Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

DHeyward

Sanction has been lifted, so closing this with no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: [2] That would be an edit "about" Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Scarborough. I have this vague notion that these individuals have something to do with "post-1932 American Politics".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See above

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

See above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning DHeyward

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by DHeyward

Statement by Mendaliv

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

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

Statement by The Rambling Man

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

Statement by Kingindian

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

Statement by My very best wishes

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

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

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

Statement by Ryk72

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DHeyward

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Raymond3023

Appeal declined per this discussion here, with the original sanction changing to NeilN's modified sanction. —SpacemanSpiff 11:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction being appealed: WP:ARBIPA [4]

Administrator imposing the sanction: NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Statement by Raymond3023

I am sanctioned for "misrepresenting what sources say and a repeated failure to understand this issue", there hasn't been any "repeated failure to understand this issue", I have never been alleged of misrepresenting sources ever. NeilN said I am responsible for the misrepresentation of the source on an article,[5] that I was originally attempting to rescue from a G5 deletion, "mostly because it is notable and meets WP:LASTING".[6]

Though he is correct about it and I will always remember that and that's something I had already acknowledged that I should be more cautious with checking the content on the article that I am rescuing from G5,[7] NeilN still went ahead to sanction me despite without giving any other admin a chance to discuss, despite he had echoed that unless "another admin objects, I'm thinking of implementing a three month topic ban".[8] Again, I will be more cautious with checking article and sources when I am taking responsibility of G5, but I find this sanction to be unjustified. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NeilN, it seems that you are misrepresenting my statements. I was only asking you to clarify your objections, and the article had already went through enough changes when I replied to your message, it was already going under the process of editing now, and I was collaborating with that in place of reverting others. You seem to be implying that I was deliberately misrepresenting sources when that was not my intention at all, I was working to make the article better after agreeing with the suggested edits.[9][10] And again, the only problem here was that I had to be more cautious with taking the responsibility, but I have acknowledge that, didn't I? Raymond3023 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@NeilN: You had mentioned that "I would be willing to go with a formal warning about sourcing, indicating that further similar instances will result in a topic ban/block", I am ready to accept it and guarantee that you won't have to revisit this issue again. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Yes some sources were either unreliable or contradicted the mainstream opinion as discussed on talk page of these articles, and my aim (on Vastu Shashtra) was that more sources could be discovered for the information that was being removed, as suggested by other editors as well. I also found the sources as well, the then disputed section was is now backed up with the sources that I had discovered. In fact I had fixed the misrepresentation of source on one of these article.[11] I would say that these were simply content disputes. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, you are misrepresenting the source[12] here by calling it a "forbes list". Yes that source is an opinion piece since it was written by a contributor not staff, there have been many WP:RSN discussion about such sources and there was discussion about this particular source on Talk:Dangal (film)#Estimates, where we agreed not to add the opinion piece in question. The "article critical of Dalit politics" that you mentioned, you should know that information like "'epidermic determinism' of V.T. Rajshekar" was redundant for the article and it was not fitting on a section like "Religion" at all, although I did merged the content that could be merged into other sections. And the last edit that you mentioned was adhering to WP:BRD and had been supported by most other editors and was in compliance with the TFD outcome. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had been only restoring what was removed without explanation[13][14] on Achieved status. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: let me confirm a few things here. Some diffs are exaggerated here, for example [15] was not a revert, but we were attempting to reach consensus by editing. What do you mean by "confirmed" users? 10 edits and 4 days or 500 edits and 30 days? There are less than 600 "confirmed" users on Wikipedia. What if the user is violating BLP/copyrights? No question about other points though. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by NeilN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox six months Raymond3023 will:

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

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

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

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

Statement by Vanamonde93

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sandstein: Please take a look at the links I have provided here. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein and GoldenRing: If the issue were limited to simply flouting WP:V, I'd agree with you. As Sitush says, though, the text in question flouted verifiability with the obvious intent of pushing an anti-Muslim point of view. Religious and nationalist conflict is at the heart of our trouble with ARBIPA topics, and violations such as these are not to be taken at all lightly. Vanamonde (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC) (re-sign for ping Vanamonde (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)).[reply]
I could take a good guess as to the identity of the IP, but they are likely to complain about outing if I do so. So, until they disclose their account, let me just say that when an IP who admits to having a previous account jumps to the defense of an editor who was protecting the work of a blocked sock at an obscure noticeboard, I find it very suspicious. Vanamonde (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: If we're now looking at further instances of a problematic approach to sources, there's plenty of evidence at hand. There's another instance of referring to a Forbes list as an opinion piece. An instance of removing an opinion piece critical of Hindu-nationalism, and a scholarly article critical of Dalit politics, but keeping an opinion piece critical of Zionism. Oh, and there's this gem, too, which is particularly ironic given the articles which Raymond attempted to keep, thereby beginning this dispute. Vanamonde (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More, admittedly only partially related to Indian politics: the addition of completely unsourced original research related to achieved versus ascribed status. Vanamonde (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

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

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

Statement by Sitush

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

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Raymond3023

Comment by Winged Blades of Godric

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

Comment by Ms Sarah Welch

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

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

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

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

Comment by (IP)

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

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

Comment by Capitals00

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

As per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion", yet Vanamonde93 still tagged the article that is likely going to survive a deletion discussion and policy also notes that "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions", but Vanamonde93 edit warred over the tag [16] and made a misleading claim on edit summary that Raymond is "an involved editor", regardless of the fact that Raymond never edited the article before. This battleground mentality doesn't end here. After restoring the tag in place of bringing it to Afd, Vanamonde93 made no attempt to fix the content issue and made no input on talk page either,[17] but went to report an admin without notifying Raymond by using the Echo notification system or by posting a message.[18]

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

Comment by Kautilya3

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

Result of the appeal by Raymond3023

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

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

Thanks, Vanamonde93, I missed the part where Raymond3023 wrote that they were "taking the responsibility of the article". Under these circumstances, I think NeilN was correct to characterize this behavior as improper, namely, adding content not verifiable by reliable sources relating to a highly sensitive topic, i.e., murder and religious violence. Whether it deserved a sanction for misconduct, and specifically this sanction, is less clear to me. Verifiability issues are primarily content issues, and arbitration does not address these. Egregious misregard for core content policies such as WP:V does rise to the level of misconduct, but I don't think that's what we have here. While it is true that Raymond3023 does seem to have some competence problems, the one edit at issue here did not directly add the problematic content, but only assumed responsibility for the article as a whole. They also had no previous relevant sanctions. Under these circumstances, I'd probably have left it at a stern warning and not directly imposed a topic ban. The topic ban is more defensible if one takes the very pragmatic view that all less than completely competent and experienced editors should be removed from DS topic areas, but that's not been our practice so far, and would be very difficult to implement.
Nonetheless, I'm aware that this is only a different admin's perspective on the issue, and not necessarily a more objective one than NeilN's, who as enforcing admin has wide latitude to impose discretionary sanctions. Such sanctions should only be overturned if the applicable rules and procedures were clearly violated, and not merely because of a different assessment of the situation. This case seems to me to be on the border between the two situations, and I would therefore welcome other views on the matter. Sandstein 17:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Anmolbhat

Closed with no action. Anmolbhat self-corrected some unnecessary rudeness, so no sanction is required. I would note that the "civility restriction" is difficult to enforce short of a personal attack, as no two groups of people agree on what does and doesn't breach civility standards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Anmolbhat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anmolbhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

16 December 2017 Blocked for copyright violations after several warnings.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Besides casting aspersions in spite of the good faith sanction on all Kashmir conflict related topics, not only has Anmolbhat broken them in full awareness of his violations, but he even has a history of being blocked for introducing copyright violations[19] despite being warned several times for their copyright violations.[20][21][22][23]

I don't think this user is willing to learn or abide by our policies and since their editing is generally tendentious and unconstructive[24][25][26] they should be blocked. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Anmolbhat

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Anmolbhat

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

Statement by D4iNa4

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anmolbhat

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

RegentsPark is the administrator that imposed this restriction, perhaps it is best if he reviews the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark hasn't edited in a few days, and I'm researching some other aspects of the case, which shouldn't stop anyone else, but wanted to update here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anmolbhat

There is no appetite for issuing sanctions here. Additionally, the administrator who originally put in the civility restriction has chosen to strike it, although I would note that all other unstruck provisions still hold. The problem is where we draw the line on what is and isn't "civil" particularly when the activities of others are less than stellar. I suggest the involved editors focus more on dialog and less on tripping people up on technical violations. I also suggest that everyone, including Anmolbhat, be more civil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Anmolbhat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anmolbhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block. :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

16 December 2017

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has not just been blocked but had received repeated warnings about his incorrect behavior but still he does not show any sign of improvement.1 2 3 4 and has also been warned many times to stop their unconstructive editing.5 6 7 The user JosephusOfJerusalem also filed a complaint against Anmolbhat for breaking the civility restriction but the closing of that complaint has only further emboldened this user to break ARBIPA sanctions even more. You would have expected he would learn but he is still doing it. And if unsubstantiated accusations of meat puppetry is not a personal attack (WP:NPA#WHATIS) I do not know what is.

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

Discussion concerning Anmolbhat

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Anmolbhat

Statement by Kautilya3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (JosephusOfJerusalem)

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

Comment by WBG

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

Statement by Capitals00

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anmolbhat

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

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

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

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

I managed to find those (elusive!) scratch codes and am back online and will comment later today. --regentspark (comment) 13:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for any sanctions on AnmolBhatt here, though this is fairly close to the border. While meatpuppetry accusations should be used with care, suggesting that there may be meat puppetry going on when dealing with relatively new accounts that are hovering around an editors content space is not necessarily problematic (see WP:MEAT) as long as it is expressed in civil manner. The civility injunction does not mean that legitimate concerns cannot be raised and I think that is the case here because we do have a number of new editors displaying strong policy knowledge and working on the same content. All that said, I think that the onus is on AnmolBhatt to justify inclusion of the content under contention and it may be a good idea for it to stay off the page while it is being discussed (but that's not a matter for AE so this is just a thought).--regentspark (comment) 22:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's why this is close to the border. The good faith restriction was placed by me to prevent things like "Pakistani views" or "Indian views". Allegations of meat puppetry were not the intention and it is not unreasonable to allege that when new accounts appear to be editing in tandem. That wasn't the spirit of the restriction. Dennis Brown's suggestion below is a good one and I'll modify the restriction. Meanwhile, it may be a good idea to remind AnmolBhatt that proving meat puppetry is difficult and that such allegations should be made very carefully. The way I see it, a meat puppetry accusation is not by itself uncivil, repeated such accusations without using a formal process would be a problem. --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than have a long drawn out discussion on it, I would like to see RegentsPark change the line "Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block." by either removing it altogether (first choice), or something along of the lines of "Serious breaches of civility may result in sanction without warning". Removed is preferred because we already have policies on civility, and no two people can even agree on those. Besides, the section below it called "An ethnicity claim restriction" already covers the most likely cause of stress on those articles. I agree with GoldenRing that people may be lead to think that minor things will result in action, when a consensus of admin wouldn't take that action, so as worded, it is doing more harm than good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dennis. I've modified the restriction accordingly. --regentspark (comment) 15:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalus

Blocked for 1 week. GoldenRing (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Al-Andalus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]

Discussion concerning Al-Andalus

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Al-Andalus

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Al-Andalus

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

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

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
~~Best practice is to~~ Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages ~~where appropriate~~, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and

There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.

Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or

They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or

In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or

In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or

In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

Sir Joseph

Seems pointless to keep this open when so many admin have made it clear that sanctions are not going to happen. BLP does apply to talk pages, but this particular incident is so minor as to not be a case for ANI or AE. The primary complaint here is a talk page entry being uncited and could have easily been corrected by requesting a citation, or asking that the person strike the comment. Using the sledgehammer that is WP:AE is simply overkill for such a small thing. When something can be handled on the talk page itself, it should, rather than dragging it to an admin or arbitration board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sir Joseph

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Biographies of Living Persons

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

[42]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Sir Joseph

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

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

Statement by The Rambling Man

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Dave

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

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

Statement by SPECIFICO

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

Statement by MjolnirPants

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

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

Statement by MelanieN

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

Statement by Nishidani

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

The banner at Talk:Hillel Neuer reads:-

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

Notwithstanding this, SJ repeatedly defamed a living person.

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sir Joseph

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

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

Ditto both TRM And Dennis. Sir Joseph should have been approached first to ask to redact or quote/source the statement before AE. And I would agree this is less an AE issue and more an AN/ANI issue related to behavior rather than sanctions. (see "shithole"_countries the recent ANI related to editors' behavior over Trump's "shithole" comment which shares similar aspects here). Suggest no action (though caution SJ when using BLP Claims on talk pages, and trout VM for rushing to file). --Masem (t) 16:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Volunteer Marek: last time I asked somebody to retract a DS violation I was accused of "threatening" the editor and threatened myself with a block "if I did that again". Diffs please for review. --Masem (t) 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the least a caution is warranted here. BLP applies to talk pages as well and making generic negative statements about a person should not be acceptable. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I don't see the big deal here. Should one say, without sources, that an individual has been caught lying? I'd say no. Is doing that worthy of a sanction, probably not? Should we caution the editor to be careful how they make negative unsourced information about a living person? I'd say yes. Lance Armstrong is not the issue here. --regentspark (comment) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a tempest in a teacup. I'm not seeing anything that justifies AE involvement. I think even ANI would be a stretch. While I believe they were acting in good faith, VM probably should have taken a deep breath (or two) and considered other options before bringing this here. I suggest we move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ad Orientem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem is probably right, although I would also caution Sir Joseph, given his experience in these areas, to not make such statements without backing them up with a RS. If sourcing is so easy, just do it, save us all some trouble. Because, as RegentsPark points out, BLP applies everywhere and it is never acceptable to throw around statements that "X is a liar" without proof. For example, I can say "Donald Trump has frequently lied" but only when I supply a RS, it is OK per WP:BLP. Regards So Why 17:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment were any of the other editors who accused various public figures of lying brought here or warned? On the same talk page I see accusations that Trump, Nielsen, Cotton, and Perdue had all lied. Number 5 7 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of discussing article content in which alleged lies by politicians are an issue, discussing alleged lies by politicians is admissible. Of course, as regards WP:BLP it would have been better to phrase the comment as "[Source] has accused Senator Foo of lying", but at least on a talk page I think that this is not conduct particularly worth sanctioning. Especially if one considers that the accusation or indeed the practice of lying, in current top-level US politics, doesn't seem to carry much of a stigma any more, but has become part of everyday political discourse. I would take no action. Sandstein 18:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VolunteerMarek: I've just been through all my edits since august trying to find where I said that to you. I found instances of me giving exactly the opposite advice, but the only time I can find where I suggested blocking you was for calling another editor a liar. So, can you provide a diff, please? GoldenRing (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greggens

Greggens topic banned for one month from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Also topic banned for six months from topics involving Elizabeth Warren, broadly construed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Greggens

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Greggens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) and WP:BLPDS :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Discussion concerning Greggens

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Greggens

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Greggens

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

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

KU2018

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

Request concerning KU2018

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KU2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBAPDS :

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[47]

Discussion concerning KU2018

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by KU2018

I first removed the text, which I shouldn't have done. However, I realised when going on to the talk page that I was wrong to do this. Earlier today I put in a compromise - putting the 'far right' label further down the page. I did not remove the far right label on the second and third edit, as stated in this request.This was consistent (Breitbart talk archive 3) with the previously agreed consensus as this stated quite vaguely that the far right label could be used in 'some circumstances'. I reverted this once as the text was removed even though it was consistent with the consensus. I did not revert a second time as I was aware that the 1RR was there. I would not have chamged the far right wording if it was against the consensus of the discussion. I will not be editing until monday. KU2018 (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KU2018

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

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards