Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) at 10:19, 27 October 2016 (OneClickArchiver archived Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WaunaKeegan11 to [[Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive201#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WaunaKeegan11|Wiki...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 action appeal by Md iet

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

Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Md iet (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Dawoodi Bohra, imposed at this WP:AN3 complaint.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by Md iet

Due to above ban I indirectly helped others on the subject and got blocked indefinitely. I realized my fault later and pardoned(Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#Standard_offer_unblock_request_from_Md_iet, User talk:Md iet#Unblocked) as I understood the harm caused to Misplaced Pages unknowingly and pledged to rectify myself. Now request further to lift topic ban related with Dawoodi Bohra considering my attitude and actions shown after this unblock. I think by now I understand WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Original research better.

The articles mentioned by Adamfinmo are general articles covering all Islam/ Taiyabi Ismaili. During discussion of lifting my block it was clearly mentioned that banning me of general Islam topics would be impropriate. Please analyze the specific edit mentioned. These are not affecting any status cu of Dawoodi Bohra topics rather than helping Misplaced Pages users get properly directed/not get mislead. Information corrected was misleading in one case. The person Mohammad Burhanuddin already dead was presented as live. This I felt not proper of Misplaced Pages. In the second case, it was just like spelling correction, only ] bracket was added to felicitate reader further. --Md iet (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:EdJohnston, for your support helping my intentions contribute Misplaced Pages. Declaring one of the claimants victorious was one of the case because of which I got banned. This was the case of not understanding difference between actual correct v/s encyclopedic correct. I feel after this long episode I have better understanding and in position to assure nonrepeating similar blunders. --Md iet (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

I would support relaxing the ban to allow User:Md iet to participate on *talk pages* regarding the Dawoodi Bohra, but not regarding articles. If you check Talk:India/Archive 39#Alternate name Bharat you'll see him advocating changing our India article to refer to the country, in the opening sentence, as 'India that is Bharat' rather than 'India'. His knowledge of English seems too limited for us to expect that he can create well-written prose especially in disputed articles like those that concern the Dawoodi Bohra. His statements in that thread also suggest a weak grasp of consensus, since the name of India has been extensively discussed in the talk archives. The topic on which Md iet has been (in the past) unable to edit neutrally is the 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). Md iet was editing to declare that one of the claimants had been victorious in the dispute, prior to mainstream media having agreed on that. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Adamfinmo

It is worth noting that Md iet, has edited in on the topic of Dawoodi Bohra at least twice recently, that I could see. diff, diff.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, nor am I involved in any way with this editor or the topic space. I'm concerned that this editor has repeatedly edited in direct violation of their topic ban, multiple times, and very recently. The were explicitly instructed: "You will not edit any articles which relate to Dawoodi Bohra, even distantly." They acknowledged that they understood this and still made repeated edits to the Islam in India article. --Adam in MO Talk 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet

Result of the appeal by Md iet

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

• Since the sanctioning admin EdJohnston is in favor of another chance, I think we ought to give one. Theoretically, he could just relax the sanction himself, since he imposed it, and I certainly see no reason to override his judgment. Seraphimblade 02:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Concur with the above and with EdJohnston's terms. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• I have no issue with EdJohnston's suggestion, but the two diffs showing he has actually broken the ban at least twice, albeit with small edits, should be noted. The topic ban on articles still stands, and if he edits another article directly this way, he will be fully banned again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant 2

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

Request concerning Anythingyouwant

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29

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

That's four reverts on an article under 1RR restriction.

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

Right above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am filing this per User:Seraphimblade's comment in closing the above AE request Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one..

While I agree with the closure of the above request, and that THOSE two edits were justified on BLP grounds, THESE FOUR reverts are not. This appears to be a case of Anythingyouwant running wild and interpreting favorable comments on the previous issue as a carte blanche to revert at will. In this particular case, the edits being reverted are NOT a BLP violation as they are strongly sourced AND there is consensus for the wording on talk (note that because Anythingyouwant started to move other people's comments around some of the flow of the conversation got compromised)

This comment Anythingyouwant clearly indicates that they are aware that "sexual assault" is a potentially valid and sourced way to describe what happened - forcible groping and kissing is "sexual assault" (and ATW agrees). So EVEN IF Anythingyouwant prefers a different description they cannot invoke BLP to make the change. The fact that they did so indicates they are acting in bad faith and making attempts at WP:GAMEing policy.

It seems that Anythingyouwant is trying to use the fact that they were correct in ONE PARTICULAR instance as some kind of twisted mandate to exempt themselves from 1RR... or even 3RR.

And seriously, starting another edit war, and making four reverts on a 1RR article WHILE there's an open AE request on you for the very thing is just... uh, bad form. Or it's a brazen flaunting of the rules.

Tiptoe, Masem, you're trying to argue about content as a way to derail the discussion. But the problem is the 4 (or is it now 5?) reverts in 24hrs on a 1RR article done under a false pretext. You can discuss the issue on talk page if you want. The question here is simply did these edits violate 1RR. Which of course they did.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on people who are saying something along the lines of "both sides should be sanctioned or neither". No. Yes, there are two sides, and there is disagreement. But disagreement by itself is not sanctionable. What is sanctionable is making 5 reverts on an article under 1RR. And ONLY ONE person has done that. Anythingyouwant. Come on! Shortly before he went on his edit warring spree Anything was agitating for other editors to be sanctioned for making a SINGLE EDIT! Not five, one. And it, unlike Anything's reverts, had consensus too. If that's not WP:BATTLEGROUND I don't know what is. Same goes for several of his supportive commentators.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant

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

Statement by Anythingyouwant

Will deal with this tomorrow, gotta get sleep.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Might I suggest tweaking the top-level header to distinguish it from the other identical header? I probably won't get to this until late tonight (it's now 1:46 PM where I am). In the mean time, please note that an almost identical complaint was brought up yesterday toward the end of the other Anythingyouwant section, and I wrote some responsive material there, and that section was closed with this statement:

The originally reported edits were good faith reverts as potential BLP problems and so were exempt from revert restrictions. Therefore, no violation of 1RR occurred from these edits. Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one. All editors are reminded that a clear consensus is required to revert an edit which notes it corrects a BLP problem.

So, when I respond to the present issues tonight, I assume that the originally reported edits presented in this current section are what I need to justify or defend (not separate issues that may be subsequently raised here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have some free time now. I'll probably have my response posted here within the hour.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I won’t repeat what I already said about this accusation when it was first made in the previous section here at AE, but I will add to what I already said (as briefly as possible). It is amusing that Marek has the chutzpah to bring this action after trying to get the word "rape" into the lead. As noted above, that attempt was rightly deemed a BLP violation here at AE, though Marek somehow escaped sanctions. Someone else clamoring for sanctions against me here is My very best wishes who likewise sought to violate WP:BLP by jamming "child rape" into the lead of this BLP. He somehow escaped sanctions too. Isn't it amazing? But I still hold out some hope, and therefore request boomerangs against them both.
Marek accuses me now of violating 1RR, and he provides four diffs. I suppose the third diff could technically be considered a revert, because I did not explicitly mention WP:BLP in my edit summary, though Marek did not (and cannot) provide any previous version reverted to. As for the first second , and fourth diffs, they all explicitly cite WP:BLP in the edit summaries which were all directed at pretty much the same thing, respectively:

• "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault' is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape."
• "Reverting repeated insertion of 'sexual assault' into the lead in place of more specific language that does not include rape. Per WP:BLP."
• "Per WP:BLP, reverting to Dr Fleishman. Mr X, see WP:Game, 'Removing a large addition for a minor error'. You undid edits about which there was no dispute. In so doing, you have implied rape."
  

We recently had a decision at AE confirming that explicit discussion of "rape" and "child rape" is not currently suitable for this lead, per WP:BLP. My contention is that insinuating or suggesting rape fails the same test, for basically the same reasons. Vaguely saying that Trump is accused of "sexual assault" obviously suggests that he may be accused of rape or attempted rape. That’s why I have urged being specific, and have urged saying that he has been accused of forcible kissing and groping, in the lead. I do not rule out use of the term "sexual assault" in the lead, but it has to be used carefully (like I did here), in such a way as to not suggest or insinuate allegations of rape. Anyway, I stopped pressing this point via BLP edits before this AE section was even started, and will continue to let these POV-pushers have their way until a decision is made here at AE, because I do not relish the prospect of a further bogus topic ban. And that's all I have to say for now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Drmies, you say "Equating rape with sexual assault and thus claiming the same exemption is not going to work." I emphatically didn't do that. As I said above: "I do not rule out use of the term 'sexual assault' in the lead, but it has to be used carefully (like I did here), in such a way as to not suggest or insinuate allegations of rape." Rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault generally, and the number one form of sexual assault on college campuses, and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault. According to the lead of our Misplaced Pages article about sexual assault (until it was just edited by a participant in the present case), "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead has to be done carefully so as not to suggest possible rape accusations. I would be glad to stop editing the Trump article until after the election if that will save me from a topic ban, but I think you're mistaken to green light deliberate insinuations of things you've already barred.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Drmies, well, I stand by what I said too. It's like putting in the lead of your BLP that you're a convicted criminal because you once committed a slight misdemeanor. Technically correct but grossly and unnecessarily misleading. Got it now? People see "sexual assault" and very often think "rape".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Tataral et al., "On Political positions of Jeb Bush...it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy." I've never edited any of the abortion material in the Trump article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Drmies, when people hear the word "sexual assault" the last thing many people think of is kissing. And I have reliable sources to back me up. See, for example, this piece in Huffington Post: "'Sexual assault'—an incredibly loaded term—can mean a lot of different things in different contexts....I said I’d come back to the issue of kissing. Remember that this counts, in the AAU survey, as 'sexual touching' - and therefore (possibly) a form of sexual assault....I expect that many people will be tempted to roll their eyes. Kissing? Sure, it might be unpleasant if you weren’t expecting it, but is it really in the same 'category' as rape?" It is indeed in the same category, but most (or at least many) people don't know that, and you, sir, are supporting a highly misleading lead in one of our highest-profile BLPs. But thanks for supporting a shorter topic-ban.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Seraphimblade, I agree with you that the number of sources using the term "sexual assault" regarding Trump allegations is overwhelming, and my willingness to put "sexual assault" into the lead is also overwhelming as long as we indicate what we mean by it. There is relatively little sourcing for use of the term "sexual assault" regarding Trump allegations without describing the kind of sexual assault. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read....The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." You are grossly mistaken in your assertion that a preponderance of reliable sources support using the term "sexual assault" without clarifying that the allegations do not involve rape or attempted rape. I recommend to you the comment below by User:Dervorguilla for further details.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Admins, ‪"While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." ‪Paludi, Michele. Campus Action Against Sexual Assault, p. 56 (‬ABC-CLIO, 2016). No one here has offered any evidence suggesting that "sexual assault" is not usually seen as rape. By putting "sexual assault" in this lead without elaboration, we would be defying the vast majority of reliable sources regarding the allegations against Trump (which do clarify the form of alleged sexual assault) and suggesting to readers that the allegations involve (or at least may involve) rape. This is a clear and obvious BLP violation, not to mention horrifyingly bad writing. If that's what you want, then please by all means give me a topic ban and proceed as you wish. My conscience is clear. As administrator Lankiveil says, my position is defensible, and I don't think you should be dishing out topic-bans for defensible positions, while letting all the indefensible insertions of the explicit word "rape" into the lead go completely unaddressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Admins, one need not be a genius to understand that Misplaced Pages has the potential to be the biggest source of free knowledge in human history, or the biggest propaganda machine in human history. Maybe it's one or both of those things already. My goal has always been to steer it from the latter to the former. But I see from several of the admin comments that the usual forces in favor of the latter are hard at work. Instead of direct and biased censorship of article content, one can try to get rid of editors who get in the way. As long as User:Jimbo Wales wants this kind of baloney to continue it will continue, and when he is gone there may well be no way to stop it. The structure of dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages is deeply flawed, and you need to decentralize. Please think about the immense advantages that would accrue from asking (or even requiring) a group of random editors in good standing to decide each case fairly based upon clear rules. A vertical hierarchy is a recipe for disaster, whether it's elected or not. Thank you, and pardon me if I take leave of this particular coliseum.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Dennis Brown, thanks for your reasonable comments. The term "sexual assault" can mean anything from an unwanted peck on the cheek to unwanted sexual intercourse. The reliable sources that use the term with regard to Trump almost always clarify exactly what they mean. For us to use the term in the lead without clarification is to insert a suggestion of rape into the lead which is not present in the reliable sources. There is no doubt about this whatsoever, and so if admins want me to stop removing this poorly sourced suggestion from the lead on BLP grounds then you can either ask me politely or topic-ban me; either way, I'll stop doing it. But under protest against such silliness.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the admin consensus is to look the other way as an insinuation of rape is put back into the lead of this BLP, by using the term "sexual assault" without elaboration (and contrary to the sources which do elaborate that it refers to forcible kissing and groping). Many people will understand this use of the term "sexual assault" as a reference to rape. "'Sexual assault'—an incredibly loaded term—can mean a lot of different things in different contexts." "While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." The leading law dictionary in the United States (Black's) gives a primary sense and a secondary sense of "sexual assault"; the primary sense is "Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent" and the secondary sense is "Offense of sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." So you're making an extremely poor decision. Not sure if I care to appeal though, since many of you would be involved in that process too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

Of the four diffs listed by Marek, at least three are unambiguous reverts within a 24 hour period. Doing so under the shelter of the WP:BLP policy is blatant gaming. Regarding this edit, numerous reliable sources have characterized the allegations against Trump's as "sexual assault".

In this revert (5th; not in the above list) Anythingyouwant claiming that material must be restored to an article because of WP:BLP. WP:NOT3RR#EX7 does not afford any such 1RR exemption.

In addition to edit warring and abusing the WP:BLP policy, Anythingyouwant continues to try to WP:GAME the system to gain an advantage in content disputes on Donald Trump-related articles:

• Steeletrap started this RfC On October 15 at 19:27. Anythingyouwant changed it to a non-RfC and then started a competing RfC a little over two hours later. Note the question posed: "At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, "Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election." Is this number of words in the lead not enough , for the time being, regarding this subject?". Not only is this awkwardly worded as noted by several commenters, but it begs the question. In my view, this does not represent a good faith effort to determine consensus, but rather an attempt to control consensus by framing the questions with a particular outcome in mind.
• Anythingyouwant used similar tactics in this RfC, attempting to influence the closer of the RfC by Wikilawyering over the term "firm consensus"; using the presence of citations in the lead as a reason for opposing; asking the closer to consider a completely different version of the proposed content; and creating a competing RfC six days after the original one was created.

Anythingyouwant also seems intent on polishing Donald Trump's reputation, in violation of WP:NPOV, by first formulating material that whitewashes plain facts, and then finding one or two outlier sources to support that formulation.

• Here, he wants to change the simple fact that Trump bragged about sexual assaulting women, to Trump bragged about his capacity to grope and forcibly kiss women: Talk:Donald_Trump#Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women).
• Sometimes he lobbies to add random material, apparently to dilute anything critical about the subject: Talk:Donald_Trump#Removal of sexual misconduct allegations.
• Filibustering about a fringe point of view by cherry-picking sources: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_29#Our obligations when media sources differ
• Misrepresenting sources: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_27#Description of donees from the Foundation Center
• Wikilawyering to override the clear consensus from an RfC: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_24#Discretionary sanctions issue
• Using WP:OR to make something bad sound better.

Apparently, Anythingyouwant has been emboldened by escaping sanctions in the previous two AE cases in which his behavior was scrutinized. At his point, I think a 6 month topic ban should be considered. I don't think a block for edit warring would have a lasting effect, nor would it address the totality of the concerns.- MrX 15:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: What you describe is a matter for reasonable editorial discussion, which has been ongoing, productive, and mostly collegial on the talk page. In no way does a dispute about appropriate weight in a lead, or wording anywhere in the article, justify edit warring or gaming the system to gain advantage. I've said it before: these are some of the same counterproductive behaviors that were documented in the AP1 and AP2 Arbcom cases. I'm not aware that there are any more left-leaning editors trying to vilify right-leaning subjects, than the exact opposite, as evidenced for example in the various Clinton articles. Of course, if you have any evidence of such misdeeds being widespread, AE is also at your disposal.- MrX 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

This case follows on almost immediately after a near identical case that was also raised against Anythingyouwant. The initiators of each are attempting to misuse the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to usurp our common obligation to obey BLP requirements. As in the earlier case, the content deleted by Anythingyouwant violated BLP policies and required removal. He cannot be sanctioned under subject specific sanctions for doing this. MrX claims, above, that Anythingyouwant "escaped sanctions" in that earlier case, weasely insinuating a lucky escape by a guilty party. The reality was the exact opposite: the idea that Anythingyouwant had violated sanctions was conclusively dismissed and everyone agreed that the material he removed was violating BLP requirements. The nastiness and general slimyness seen in the Donald Trump article content is getting out of hand, and I think Volunteer Markek and his ever-present sidekick My very best wishes want that state of affairs to continue. The misrepresentation and distortion of sources is blatant - I have pointed out one example of it here: . Does Fyddlestix, in his definitions of "sexual assault" given below, consider shaking hands with a fully clothed 15 year old counts as "sexual assault"? The article as it is currently worded does. Here is another example: obviously off-topic detail about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump, editorialising done for no other reason I am sure than to blatantly imply guilt by association - . And this stuff is actually placed in a section of the article dealing with Trump's business interests! At best, the part dealing with Tyson's 2016 endorsement could be on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as part of a listing of celebrity endorsements. I also think this here is a bad faith implied threat intended to be seen by all editors working on the article - article talk pages are about content discussions and are not for notices about cases raised against individual editors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix's claim that the obvious falsehood of the implied "15 year old in a state of undress" claim and related content is a completely separate issue to this case is unconvincing to me. This case is about an editor trying to follow BLP requirements, that content reveals how bad the BLP infractions have gotten in the article; it reveals more of the serious problem that Anythingyouwant was trying to reduce when making the edits that are being used to bring him here. I have "made no comment on" that content, says Fyddlestix, correctly. Yet, while washing his hands of that ongoing misrepresentation of sexual assault in the article's content (it had been there for at least a week, and is still there in a very slightly changed form, in a section formerly titled "Sexual assault allegations" that is now titled "Sexual misconduct allegations"), he still feels able to comment here on exactly what a "sexual assault" is. Does he think shaking hands with a clothed 15 year old counts as "sexual misconduct"? The article does.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fyddlestix

Just commenting to note that the suggestion that "sexual assault" is a BLP violation (Anythingyouwant's stated reason for the removals linked above) is wholly inaccurate. The term does not imply an accusation of rape by any stretch of the imagination. It is variously defined by some of the most authoritative sources imaginable as:

• "any crime in which the offender subjects the victim to sexual touching that is unwanted and offensive"
• "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient"
• "unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender" which includes "such things as grabbing or fondling".

In short, this is precisely what Trump has been accused of. There are also a very large number of reliable sources that document those accusations, and which specifically apply the term "sexual assault" to Trump's case. I listed some (one example from each major American news outlet) here, but there are dozens (very likely hundreds) or RS that apply the term to Trump. So please don't give the claim of a BLP exemption any credence here, it's demonstrably false. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: re: this - the answer is no, of course not. My comments above were obviously in reference to the edits by Anythingyouwant that Marek linked in the complaint above, there is nothing in those edits or in mine that implies what you suggest. This is a completely separate issue, which I have made no comment on. I suggest you redact your comment and avoid making such utterly preposterous suggestions going forward, it's obviously not going to help resolve the dispute. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This is lovely too. Can an admin at least hand out some warnings here? Left unchecked the behavioral issues at this article are just going to get worse. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

Anythingyouwant is evading her TBAN from abortion-related articles through a campaign of disruptive edits to articles on the US election, where the future of the Supreme Court and abortion-related law is at stake. She bludgeons discussion threads with a broad spectrum of artful, passive-aggressive deflections, equivocations, and denials to hog-tie neutral policy-based editing. I doubt she is as incompetent as her words would suggest, so I interpret this behavior to be willful (or at least uncontrollable) disruption. She's been amply warned on her talk page and on the article talk pages, but she knows most editors will not take the time and effort to file complaints such as this one. In my opinion, most editors react not by pursuing Enforcement but simply by walking away from the articles. I can't believe that Arbcom Enforcement Admin's wish to validate the disruptive editing strategy of this consummate Wikilawyer and allow her to hound ever more editors off of these abortion-related election articles. The current revert-warring has nothing in common with the one in the previous complaint, where the use of the word "rape" was not well-supported by RS and was undue and was arguably a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant recently ignored warnings from several editors. Here is mine, on her talk page: SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: BLP above all, but it's been amply demonstrated that BLP does not justify Anythingyouwant's reverts. Not even plausibly. Public figure, hundreds of RS, accurately represented. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC) You're going on at length about perceived systemic bias on WP and other general concerns, but my point is that this is a complaint about specific behavior of one editor under clearly defined circumstances and the violation is verifiable and proven. Larger issues belong elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Admins, you have a tough job. But you're here voluntarily and the community is counting on you. Even if it's facetious, the suggestion of rounding up active editors (I'm not one of them) and TBANning the whole carload is appalling. This is a simple case of a Anything, a deft and experienced wikilawyer, gaming the system to violate her Abortion Topic Ban -- a ban she openly renounces as illegitimate at every opportunity. Because she's so careful not to be overtly hostile or uncivil, she will not come up for any really draconian penalties, no matter how much of other editors' time she wastes. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit, but in this case it's more like "if the shoe fits, wear it." She needs to have her Abortion-related TBAN extended to American Politics, where her disruptive editing and obstruction is an obvious evasion of her existing TBAN. T-t-t-that's all folks! SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

I'd echo the statement of Tiptoethrutheminefield above - while it may be true that these are accusations put against him, they have no business to be highlighted to that great a detail in the lede. I've been finding more and more that some editors seem to want to vilify any BLP that is right-leaning to the greatest extent they can by reliable sources (which are broadly left-leaning, making it easy to find material to pin on the BLP) in the lede, where instead WP:BLP advices dispassionate and impartial writing. Accusations of crimes may have a place in the lede, but if they are only accusations, they should not be given undue focus (though can be explained out in the body as allowed for by BLP). --MASEM (t) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: The issue that I have been seeing becoming more and more of problem, something I identified back in the Gamrilel arbcom case. I agree there's probably just as many right-leaning editors seeking to vilify left-leaning BLPs as vice versa (a practice that should be condonedcondemned, either direction) The issue, however, is that our RS policy has developed in a manner that favors left-leaning sources and excludes right-leaning ones, so trying to back up a claim against a left-leaning BLP is nearly impossible with the lack of usable RSes, but finding claims against right-leaning BLP is easy as pie due to the predominate number of usable RSes. (There's a whole other external issue of shoddy journalism today but that's beyond our control). And left-leaning editors have used this alongside UNDUE (specifically) to insist this information must be included, overriding the principles of NPOV and BLP. Throwing a lot of detail about yet-proven accusations of a running candidate in the brief lede is exactly the type of thing we shouldn't be doing, but we're here because some editors don't see this as a problem. It's difficult to pin as AN issues because it is very slow, and it involves many degrees of subtly. There needs to be community-wide input and discussion of this problem. In the meanwhile, however, BLP still stands above all other policies. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You're self-demonstrating the issue. I have no love of either candidate here, but there's just as much mud being thrown at Clinton as there is at Trump, but because those accusing Clinton are right-leaning sources, either editors deem the sources unreliable (which is a fair assessment for many right-leaning sources) or when the sources aren't unreliable, they state "well, they're unproven accusations, so we can't give any weight to those". That logic and impartiality is not implied in the current edits here. Just because the accusations are well-sourced to reliable sources they are unproven, and we should be using the utmost care to avoid giving undue weight to them by throwing them in the lede, as otherwise this give them implicit equal weight as his campaign platform and previous history. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To several more recent comments, while one could argue this is a content situation since we are talking about material that is reliably sourced and that I do agree belong somewhere on WP (certainly in the article(s) about the specific presidential campaigns since the accusations are influencing the election to a degree), fundamentally these accusations (neither proven nor have led to any charges) are rumors and BLP is very specific about giving undue weight to rumormongering on BLP pages (Other policy like NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM also comes to mind). They shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all at this point, but there's a certain callousness by several editors here that give the impression "oh, but reliable sources reign over BLP", which should not be happening here, otherwise we as Misplaced Pages are engaging in the external problem. We need to be better than the sources when it comes to impartiality and tone. To that point, the edits tagged above by Anythingyouwant are just as problematic as the edits undoing those, since they are retaining the core problematic BLP, but they are at least de-sensationalizing the newer additions. The fact that multiple editors appeared to have restored it shows that there's a larger problem than one person involved here. The suggestion of short-term topic ban for all involved until after the election makes sense to this point, because most of this appears centered on this developing issue, but I still believe we're not solving the long-term problems with this solution, but solving that is well beyond the remit of ArbCom. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

Here is edit by Anythingyouwant made in violation of 1RR rule on the page. This edit does not fix any BLP violations because (a) the material in question is well-sourced and included on the page itself and other pages , and (b) the material remains in the lede even after the edit by Anythingyouwant but became less visible (note that only poorly sourced materials are exempt from 1RR rule ). Actually, no one disputed that the information itself was well-sourced, and must be included on the page. The dispute was about including this info in lede. Moreover, Anythingyouwant made revert of material that is currently under discussion in an RfC and was warned not make this edit in advance , but still did it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@JFG. There is no "imbalance between the way Trump and Clinton's bios are treated by the wikipedian community". There could be only some "imbalance" in the way they are treated by reliable sources, although this is difficult to say - one can compare pages here and here (perhaps there are more negative materials about another candidate). Also, one should not talk about "sides" per Misplaced Pages:Casting aspersions. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown. Yes, many people have biases, which should not prevent their participation. The problem only arises when someone willingly violates editing restrictions and rules, does not admit it, and continue telling "I was right" even after being reported on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by James J. Lambden

I'd like one of the editors accusing AnythingYouWant to point to the discussion showing consensus for the edits she reverted. Steeletrap for example, makes no attempt to gain consensus for this latest edit.

The sequence as I see it here is:

• Editor A violates policy (BLP and article-specific restrictions) to include or alter article text
• Editor B violates policy by undoing Editor A's edit
• Optionally: Editor A reports Editor B to enforcement

Instead of talk page discussion we have edit-warring and enforcement requests. Can we require admin approval for changes, with consensus required for admin approval? I don't think that's unreasonable for the two candidates' BLPs in the weeks leading up to the election. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

While I understand administrators reluctance to involve themselves, by my quick-and-dirty math about a million people viewed the Donald Trump article with dubious accusations of "child sexual abuse" or "child rape" in the lede. That should warrant serious action in any BLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: The talk page lists 3 active arbitration remedies. You support (I think) sanctioning Anythingyouwant for violating the 2nd, which limits reverts to one every 24 hours, but say nothing about the filer and others who violated the 1st:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)

Is the 1st less important or does the warning at the top of this page, which tells filers:

• your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it

not apply? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Final Comment: I'd like the record to show that in two diffs presented (35 and 36) for which she may be sanctioned, Anythingyouwant removed content reinstated by Volunteer Marek (diff) which had been previously removed by D.Creish (diff), DrFleischman (diff) and myself.

That same phrasing (sexual assault) was reinstated by MrX (diff), SPECIFICO (diff) and My very best wishes (diff) who all presented evidence against Anythingyouwant.

At the time of their edits, as now, the RFC favors exclusion from the lede or a brief mention, with no consensus to include "sexual assault", so each of these reinstatements violated the arbitration remedy that editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)

In sanctioning Anythingyouwant you'd allow the filer and several supporters to unambiguously violate a remedy, while sanctioning Anythingyouwant for violating another in reverting their violation - in a high profile BLP, regarding "sexual assault." I find it hard to believe not a single admin is concerned by that. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tataral

As pointed out by others, Anythingyouwant is "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion). One of the main issues for Donald Trump and his party in this election, as one could expect, is abortion (often in connection with appointments to the supreme court), which was one of the key issues debated, for instance, in the most recent presidential debate, in which Trump said "I am pro life and I will be appointing pro life judges" and even more polemically that under current abortion law in the US "You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day". The fact that abortion is one of the main issues for the Republican Party in presidential elections is very well known, and Trump has made it clear for a long time, and well before the edits in question, that he is an anti-abortion political candidate who uses strong anti-abortion language and who will appoint "pro life judges". It seems quite clear that the Trump article is within the scope of a topic ban covering "abortion-related pages, broadly construed." --Tataral (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dervorguilla

"sexual assault. 1. Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent. 2. Offensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." (Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.)

In some states, sexual assault is understood to mean "forcible fondling" and the like. In other states, it's understood to mean "rape". An editor living in a conservative state may legitimately see a BLP violation where one living in a progressive state does not. (Note: The AP says that any statement "capable of conveying a defamatory meaning" is defamatory.)

In a Misplaced Pages article, you can fairly and ethically say that a suspect is accused of "sexual assault" if you make clear whether the allegator accused him of (1) rape or (2) forcible fondling. Which was not the case here. It accordingly appears to me that Anythingyouwant did no wrong. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've read the statements by The Blade of the Northern Lights and Lankiveil, who are "almost of the view that the top 10 editors of the article ... in the past month should be banned until after the election is out of its misery" and "would not object at all to a topic ban for a number of editors on both 'sides' of this dispute until at least November 10". I'm Editor No. 8, and I support any such bilateral ban.

I'd like to see how the article evolves if we let the less-invested editors take over for a few weeks. I think you could feasibly implement an informal ban by asking all top-ten editors to voluntarily withdraw from editing the article for the duration. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) 07:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

Throughout the election campaign, it has proven very hard to conduct a level-headed discussion towards building consensus. Discretionary sanctions are effective against simple trolls and relatively inexperienced editors, however experienced editors have both demonstrated uncanny capacity to skirt the rules or stonewall the process. Irrespective of political inclinations, AGF and BLP should prevail over attempts to smear a candidate or exonerate the other.

This case looks like a sanctions war between two experienced editors who seem to be both exasperated by the "other side". Either we give them both a slap on the wrist in the form of a week block or we TBAN them from political topics for a few months to cut the drama. I would not condone any unilateral sanctions against one side who happened to have a slightly different reading of BLP defense than the other side. We are facing a good-faith attempt at maintaining balance, not a sneaky attempt to game the DS. Several other editors have switched the lead one way or the other, this fact alone shows there is no consensus about keeping sexual assault accusations in the lead; my personal opinion is they should be left out until the RfC concludes, but I'd rather stay uninvolved on contents here.

The issue of imbalance between the way Trump and Clinton's bios are treated by the wikipedian community and journalistic sources is out of scope of this particular AE request but certainly needs to be kept in mind as background context in evaluating appropriate sanctions. — JFG 16:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Irony: A couple months ago, when discussing whether to mention Trump's campaign lies in his bio, I warned that the lead would soon read "Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." We're getting there, BLP be damned… Sad! — JFG 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I was just adding some lighthearted banter to the never-ending drama (two weeks left!). But I get your point on poisonous hyperbole. As you noticed too, people are seriously equating Trump's hairstyle to his political positions in terms of encyclopedic relevance: not only is the campaign both entertaining and appalling but so is its meta-coverage here — JFG 04:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

There are many editors in that topic area intent on using any and all sources and tidbits of information that portray Trump in a negative light. There are also many editors who are keen to oppose this approach. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see the admin response to this. It's quite clear from a few previous enforcement cases that had Anythingyouwant edited with the opposite POV that we would be seeing calls for no action at the least, to boomerang at worst. Editors are trying to put any and every mention of negative items into Trump's lead, with no regard to weight or recentism or npov or notnews because of the house and MSM POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Fleischman

I have no opinions to share about Anythingyouwant, but I would like to say that I trust that The Blade of the Northern Lights and Lankiveil's comments on the subject here and here were made in partial jest, and that if sanctions were to go beyond Anythingyouwant then evidence would be presented and those accused would get a chance to respond. I certainly agree that there's been a lot of POV pushing at Donald Trump recently, but I certainly wouldn't want to find myself the subject of arbitrary sanctions simply for contributing to a very controversial article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

I note Anythingyouwant changed "sexual assault" to "forcibly kissing and groping." The BLP issue seems to have some validity. A reader could be left with the impression that these were accusations of rape or similar felonies. I note that many news sources to refer to the allegations as "sexual assault," but they also clarify what the specific claims are. The version of the lead with "sexual assault" does not do that.

While Anythingyouwant has explained their reasons for changing the wording, I would ask the administrators examining this complaint to read the edit summaries and arguments against the change. Basically they are that by definition, it constitutes sexual assault, reliable sources use the term and there is consensus to keep it. As I mentioned above, sources that use the term clarify the specific claims. But none of them explain how it improves the article.

TFD (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (Markbassett)

???? What is listed seems clearly not 4 reverts (maybe too late but here's my $0.02)

The first two cited here and here have the same text 'Late in Trump's campaign', so show one revert to put his prior edit back in place. (The note on both mention reverting so maybe two reverts.

The next two there and there do not have the same text, so are not reverts of that prior item. They are also not the same between themselves -- it looks like Any changed "accusing him of varying degrees of assault" to "groping or forcible kissing by him" under note assault would mean rape; then when someone reinstated prior language a few (?) revs later he puts in a note "reverting to Dr. Fleischman' which edits an earlier part of the same line -- not to his third edit, it's undoing whoever reverted multiple intervening edits. Not a revert to his own language apparently, for whatever mitigation that may be. Again here what's shown is a mention of revert. I didn't go thru the history to see if I could confirm that they are actually reverts or not, but if that makes 3 it seems a bit mitigated that he was being self-reporting.

It's a bit of sidenote - but there's a lot of thrash over 'bragging' vs 'reported as bragging' vs 'talked' and whether it's about 'sexual misconduct' vs 'capability for' vs 'sexual assault' -- plus whether 'sexual assault' should be viewed as saying the felony 'rape'.

Markbassett (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

p.s. The first two show a revert, but the second two are marked ass BLPviolation reverts ... maybe leans things a bit to ba cautious to not discourage Note marking or discourage BLPviolation claims. (And for those saying its a false claim ... when would invocation ever not have such remarks?). I at least was in TALK before this and still am saying 'sexual assault' is a legal term commonly understood as felony/rape for whatever that's worth. (Some states interpret the term to include non-penetration, and some advocates use the inflamatory term for lesser occurances ... but mostly read rape by drugs or weapon.) Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Given the unprecedented goings-on in the current U.S. presidential election it may be wise for any sanctions to continue until the outcome of the election is no longer a matter of significant dispute, or similar wording. The possibility of a drawn-out, acrimonious state-by-state legal challenge to the validity of the election is presently being discussed in high-end reliable sources. These are strange times. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

I am Recused from 2016 election-related articles, as usual. However as an editor, I would tend to largely agree with Dennis Brown here. Sexual assault and rape are not the same thing, however in many areas sexual assault is a euphemism for rape. The issue is not one of definition, but connotation. And having watched the discussions on that article for some time, good faith is failing and I have little doubt that the connotation wasn't absolutely intentional. It may not be a BLP vio by the literal text, but it definitely is by implication. I believe an admonishment is appropriate here, and after the election I predict that this topic area will be much quieter without the need for bans. The Wordsmith 14:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SashiRolls

I have no opinion regarding Anythingyouwant, however I do think it is worth noting that Volunteer Marek is a formidable edit warrior who has recently violated 1RR on the page Clinton Foundation (diff, diff). It seems to me this should encourage an in-depth look at his recent editing history which might, just maybe, suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. SashiRolls (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that I've had the courage to look into it, I'll say that I agree with those who say this is not a case of WP:CRYBLP as there is no consensus for inclusion of this language in the lede on the talk page. I do not think Anythingyouwant should be sanctioned at all for these edits. SashiRolls (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

This is a tough case for me. I think that Anythingyouwant's reverts were good in that they were on the right side of BLP, and were in line with the relevant discussion on the talk page. But I'm not convinced it was the kind of clear-cut BLP violation that warrants an exemption to 1RR. I think the Trump article needs experienced editors to counter the folks who want, say, an entire paragraph in the Lead devoted to sexual assault allegations. Anythingyouwant has certainly been that, but in the process has been engaging in long term borderline behavior, knowing that it would eventually lead to a topic ban. (I can provide diffs if requested.) In short, I think a topic ban is overdue, but it bugs me that this particular issue is the last straw. ~Awilley (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Anythingyouwant

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

• I'm sorry, I think all the uninvolved admins are too too tired. I know I am. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC).

I've recovered and added a hopefully more useful comment at the end of this section, which seemed a better place for it even though technically perhaps not correct. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC).

• As am I. I'm almost of the view that the top 10 editors of the article and talkpage in the past month should be banned until after the election is out of its misery, but I don't think that's feasible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  My frustrated comment above stands, but in terms of this specific issue I think at least 6 month ban from American politics is warranted. I wholly agree with Drmies' summary below. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  I trust your judgment Drmies, and I'm willing to go with something shorter. Also, to be completely clear my comment above was not a suggestion for responding to this specific instance; I wouldn't do something like that without all the proper notifications and statements at least. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of Anything vol. 1, which just closed; if I had seen that I would have agreed with closing that as a good-faith BLP exemption. However, I do not see how that applies here--I'm sorry, Anything. But the edit cannot be justified by way of the BLP exemption, since the allegations and their phrasing are well sourced and widely known, unlike the previous case's "rape". Equating rape with sexual assault and thus claiming the same exemption is not going to work. My colleague Masem says, above, "while it may be true that these are accusations put against him, they have no business to be highlighted to that great a detail in the lede"--this may well be true, and I am usually a fan of less rather than more, what Masem offers us is in no way a valid exemption. There is no significant difference in the level of detail, and how for instance UNDUE applies here is not clear, esp. since Anything's edits/tweaks do not materially shorten the lead. If the lead is too detailed or whatever, settle it on the talk page; the only question here is whether, for instance, changing "forcible groping or kissing" to "assaulting" is a BLP violation which can legitimately lead to an exemption. I think the answer is no. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Anything, I'm sorry, but I stand by what I said. If you like I'll modify and change "equate" to something much longer involving "is practically equated to ___ because in many cases the suggestion is that etc." In order to get some sort of exemption you simply have to accept that "sexual assault" was a BLP violation. I don't see that. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Six months is a long time. I am not sure if Anything has a block/topic ban log, but they're fairly reasonable, and if a topic ban comes to an end and the behavior hasn't improved, a new one is handed out easily enough. So as far as I'm concerned a month, no more than three months, is more than enough. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • JFG, if you have any good intentions here at all, please don't exaggerate by stating that the lead of his article practically reads "Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." Or, if you were trying to be funny, don't. Exaggeration without proof may provide a good soundbite, but it poisons the atmosphere because those claims can't easily be countered. Sound familiar? Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • JFG, If I took your words more literal than they were intended, which it seems I did, I certainly apologize, and I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• I've got to agree with Drmies here. While there is an exemption to revert rules for BLP enforcement, we also have to be mindful that it's easily abused. I think this has crossed over into abuse territory, given the high profile of the sexual assault allegations and their clear backing in reliable sources. Presenting well sourced negative information is not a BLP issue, it's a content decision, and that's subject to revert restrictions like any other content matter. Accordingly, I do believe 1RR was violated here, as these were not reasonable BLP concerns. BLP covers unsourced or poorly sourced content, not well sourced content. That being said, I also do agree with Drmies that any sanction should be a relatively short one, given that the US political season will be over shortly and these areas will likely cool off after that. I'd support a month long topic ban from the subject of Donald Trump, with the expectation that the sanction may be lengthened and/or broadened if issues like this occur again. Seraphimblade 09:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• These actions were technically 1RR I suppose, although I think it is defensible (but wrong) to say that they were legitimate per BLP. Either way, it's such a minor thing that under reasonable circumstances a quick discussion on the talkpage should have sorted it out, but partisans on both sides have dug in their battleground mentality so hard that that is not going to happen. To be honest, I am in agreement with User:The Blade of the Northern Lights here, and would not object at all to a topic ban for a number of editors on both "sides" of this dispute until at least November 10, at which point it will all hopefully be moot. Lankiveil 12:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC).
  • I think six months for a topic ban is excessive, lets try for "until the winner of the election is declared", and see if anyone still wants to carry the flame after that. Lankiveil 04:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC).
• This is a case of WP:CRYBLP in support of partisan editing by an editor already sanctioned for partisan editing, in an area that is strongly related to one where the editor has a ban already in place. I have great sympathy for the "plague on all their houses" view expressed above, but I think it is also unarguable that this is disruptive and tendentious editing and that a good case could be made for topic-banning Anythingyouwant from American politics until December. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think these reverts were justified under the BLP exception to 1RR. That exception isn't supposed to be used for people to promote their sides of arguable issues through edit warring. The exact wording that should be used to describe the allegations can of course be discussed, but labelling them as "sexual assault" isn't the kind of clear BLP violation that would justify starting an edit war. Some kind of sanctions on both "sides" until after the presidential election, as suggested above, may be a good idea. Hut 8.5 12:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• I was drawn here by this dispute popping up on my watchlist. The points I would make have been made more clearly by folks above: so let me just say that the diffs presented strike me as willful misuse of the BLP exemption. Add to this a clear battleground mentality and an unwillingness to drop the stick, and a topic ban is very much in order. Personally, I do not see the mindset that drives this behavior changing quickly: but perhaps the level of motivation for it will change after the election. A month-long topic ban is the minimum I would suggest. Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Clarifying after reading Doug's comment: I, too, mean a topic-ban from post 1932 US politics. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm with Vanamonde here. At one point I was thinking "a plague on both your houses", but I've changed my mind in the light of various comments above. I'd support a topic ban for Anythingyouwant - not just until November 10th however. At least until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Clarifying my comment, I mean a ban from American politics post 1932, not just Trump. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• I've recovered from the ennui recorded in my original post and read up. Like the other admins commenting in "Anythingyouwant 1" higher up on this page, I thought Anythingyouwant did the right thing in removing a clear BLP vio (accusations of "rape and child rape") from the lead of Donald Trump. The reverts in this present report are something else, and I agree with Vanamonde that they show a battleground attitude on one of the Misplaced Pages pages that least need it. Agree with a topic ban from American politics for Anythingyouwant. I like Doug Weller's careful formulation: "at least until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede", but I'll support any proposed ban length up to three months. I don't support any kind of 'ban the lot and let god sort 'em out' solution here. Too radical, and not fair. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC).
• I don't exactly agree with many of compatriots here, at least in part. I think Anything needs to be sent back with clear instructions that "sexual assault" is not synonymous with rape, but I've lived all over the US, and in many places, it is. In many texts it is. We can't escape that. That doesn't mean we are bound to that standard here, but it does offer some explanation. As for CRYBLP, most people editing these articles do have a strong bias one way or another. These political articles are already a handful, the last thing I want to do is affect the balance by topic banning someone under these circumstances. I prefer a warning and instruction to read the advice herein, and accept the consensus view on that phrase. This madness will be over soon enough, but not soon enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• @The Blade of the Northern Lights, Bishonen, Drmies, Doug Weller, Dennis Brown, JzG, Lankiveil, and Seraphimblade: This has been open a while, and there does not appear to be much further discussion happening. I don't think it is fair to either the filing party or the respondent to leave it open further. I am not seeing a clear consensus here, but there does seem to be general support for a topic ban from US politics until the election is over the losing candidate concedes the election. Is this something we can agree upon? If no objections are raised, I'm inclined to close it as such in the next 24 hours. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's certainly ripe for closing, but there have been a number of suggestions for a longer ban than just until the election is over. I recommend you phrase the ban per Doug Weller's suggestion: topic banned from American politics post 1932 until the losing candidate concedes or December if the loser does not concede. I know it's far-fetched... but we really don't want to have to start this over again if there's, well, unrest after the election. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC).
    • That is a good point, and was one of the reasons I suggested a minimum of three months. I will amend my wording: I don't anticipate anybody objecting to the amendment if they were okay with the original. Vanamonde (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Obviously it isn't my preference, but if we must, the narrower and shorter the better. Anything past Dec 1 or the loser conceding (which ever happens first) would be excessive and go beyond the actual problem. I trust Anything already gets the point, so it seems unnecessary considering the vitriol on both sides of the isle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I concur we seem to have broad agreement here; my preference for ban length is still as above, but I wouldn't be tremendously upset by three months. Lankiveil 23:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC).
          • @Dennis Brown: I personally do not think we should add an escape clause if one of the candidates does not concede. Unless a concession happens, this is liable to continue to be a highly visible/disputed area, and the reasons for the ban remain unaltered. In the unusual situation that a candidate does not concede but the election is actually considered "over" and the disputes die down, it can be lifted by one of us. Vanamonde (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
            • • Once the votes are simply cast, does any of this matter? Is the likelihood of problems not go down? I think Dec 1 is more than enough if someone doesn't concede. Only time in my long lifetime this didn't happen by Dec. 1 was in 2000. I think we are overthinking this, and still think it is unnecessary to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
                • That was however a very, very different situation, with a mandatory recount in one state and various litigation. Once that was over Gore conceded. It would have been foolish of anyone to concede earlier then. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

SageRad

Actually, one more thing.  The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here.

I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. 

DevilWearsBrioni

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 DevilWearsBrioni

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

DevilWearsBrioni (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:ARBMAC :

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

DWB is a user with a history of WP:IDHT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:BATTLEGROUND that causes considerable disruption in Balkan related topics. A dispute at Expulsion of Cham Albanians that began months ago over DWB's unsubstantiated claims of WP:OR has been dragging on because DWB cannot concede that there is no case of WP:OR. The dispute has been ongoing since January 2016, and in August of this year DWB filed at WP:DRN . The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB, but the outcome was 100% against him. DWB then goes to the DRN talkpage, alleging that the dispute was not handled properly even though there are no grounds to support this. This also drags on for a while due to filibustering and again the result is against DWB. The dispute then moved to formal mediation , where the mediator, User:Anthony Appleyard has asked him to stay on topic and stop filibustering . All the uninvolved users that have interacted with DWB in these disputes seem to think that DWB is behaving disruptively: User:Iazyges , User:Robert McClenon , User:Anthony Appleyard . It is quite clear from these discussions that DWB is not going to accept "no" for an answer or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Added to that is a WP:BATTLEGROUND type behavior of filing frivolous reports at AN/I against users that disagree with him (both reports a huge of waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed). Looking through this user's contribs, I see very little content creation and positive editing, and a whole lot of wikidrama. The disruption caused by DWB far outweighs any positive contribs. Athenean (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would also like to draw attention to this attempt at off-wiki canvassing by DWB on Reddit . DWB admitted was him in this AN/I attack thread . Athenean (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@T. Canens: I have e-mailed MEDCOM to ask for permission to include the mediation deliberations as evidence. Further more, per WP:MC/P#PRIV, Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Misplaced Pages disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of that party's communications.. I firmly believe that DWB is being deliberately obstructive at the mediation proceedings. Athenean (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning DevilWearsBrioni

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 DevilWearsBrioni

Please give me until Friday to respond. Thanks! DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:Iazyges

One thing that concerns me is his apparent knowledge of many WP guidelines but it seems that when it comes to WP's that disagree with or contradict him, he either has selectively avoided them or feigns ignorance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also add that for the DRN case, it was arguable that there was fault, but this is because the DRN isn't for a "right wrong" conclusion, unlike OR or RFC there are no "winners", it's for building consensus so that ideally all parties agree to something, because of this a OR case like this doesn't really belong in DRN. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the filing party that the only way to avoid disruption is to give User:DevilWearsBrioni an indefinite topic-ban from all Balkan-related editing. Informal mediation was attempted at the dispute resolution noticeboard. DWB persistently argues that any edits with which they disagree are necessarily original research, in spite of repeatedly having that argument considered and rejected. I then proposed formal mediation, which is being done by User:Anthony Appleyard, to which the parties agreed. However, DWB apparently isn't following the mediator's instructions to stay on topic (even though multiple copies have been defined) and is filibustering. I don't see any alternative to an indefinite topic-ban, because this editor is not contributing constructively to the encyclopedia in the Balkan area but is being disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:SilentResident

The problem with the user:DevilWearsBrioni is that although he has a decent knowledge of Misplaced Pages's rules, including ARBMAC, his primary focus has been certain sensitive ARBMAC-protected Balkan articles where his editorial conduct so far has been extremely disruptive since January 2016 already. His actions and stance have not contributed anything, but disruption. He has shown that he will do anything in his hands to impose his POV regarding historical events of the past, at the expense of Misplaced Pages's rules and other editors's POV concerns and warnings. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

DevilWearsBrioni, goes to great extends to change these articles when they are not in line with his editorial bias and POV: constantly raised false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH cases, (where in NOR Board, DRN Board, ANI Board, Mediation Board, and even on Talk pages, absolutely no neutral party has ever supported his claims; even all the Mediators ruled against him). He is insisting on with his own perception of Misplaced Pages's rules, and broke repeatedly the 3RR , violated the ARBMAC rules , violated NPOV, abused the tagging system , acted against consensus, refused to be reasoned by other editors (incl. admins and mediators), refused to abide by the mediation resolutions, and even when everyone have given him multiple chances to remedy himself, he has refused and insisted with his own perception of Misplaced Pages's rules.

His disruption is one of the longest I have seen, dating back to January of this year and it is never ending, even after 2 ARBMAC warnings. This leaves us no other options. I suggest that DevilWearsBrioni is indefinitely banned from any Balkan topic-related articles, including the Expulsion of Cham Albanians. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Note for T. Canens: Such a diff exists, just it seems the filler forgot to include it: . The AE report has now been corrected. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Moved to editor's section from results section. Seraphimblade 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mediation Committee

A request to waive the privilege of mediation has been made to the Mediation Committee and will be discussed on the Committee's mailing list. Unless and until such time as the Committee consents to waive the privilege, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DevilWearsBrioni

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

• Two procedural points:

• We need something more for "awareness", which has a very technical meaning in this context. See WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. If no such diff is available, we can't impose a discretionary sanction, but normal admin action is still available.
• Per WP:MC/P#PRIV, formal mediation proceedings cannot be used as evidence in subsequent dispute settlement absent prior written consent from MEDCOM. Unless such consent has been given, the portion of the complaint related to mediation will have to be stricken. T. Canens (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ה-זפר

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

ה-זפר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Blocked for 1 year for breach of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban (diff of block)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Admin notified - diff

Statement by ה-זפר

Copied from user talk page at User_talk:ה-זפר#NOT_GOOD! by Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. :I was blocked, with out a explanation, the reason stated was I did a violation of my ARBPIA articles ban, but I did follow my topic ban by not editing IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that Tel Aviv, Gush Dan, and even Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics. (and now it changed to Arab-IL topics?) :On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel. :After a recent report at AN, I got blocked? why? My topic ban was not explained to me and also I got blocked now? This is very unfair! David Aaron 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note I originally copied the above message incorrectly and lost the links. I have now replaced it with the source and it now contains the links - nothing else is changed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Copied from user talk page, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC) ...

@Boing! said Zebedee:, Thank you, hope you and the other admins go through my words and links. There's a thing in my mind = Golan Heights is no where related to Palestine. Golan Heights is a dispute between Israel and Syria. So, due to a revert conflict with a user on the article Golan Heights I was reported (not notified about it though), fine. But then why was I notified about being banned on articles related to Israel-Palestine conflicts? That's what I'm saying, then why was I even topic banned on first place? The other user was not even warned for the reverts, why just me? Also later I'm blocked (which says under violation of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban)? Are the administrators gone out of dictionary or it's meanings? Israel-Palestine conflict is something else and Arab-Israel conflict is other, whereas Golan Heights is not even near to the Palestinian territories, lol. If I'm notified on "Israel-Palestine conflict topic ban", the how can I be blocked on violation of "Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban"? It makes no sense to me! The topic ban and even the block makes no sense. I think some admins just want to sandwich me up! I had a headache for no sense. Haha. The revert conflicts could have been solved on the Golan heights talk page (as I already explained the revert conflict in the RED box above) HAHAHA...

On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds), indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to include, occupied by Israel in infobox.

HAHAHAHAHAHA..... David Aaron 10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston (re David Aaron's appeal)

It is unfortunate that the editor's responses show he doesn't understand the ban. If we could be sure he would follow Misplaced Pages policy in the future the block could be lifted. The ban itself is negotiable, though it can't be lifted by me since the ban was imposed by The Blade of the Northern Lights. The ban is in place due to a concern that he can't neutrally. When a new editor jumps into the hot-button articles right away (such as Golan Heights) and seems unaware that he is acting like a bull in a china shop it causes concern. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I find it astonishing that anyone would not realise that the Golan Heights are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I consider that ה-זפר was given a lot of support and guidance in how to avoid falling foul of the restriction, and failed to use it to material advantage. The length of his current block seems harsh, as he comes across as Tigger-ish not a WP:RGW warrior, but the restriction appears valid and the violation of the restriction, leading to blocking, unarguable, especially given the thoughtful help offered on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by ANI participant Dennis Brown

I will stay on this side of the line since I participated in the ANI. David seemed to have a great difficulty understanding the previous topic ban, even though it was explained many times. If someone is capable of stringing together coherent ideas into prose, you would expect they are capable of understanding the concept of a topic ban once it is explained more than a few times. As I said there, AGF is not a suicide pact and I find it difficult to believe that David is so thick as to not have understood all along. In short, I don't believe the feigning of ignorance. So was a block and ban justified? Absolutely.

As for the duration, we admin use our best judgement to determine what a consensus of editors would choose, and sometimes we fall short and sometimes overshoot the mark. One year is on the high side, but is within acceptable limits. It is impossible to gauge with any accuracy how long is "long enough", after all. If a consensus here believes a different duration of block is more appropriate, I'm sure EdJohnston would accept that consensus without issue. I support his block, but I'm willing to support anything for at least one month, which I think is grossly insufficient. I strongly prefer at least 90 days for the block, but I'm more concerned with finding consensus and moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Golan Heights are not Palestine. If administrators are taking/interpreting the Israel-Palestine case/remedy's to apply to Israel and all Arabs regardless of location under 'broadly construed' then there should probably be a request to amend the case to make this explicit. Thanks Roland for the correction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR

For the benefit of OID above, and in order to clarify any possible misunderstanding, it is worth repeating the outcome of the original arbitration case. By eleven votes to none, the arbitrators found that "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", and by fourteen votes to none they ruled that "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions". There is no possible ambiguity here. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

My view as stated at the ANI has not changed: 'You don't understand how Gush Dan (fought over as part of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War), Golan Heights (occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War), and Tel Aviv (one of the most bombed cities in the region) don't fall under the Arab-Isreali conflict?'. Indeed, it was reinforced less than 12 hours later by a follow-up comment: 'I did follow my topic ban by not editing Golan Heights... What I didn't know is that... Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict.' Now there is an unexplainable level of confusion in these statements, particularly the latter. Now, clearly WP:CIR is not an issue, as his article creation shows, so I think there must literally be a blind-spot to this specific idea (the TBan). The question then, is how long it will feasibly take him to comprehend the restriction- and that is the length of time the block should run for. How long is a piece of string? But User:The Blade of the Northern Lights' agreement to clarify its parameters will surely help reduce this from a year. Personally I think three months should suffice. If it doesn't, then what will?

• Striking proposal to reduce length of block. Due to the fact that, going by his second statement, ה-זפר seems to be getting mega-lulz out of this. _Muffled 07:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ה-זפר

Statement by Debresser

If my opinion be know, it is that 1. The initial indefinite topic ban was overkill. Banning all interested editors, or even all POV editors from the IP topic is a bad "solution". The one-year block was also excessive, and clearly punitive. It is not in the interest of this project to ban or block an editor who has shown he can be productive in this area for such an overly long period. WP:AE should be more understanding and use sanctions as a last resort. 2. It is easy to make an edit that is not related to the IP-conflict on a page that is related. We should show some understanding, and not slam people on the wrist for a mistake. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by ה-זפר

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

• I agree with the comment by EdJohnston: "It's a puzzling fact that he seems not to understand his ban". Drmies (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• Might I suggest that the sanctioning admin actually type out the exact wording for area of conflict from WP:ARBPIA or WP:AC/DS next time? It's not that much longer. T. Canens (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's on me. I stand by the ban, agree I could have been a bit clearer about it; I've gotten a little rusty with AE procedure. No specific comment on the length of the block, but the comments above about the implausibility of understanding the limits of the ban seem spot on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  The block is fundamentally sound, and I don't think we need to tinker with the block length at this time. We can revisit after three months if a more convincing appeal is presented then. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• To my mind, trying to claim that Golan Heights-related issues aren't covered under WP:ARBPIA is a case of trying to get clever and skirt around something that ought to be very clear. I don't think that trying to find technicalities to get around a sanction is something that should be encouraged. Lankiveil 23:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC).

My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

My very best wishes (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 :

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

1. 06:54, 17 October 2016 The first time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of an RfC. Instead of posting something on the talk page, My very best wishes described the perfectly reasonable RfC as "ridiculous" and accused the requestor, EvergreenFir, of using it to stonewall. The irony here is that the one stonewalling was My very best wishes, not EvergreenFir.
2. 21:27, 19 October 2016 The second time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of an RfC.
3. 09:54, 26 October 2016 The third time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of an RfC. In the edit summary they acknowledged the existence of the RfC. My very best wishes ignored repeated talk page comments that the content should be excluded during the pendancy of the RfC. A pretty clear violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT.
4. 12:19, 26 October 2016 Playing dumb and failing to acknowledge RfC, after AE warning.
5. 12:40, 26 October 2016 Refusal to self-revert, and failure to acknowledge that their re-insertions violated our WP:NOCONSENSUS policy.

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

17:35, 20 October 2016 (one of many).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(My apologies if I've messed something up, as this is my first time lodging an AE complaint.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, the arbitration warning states:

This is what you did, three times. Your primary justification appears to be that you were following some sort of custom to preserve the material being discussed in an RfC. This custom does not "trump" (pardon the pun) active arbitration remedies, especially when you are re-inserting allegations of sexual misconduct in a BLP. I'll also note that WP:RFC states:

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:42, 26 October 2016

Discussion concerning My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

In the first diff of complaint I refer (edit summary) to this unhelpful RfC request closed by an administrator. I obviously did not mean user EvergreenFir in this edit summary. I meant other users.

An administrator who closed this request also opened another RfC that was a lot more helpful. Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC by admin. The content under discussion in the RfC was the last paragraph in the introduction. Strictly speaking, this paragraph should not be modified during standing RfC until it is closed. However, I do agree that the initial version of this paragraph was POVish, and it evolved to another, more neutral version, one that I have restored here (3rd diff in complaint).

I think this latest version is fine and should remain, possibly in this, even more neutral version. However, if the RfC will be properly closed with conclusion to remove, I am very much willing to agree with consensus. But the RfC is still open, and there is no consensus to remove this material from intro. I fully explained my edits here and here. Nevertheless, the filer decided to go ahead with this complaint. Why? If am wrong here, please explain, and I will try to improve. Note that I discussed this subject on article talk page.

As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest, and I did not receive a formal warning about discretionary sanctions in this area, although I know about these sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• A constructive suggestion. Could an uninvolved admin look at this RfC and close it please, one way or another. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning My very best wishes

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

LouisAragon

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 LouisAragon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

LouisAragon (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:AA2

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

Removal of Armenian content, POV pushing, and edit-warring

1. 30 December 2015 says an Armenian name is of Persian origin with no source and removes Armenian language name (I provided these old diffs to show a long pattern lasting 1 year now)
2. 24 February 2016 removes Armenian language name claiming it wasn't part of ancient Armenia, even though the article says it was historically inhabited by Armenians
3. 22 August 2016 removes Armenian language and background from dynasty that ruled Armenia, along with source for it
4. 22 August 2016 removes relevant Armenian category for no given reason
5. 2 September 2016 removes links to Armenians article with no talk or consensus
6. 5 September 2016 places the Persian name first. Pretty nasty edit-summary too.
7. 8 September 2016 removes Armenian name and replaces it with Persian, even though it's located in Armenia.
8. 10 September 2016 removes all those named Yervand (Armenian version of Orontes) at the Yervand article
9. 11 September 2016 removes Armenian language name and any mention of Armenia from lead
10. 11 September 2016 removes an academic source saying dynasty origins are unknown and could be Armenian and/or Iranian, then nitpicks a source that says only Iranian, then deleting the rest
11. 11 September 2016 removes Armenian language and Armenian name
12. 11 September 2016 Same as above.
13. 11 September 2016 Same as above.
14. 11 September 2016 Same as above.
15. 11 September 2016 Same as above.
16. 11 September 2016 Same as above.
17. 8 October 2016 edit-warring over moving the Armenian name to the end. Edit-wars to maintain his edit and doesn't go to the TP
18. 12 October 2016 removes Armenian language at Urartu article. Replaces it with Persian.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Indefinitely blocked twice previously, despite getting unblocked per WP:ROPE the first time

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

1. 9 December 2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

LouisAragon has been pushing a Persian nationalist POV for quite some time now. When editing Armenian articles, LouisAragon often removes the Armenian foreign language alternate name and replaces it with Persian. When he simply can't do that, he places Armenian as the last language mentioned. When it comes to Iran's neighborhood, it is Iran that comes first, even if there's not much relevance to Iranian culture today. Take for example the edits at Urartu. LouisAragon removes the Armenian name, replaces it with Persian, even though there's absolutely no indication in the article about Urartu's significance to modern day Iranian culture and identity. Yet, on the other hand, there's entire sections devoted to Urartu's notable role in the development of Armenian culture, language, kingdoms, and its identity at large. Yet, it's Armenian that gets removed. This is a repeated pattern in almost every Armenian article he touches. I must also add that it's not limited to Armenia. Azerbaijani and Kurdish (as far as I can see) articles suffer a similar fate. Stuff like this is deeply concerning (i.e. removing the Kurdish alternate name of a province named Kurdistan). I mean, in other words, if we are leave LouisAragon to his own devices, I'm afraid articles pertaining to countries that neighbor Iran or have a shared history with Iranians would be forced to conform to the will of this user's apparent pro-Iranian POV.

I must add that this pattern is an old one. His edits on AA2 articles prior to his warning show a clear resemblance to his edits above, such as the removal of any mention of Armenians as European () and attempting to turn Armenian kings into Iranian (), the latter being reminiscent of his recent edits on Armenian king articles. LouisAragon had also made several tongue in cheek personal insults such as Incompetent pov pushers, fanboy, POV pusher, incompetent people, and ignorant. It's an all too familiar pattern that shouldn't be ignored anymore. I think strictures are necessary.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning LouisAragon

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 LouisAragon

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LouisAragon

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