic ban should be considered. I don't think a block for edit warring would have a lasting effect, nor would it address the totality of the concerns.- MrX 15:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @Masem: What you describe is a matter for reasonable editorial discussion, which has been ongoing, productive, and mostly collegial on the talk page. In no way does a dispute about appropriate weight in a lead, or wording anywhere in the article, justify edit warring or gaming the system to gain advantage. I've said it before: these are some of the same counterproductive behaviors that were documented in the AP1 and AP2 Arbcom cases. I'm not aware that there are any more left-leaning editors trying to vilify right-leaning subjects, than the exact opposite, as evidenced for example in the various Clinton articles. Of course, if you have any evidence of such misdeeds being widespread, AE is also at your disposal.- MrX 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield This case follows on almost immediately after a near identical case [27] that was also raised against Anythingyouwant. The initiators of each are attempting to misuse the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to usurp our common obligation to obey BLP requirements. As in the earlier case, the content deleted by Anythingyouwant violated BLP policies and required removal. He cannot be sanctioned under subject specific sanctions for doing this. MrX claims, above, that Anythingyouwant "escaped sanctions" in that earlier case, weasely insinuating a lucky escape by a guilty party. The reality was the exact opposite: the idea that Anythingyouwant had violated sanctions was conclusively dismissed and everyone agreed that the material he removed was violating BLP requirements. The nastiness and general slimyness seen in the Donald Trump article content is getting out of hand, and I think Volunteer Markek and his ever-present sidekick My very best wishes want that state of affairs to continue. The misrepresentation and distortion of sources is blatant - I have pointed out one example of it here: [28]. Does Fyddlestix, in his definitions of "sexual assault" given below, consider shaking hands with a fully clothed 15 year old counts as "sexual assault"? The article as it is currently worded does. Here is another example: obviously off-topic detail about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump, editorialising done for no other reason I am sure than to blatantly imply guilt by association - [29]. And this stuff is actually placed in a section of the article dealing with Trump's business interests! At best, the part dealing with Tyson's 2016 endorsement could be on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as part of a listing of celebrity endorsements. I also think this here [30] is a bad faith implied threat intended to be seen by all editors working on the article - article talk pages are about content discussions and are not for notices about cases raised against individual editors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Fyddlestix's claim that the obvious falsehood of the implied "15 year old in a state of undress" claim and related content is a completely separate issue to this case is unconvincing to me. This case is about an editor trying to follow BLP requirements, that content reveals how bad the BLP infractions have gotten in the article; it reveals more of the serious problem that Anythingyouwant was trying to reduce when making the edits that are being used to bring him here. I have "made no comment on" that content, says Fyddlestix, correctly. Yet, while washing his hands of that ongoing misrepresentation of sexual assault in the article's content (it had been there for at least a week, and is still there in a very slightly changed form, in a section formerly titled "Sexual assault allegations" that is now titled "Sexual misconduct allegations"), he still feels able to comment here on exactly what a "sexual assault" is. Does he think shaking hands with a clothed 15 year old counts as "sexual misconduct"? The article does.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Fyddlestix Just commenting to note that the suggestion that "sexual assault" is a BLP violation (Anythingyouwant's stated reason for the removals linked above) is wholly inaccurate. The term does not imply an accusation of rape by any stretch of the imagination. It is variously defined by some of the most authoritative sources imaginable as: "any crime in which the offender subjects the victim to sexual touching that is unwanted and offensive" "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient" "unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender" which includes "such things as grabbing or fondling". In short, this is precisely what Trump has been accused of. There are also a very large number of reliable sources that document those accusations, and which specifically apply the term "sexual assault" to Trump's case. I listed some (one example from each major American news outlet) here, but there are dozens (very likely hundreds) or RS that apply the term to Trump. So please don't give the claim of a BLP exemption any credence here, it's demonstrably false. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @Tiptoethrutheminefield: re: this - the answer is no, of course not. My comments above were obviously in reference to the edits by Anythingyouwant that Marek linked in the complaint above, there is nothing in those edits or in mine that implies what you suggest. This is a completely separate issue, which I have made no comment on. I suggest you redact your comment and avoid making such utterly preposterous suggestions going forward, it's obviously not going to help resolve the dispute. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC) This is lovely too. Can an admin at least hand out some warnings here? Left unchecked the behavioral issues at this article are just going to get worse. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO Anythingyouwant is evading her TBAN from abortion-related articles through a campaign of disruptive edits to articles on the US election, where the future of the Supreme Court and abortion-related law is at stake. She bludgeons discussion threads with a broad spectrum of artful, passive-aggressive deflections, equivocations, and denials to hog-tie neutral policy-based editing. I doubt she is as incompetent as her words would suggest, so I interpret this behavior to be willful (or at least uncontrollable) disruption. She's been amply warned on her talk page and on the article talk pages, but she knows most editors will not take the time and effort to file complaints such as this one. In my opinion, most editors react not by pursuing Enforcement but simply by walking away from the articles. I can't believe that Arbcom Enforcement Admin's wish to validate the disruptive editing strategy of this consummate Wikilawyer and allow her to hound ever more editors off of these abortion-related election articles. The current revert-warring has nothing in common with the one in the previous complaint, where the use of the word "rape" was not well-supported by RS and was undue and was arguably a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Anythingyouwant recently ignored warnings from several editors. Here is mine, on her talk page: [31] SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @Masem: BLP above all, but it's been amply demonstrated that BLP does not justify Anythingyouwant's reverts. Not even plausibly. Public figure, hundreds of RS, accurately represented. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC) You're going on at length about perceived systemic bias on WP and other general concerns, but my point is that this is a complaint about specific behavior of one editor under clearly defined circumstances and the violation is verifiable and proven. Larger issues belong elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Admins, you have a tough job. But you're here voluntarily and the community is counting on you. Even if it's facetious, the suggestion of rounding up active editors (I'm not one of them) and TBANning the whole carload is appalling. This is a simple case of a Anything, a deft and experienced wikilawyer, gaming the system to violate her Abortion Topic Ban -- a ban she openly renounces as illegitimate at every opportunity. Because she's so careful not to be overtly hostile or uncivil, she will not come up for any really draconian penalties, no matter how much of other editors' time she wastes. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit, but in this case it's more like "if the shoe fits, wear it." She needs to have her Abortion-related TBAN extended to American Politics, where her disruptive editing and obstruction is an obvious evasion of her existing TBAN. T-t-t-that's all folks! SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Masem I'd echo the statement of Tiptoethrutheminefield above - while it may be true that these are accusations put against him, they have no business to be highlighted to that great a detail in the lede. I've been finding more and more that some editors seem to want to vilify any BLP that is right-leaning to the greatest extent they can by reliable sources (which are broadly left-leaning, making it easy to find material to pin on the BLP) in the lede, where instead WP:BLP advices dispassionate and impartial writing. Accusations of crimes may have a place in the lede, but if they are only accusations, they should not be given undue focus (though can be explained out in the body as allowed for by BLP). --MASEM (t) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @MrX: The issue that I have been seeing becoming more and more of problem, something I identified back in the Gamrilel arbcom case. I agree there's probably just as many right-leaning editors seeking to vilify left-leaning BLPs as vice versa (a practice that should be condonedcondemned, either direction) The issue, however, is that our RS policy has developed in a manner that favors left-leaning sources and excludes right-leaning ones, so trying to back up a claim against a left-leaning BLP is nearly impossible with the lack of usable RSes, but finding claims against right-leaning BLP is easy as pie due to the predominate number of usable RSes. (There's a whole other external issue of shoddy journalism today but that's beyond our control). And left-leaning editors have used this alongside UNDUE (specifically) to insist this information must be included, overriding the principles of NPOV and BLP. Throwing a lot of detail about yet-proven accusations of a running candidate in the brief lede is exactly the type of thing we shouldn't be doing, but we're here because some editors don't see this as a problem. It's difficult to pin as AN issues because it is very slow, and it involves many degrees of subtly. There needs to be community-wide input and discussion of this problem. In the meanwhile, however, BLP still stands above all other policies. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: You're self-demonstrating the issue. I have no love of either candidate here, but there's just as much mud being thrown at Clinton as there is at Trump, but because those accusing Clinton are right-leaning sources, either editors deem the sources unreliable (which is a fair assessment for many right-leaning sources) or when the sources aren't unreliable, they state "well, they're unproven accusations, so we can't give any weight to those". That logic and impartiality is not implied in the current edits here. Just because the accusations are well-sourced to reliable sources they are unproven, and we should be using the utmost care to avoid giving undue weight to them by throwing them in the lede, as otherwise this give them implicit equal weight as his campaign platform and previous history. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC) To several more recent comments, while one could argue this is a content situation since we are talking about material that is reliably sourced and that I do agree belong somewhere on WP (certainly in the article(s) about the specific presidential campaigns since the accusations are influencing the election to a degree), fundamentally these accusations (neither proven nor have led to any charges) are rumors and BLP is very specific about giving undue weight to rumormongering on BLP pages (Other policy like NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM also comes to mind). They shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all at this point, but there's a certain callousness by several editors here that give the impression "oh, but reliable sources reign over BLP", which should not be happening here, otherwise we as Wikipedia are engaging in the external problem. We need to be better than the sources when it comes to impartiality and tone. To that point, the edits tagged above by Anythingyouwant are just as problematic as the edits undoing those, since they are retaining the core problematic BLP, but they are at least de-sensationalizing the newer additions. The fact that multiple editors appeared to have restored it shows that there's a larger problem than one person involved here. The suggestion of short-term topic ban for all involved until after the election makes sense to this point, because most of this appears centered on this developing issue, but I still believe we're not solving the long-term problems with this solution, but solving that is well beyond the remit of ArbCom. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes Here is edit by Anythingyouwant made in violation of 1RR rule on the page. This edit does not fix any BLP violations because (a) the material in question is well-sourced and included on the page itself [32] and other pages [33],[34] and (b) the material remains in the lede even after the edit by Anythingyouwant but became less visible (note that only poorly sourced materials are exempt from 1RR rule [35]). Actually, no one disputed that the information itself was well-sourced, and must be included on the page. The dispute was about including this info in lede. Moreover, Anythingyouwant made revert of material that is currently under discussion in an RfC and was warned not make this edit in advance [36], but still did it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @JFG. There is no "imbalance between the way Trump and Clinton's bios are treated by the wikipedian community". There could be only some "imbalance" in the way they are treated by reliable sources, although this is difficult to say - one can compare pages here and here (perhaps there are more negative materials about another candidate). Also, one should not talk about "sides" per Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Dennis Brown. Yes, many people have biases, which should not prevent their participation. The problem only arises when someone willingly violates editing restrictions and rules, does not admit it, and continue telling "I was right" even after being reported on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden I'd like one of the editors accusing AnythingYouWant to point to the discussion showing consensus for the edits she reverted. Steeletrap for example, makes no attempt to gain consensus for this latest edit. The sequence as I see it here is: Editor A violates policy (BLP and article-specific restrictions) to include or alter article text Editor B violates policy by undoing Editor A's edit Optionally: Editor A reports Editor B to enforcement Instead of talk page discussion we have edit-warring and enforcement requests. Can we require admin approval for changes, with consensus required for admin approval? I don't think that's unreasonable for the two candidates' BLPs in the weeks leading up to the election. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC) While I understand administrators reluctance to involve themselves, by my quick-and-dirty math about a million people viewed the Donald Trump article with dubious accusations of "child sexual abuse" or "child rape" in the lede. That should warrant serious action in any BLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @Drmies: The talk page lists 3 active arbitration remedies. You support (I think) sanctioning Anythingyouwant for violating the 2nd, which limits reverts to one every 24 hours, but say nothing about the filer and others who violated the 1st: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) Is the 1st less important or does the warning at the top of this page, which tells filers: your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it not apply? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Final Comment: I'd like the record to show that in two diffs presented (35 and 36) for which she may be sanctioned, Anythingyouwant removed content reinstated by Volunteer Marek (diff) which had been previously removed by D.Creish (diff), DrFleischman (diff) and myself. That same phrasing (sexual assault) was reinstated by MrX (diff), SPECIFICO (diff) and My very best wishes (diff) who all presented evidence against Anythingyouwant. At the time of their edits, as now, the RFC favors exclusion from the lede or a brief mention, with no consensus to include "sexual assault", so each of these reinstatements violated the arbitration remedy that editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) In sanctioning Anythingyouwant you'd allow the filer and several supporters to unambiguously violate a remedy, while sanctioning Anythingyouwant for violating another in reverting their violation - in a high profile BLP, regarding "sexual assault." I find it hard to believe not a single admin is concerned by that. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tataral As pointed out by others, Anythingyouwant is "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion). One of the main issues for Donald Trump and his party in this election, as one could expect, is abortion (often in connection with appointments to the supreme court), which was one of the key issues debated, for instance, in the most recent presidential debate, in which Trump said "I am pro life and I will be appointing pro life judges" and even more polemically that under current abortion law in the US "You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day".[37] The fact that abortion is one of the main issues for the Republican Party in presidential elections is very well known, and Trump has made it clear for a long time, and well before the edits in question, that he is an anti-abortion political candidate who uses strong anti-abortion language and who will appoint "pro life judges". It seems quite clear that the Trump article is within the scope of a topic ban covering "abortion-related pages, broadly construed." --Tataral (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dervorguilla "sexual assault. 1. Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent. 2. Offensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." (Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.) In some states, sexual assault is understood to mean "forcible fondling" and the like. In other states, it's understood to mean "rape". An editor living in a conservative state may legitimately see a BLP violation where one living in a progressive state does not. (Note: The AP says that any statement "capable of conveying a defamatory meaning" is defamatory.) In a Wikipedia article, you can fairly and ethically say that a suspect is accused of "sexual assault" if you make clear whether the allegator accused him of (1) rape or (2) forcible fondling. Which was not the case here. It accordingly appears to me that Anythingyouwant did no wrong. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I've read the statements by The Blade of the Northern Lights and Lankiveil, who are "almost of the view that the top 10 editors of the article ... in the past month should be banned until after the election is out of its misery" and "would not object at all to a topic ban for a number of editors on both 'sides' of this dispute until at least November 10". I'm Editor No. 8, and I support any such bilateral ban. I'd like to see how the article evolves if we let the less-invested editors take over for a few weeks. I think you could feasibly implement an informal ban by asking all top-ten editors to voluntarily withdraw from editing the article for the duration. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) 07:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by JFG Throughout the election campaign, it has proven very hard to conduct a level-headed discussion towards building consensus. Discretionary sanctions are effective against simple trolls and relatively inexperienced editors, however experienced editors have both demonstrated uncanny capacity to skirt the rules or stonewall the process. Irrespective of political inclinations, AGF and BLP should prevail over attempts to smear a candidate or exonerate the other. This case looks like a sanctions war between two experienced editors who seem to be both exasperated by the "other side". Either we give them both a slap on the wrist in the form of a week block or we TBAN them from political topics for a few months to cut the drama. I would not condone any unilateral sanctions against one side who happened to have a slightly different reading of BLP defense than the other side. We are facing a good-faith attempt at maintaining balance, not a sneaky attempt to game the DS. Several other editors have switched the lead one way or the other, this fact alone shows there is no consensus about keeping sexual assault accusations in the lead; my personal opinion is they should be left out until the RfC concludes, but I'd rather stay uninvolved on contents here. The issue of imbalance between the way Trump and Clinton's bios are treated by the wikipedian community and journalistic sources is out of scope of this particular AE request but certainly needs to be kept in mind as background context in evaluating appropriate sanctions. — JFG talk 16:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Irony: A couple months ago, when discussing whether to mention Trump's campaign lies in his bio, I warned that the lead would soon read "Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." We're getting there, BLP be damned… Sad! — JFG talk 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC) @Drmies: I was just adding some lighthearted banter to the never-ending drama (two weeks left!). But I get your point on poisonous hyperbole. As you noticed too, people are seriously equating Trump's hairstyle to his political positions in terms of encyclopedic relevance: not only is the campaign both entertaining and appalling but so is its meta-coverage here — JFG talk 04:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie There are many editors in that topic area intent on using any and all sources and tidbits of information that portray Trump in a negative light. There are also many editors who are keen to oppose this approach. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC) It's disappointing to see the admin response to this. It's quite clear from a few previous enforcement cases that had Anythingyouwant edited with the opposite POV that we would be seeing calls for no action at the least, to boomerang at worst. Editors are trying to put any and every mention of negative items into Trump's lead, with no regard to weight or recentism or npov or notnews because of the house and MSM POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dr. Fleischman I have no opinions to share about Anythingyouwant, but I would like to say that I trust that The Blade of the Northern Lights and Lankiveil's comments on the subject here and here were made in partial jest, and that if sanctions were to go beyond Anythingyouwant then evidence would be presented and those accused would get a chance to respond. I certainly agree that there's been a lot of POV pushing at Donald Trump recently, but I certainly wouldn't want to find myself the subject of arbitrary sanctions simply for contributing to a very controversial article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Four Deuces I note Anythingyouwant changed "sexual assault" to "forcibly kissing and groping." The BLP issue seems to have some validity. A reader could be left with the impression that these were accusations of rape or similar felonies. I note that many news sources to refer to the allegations as "sexual assault," but they also clarify what the specific claims are. The version of the lead with "sexual assault" does not do that. While Anythingyouwant has explained their reasons for changing the wording, I would ask the administrators examining this complaint to read the edit summaries and arguments against the change. Basically they are that by definition, it constitutes sexual assault, reliable sources use the term and there is consensus to keep it. As I mentioned above, sources that use the term clarify the specific claims. But none of them explain how it improves the article. TFD (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Markbassett) ???? What is listed seems clearly not 4 reverts (maybe too late but here's my $0.02) The first two cited here and here have the same text 'Late in Trump's campaign', so show one revert to put his prior edit back in place. (The note on both mention reverting so maybe two reverts. The next two there and there do not have the same text, so are not reverts of that prior item. They are also not the same between themselves -- it looks like Any changed "accusing him of varying degrees of assault" to "groping or forcible kissing by him" under note assault would mean rape; then when someone reinstated prior language a few (?) revs later he puts in a note "reverting to Dr. Fleischman' which edits an earlier part of the same line -- not to his third edit, it's undoing whoever reverted multiple intervening edits. Not a revert to his own language apparently, for whatever mitigation that may be. Again here what's shown is a mention of revert. I didn't go thru the history to see if I could confirm that they are actually reverts or not, but if that makes 3 it seems a bit mitigated that he was being self-reporting. It's a bit of sidenote - but there's a lot of thrash over 'bragging' vs 'reported as bragging' vs 'talked' and whether it's about 'sexual misconduct' vs 'capability for' vs 'sexual assault' -- plus whether 'sexual assault' should be viewed as saying the felony 'rape'. Markbassett (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. The first two show a revert, but the second two are marked ass BLPviolation reverts ... maybe leans things a bit to ba cautious to not discourage Note marking or discourage BLPviolation claims. (And for those saying its a false claim ... when would invocation ever not have such remarks?). I at least was in TALK before this and still am saying 'sexual assault' is a legal term commonly understood as felony/rape for whatever that's worth. (Some states interpret the term to include non-penetration, and some advocates use the inflamatory term for lesser occurances ... but mostly read rape by drugs or weapon.) Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Comment by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Given the unprecedented goings-on in the current U.S. presidential election it may be wise for any sanctions to continue until the outcome of the election is no longer a matter of significant dispute, or similar wording. The possibility of a drawn-out, acrimonious state-by-state legal challenge to the validity of the election is presently being discussed in high-end reliable sources.[38] These are strange times. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Wordsmith I am Recused from 2016 election-related articles, as usual. However as an editor, I would tend to largely agree with Dennis Brown here. Sexual assault and rape are not the same thing, however in many areas sexual assault is a euphemism for rape. The issue is not one of definition, but connotation. And having watched the discussions on that article for some time, good faith is failing and I have little doubt that the connotation wasn't absolutely intentional. It may not be a BLP vio by the literal text, but it definitely is by implication. I believe an admonishment is appropriate here, and after the election I predict that this topic area will be much quieter without the need for bans. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by SashiRolls I have no opinion regarding Anythingyouwant, however I do think it is worth noting that Volunteer Marek is a formidable edit warrior who has recently violated 1RR on the page Clinton Foundation (diff, diff). It seems to me this should encourage an in-depth look at his recent editing history which might, just maybe, suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. SashiRolls (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Now that I've had the courage to look into it, I'll say that I agree with those who say this is not a case of WP:CRYBLP as there is no consensus for inclusion of this language in the lede on the talk page. I do not think Anythingyouwant should be sanctioned at all for these edits. SashiRolls (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Awilley This is a tough case for me. I think that Anythingyouwant's reverts were good in that they were on the right side of BLP, and were in line with the relevant discussion on the talk page. But I'm not convinced it was the kind of clear-cut BLP violation that warrants an exemption to 1RR. I think the Trump article needs experienced editors to counter the folks who want, say, an entire paragraph in the Lead devoted to sexual assault allegations. Anythingyouwant has certainly been that, but in the process has been engaging in long term borderline behavior, knowing that it would eventually lead to a topic ban. (I can provide diffs if requested.) In short, I think a topic ban is overdue, but it bugs me that this particular issue is the last straw. ~Awilley (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Anythingyouwant This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'm sorry, I think all the uninvolved admins are too too tired. I know I am. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC). I've recovered and added a hopefully more useful comment at the end of this section, which seemed a better place for it even though technically perhaps not correct. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC). As am I. I'm almost of the view that the top 10 editors of the article and talkpage in the past month should be banned until after the election is out of its misery, but I don't think that's feasible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC) My frustrated comment above stands, but in terms of this specific issue I think at least 6 month ban from American politics is warranted. I wholly agree with Drmies' summary below. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I trust your judgment Drmies, and I'm willing to go with something shorter. Also, to be completely clear my comment above was not a suggestion for responding to this specific instance; I wouldn't do something like that without all the proper notifications and statements at least. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I wasn't aware of Anything vol. 1, which just closed; if I had seen that I would have agreed with closing that as a good-faith BLP exemption. However, I do not see how that applies here--I'm sorry, Anything. But the edit cannot be justified by way of the BLP exemption, since the allegations and their phrasing are well sourced and widely known, unlike the previous case's "rape". Equating rape with sexual assault and thus claiming the same exemption is not going to work. My colleague Masem says, above, "while it may be true that these are accusations put against him, they have no business to be highlighted to that great a detail in the lede"--this may well be true, and I am usually a fan of less rather than more, what Masem offers us is in no way a valid exemption. There is no significant difference in the level of detail, and how for instance UNDUE applies here is not clear, esp. since Anything's edits/tweaks do not materially shorten the lead. If the lead is too detailed or whatever, settle it on the talk page; the only question here is whether, for instance, changing "forcible groping or kissing" to "assaulting" is a BLP violation which can legitimately lead to an exemption. I think the answer is no. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Anything, I'm sorry, but I stand by what I said. If you like I'll modify and change "equate" to something much longer involving "is practically equated to ___ because in many cases the suggestion is that etc." In order to get some sort of exemption you simply have to accept that "sexual assault" was a BLP violation. I don't see that. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Six months is a long time. I am not sure if Anything has a block/topic ban log, but they're fairly reasonable, and if a topic ban comes to an end and the behavior hasn't improved, a new one is handed out easily enough. So as far as I'm concerned a month, no more than three months, is more than enough. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC) JFG, if you have any good intentions here at all, please don't exaggerate by stating that the lead of his article practically reads "Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." Or, if you were trying to be funny, don't. Exaggeration without proof may provide a good soundbite, but it poisons the atmosphere because those claims can't easily be countered. Sound familiar? Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC) JFG, If I took your words more literal than they were intended, which it seems I did, I certainly apologize, and I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC) I've got to agree with Drmies here. While there is an exemption to revert rules for BLP enforcement, we also have to be mindful that it's easily abused. I think this has crossed over into abuse territory, given the high profile of the sexual assault allegations and their clear backing in reliable sources. Presenting well sourced negative information is not a BLP issue, it's a content decision, and that's subject to revert restrictions like any other content matter. Accordingly, I do believe 1RR was violated here, as these were not reasonable BLP concerns. BLP covers unsourced or poorly sourced content, not well sourced content. That being said, I also do agree with Drmies that any sanction should be a relatively short one, given that the US political season will be over shortly and these areas will likely cool off after that. I'd support a month long topic ban from the subject of Donald Trump, with the expectation that the sanction may be lengthened and/or broadened if issues like this occur again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC) These actions were technically 1RR I suppose, although I think it is defensible (but wrong) to say that they were legitimate per BLP. Either way, it's such a minor thing that under reasonable circumstances a quick discussion on the talkpage should have sorted it out, but partisans on both sides have dug in their battleground mentality so hard that that is not going to happen. To be honest, I am in agreement with User:The Blade of the Northern Lights here, and would not object at all to a topic ban for a number of editors on both "sides" of this dispute until at least November 10, at which point it will all hopefully be moot. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC). I think six months for a topic ban is excessive, lets try for "until the winner of the election is declared", and see if anyone still wants to carry the flame after that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC). This is a case of WP:CRYBLP in support of partisan editing by an editor already sanctioned for partisan editing, in an area that is strongly related to one where the editor has a ban already in place. I have great sympathy for the "plague on all their houses" view expressed above, but I think it is also unarguable that this is disruptive and tendentious editing and that a good case could be made for topic-banning Anythingyouwant from American politics until December. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I don't think these reverts were justified under the BLP exception to 1RR. That exception isn't supposed to be used for people to promote their sides of arguable issues through edit warring. The exact wording that should be used to describe the allegations can of course be discussed, but labelling them as "sexual assault" isn't the kind of clear BLP violation that would justify starting an edit war. Some kind of sanctions on both "sides" until after the presidential election, as suggested above, may be a good idea. Hut 8.5 12:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC) I was drawn here by this dispute popping up on my watchlist. The points I would make have been made more clearly by folks above: so let me just say that the diffs presented strike me as willful misuse of the BLP exemption. Add to this a clear battleground mentality and an unwillingness to drop the stick, and a topic ban is very much in order. Personally, I do not see the mindset that drives this behavior changing quickly: but perhaps the level of motivation for it will change after the election. A month-long topic ban is the minimum I would suggest. Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Clarifying after reading Doug's comment: I, too, mean a topic-ban from post 1932 US politics. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC) I'm with Vanamonde here. At one point I was thinking "a plague on both your houses", but I've changed my mind in the light of various comments above. I'd support a topic ban for Anythingyouwant - not just until November 10th however. At least until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Clarifying my comment, I mean a ban from American politics post 1932, not just Trump. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC) I've recovered from the ennui recorded in my original post and read up. Like the other admins commenting in "Anythingyouwant 1" higher up on this page,[39] I thought Anythingyouwant did the right thing in removing a clear BLP vio (accusations of "rape and child rape") from the lead of Donald Trump. The reverts in this present report are something else, and I agree with Vanamonde that they show a battleground attitude on one of the Wikipedia pages that least need it. Agree with a topic ban from American politics for Anythingyouwant. I like Doug Weller's careful formulation: "at least until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede", but I'll support any proposed ban length up to three months. I don't support any kind of 'ban the lot and let god sort 'em out' solution here. Too radical, and not fair. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC). I don't exactly agree with many of compatriots here, at least in part. I think Anything needs to be sent back with clear instructions that "sexual assault" is not synonymous with rape, but I've lived all over the US, and in many places, it is. In many texts it is. We can't escape that. That doesn't mean we are bound to that standard here, but it does offer some explanation. As for CRYBLP, most people editing these articles do have a strong bias one way or another. These political articles are already a handful, the last thing I want to do is affect the balance by topic banning someone under these circumstances. I prefer a warning and instruction to read the advice herein, and accept the consensus view on that phrase. This madness will be over soon enough, but not soon enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC) @The Blade of the Northern Lights, Bishonen, Drmies, Doug Weller, Dennis Brown, JzG, Lankiveil, and Seraphimblade: This has been open a while, and there does not appear to be much further discussion happening. I don't think it is fair to either the filing party or the respondent to leave it open further. I am not seeing a clear consensus here, but there does seem to be general support for a topic ban from US politics until the election is over the losing candidate concedes the election. Is this something we can agree upon? If no objections are raised, I'm inclined to close it as such in the next 24 hours. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC) It's certainly ripe for closing, but there have been a number of suggestions for a longer ban than just until the election is over. I recommend you phrase the ban per Doug Weller's suggestion: topic banned from American politics post 1932 until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede. I know it's far-fetched... but we really don't want to have to start this over again if there's, well, unrest after the election. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC). That is a good point, and was one of the reasons I suggested a minimum of three months. I will amend my wording: I don't anticipate anybody objecting to the amendment if they were okay with the original. Vanamonde (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Obviously it isn't my preference, but if we must, the narrower and shorter the better. Anything past Dec 1 or the loser conceding (which ever happens first) would be excessive and go beyond the actual problem. I trust Anything already gets the point, so it seems unnecessary considering the vitriol on both sides of the isle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC) I concur we seem to have broad agreement here; my preference for ban length is still as above, but I wouldn't be tremendously upset by three months. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC). @Dennis Brown: I personally do not think we should add an escape clause if one of the candidates does not concede. Unless a concession happens, this is liable to continue to be a highly visible/disputed area, and the reasons for the ban remain unaltered. In the unusual situation that a candidate does not concede but the election is actually considered "over" and the disputes die down, it can be lifted by one of us. Vanamonde (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Once the votes are simply cast, does any of this matter? Is the likelihood of problems not go down? I think Dec 1 is more than enough if someone doesn't concede. Only time in my long lifetime this didn't happen by Dec. 1 was in 2000. I think we are overthinking this, and still think it is unnecessary to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC) That was however a very, very different situation, with a mandatory recount in one state and various litigation. Once that was over Gore conceded. It would have been foolish of anyone to concede earlier then. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)