Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs) at 13:08, 30 July 2017 (rm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:08, 30 July 2017 by KrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs) (rm)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    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:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Consensus Required restriction in American Politics

    Recently the remedies in place in the Arab-Israeli topic area have been modified to remove the following restriction:

    In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit.

    This was, I think, done because the restriction has proved more trouble than it is worth.

    The American Politics case(s) have no such restriction imposed by the arbitration committee, however individual administrators have imposed this restriction on individual pages using their authority under discretionary sanctions. So far, 32 pages have been tagged so this year and another 14 last year in American Politics, and a single page in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. These have been duly logged in the discretionary sanctions log.

    I propose a wholesale conversion of these sanctions to a straightforward 1RR restrictions, for all the same reasons the same move has been made on the ARBPIA case - the restriction is confusing, easy to get wrong and too easy to game.

    I think seven admins have imposed all of the restrictions of this type logged on individual pages: @Coffee:, @Doug Weller:, @BU Rob13:, @Ks0stm:, @Laser brain:, @DeltaQuad: and @Bishonen:. Of those, at a discussion at Dennis Brown's talk page, Doug Weller, has indicated he has no problem with the removal of the consensus required provision for pages he has tagged and @The Wordsmith: has indicated he has inherited Coffee's administrative actions and has no problem with this proposal. Of the remainder, I'm guessing Bishonen, Amanda and Ks0stm are unaware of the discussion and Laser Brain I understand has retired. To avoid annoying them all and chasing those who have retired, I'm proposing a bulk conversion through a consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE (though if those involved want to give their thoughts that would be helpful, too. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    I believe that in every case, articles which have been placed under the "consensus required" restriction are also under 1RR. So when I say, "wholesale conversion" above, I suppose I really mean "remove the consensus required restriction."
    I would be very happy to instead convert these to the restriction suggested by BU Rob13 below - I take his point that 1RR favours new content and his suggestion seems a more straightforward way to slow down edit wars and encourage discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning Consensus Required restriction in American Politics

    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 The Wordsmith

    I was pinged above. Yes, I promised Coffee that I would take care of things on Misplaced Pages for him, during his absence. I'm certain that if he knew how poorly things were working, he would endorse this proposal. I also endorse it, as this particular sanction has failed and we need to (ahem) Repeal and Replace.

    However, given that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED on Trump- and 2016 Election-related articles (where the bulk of these sanctions reside), I'm not commenting in the uninvolved admin section. I'm also not sure whether Arbitration sanctions can be legitimately "inherited" by another admin, but I think there's a valid IAR case here. The Wordsmith 14:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Nomoskedasticity

    Please LOOK CLOSELY at Rob's point . A blanket 1RR is the wrong solution. The problem needs fixing, but with something more subtle/suitable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by SPECIFICO

    1. Is this the right page for this discussion?
    2. What typically happens is that tag-teams of shall we say "highly motivated" editors reinsert challenged content without violating 1RR. I thought it was a mistake to remove the the consensus requirement. It was done in the context of a flurry of dissent by a relatively small group of editors who felt that the majority and consensus mainstream views were "wrong." I'm not aware of this provision causing any objective dysfunction at the articles where it remains in effect. Or certainly nothing near the slo-mo multipartite edit-wars and interminable talk page horse-beating on the talk pages of articles where it's been removed.

    How can any rule that depends on "consensus" be a critical problem? If we cannot define or apply "consensus" this entire project makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    Let's compare 2 articles. Donald Trump has the consensus restriction and runs pretty smoothly. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections omits the consensus requirement and is mired in slow-mo edit warring, the threat of which leads to endless talk page tail-chasing. @Dennis Brown: I understand what you're saying about diffs, but that puts the burden on other editors to collect evidence, articulate a complaint, and then defend themselves against the usual counter-accusations and whataboutism from the disruptive editor and cronies. Fed editors have the stomach to get involved in that kind of thing. It's easier to back away or stop editing altogether. Now, I understand that you and other Admins have chosen to volunteer an extraordinary amount of time and attention to WP but we need to retain the broader population of editors who participate less intensively. Equally as important, however, I believe that the consensus requirement encourages editors to be more careful about their edits.e an edit is challenged and a talk discussion is underway, what good reason is there for reinserting the disputed material? The consensus requirement helps the less disciplined among us to focus on talk rather than revert warring. And when it's 3-5 editors doing the reverting, it's extremely rare that an AE or ANI thread really sorts things out very well. If Admins were actively patrolling the ARBAP2 pages, that would be a big improvement. But for whatever reason we do not have much of that kind of oversight and so the consensus requirement reminds editors not to be disruptive, even if they technically do not violate 1RR. It promotes voluntary restraint. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown: I know that you have been one of the most active and energetic among the Admins in these DS. I hope that in the future more admins will actively enforce these things to save us all from enforcement threads. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    @MelanieN: The disagreement among Admins as to what constitutes a "revert" would seem to directly contradict any view that 1RR is by itself a meaningful way to ensure constructive editing. In fact, a lot of contentious nonsense can be found at this page and at various Admin's pages relating to denials that a revert is a "revert" and enlisting Admins of one view or another to support a number of conflicting views. Like the disagreement on "consensus" (if such disagreement exists) the documented inability of our most dedicated editors, the Admins, to agree on the definition of "revert" is a critical problem for WP today. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Sagecandor

    Essentially agree here with Dennis Brown that the prior practice was too nebulous. Agree with Bishonen that it was too troublesome as well as difficult to understand. And agree with Masem that this proposed change follows the KISS principle which would be helpful here. Sagecandor (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    Comment by Newyorkbrad

    Responding only to SPECIFICO's question 1: Yes, this is the best place to address this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by JFG

    While it seemed like a good idea at the time, and it sometimes worked to reduce slo-mo warring, this restriction has truly created a lot more drama than it has spared. Good-faith editors on both sides of an issue have sometimes spent more time bickering about who violated what and how than constructively working towards consensus. As the underlying content issues do not get resolved, they emerge again weeks or months later, sometimes prompted by a newcomer's edit, and the drama recurs. AE cases trying to enforce this rule have been mired in controversy, encouraging whataboutism from participants and surely frustrating for admins. 1RR is much simpler and can be adjudicated as a bright-line policy.

    I would also approve a trial period for the suggestion by BU Rob13 of imposing a 24h do-not-restore limit on top of 1RR. This would solve elegantly for the case where Editor A adds content, editor B reverts and editor A counter-reverts: technically editor A has not violated 1RR but they have managed to impose their content without discussion: this goes against the spirit of BRD. Same thing when editor A removes something, editor B restores it and editor A nukes it again. Rob's suggestion would encourage editors to move such cases to a debate, let them calm down and allow other people to voice their opinion. Perhaps this "extended 1RR" could even become the standard 1RR after some time of experimenting in the field. — JFG 17:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

    The "Current Consensus" mechanism

    I would like to supplement SPECIFICO's observation that the Donald Trump article runs smoothly with the consensus-required restriction while Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections doesn't without it. The difference is not linked to having the special clause vs having standard 1RR: Russian interference used to be under the special restriction and that didn't help. Bishonen reverted to a simple 1RR after witnessing a few trainwreck AE cases stemming from interpretations of that restriction-that-keeps-on-giving. I would point out that the Trump article used to be mired in endlessly-recurring debates in the same vein of what is happening at Russian interference, so what changed? The topic certainly didn't get less controversial after Trump took office. The stabilizing factor at Donald Trump is the "Current Consensus" mechanism.

    Frustrated by litigating perennial issues over and over, a bunch of "regulars" at the article and an admin (Coffee) developed a mechanism to properly document the questions that have been settled by prior debates. Every time an RfC is closed or a discussion ends with near-unanimous consensus among participants without going through RfC, the outcome is documented in a special section Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus pinned at the top of the talk page. Consensus items are linked to the archived discussions in which they were determined, and hidden comments in the article text warn editors against changing the agreed-upon text without discussing it first per WP:CCC. This avoids frustrating debates along the lines of "it's been settled, just read the archives / no way, you read the archives", by listing exactly what has been settled and where. Finally, a prominent edit notice encourages editors to read the current established consensus before writing, which is especially useful to people unfamiliar with article lore. I would strongly support the implementation of this mechanism on articles such as Russian interference and in other controversial places where the present restriction hasn't worked satisfactorily. — JFG 17:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

    I can attest to the efficacy of this list, at least at Donald Trump. We have set a fairly high bar for inclusion in the list, including only the clearest consensuses (less than half in my estimation), and I think that has been key to avoiding another battleground. Per opinion by Coffee, which can be found somewhere in that page's archives, reverts to the listed consensuses have been exempt from 1RR, and no more than one revert has ever been needed (i.e., editors have respected the list once they were made aware of it). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by MelanieN

    I think scrapping the "consensus to restore" rule is good idea. It is hopelessly confusing. There was a discussion about this at my user talk page last year, inspired in part by a particularly contentious user who liked to delete longstanding content from articles and declare in the edit summary that people must not restore it without consensus. Under that rule, the default always favored the deleter. In discussion it turned out that there are strong differences of interpretation among administrators, about when something is an "edit" and when it is a "revert" (making a distinction between removing recent edits and removing longstanding content), so that it was unclear what kind of removal requires consensus to restore. Some people were hauled to AE for following, in good faith, one of the interpretations rather than the other. That guideline is never going to be clear. Just get rid of it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Doug Weller

    I agree with the removal of consensus required but I'm concerned that its removal without any replacement of some sort might cause problems at articles such as Donald Trump. I like BU Rob13's suggested replacement "Editors cannot restore edits which they have introduced within 24 hours if the edits have been reverted." Including its addition to some articles under Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Bastun

    Disclosure: I am not an admin (do I need to be to comment?), and edited American politics related articles some months ago, around the time of the US election, where I became aware of this and related issues. Prior to that most recent election, the "requirement for consensus" was used to effectively prevent addition of relevant, sourced, material, by the simple expedient of calling an RfC on its inclusion. This happened on several occasions on several related articles, to my knowledge. This had the direct effect of preventing inclusion of material for up to 30 days. This is a very easy system to game, to prevent inclusion of material unfavourable to one's preferred candidate, or politician, or affiliation, or position. I therefore support its removal. There is nothing so special about American politics that it requires different rules above and beyond normal editing standards, whether that's 3RR or 1RR. Bastun 13:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Consensus Required restriction in American Politics

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Support - The "consensus" rule might be good in theory, but in practice, it is too nebulous in meaning. Two out of three can technically be a consensus, at least in their eyes. Converting all those to 1RR (and not using any additional restrictions if they aren't needed) is much better. For starters, it is way easier to enforce and the diffs tell the story. Trying to decide what is and isn't consensus guarantees different results depending on who is arguing the case and which admin are participating, since we all see it a little differently. I can list a dozen ways to game the consensus rule, and will if asked, but by now it should be obvious there are problems. It was implemented in the best of faith, but it is time to change. The most fair thing we can do for editors is making this rule change, applied to any and all ArbCom restricted areas that ArbCom has not specifically add this provision to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • SPECIFICO, we have had this come up twice in the last two weeks. Things like slow motion edit wars are pretty easy to determine using diffs. For me as an admin, having to judge if there is a consensus for a version, and what that version is, is problematic. No system is perfect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • SPECIFICO, I can still block someone for WP:DE if they are forcing an edit against consensus, and in fact, I have often done just that, as a standard admin action instead of an WP:AE action. Done as a standard action, I can indef and the threshold is lower. For other instances, using Arb restrictions is better, although there is a lot more paperwork. There are so few articles affected, I don't think removing this problematic (and easy to wikilawyer at appeal) provision will hurt enforcement. I imagine it would help if it simplifies things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • The Wordsmith as to inheriting, I see it as a giving "power of attorney" to speak on his behalf on those actions only, or as a proxy for him, so I agree under IAR you should be able to do so under those limited circumstances. I've seen this before and no one had a problem as long as it was limited in this fashion, and not the power to "vote" in a discussion. And to BU Rob13 I have no issue with trying something new. If it causes problems, we can always revisit it later. Your restriction sounds well thought out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Support. User:GoldenRing mentioned me as one of seven admins that have imposed the consensus restriction on an American politics page. Yes, I have, once, but soon regretted doing so, and withdrew the restriction in February 2017, as being too troublesome as well as difficult to understand. Please see my explanation, and my hopes that the template would be changed, here. I support removing the restriction altogether, and as Dennis says, from all ArbCom restricted areas. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC).
    • I would support changing "consensus required" on the articles I applied it to to the following: "Editors cannot restore edits which they have introduced within 24 hours if the edits have been reverted." This achieves the same basic policy goal while causing less problems. The issue with 1RR is that it inherently favors new content, not status quo, which is not intended. ~ Rob13 14:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • To be clear, if this closes with support not to use "consensus required", I intend to apply the above proposed sanction to all affected pages as a replacement that preserves the original intent of "consensus required" without the associated issues. ~ Rob13 19:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Support per above - KISS principle applies to areas like this, and 1RR seems much much simplier to judge and review than the "consensus needed" statement. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with BU Rob13 here. The reason I applied consensus required was to favor the status quo. It has been wildly effective, from what I've seen, in keeping articles stable, since it prevents multiple single reverts over the same material by different editors. Ks0stm 17:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I've dropped a note at WP:AN asking for more input. I think we should leave this open for a while and get a broader consensus and/or other ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As a supporter of the "consensus" rule, my instinct was to oppose this. That this rule creates so much trouble seems to me to show that slow motion edit wars have become the norm in sanctioned areas, and that editors have settled into a battleground mentality in relation to 1RR with each side squaring off with their personal 1RR "entitlements". The "consensus" rule is designed to break by requiring genuine discussion and consensus building. However, I cannot ignore the comments of so many - both those involved in the topic areas as editors and admins to whom it falls to police the rule - that, in practice, it has been a net negative. So with some reluctance, I would therefore support replacing the rule with that suggested by Rob13. WJBscribe (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
      • This mirrors my thoughts very closely. I'm proposing my looser rule because I see the writing on the wall, but I find most arguments against "consensus required" to be unconvincing. If an editor claims you must get consensus when it was actually the status quo (and therefore has consensus via WP:SILENCE), get an admin. If an editor claims they have consensus when they don't, go to WP:ANRFC to get a close on the relevant discussion. Those things take time, but Misplaced Pages has no deadlines. When I've said these things in the past, the arguments have quickly boiled down to "But I want to revert now!" which is an edit-warring mentality. Slow rate edit-warring is the second most significant issue in discretionary/general sanctions areas behind sockpuppetry. ~ Rob13 21:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • This may need a larger discussion. Some believe (and have evidence) that "consensus required" works in a small number of places, but not everywhere it is used. ie: it is more complicated than I (we?) first thought, so a wide reaching consensus is going to be difficult to get here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    JFG

    No action taken (content dispute).  Sandstein  07:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning JFG

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    JFG (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:AC/DS (post-1932 US politics and Eastern Europe both apply to this article's topic):
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 22:09, 22 July 2017 - Violation of WP:SYNTH, adds info not explicitly stated in source, with "but provides no example of use from that period." (Noted by BullRangifer as editorializing at DIFF) Adds another source that does not explicitly mention subject of article, to advance a point, during ongoing Request for Comment. (BullRangifer notes this at DIFF).
    2. 23:27, 22 July 2017 - Violation of WP:No original research policy, adds primary source to advance a point, "The first documented instance of the term..." -- when in fact the source itself cited does not say anything about "first documented instance of the term".
    3. 07:17, 23 July 2017 - Violaton of WP:SYNTH, again, adds a source that does not explicitly mention subject of article, to advance a point, during ongoing Request for Comment. (Removed by BullRangifer, with rmv OR.)
    4. 07:27, 23 July 2017 - Warning by BullRangifer - "disruption needs to stop. Be satisfied with the RS."
    5. 07:38, 23 July 2017 - Violation of WP:No original research. Adds blog post by Lucas to advance a point about "used the word".... Cannot use a source this way unless source explicitly reports Etymology of the word.
    6. 08:36, 23 July 2017 - Violaton of WP:SYNTH, again, adds a source that does not explicitly mention subject of article, to advance a point, after having been notified about this AE request itself. Edits are now WP:Disruptive editing, with multiple ongoing reverts, reverts that add back the WP:SYNTH violations: .
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    • 09:26, 22 April 2017 - "You are restricted to 0rr (including manual reverts) on post-1932 US politics articles that already have the 1rr restriction - You have been sanctioned for violating the 1rr restriction on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections after multiple warnings." by admin Ian.thomson.
    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
    1. 02:14, 21 February 2017 - Warning by Geogene for "content that you added to an article that was completely lacking in secondary sources".
    2. 04:19, 23 July 2017 - Analysis at the WP:No original research/Noticeboard by Eperoton: "Yes, synthetic claims which are not explicitly stated in RSs can also be viewed as violations of WP:SYN."
    3. 04:28, 23 July 2017 - Analysis at the WP:No original research/Noticeboard by The Four Deuces: "We should only use secondary sources and avoid original research."
    4. 05:13, 23 July 2017 - Analysis at the WP:No original research/Noticeboard by The Four Deuces: "It is original research."

    Note: This is NOT a content dispute. These are violations of WP:No original research policy and WP:Disruptive editing, as noted by BullRangifer at "This disruption needs to stop." . I reported here after gaining feedback on WP:No original research/Noticeboard that it was original research violation, and after the user continued the same behavior. . Sagecandor (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

    • @GoldenRing:Please, this statement, "The repeated, apparently deliberate, confusion of the OED with Oxford Living Dictionaries" is a false assumption about me. I genuinely thought at the time it was the online edition of the OED. I was wrong. That does not itself make Oxford Living Dictionaries an unreliable source. It is still a reliable source. If the OED had an entry that contradicted Oxford Living Dictionaries, for sure, I agree with you, the OED would be the much stronger source in that case. Sagecandor (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning JFG

    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 JFG

    This is forum-shopping of a content dispute. No time to reply in detail to the allegations right now, however I will note that discussion is ongoing on Talk:Whataboutism, including an RfC that I opened, and after a long and repetitive exchange over the last few hours, Sagecandor proceeded to forum-shop the underlying content dispute to WP:NOR/N in addition to this AE filing. — JFG 08:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

    Sorry for not answering more fully yet, had some real-life work to do. Please give me 24 hours before passing judgment on the merits. I see that Sagecandor bailed out for health reasons, hope s/he gets well soon, and let's put this report on hold until then. — JFG 22:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    Finally I have some time for a detailed reply. Although I'd like to keep it short, it may need to be longer due to the multiple comments and sub-threads that appeared since the filing. Sorry to bother admins with excess prose…

    First, let's look at the direct allegations of policy violations. Please bear in mind that we were editing and discussing the "Etymology" section of the article, so obviously editors were looking at dictionaries and dated examples of the word appearing in the written record.

    • Edit 1: Among a discussion on various dictionary sources, I replaced a false statement "traces the origins of the word back to the 1990s" (the OLD source does not "trace" the origins of the word) by "asserts that the word originated in the 1990s, but provides no example of use from that period". The goal was to clarify what each dictionary says or doesn't say; in the same edit I noted that the OED never included the word, citing both the 1989 print edition and the 2017 electronic edition. At the time of the edit, the talk page looked like this: with lots of back-and-forth about OLD vs OED confusion, which my edit sought to clarify (editsum: "Distinguish OLD vs OED, clarify dates"). I admit that the second part of my sentence "but provides no example of use from that period" may be delving into OR, by talking about the source instead of only reporting what the source says. It's certainly not SYNTH (synth with what? deducing what?). When BullRangifer later removed that part, I accepted that it should not be there. I see this as normal BRD process, not sanctionable.
    • Edit 2: I added details about the documented sequence of three publications by Lucas in late 2007 and early 2008 which are the first archived instances of the word "whataboutism" said to describe a Soviet tactic. This series of posts was acknowledged by lexicographer Ben Zimmer for the Wall Street Journal in 2017 as the seminal event that propelled the word "whataboutism" into mainstream use. Zimmer did not say it was the "first documented use" and I shouldn't have phrased it that way. When Sagecandor pointed out my error, I changed the formulation to "Lucas used the word whataboutism in a blog post of October 29, 2007." Again, good-faith run-of-the-mill BRD, nothing sanctionable.
    • Edit 3: I restored the WP:Verifiable fact that the Oxford English Dictionary does not list "whataboutism" either in its last print edition of 1989 or in its current electronic edition of June 2017. I did not make any SYNTH deduction from this, just laying out an extra piece of evidence for readers to be better informed about historical use of the word.
    • Edit 4: That's BullRangifer accusing me of disruption in the middle of a discussion about being asked to prove a negative. I replied that he got it backwards regarding the proof of a negative, and that deflecting and lawyering by Bull and Sage was itself getting disruptive.
    • Edit 5: That's the edit I made in reply to criticism of edit 2 (see above). Apparently that was not enough to satisfy Sagecandor. Can't see any OR violation there, just stating a sourced fact.
    • Edit 6: Restoring my edit 3, specifically in reply to assertions by Sagecandor and BullRangifer that this edit was SYNTH. I explained how it was not SYNTH and restored it, with edit summary "Restore statement of fact, after answering SYNTH claim on talk". Not a 3RR violation either, that's my second revert of this phrase, and it was made after taking into account the other editors' remarks on the talk page.

    All of these edits revolve around a content dispute, with mild edit-warring about including or excluding some dictionary sources, all happening while editors were engaged in rapid back-and-forth discussion on the talk page, in several threads that were becoming hard to follow. I was the one stating that discussions had stopped being productive, while Sagecandor went filing two NOR/N requests (without notifying me) and finally this AE thread that really left me puzzled. Due to real-life commitments, I did not take the time to pursue the discussion at NOR/N and I asked for a delay to defend myself here.

    There were several active editors on each side of the debate: Sagecandor, BullRangifer, SPECIFICO and Binksternet on one side, Jack Upland, TheTimesAreAChanging, Power~enwiki, Ryk72 and myself on the other. Both groups made valid comments and edited while discussing; the article was being gradually improved by contributions from both sides. There is an ongoing RfC that I started a few days ago. I don't see why this content dispute should have been escalated to AE. NOR/N was indeed an appropriate forum to gather more input after the discussion was deadlocked at the talk page. Some editors from NOR/N and possibly from here came to make further comments about the article, that's surely a good thing and I hope we reach consensus on the article's scope as a whole. — JFG 23:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Regarding my previous sanction, I would like to stress that I had made a honest mistake (a second revert after 17 hours on a 1RR article) and the sanctioning admin agreed to limit my 0RR restriction to three days on that article only, instead of indefinite on all articles. The original sanction had been imposed due to a series of unfounded accusations by a specific editor. Read the appeal for details. — JFG 23:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Now the delicate issue, as some commenters have talked about wielding the proverbial boomerang here: is there a problematic pattern to Sagecandor's editing?

    I have crossed paths with this editor on several articles related to Donald Trump, who is a common area of interest for both of us. While Sage is a prolific content creator, for example single-handedly creating well-sourced articles for every book ever written by or attributed to Trump, s/he tends to behave defensively when fellow editors disagree with statements that s/he wrote, and the conversations can quickly take an WP:IDHT turn. In those situations, Sage tends to behave as article WP:OWNER, to bludgeon discussions by repeating the same point over and over again, and sometimes to lose track of WP:CIVILITY. This happened on Whataboutism recently: Sage called my contributions "bullshit", opened rapid-fire threads in reply to comments by other editors, made incoherent statements, talked to dissenting editors in the third person and in a disparaging tone, and finally forum-shopped the content dispute, presenting a one-sided case at NOR/N and calling for sanctions on a flimsy basis here at AE.

    Already a few days before recent events, seeing some tension build up on the Whataboutism article, I reached out personally on Sagecandor's talk page, but s/he deleted my post within minutes and continued with battleground-style discussions. Some days Sagecandor is mild-mannered and a joy to work with constructively, some others s/he is trigger-happy and aggressive on what should be benign content issues to be discussed and resolved in a collegial way. S/he even managed to get upset at me after I closed a discussion about an article title, Trump Tower (novel), with unanimous consent to which s/he agreed.

    Not for me to judge, just adding my limited perspective on this editor's interaction style for consideration. — JFG 00:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Power~enwiki

    This is clearly a content dispute; Sagecandor's claims are puffed up egregiously. Based on a pattern of behavior, I request that boomerang sanctions be considered against Sagecandor, possibly a TBAN for post-1932 American politics.

    I filed a complaint at ANI against Sagecandor approximately 1 month ago regarding his behavior on Malcolm Nance and his edits continue to be both single-purpose and with a clear intent to ensure that content reflects his personal views. Recently on Talk:Whataboutism and Talk:Elijah Daniel, he has antagonized multiple other editors, and generally refuses to engage in back-and-forth discussion at all. I have warned him several times regarding his behavior but it appears to be continuing.

    As far as User:JFG's behavior, he should drop the stick; there are clearly multiple other editors concerned with Sagecandor's ownership attempts here. Power~enwiki (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by IP

    This does seem to be a content dispute, not behavioral. The forum shopping by the OP is somewhat concerning as well. I have seen Sagecandor on the wrong side of the admin boards a few times lately, and would agree a short topic ban to American Politics (no more than 3 months) may be beneficial. 87.140.35.118 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by BullRangifer

    Policy or content dispute? I'm not going to parse that here. The controversy of relevance is that JFG, backed by Jack Upland (and now a mysterious one-edit IP above!), insist on an OR/editorializing type of content based on their LACK of sources. Normally that should engender a LACK of comment in an article.

    Editors are not free to state in Misplaced Pages's voice something not explicitly stated in a RS. They must not use an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, partially (there could be myriad other reasons) because that "absence of evidence" is based on their own inability to "find" (OR!!!) some evidence/sources. Failing in that OR mission, they should not write anything about it in the article. To then add unsourced commentary on their failure is OR editorializing, and that's what JFG has done with this addition. This content says otherwise anyway.

    If JFG was right, we'd have a pure content dispute, but because of their error, it is also a policy violation. The noticeboards seem to say that Sagecandor has interpreted policy correctly.

    Note that Sagecandor has received support and justification in these noticeboard threads. Sagecandor is right that OR violations are happening at Whataboutism:

    BullRangifer (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

    • GoldenRing, I'm not sure, but I suspect part of your objections below apply to JFG, not Sagecandor, so if any sanctions are applied, they must also share the blame. Since the noticeboards say that Sagecandor is right, they should not be sanctioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • DHeyward, this is not the place to bring up old grudges or things that are not relevant to this case. Your comments are simply personal attacks which have no bearing on this case. It's just nasty piling on. That's not fair. Sagecandor may have had problems in other areas and in the past, but this case should be judged on its own merits. You have not addressed any of the issues in this case, just made an unfair series of personal attacks which have no bearing on this case. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • DHeyward, maybe "grudges" is the wrong word, so I have stricken that. I don't know your history with Sagecandor that well. Thanks for pointing that out. I want to be fair to you. Otherwise, my pointing out your accusations against Sagecandor is not an ad hominem attack. Take a look at what you've written. It's a long list of nasty stuff. If it were on-topic, IOW about ONLY this case, it would be a whole different matter and such criticisms would be justified and not personal attacks. They could even be seen as evidence. Because they have zero bearing on THIS case, they aren't just criticisms, but ad hominem personal attacks because they do not address the CURRENT situation at all. For those reasons, your use of others' similar errors doesn't help. They too are wrong to demand a boomerang reaction while they are ignoring the CURRENT issues.

      I will point you to others' remarks:

      * (1) "But I am puzzled by the admins' responses thus far, not dealing with the actual behavior of JFG here, who has edit warred to add policy-violating content on a topic with DS. That is the issue here. And similar to their appeal, what they wrote above is simply an attack on other editor. Unlike their appeal, they do not acknowledge their double-layered problematic behavior, on a topic where they should be editing very conservatively. Jytdog";

      * (2) "I haven't read through the entirety of the debate yet, but I'll put on the record that my initial impression of the situation is diametrically opposite to that of GoldenRing. The policy violations and IDHT behaviour are, as far as I can tell so far, fully on the side of JFG. Fut.Perf.".

      I have nothing against you in any way. It's just unfair to criticize Sagecandor for other behaviors and at other times while not addressing the CURRENT issues. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by DHeyward

    Sagecandor has a history of weaponizing 3RR, AE and ANI as well as a history of stalking behavior. I think it's about time he take a break from American politics for a bit. He should get at least a 30 day topic ban to stop the stalking and sanction abuse against editors he perceives as ideological opponents. Diffs on request if any admin at AE is unfamiliar with Sagecandor's behavior or his technique of forum shopping for sanctions. It's not surprising to see him here after ANI failed to gain traction. I've personally experienced his overzealousness at AE and when it failed, ANI and it was only his apologies that saved him from being sanctioned on a boomerang at ANI. Even after all the "mea culpas" at AE and ANI, he launched a false accusation of 3RR violation not 4 days after admitting he was wrong and promising to move one. There are other editing practices that are fairly easy to see but remedies for that may be unnecessary if he completes a topic ban while still contributing to the project. --DHeyward (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    JFG should not be sanctioned in any way for having to deal with a problematic and overzealous behavior. Apparently, SageCandor has shopped this to 3 forums, just like he did to me so he should know better. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    BullRangifer, your statements are classic ad hominem attacks. Others have already suggested a boomerang for SageCandor's forum shopping. He has a history of it and it's very relevant here because this is one of the noticeboards he has shopped. His behavior does not support the end goals of the project as forum shopping these boards is a way to stifle participation. I agree with the boomerang sanction because of his history of this type of behavior despite his statements that it would stop. And no, pointing out poor behavior is not a personal attack but casting aspersions about "grudges" is. If you think complaining about editor conduct is a grudge, kindly direct your grudge comments to SageCandor as we are once again here at AE because of a complaint filed by SageCandor. Kindly strike your unsupported aspersions. --DHeyward (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    BullRangifer thank you for striking "grudges" but you are still characterizing my remarks as personal attacks. They are not. They discuss SageCandor's behavior regarding prior use of multiple forums and wikihounding that escalate conflicts he becomes involved in. Editors that can't devote 16 hours a day to Misplaced Pages can't keep up with complaints in multiple fora for the same behavior. It's an abusive behavior with a shotgun approach looking to silence those that disagree with him. JFG is now defending himself up in three noticeboard discussions where sanctions could possibly be imposed. Being a normal editor, that would greatly consume his WP article editing time. GoldenRing's first response was boomerang which I support. The behavior has been noted as problematic for millenia as told by Aesop in The boy who cried wolf and there comes a time when when we need to discuss the behavior of the boy and not just look for wolves. Your request that I address this "wolf" without discussing all the other cries misses the whole point. I certainly not alone with the observation of his behavior. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Propose Close w/ no action Masem Sandstein GoldenRing Dennis Brown Part of this was closed at ANI as Masem noted . It now appears SageCandor is ill so, as a practical matter, their dispute with JFG has ended. Also, SageCandor seems unlikely to be able to respond to whatever statement JFG supplies nor would he be able to clarify anything JFG questions. If other editors come in conflict with JFG, they can certainly file their own requests but it appears this complaint is moot and the meat of the content dispute is being resolved elsewhere. If SageCandor returns and the dispute is resurrected, this can be refiled. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by SPECIFICO

    Regarding the statement of @Power~enwiki: above, the ANI thread cited against Sagecandor was rejected and closed by @Black Kite: as a personal dispute with no action taken. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    I endorse @Jytdog:'s comments. I may not be able to do so myself due to real-life conflicts, but I urge anyone with some spare time to scrutinize JFG's participation in American Politics articles over the recent past. I won't say more here unless I have time to assemble diffs. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Jytdog

    This AE was filing was inexpertly done.

    With regard to "diffs by JFG showing the violation" section:

    • 1 -3) the first three diffs are relevant; diff #3 should have stated more clearly that this was re-adding the OR added in the first 2 diffs.
    • 4) diff 4 is not by JFG and should have been with comments below
    • 5) diff is not relevant
    • 6) diff is on point - this is again adding the OR

    The explanation with regard to diffs 1-3 and 6 is also badly done. In all of them OR is introduced - this notion that the term is not in the OED, or that some use was the "first use"

    The valid diffs demonstrate:

    • a) edit warring (the initial introduction in #1, then reverts in #2, #3, and #6
    • b) in order to introduce policy-violating content
    • c) in a field where there is very clear DS and on the topic within the field Trump/Russia, where JFG was sanctioned before.

    In case it is not clear to admins, the article as it is currently constructed says that "whataboutism" is a propaganda technique used by the Soviets and then Russia, which Trump has also adopted as well - it is part of the Trump/Russia narrative.

    To add some nuance here, I'll note that JFG appealed their prior 0RR sanction for violating the 1RR limit on a specific Trump/Russia article, acknowledging the mistake and requesting the 0RR sanction be limited to 3 days. The admins responded by admonishing JFG for making the appeal mostly an attack on other people, but accepted the request to reduce it to three days, a standard length of sanction for edit warring where there are no DS.

    To add further nuance, I agree generally with JFG that the article is kind of a recentist mess and am in discussions at the talk page about how to dissolve it, which puts me in opposition with the OP who has mostly built the content.

    But I am puzzled by the admins' responses thus far, not dealing with the actual behavior of JFG here, who has edit warred to add policy-violating content on a topic with DS. That is the issue here. And similar to their appeal, what they wrote above is simply an attack on other editor. Unlike their appeal, they do not acknowledge their double-layered problematic behavior, on a topic where they should be editing very conservatively. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    • I appreciate KingsIndian's statement, but I remain even more puzzled that neither he nor the admins here see the behavioral problems here, which are laid out clearly above. Somebody should not be allowed to edit war policy-violating content into an article with DS, especially when they have been sanctioned before for this in the very subtopic within the field of the DS, and when they do not even acknowledge that what they have done is unacceptable, but instead attack the filer. This is how things run amok, and what AE is meant to identity and stop. Not sanctioning means inviting future behavior along the same lines. That is good for no one. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    This is mostly a content dispute, with some edit-warring. I will address both in turn.

    The main point at issue is whether the word "Whataboutism" is of long-standing usage, or whether it is a relatively recent phenomenon. The concept behind the word (tu quoque) is well-known and ubiquitous. JFG is arguing that the word was hardly used prior to 2008 or so when it was popularized in an Economist article, while Sagecandor is arguing that since the article only popularized the word, it must have been used before. Each is trying to build up their case on the talkpage, and there's an RfC on the matter. This is how it should be, in my opinion.

    Let me now come to the behaviour. The first three diffs of JFG, all violate WP:OR in various degrees. For instance, JFG was incorrect in writing "the first documented use of the term...", because that would be WP:OR. They accepted the removal of the phrase here. There are still some disagreements about whether the phrasing JFG used is appropriate. I am not taking a position on who is right, and to what extent, but it does not violate WP:OR, in my opinion. Diff 4 is filler, diff 5 is not a problem, diff 6 is a mild case of WP:OR (using some source to prove a negative).

    WP:OR disputes can be easily handled on the talkpage or the WP:NORN board. Are these diffs so egregious that they demand WP:AE action? I do not think so myself, since JFG seems amenable to rephrasing, compromise, discussion, RfC and so on. Admins can disagree, of course. I have found this kind of behaviour many times in my own arguments on Misplaced Pages.

    As an aside, I am somewhat sympathetic to JFG's point that the pattern of word usage (almost all the references connecting the word to Soviet propaganda are relatively recent) is suspicious. I suspect there may be some citogenesis going on, or it could be just that the Economist article was very popular and the word was popularized rapidly. However, Misplaced Pages is only as good as its sources, and one can't enter one's theories into Misplaced Pages. It would be good if they made their case on the talk page, rather than the article. I can point out that they have an uphill battle: there are a LOT of sources (media usually) which use the term. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Politrukki

    This is a content dispute and not actionable. Filer has not specified which remedy or sanction JFG supposedly violated. Filer has supplied no evidence that JFG is aware of Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions or that they have been warned in this topic area by an uninvolved administrator. I fail to see how JFG's edits – judging by diffs provided as evidence – are related to American politics, even broadly construed.

    Filer's post at WP:ORN seems like an attempt to canvass editors to the RFC – and on the article's talk page they tried to canvass an editor who expressed certain point of view in ORN discussion . Filer has canvassed editors to this forum, by pinging them in their enforcement request. Politrukki (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning JFG

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Comment This may be related to this recent ANI issue: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sagecandor as it seems to involve the same article. Also here WP:NOR/N#Can a Misplaced Pages user cite what they feel is the first usage of a word to state that is the first documented usage ? --MASEM (t) 13:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • This does look like a content dispute to me, which arbitration (enforcement) does not resolve. WP:OR is a policy that is about content, not conduct. As such, I think that disputes about the alleged violation of this policy normally are content disputes. There are certainly cases where the repeated, intentional violation of important content rules can be considered misconduct and therefore sanctionable at AE, but given that all diffs are about one article, Whataboutism, and are from within a few days, I don't think we're at that stage here.  Sandstein  13:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Having spent a half-hour reading the whole talk-page, I am very much minded to wield the boomerang here. The repeated, apparently deliberate, confusion of the OED with Oxford Living Dictionaries; the repeated insistence that a secondary source be provided for the verifiable fact that the OED doesn't include a word; the insistence on believing what a source says when it is plainly, trivially wrong; and the justification of not providing further citations in support of that source by primly saying that to do so would be original research seem to me plainly disruptive. I'm not taking a position one way or another on JFG at this point - I'm still thinking about that - but I'm pretty certain everyone would benefit from SageCandor taking a break from that article. I'm thinking probably a two-month page ban. I don't think a wider tban is warranted at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I haven't read through the entirety of the debate yet, but I'll put on the record that my initial impression of the situation is diametrically opposite to that of GoldenRing. The policy violations and IDHT behaviour are, as far as I can tell so far, fully on the side of JFG. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Note that SageCandor has left a note at their talk page saying they are going inactive due to health issues. I'm in private communication with them as well and would not recommend action against them at this time. GoldenRing (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It looks like no admins want to take action here. Without admin objection, I'll close this thread in 24 h as no action taken.  Sandstein  08:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
      • No particular objection. I'd probably go for a "All participants are reminded that..." sort of close, if you can think of some words to fill in the ellipsis that aren't completely trite (I can't). GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Icantevennnnn

    Icantevennnnn is strongly warned that casting aspersions (making claims such as COI or sockpuppetry without presenting evidence at an official board) is a sanctionable violation of WP:CIVIL and other policies. Using these unsubstantiated claims to undermine the credibility of other editors in a talk page discussion is unacceptable and if this continues, strong sanctions will be used. Everyone is advised to try to create a more collaborative environment on the article, which can be tough, but deescalating drama is a worthwhile goal that starts with each of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Icantevennnnn

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Icantevennnnn (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:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons : Disruptive editing behavior on a BLP talk page (Talk:Linda Sarsour), to include unevidenced personal attacks and false accusations of a conflict of interest.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 24 July — First edit to the talk page of a contentious biography makes the entirely-false accusation that at least two editors seem to have personal connections with this person — this is casting aspersions on those unspecified editors, claiming without evidence they are editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest.
    2. 24 July — When asked to clarify and explain their statements, specifies that the accusation of improper conduct is against me personally — You are one of the editors I mentioned. Again provides no evidence.
    3. 24 July — Refuses to either provide evidence for the statement at the proper venue or to retract the false accusation.
    4. 24 July — Repeats the false accusation in another venue, again without providing any evidence for their claim.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This is a fairly clear-cut case of an editor casting aspersions in an effort to gain the upper hand in an apparent content dispute; they have now repeatedly leveled the entirely-false accusation that I have a conflict of interest with regards to Linda Sarsour and thus am improperly editing the article. I have no such conflict and so, of course, this user will not and cannot produce any evidence to the contrary. Asking them politely hasn't worked, so my hand has been forced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    @Sandstein: I don't necessarily think the user needs to be topic-banned or otherwise "punitively" sanctioned. But I do want it made clear to them, on the record, that what they're doing is unacceptable. If they retract their accusation and indicate an understanding of our policies, I'd be satisfied with that outcome. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified here.

    Discussion concerning Icantevennnnn

    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 Icantevennnnn

    I have nothing personally against this user. I am not interested in talking with them at all. I am just trying to bring some neutrality to what I think is a deeply biased article which is protected from any disagreeing view. I request those who come across this comment to check the article in question. That is all that interests me.

    Statement by Kingsindian

    The content on Linda Sarsour falls under WP:ARBPIA3, and the editor in question does not satisfy 30/500. The whole page does not fall under ARBPIA3 (there are many sections which probably don't), but Sarsour is a decently well-known activist on Israel/Palestine related issues, and the edits in question (like the section on whether she is "anti-Israel"), obviously comes under the area. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Icantevennnnn

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Doesn't look actionable to me. Diffs 1 and 2 predate the DS notification and are therefore out of scope. Diffs 3 and 4 do not speak to sanctionable misconduct. They are perhaps unduly aggressive and personalized, but with new editors lower-lewel forms of dispute resolution should be attempted first, such as attempting to explain our WP:NPA policy to them.

      @Icantevennnnn: If you want to continue editing Misplaced Pages, we expect you to read and understand our conduct rules such as documented at WP:5P, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, among others.  Sandstein  08:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    • I generally agree with Sandstein. If the user continues this pattern of editing, there will be trouble, but I don't think it's something to worry AE at this point. I've left a note/warning at their user page.
    • Having read most of the talk page where this happens, the whole thing seems pretty toxic and I think most people involved there need to rethink their attitude. There are a bunch of users, mostly new, who want to include material critical of the subject. Their sources are rotten and a good chunk of what they want to add is unencyclopaedic; but the response could be broadly caricatured as, "No no no no no wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong." There is no patience or gentleness in the response, no advice on how the material they want to add could be brought up to scratch; they are treated, broadly, like scum. The arguments presented to them must seem like sophistry: first material is not reliably sourced, but when they find a reliable source for it, it's UNDUE. On the one hand quoting someone on twitter is using a primary source and should be avoided, but on the other hand a direct quote is preferred to a statement by a secondary source (reliable or not). Policies are confused (eg confusing notability with reliable sourcing). Sources are regularly dismissed as partisan, yet repeated questions about use of the Huffington Post are simply ignored. When someone says, "at least two editors seem to have personal connections with this person," retraction is demanded because casting aspersions is "strictly prohibited", but when someone else says "clearly notability is a challenge for some folks here," the self-same editor has only criticism for the editor who calls it out. This is not a run-up to dishing out sanctions (not yet, anyway). This is a plea: Please be gentle with each other, and especially with new editors. Try to be helpers, not gatekeepers; I don't doubt that your intentions are good, but that is how you're coming across. GoldenRing (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Icantevennnnn does have an issue with civility. At this point it hasn't risen to the point of sanction (yet) but if they don't stop casting aspersions, some kind of sanction is on the horizon. Certain claims (COI and sockpuppetry specifically) are claims that aren't tolerated unless you are going to belly up to the appropriate admin board and present evidence. Otherwise, keep it to yourself and follow Sandstein's advice. I breezed through the talk page and generally agree with GoldenRing that the environment isn't particularly collegiate and suggest everyone following his advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @KingsIndian: All the diffs are from the talk page and the remedy you refer to has an exception for talk page comments, so long as it's constructive - so I don't think this adds anything to what's already been said. GoldenRing (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

    The Banner

    Melbguy05 and The Banner have been clearly notified of the restrictions in Troubles related articles and are both warned that future breaches of 1RR or other restrictions are likely to draw stiff sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning The Banner

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    The Banner (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:TROUBLES (I am not sure if this is the proper link or not for this):
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 18:53 26 July Reverts Melbguy05 own revert
    2. 19:49 26 July Reverts several of Melbguy05's edits
    3. 20:58 26 July Reverts the exact same edits again after Melbguy05 restored them
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. shows The Banner has been blocked several times before for edit-warring and battleground behaviour without engaging in proper discussion, the same as in this edit-war.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    This comment by The Banner on their talk page shows that they have read the Troubles restriction seeing as they were able to provide a direct quote from it in response to Murry1975's comment about that specific restriction. They also fail to deny knowledge of it when I mentioned it to them within the past hour.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Melbguy05 is also at fault here for continuing to restore their edits despite being reverted and have been notified by The Banner of the 3RR rule, to which Melbguy05 hasn't violated but only just. They have however violated the 1RR in place on Troubles related articles yet do not appear to have prior knowledge of this and I have duly notified them of it. As such I do not know whether they should also be reported here or not due to this. The Banner has also engaged in what could be classified as uncivil battleground behaviour with unfounded allegations such as this.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    • Editor notified .

    Discussion concerning The Banner

    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 The Banner

    Mabuska is referring to a post out of 2015. Sorry, but I do not remember that. It sounds like a feeble excuse, but ill health - depression - played a part in that. The Banner talk 22:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

    And yes, I apologies for my indiscretion. The Banner talk 23:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Mabuska

    Thank you for the input. Melbguy05 as already detailed above has been notified that they violated 1rr and if you excuse their non-knowledge of it, also now know of 3rr. I did state I was not sure what was to be done in regards to Melgbuy05 hence why I explicitly stated such above so there is no prejudice in the case, and an admin can easily take action against them if deemed neccessary. Both were guilty of edit warring, however only The Banner knew of the 1rr which they ignored. The mention of The Banners previous block history is because the open a request thing asks you to add in previous blocks that may have relevance and they may have had relevance. Only doing what is requested.

    Anyways if nothing is to be done, The Banner is sure to be able to remember the restriction from now on, however with an editor that experienced in Troubles articles I don't know how they can forget about it. Mabuska 09:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    Will notify Melbguy05 now. Mabuska 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


    Result concerning The Banner

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I do not think is incivil. It is a statement of opinion, and he has to be able to express a concern. The evidence for the claim lies in the diffs themselves, so the evidence is apparent. If you think someone is whitewashing an article (a problem we have all over the wiki), I think saying so is fine as long as you don't pad the comment with a lot of hyperbole or ad hominem, and in this case, The Banner did not. Editing isn't always pretty. As for the reverts, both parties were equally to blame, so I wouldn't be inclined to sanction one more than the other. Technically, the request for sanction should be against both, not just The Banner, which prejudices the case a bit. Previous issues in 2015 are meaningless here. Not excusing his behavior, but I don't think it would be fair to single him out. Everyone has been leaving civil and sufficient edit summaries, just not using the talk page. In a perfect world, Melbguy05 and The Banner would just agree to stop it, use the talk page and get past this. You should probably notify Melbguy05 of this discussion as he reverted three times in 24 hours as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • This seems a bit hard to believe, but as far as I can tell, The Banner has never been properly notified of DS regarding WP:TROUBLES. The diff provided might be construed to show awareness, but doesn't count under WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. So I think we need to close this with a warning not to edit war. GoldenRing (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
      • This is a bit of a technicality, as I'm quite sure The Banner knows about DS in TROUBLES, but I'm not sure about Melbguy05, who may or may not be aware. To prevent a lopsided situation, a warning to both is probably a safe way of dealing with this issue today, so I agree. I have left the standard Arb template on both editors pagesThe Banner's page (Mabuska had just left one on Melbguy05's), so both this discussion and that template will serve as a very clear indication that they are aware. Any future problem won't have the same limitation. I'm leaving this report open a bit for comment, but my opinion is that both editors should be warned in the closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

    MBlaze Lightning

    Obviously invalid request. The diffs presented are for another editor entirely and the page is not in the topic area of the case listed. See WP:AN3 perhaps. ~ Rob13 04:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning MBlaze Lightning

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    <redact>
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MBlaze Lightning (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Special:Diff/792927623 Removal of sourced content (revert).
    2. Special:Diff/792933072 Second revert
    3. Special:Diff/792933871 Third revert
    4. Special:Diff/792946912 Fourth revert
    5. Special:Diff/792947736
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Concerned user was previously blocked for 1RR violation and also for socking.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    MBlaze Lightning is a disruptive editor. The above diffs present a violation of 3RR. The users with whom MBlaze Lightning edit warred are now sockblocked also.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning USERNAME

    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 USERNAME

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning USERNAME

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


    MBlaze Lightning

    Request concerning MBlaze Lightning

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Sardeeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MBlaze Lightning (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    User made 4 reverts within 24 hours on the same page. 3RR violated.


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    User has an extensive block history over edit wars and socking.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning MBlaze Lightning

    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 MBlaze Lightning

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning MBlaze Lightning

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • On the face of it, this is a 3RR violation. I'm not sure I'm ready to hand out sanctions for it though, since the material reverted includes the claim the ISI controls the Afghan Taliban, sourced to what looks a pretty rotten source to me. I'd be interested in the views of User:Samsara on this, who has since applied page protection to end the edit war. GoldenRing (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)