Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive225

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

Avisnacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Avisnacks (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Appealing sanction for restoring my original edit by posting my new edit

I added a new subsection called "Is Trump a racist?" to the "Analysis" subsection. Under "Is Trump a racist?" I added a "No" subsection and a "Yes" subsection and populated them with direct quotes from sources (opinion writers of major news publications, Trump himself, and Ivana Trump) that either specifically called Trump a racist or defended him from the accusation.

That edit was reverted because of "non-encyclopedic SYNTH and OR".

I posted a new edit with much of the same source material and was sanctioned for this post.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

In my new post, I restructured the information (which is well-sourced and as yet unreverted) in order to integrate it organically into the content of the article. My original edit was reverted because I had created a new subsection called "Is Trump a racist?" which purportedly violated the SYNTH policy. I therefore remedied the issue by integrating the material (the material itself was never an issue because it was clearly notable, relevant, and well-sourced) within the preexisting article structure.

Additionally, in my new edit, I only updated the article with some of the content from my original edit.

If anything, the editing process worked the way it was supposed to with the two of us editors working in concert to achieve a better article.

Regardless, I have certainly learned to be more careful with edits on pages that are subject to sanction. As an editor, I have always tried to ensure that my edits draw no independent conclusions, but rather summarize conclusions reached by multiple, reliable sources. I will continue to endeavor to do the same.

This was a clear violation of the consensus required restriction; what's worse is that just hours before violating the restriction, they had been directly notified on their talkpage that DS applied in the area. The editnotice was clear as it could possibly be (and they were not editing on a mobile device, so they undoubtedly saw it): consensus is required before reinstating any challenged edit. The user even here states that they reinstated challenged material; I don't think they could have made it any clearer that they deliberately refused to follow the sanctions system in place. Therefore, I strictly oppose any lifting of this sanction. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The sanction is not hard to understand. Edit means literally edit Sandstein, not identical edit nor exact edit nor pasted data nor similar edit, just edit. I find it hard to believe that after over a decade of editing on this site this user didn't comprehend the word edit. Their editing history shows a deliberate continual re-addition of material with no regard for using the talk page, even after several users had undone their edits. If an editor can't be expected to comprehend the word edit (defined as: A change to the text of a document.) then they surely shouldn't be considered competent enough to be active in such controversial areas. If they're being honest about their intent to not repeat this behavior, and we give them another chance, I'd suggest at most a reduction in the block something like 24 hours. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

After some reflection, and after seeing how much better of a response we're getting from this editor (who likely still did know of the meaning of the restrictions) in comparison to some others who have had to face sanctions. I have decided to take the advice of Thryduulf, and have reduced the block down to 24 hours. This includes time already served. I hope we can trust Avisnacks (talk · contribs) to ensure they never make a violation like this again: take editing in these topic areas slowly and never forget to use the talkpage to have any content disputes, instead of in the article space. I do not intend blocks to be punishments, so as you seem to be saying you've seen the error in your ways, and will not repeat them, I see no reason to not significantly lower the block time. I hope to see you editing constructively in a few hours, and for the rest of the time that you're here! Your editing is appreciated, even if it violated some rather severe sanctions this time. I learn from my mistakes, I'm sure you will too. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• I take it this appeal concerns the one-week block recorded on Avisnacks's talk page. I would grant the appeal and lift the block. The applicable restriction prohibits "reinstating any challenged (via reversion) edits" (my emphasis). Because it uses the word "edits" rather than, say "text", "material" or "content", a reasonable editor could have understood it in good faith as prohibiting only repeating the exact same "edit", i.e., a specific set of changes to a page, that was previously challenged. It appears from their appeal that this is what Avisnacks understood the restriction to mean, and attempted to avoid it by rephrasing their (admittedly quite daft) contribution in a slightly less daft form. But the merits of that contribution are a content issue and outside the scope of AE. Because the restriction lacked the necessary clarity, I think that it should not have been enforced in this manner. Sandstein 19:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If Avisnacks were a new user or was otherwise somewhat naive about editing restrictions then I would agree that they might have interpreted it that way, however a for an editor who has been here since 2006 and isn't new to the topic area (they've been editing American politics articles since at least August last year) it is just rules lawyering. I do think a block is justified for this, but a week is excessive for a first block especially for an edit that was misguided rather than deliberately disruptive, so I'd reduce the length to 24 hours. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Sanction being appealed

"You are hereby topic-banned until 18:59, 27 January 2018‎ from editing any page that could be broadly construed to be about, regarding or related to Donald Trump". The sanction was imposed here and logged here

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Requesting that sanction be lifted because the imposing administrator (User:Coffee) sanctioned me not for any edit I made, but rather for mere edit summary language that I used. That edit summary language was not unreasonable much less sanctionable. Coffee acknowledged at my user talk: "You are correct that I have no issue with the edits themselves, it is the connotation that the summaries carried with them." A week-long topic ban for a connotation?

• My first edit summary: "Revision as of 06:40, 20 January 2018: Per talk age discussion, I am going ahead and challenging the recent insertion of this material by reverting it."
• My second edit summary: "Revision as of 06:41, 20 January 2018: Per talk page, inserting profile info lower in BLP. Feel free to revert this particular edit, but consensus would be needed (per DS) to insert it elsewhere in the BLP."

The net effect of the two edits was to move a new BLP section to another spot in the BLP. Please feel free to consider it as a single edit if you like, instead of two separate edits (I did it in two separate edits because it was easiest, selecting and cutting the whole section, saving, then going elsewhere in the BLP to paste). My edit summaries simply expressed my opinion that no one should put the material back in the original spot without consensus, because the discretionary sanctions for this BLP say "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." I felt that I was challenging the placement of this section by reverting it, given that, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." User:Coffee disagreed that consensus would be needed to put the material back in the location from which I removed it, and I am more than happy to abide by Coffee's interpretation in the future (despite disagreeing with it), but I don't see why merely giving my honest opinion in an edit summary warrants a sanction. I am grateful, however, that Coffee reduced the sanction from a month to a week. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:MrX, you apparently disagree with Coffee that the edits in question were perfectly appropriate. Coffee is correct about that. Contrary to your blatant misrepresentation here, there was absolutely no talk page consensus about where the material should go, at the time I made the edits. See the pertinent talk page discussion titled “Moving the ’Public profile’ section”. Please correct yourself. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX, you dismiss the link I just gave (to the talk page section titled “Moving the ’Public profile’ section”) as irrelevant, and instead link to a version of that section long after I made the two edits in question. You are being disingenuous at best. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:MelanieN, do you dispute that this topic ban is for a "connotation" in a mere edit summary, and not for any edit I made? That was Coffee's conclusion following discussion with me at user talk, updating his initial perception before the discussion took place (you very inappropriately avoid that entire discussion between Coffee and me and you instead seek to emphasize what preceded it). Moreover, Coffee said "I fully understand using the two edits to have to copy then paste", but you attribute the two separate edits to conniving and scheming on my part. Would you have done it in one edit or two? Obviously, it was much easier to do in two edits. Please, I have no problem considering them as one single edit for purposes of retrospective analysis, in which case my same rationale justified the edit summary: I was reverting the insertion of this new material by moving it, given that "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Please, a week-long ban for a mere connotation via edit summary? I can't believe you seriously think that's appropriate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, thanks for acknowledging that you too would have moved this material using two edits instead of one. I said to Coffee immediately before he reduced the sanction that "I also have big objections to a lot of the content in that section, and intended to address that after moving the section." I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with that plan. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Coffee, my reasonable mind thinks that you are way off base here. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have written what I wrote in the edit summaries, but I still would have moved the material, if not deleted it entirely pending further discussion. Why is this insufficient for you? You say now that "no reasonable person" could disagree with you that my edits "did not revert nor remove any data that had been added in any previous edit". That's totally and blatantly false. A revert is defined this way: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." I very obviously undid the previous editor's placement of this material, so that qualifies as a revert, or at least it did in my reasonable mind when I made these edits. As I have said several times, I can accept your interpretation now that you have issued it. But I did not have a crystal ball, and did not know you would issue that interpretation. And what harm did I do? You have said (correctly) that it would have been fine for me to move this material. A one-week topic ban for a "connotation" in an edit summary would be okay if I had connoted something nuts, I suppose, but did I really? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't looked around much, but apparently I'm not the only crazy editor who thinks that moving things around can qualify as a revert: "a rearrangement of things into a different order is a revert if and only if it undoes an earlier rearrangement". Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Coffee, User:Coffee, User:Coffee, the sanctions say "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." You're now arguing that if someone challenges an edit (via reversion) but has second thoughts about it, he cannot revert himself unless he obtains consensus at the talk page? I do not buy that strained logic, moreover it's nothing like what I was doing, and moreover arghhhhhh! You are treating the two edits as separate, but that's another story. Look, if people disagree with an opinion I express about what the rules mean, they can just disregard, they don't have to sanction me for Pete's sake, especially if I've promised to never say it again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Coffee, in my initial request here I spoke of the “net effect of the two edits”, so please don’t tell me that I insist on considering the two edits separately from each other. That’s just false. I am glad to consider the net effect, which was to change the intended placement of the section. If you want to consider the edits separately, fine. I don’t believe for a second that the consensus-required provision of DS applies to a person who has challenged an edit, which would be absurd; it would mean that a challenge couldn’t be self-reverted. Coffee, I have always avoided moving or rearranging new material in an article for fear that would put me over 1RR or 3RR. You apparently think my fear was not well-grounded. Fine. From now on I won’t treat moving content as a revert. But I refuse to demonize and ridicule editors who honestly have believed that moving and rearranging materal can constitute a revert. And if I was determined to invoke the consensus-required provision, I could have simply made the first edit and not the second, without relocating any content at all, correct? Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Awilley, no a week-long topic ban won't hurt me until the next silly topic-ban inquisition begins, when this incident will be cited, etc. I don't see that it makes any difference whether I said something incorrect in an edit-summary versus saying something incorrect at a talk page, I'm sorry to be incorrect either way. In future I won't hesitate (as I always have in the past on account of 3RR and 1RR) to change the order of things in an article, undoing the arrangement that other editors intended. Not only was I not "gaming" here, but there was no incentive to do any gaming, since I could have just as easily removed the section for further discussion, instead of moving it from where it was placed in the previous edit; no one denies that removing it would have invoked the do-not-restore discretionary sanctions. This is all a tempest in a teapot. Other editors are misleading and dishonest all the time with zero repercussions, and here I didn't do a damn thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Sandstein, is it asking so much that you please look at the two edits and the two edit summaries, and decide for yourself? User:MelanieN is an involved editor, and it shows. The two edits I made (with edit summaries in plain English) were obviously a real challenge to the location of the material that I moved. I reasonably considered moving the material to overall be a revert because it undid the original placement of the material. Coffee says that no reasonable human being could have considered my edits to be a revert, nor could consider any relocation of material to ever be a revert, and Coffee says that merely saying it was a revert is grounds for a topic-ban. Melanie says that, since I hoped to eventually get consensus to completely delete some of the moved material, therefore I should be topic-banned. And neither Coffee nor Melanie says there was the least thing wrong with my two edits; they only object to the edit summaries. If consensus here is that moving material is never a revert, then I will never again treat is as such, as I have already said several times, but that does not make me some lying, gaming, schemer, and I very much resent this mischaracterization. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:GoldenRing, you don’t dispute that I challenged the placement of a section of the article, by moving it. You don’t dispute that I made no inappropriate edit, and was perfectly entitled to challenge the placement of a section of the article by moving it. And immediately when Coffee said he didn’t think the discretionary sanctions apply to such a challenge, I said fine, in future I won’t utter a word opining otherwise which is all I did in the edit summaries. You’ve addressed none of this; maybe you thought about it, maybe you didn’t, but your statement mentions none of it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Mastcell, you say that I obtained a sanction reduction by saying one thing, but now say another. That is false, and moreover you know very well it’s false. As you note, the sanction was reduced after I said to Coffee, “If you say that (my) point of view is not correct then I’m glad to accept what you say about it." Likewise, when I came here to AE, I said above: “User:Coffee disagreed that consensus would be needed to put the material back in the location from which I removed it, and I am more than happy to abide by Coffee's interpretation in the future (despite disagreeing with it).” More generally, I view this as a content dispute, people who don’t like the content positions I’ve taken launch proceedings like this in response; and so instead of censoring content, Wikipedia instead accomplishes the same thing by attacking editors on pretext, while applying different standards to editors whose content they like. I don’t view Coffee that way, but I certainly do view a lot of the other actors in this petty drama that way. Anyway, in this case, I said something in an edit summary that turned out to be inaccurate in the view of Coffee so I agreed not to say anything like it again; what I said in the edit summary was reasonable, and had zero effect on any edits that I made (no admins now criticize those edits). I fully expected when I came to AE that (1) MastCell would show up because of his vendetta and would twist the facts as usual; and (2) the sanction would be increased. The centralized Wikipedia hierarchy is boringly predictable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD, I just want to provide this link to various instances in which moving material in an article was deemed to be a "revert" of the prior arrangement. I fully intend to completely disregard those precedents in the future, and will feel free to rearrange material within articles as much as I want, given that people here in this AE proceeding think its preposterous to consider such a thing as a revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The topic-ban was shortened by 3 weeks as I believed from my conversations with the editor that they actually understood how the edits they made were an attempt to game the page restrictions in effect. I can see now that was a fruitless choice, and that they in no way have changed from the mindset that got them banned. - Anythingyouwant is mischaracterizing the reason for his current topic ban as if I had only ever blocked him for making an edit summary. Let me state emphatically: This is not true; he was banned for making disruptive edits (which happened to contain misleading summaries, if not purposefully so, about the content of said edits). The page restrictions and the WP:ARBAP2 ruling allow for administrators to choose sanctions based on their discretion which the administrator finds will remove or deter disruption in all pages relating to post-1932 American politics. These sanctions are not limited to only the 1RR restriction nor the consensus required restriction, and in this case the offending edit fell under neither. The offending edits were the cause of a sanction because the editor was clearly attempting to game the page restrictions in effect by attempting to make a move of data (via two consecutive edits) be considered a challenge of the data (something only available via reversion), which no reasonable person could construe the edit to be, as it did not revert nor remove any data that had been added in any previous edit. Their choice of a misleading edit summary was only part of the evidence, it was not the entirety of it. Their ban notice states the following even: You have been sanctioned For gaming the page restrictions system, by using a move of data in an article and claiming it was a revert protected by the challenge clause of the active page restrictions. To see that they'd try to misrepresent that fact, even after I reduced their topic-ban as a gesture of good-will, is just completely disheartening. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I don't comprehend how you could possibly be claiming what you're claiming here. Because going by your logic, the re-addition of the content you "thought" you had "reverted", and thereby "challenged", without first obtaining the consensus the restrictions require before reinstating any such "challenged" edit would automatically be a violation of the consensus required restriction itself anyways. I'm not seeing literally any way whatsoever that this wasn't an attempt to game the restrictions, and I'm beginning to feel as though you're attempting to use this process to continue to do more of the same. I'm severely disappointed that I trusted you when I reduced the sanction time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: You still haven't answered: how would your second edit, which you consider to be separate from the first (in literally every discussion I've had with you about this), could not have been a violation of the "consensus required" restriction by re-adding challenged content (without obtaining consensus on the talk page for doing so)? I'm not going to stop asking this until you actually answer it. It doesn't matter if that's not why I sanctioned you, it matters because it shows (along with everything else you've done here) your blatant attempt to game Arbitration Enforcement Remedies for your personal gain. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@DHeyward: My stance on the restrictions is the same in both cases. An edit is an edit: it could include the removal and/or the addition and/or the movement of any content. An edit is a change from the status quo of something to something else. This is what I also emphatically stated above. Also, nothing that I've said here even slightly indicates that I believe the issue at hand isn't an editing one, in fact I'm emphatically stating that the problem here (and what caused the sanction) were edits that Anythingyouwant made which were completed in a manner so that the page restrictions could be gamed. The two cases are similar in the fact that they are dealing with editing issues, nothing more. Besides that they carry no similarity... as this is the only case of a user gaming the system I've had to deal with at AE, ever. As such they deserve much different responses, and bringing the other one up here is to my eyes entirely off-topic. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN, GoldenRing, and Sandstein: I agree with Sandstein and MastCell, I would at this point completely reverse my decision to shorten the topic-ban, as the conditions of that decision are no longer applicable. After the ridiculous amount of dishonesty and wikilawyering displayed here by Anythingyouwant, 1 month seems entirely appropriate. I was hoping for a better outcome, but I have to think pragmatically. And my intuition, and knowledge of this area, tell me there's nothing good about having this editor back in that topic area in 4 days time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This appeal should be declined. Anythingyouwant's edit appears to have been engineered to circumvent page editing restrictions while forcing his preferred edit over consensus. Several editors, including myself, believe this is but another example of Anythingyouwant attempting to WP:GAME the system. Coffee has already agreed to reduce the sanction out of what I assume is an abundance of good faith. It's pretty brazen to ask for it to be completely lifted.- MrX 🖋 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice try. Here is the discussion in which consensus was reached: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_71#Where to put the "racial views" coverage. Here is the later discussion confirming that the consensus was actually the consensus:Talk:Donald Trump#Survey: location of the "Public profile" section - MrX 🖋 00:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am involved at that article, and was involved in this very issue, so I am speaking as a regular editor and not an admin.) I can’t believe Anythingyouwant is appealing Coffee’s generous reduction of the topic ban from a month to a week. Here’s the incident that triggered things: At the Donald Trump article, there was a discussion about moving the “Public profile” section to a different place in the article. Anything favored moving it. Two days into the discussion, with consensus not reached, Anything pulled what I described as a “cute trick”, a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions. First he deleted the “Public profile” section from the article, with the edit summary Per talk page discussion, I am going ahead and challenging the recent insertion of this material by reverting it. One minute later he reinserted the section into the position where he wanted it to go, with the edit summary Per talk page, inserting profile info lower in BLP. Feel free to revert this particular edit, but consensus would be needed (per DS) to insert it elsewhere in the BLP. The removal was obviously not a real challenge to the material, since he restored it to the article immediately. Based on his edit summaries, he apparently thought he could make his move irreversible, by claiming that no one else could restore material he had deleted - but HE could. SPECIFICO called it to Coffee’s attention. Coffee told him to self-revert both edits or face sanctions for gaming the AE restrictions. Anything said he would revert the second edit but not the first. Coffee then issued a one-month topic ban for “your refusal to understand the proper use of the page restrictions, and for a clear attempt to game them”. Anything’s various conflicting explanations for what he was doing and what he intended can be seen on his talk page, along with his appeal to Coffee, who ultimately decided to “give him the benefit of the doubt” and reduce the topic ban to 1 week. And here we are. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything, I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would doing: “deleting section preparatory to a move”, “moving”. I would not have claimed that the first one was challenging content by reverting it, as you did. As a matter of fact, in discussion at your talk page you doubled down on that claim, insisting to me that your “main objective was to remove disputed material”, because it was “riddled” with “biased POV-pushing” that you would rather have removed from the article. One minute later you restored that horribly biased section back into the article, while proclaiming that nobody else could restore it because … well, because one minute earlier you had challenged the content as so biased and POV that it shouldn’t be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be a misunderstanding. The wording on the template is that "edit" must be challenged by reversion. Coffee has interpreted that to mean content rather than placement. It appears that Anythingyouwant and Coffee have come to a mutual understanding and Coffee has given him the benefit of the doubt of their interpretations. That should mean lifting the sanction completely since understanding is what protects while leaving it shortened just punishes. A short sanction doesn't really serve the purpose if there is understanding by all parties. Really, all it does is provide "blood in the water" that attracts adversaries advocating punishment. If retained, I expect at least 1 AE request to appear here if Anythingyouwant edits anything as the criteria for complaining is extraordinarily low and unlike ANI, there is never a boomerang. --DHeyward (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: I don't understand how your stance here is consistent with the stance you took above. In the appeal just above this one, you emphatically stated that an edit means edit, not content. But here, AYW reverted the placement of material in his first edit. Placement is an edit. Challenging "edits" is what the DS you placed says. Challenging an edit that places material in a location by removing it from that location is a form of reverting the edits of others. Now, AYW did not have to move it. Leaving it out would seem to have satisfied you. However, when he placed it back in a different location, he seems to have drawn your ire. That seems to be a concession on his part that the material is okay for inclusion, but he was simply challenging the edit that placed it in a different location. That's a compromise and a nod to consensus for inclusion. If the second edit is what made it "gaming," I am pretty sure leaving the second edit out was fine for AYW. I don't it's consistent to say that "edit" means "edit" in the previous appeal, but "edit" means "content" here. If your DS really means "consensus for content" it should say that, rather than saying it applies to all edits, which includes location. If you would have been fine with AYW's first edit, it's poor form for criticizing the second one. --DHeyward (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Having followed most of the events leading up to this via my normal talk page stalking, I find myself basically seconding what User:MelanieN said. "Cute trick" and "gaming" are good descriptions of invoking the do-not-restore discretionary sanctions in the section move. If the user didn't already have an extensive history of working with these sanctions (warning and reporting other editors, being warned and reported themselves, and being sanctioned on occasion) I would object that the topic ban was too harsh, but I don't think a week-long break from Donald Trump will hurt too much in this case. ~Awilley (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sequence of events:

1. Coffee initially topic-banned Anythingyouwant for 1 month for gaming the AE restrictions:
2. Coffee offered to reduce or lift the ban if Anythingyouwant provided evidence that he understood "what went wrong" and "what can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again":
3. Anythingyouwant says that he understands why his edits were perceived as gaming the system () and tells Coffee: "If you say that (my) point of view is not correct then I’m glad to accept what you say about it."
4. On the basis of those representations by Anythingyouwant, Coffee reduced the topic ban from 1 month to 1 week as a gesture of good faith, provided that Anythingyouwant agrees not to "misinterpret any discretionary sanctions like this, ever again":

To be clear, not only should the topic ban remain in force, but it should be extended to its original length of 1 month. The topic ban was reduced on the basis of false representations by Anythingyouwant; he told Coffee what he wanted to hear, but clearly didn't mean it, given the substance of this appeal. Moreover, there must be some sort of exponential irony at work here: Anythingyouwant is trying to game the system in an appeal over a sanction for gaming the system.

He has a track record more than a decade long of this sort of behavior, documented all the way up to ArbCom, which I will rehash if anyone is serious about actually dealing with it in this venue. Failing that, at a minimum the original topic ban duration should be restored and no admin should extend any credibility to his promises of good behavior in the future, on the basis of his actions here.

Disclosure: I am commenting here as an involved editor, rather than as an admin. While I have no editorial involvement in the dispute at hand, I have about 10 years' worth of negative experiences dealing with Anythingyouwant's consistent and well-documented efforts to bend and break Wikipedia policy in service of his personal agenda, so I'm not able to speak impartially in an administrative role where he is concerned. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse Sandstein's suggestion you consider reinstating the full month TBAN. 2 tries at getting this undone have only made more clear the underlying problem. Arbcom called for escalating sanctions with repeat infractions. This is at least #3 by my count. Anyone want to go through another one of these AE threads and appeals again soon? SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• It is difficult to establish the facts of the case, which are not well presented in the appeal, but based on the description given by MelanieN I am inclined to agree with her that the sanction is appropriate for attempting to game AE restrictions. Sandstein 09:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Based on MastCell's persuasive submission I also think that reinstating the ban's original duration of one month would be appropriate. Sandstein 19:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Decline The edits do appear to be attempting to game the restriction and the attempts at wikilawyering here are not impressive. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Decline with an added warning to Anythingyouwant about WP:GAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• No objections to reinstating the original one month topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• We have indeffed people for shenanigans like this. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Closing with a re-extension to one month. Sandstein 21:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#September_2017 :

I'm not sure if this rant against the behavior, competency and/or motivations of one or more arbitrators violates this remedy or is just seriously WP:POLEMIC, but it seems to serve no good purpose other than to spread FUD about ARBCOM without anything to back it up.

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

• diff, see above

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification diff

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.

I'm glad this has been brought to the attention of Arbcom as a whole, the community deserves a response to the behaviour that I have described there. As for it coming under any active sanction of mine, not a chance. Another "problem" with interpreting the words of the sanction methinks. As for "fear, uncertainty and doubt", yes that's actually real now, just see Alex Shih's talkpage and Coffee's talkpage where it's made clear that Arbcom are discussing the behvaiours of at least one editor with no case or sanctions or proceedings to necessitate it. That, folks, is requirement creep. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I encourage no action here. It's a legitimate complaint about the Committee. Though I don't agree with the complaint, legitimate complaints about Wikipedia processes shouldn't be sanctionable. This is entirely separate from the objections that can (and should) be levied against the vague, inarticulate wording of the sanction that's in place. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I very much disapprove of TRM's general style, but the cited remedy (The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence) should be interpreted as curbing his acid interactions with other editors (and that includes admins) qua editors. The Arbitration Committee is special – essentially the highest court of appeal – and should be broadly open to civil criticism, which TRM's statement is (although I disagree with its application to the situation he's talking about, which I won't go into further here). EEng 05:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• It's the usual TRM tinfoil stuff, but in the absence of any complaint from the editors concerned I'm not sure that any action is justified. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC).
• I would have preferred this comment to be phrased in more temperate terms, but I'm not seeing a violation of the restrictions here. Vanamonde (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• No action required as no restrictions have been violated. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MShabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Debresser (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:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction :

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

1. 24 January 17:56 Debresser blanked several sources
2. 25 January 01:50 I restored them
3. 25 January 09:50 Less than 24 hours later, Debresser reverted my edit

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 13 January by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a clear 24-hour 1RR violation. Debresser is well aware of the sanctions, as evidenced by his talk page, block log, and his many complaints here about other editors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

It seems to me that my 25 January 09:50 edit was my first revert. Why would this be a 1RR violation? The 24 January 17:56 edit was an original edit, in which I singled out specific sources as superfluous and irrelevant to the statement, after consensus had been reached to keep the statement itself. I also opened a talkpage section.

My 25 January 09:50 edit was not a revert, whatever GoldenRing may say. I have noticed that GoldenRing is very biased regarding my edits, and will try to interpret anything in my disfavor, rightfully so or otherwise. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Base on the consensus here that the first edit was a revert, I would self-revert now, just that the article is protected... In general, I am not happy that the first thing people here think about is blocking. You could start with explaining a person's mistake. The approach here is bad faith, and that is not what Wikipedia says the approach should be. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The first diff is not a revert but an edit.When those sources were added in the first place?--Shrike (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

GoldenRing Point taken,nevertheless he should be given a chance to self revert but the article is protected.--Shrike (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Would have been better to ask Debresser to self-revert first. It's easy to break 1RR by mistake.

Btw, it's irrelevant if the first edit is a revert or not. When an edit is reverted, the person shouldn't restore the edit again within 24 hours. This is a violation both of the "old amended 1RR" rule and "new amended 1RR rule".

To repeat, it would have been better to ask Debresser to self-revert first. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The content being removed was definite citation overkill (5 refs) in the LEDE to support a single word ("controlled"), which Debresser reduced to 2 citations without modifying any text.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• This does look like a clear 1RR violation. More or less the same material was removed by Debresser on 8 January in this edit and restored by Nishidani that day. That makes the first diff presented a clear revert, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear what Debresser has to say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: What is your opinion now that we have heard from Debresser? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the disputed source was added here by Nishidani. That makes Debresser's first edit a revert. Malik Shabazz was allowed to restore the material as he was not the original author. Debresser reverted again, breaking WP:1RR. Two week block seems right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with GoldenRing. The first edit was a revert. It is disappointing that Debresser reacts to this assessment with personal attacks. Considering the block log, I suggest a two-week enforcement block. Sandstein 14:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Another clear violation of a 1RR restriction. And considering the user's responses here I suggest as well at least a two week block. I do not think we need to hear anything further to make this action, as nothing further Debresser could say here could possibly excuse this action. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Racassidy54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms##Casting_aspersions

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

1. April 16, 2014: WP:COI, example among others of citing themself. Discussion on talk page shows they try to sell chlordane detection and remediation products.
2. Jan 22-23, 2018: 1RR violation along with this restoring WP:MEDRS and WP:MOS violations.
3. Jan 24, 2018: More 1RR violations with casting aspersions in edit summaries.
4. Jan 2017 and 2018 More casting aspersions about COI when editor was confronted about their own COI.

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 mostly an WP:SPA issue at chlordane, a pesticide. At first I thought this was just a newcomer issue, but it looks like the issues go beyond being able to talk an editor through Wikipedia processes. The direct DS related issues are the 1RR and casting aspersions issues in diffs above. Within that, this editor has been restoring non-MEDRS sources and MOS violations through edit warring while making an appeal to being an expert whenever editors try to show them the edit was not appropriate: With my broad background/knowledge on chlordane and its health effects I am a leading expert. Justifications for these edit removals, on wikipedia for a year, are not true.. This editor identifies their real-life identity on their user pages, which reveals they are trying to cite their own primary journal articles in the article, and as Smokefoot pointed out, that they also market chlordane detection and remediation products. This is a pretty clear COI related to chlordane in addition to the editor acting way too close to the topic even from a WP:EXPERT standpoint.

They've also been casting aspersions towards editors that either bring up their COI or edits with comments like One should mindful of the potential conflict of interest (COI) by the chlordane industry to minimize the health effects of chlordane. Go to PubMed and see all the health-related research. Question motives of editors who give employment or publications . . . Editors who text delete should give employment and publications in UserTalk page. Cassidy was also warned for this by Edgar181 a second time after they were cautioned about this as part of the WP:ASPERSIONS principle in the DS notification.

I'm not a fan of handing out topic-bans, especially to relatively new editors, but a narrow topic-ban on chlordane-related topics may be needed for this SPA given that they've been getting cautions for over a year about slowing down without stopping. I'd hope that would force them to learn the ropes in a non-COI area where they hopefully won't be so hot-headed like we've seen here. I'm open to other suggestions, but it doesn't look like the route of trying to explain things to this editor (especially how we ask WP:EXPERT editors to act) is working. This kind of confrontational attitude is whatwe've been trying to keep out of this DS topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Just asking for clarification if this goes the route of probation, but since this editor has a COI (beyond an expert editor citing their own work), they are already expected not to directly edit the article and only use the talk page. Is that more or less the intent people are having with the probation idea? Otherwise, the topic ban is functionally similar to what would happen otherwise, though the probation gives a little more room to learn (but also more opportunity to tug a fairly short rope in the topic). Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Also just in case it was missed in the timeline, the first two set of diffs are indeed before the DS notification (though still disruptive behavior), but the second 1RR violation and aspersions were after the notification. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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

• Racassidy54, if I take you at your word as an expert on chlordane, then thanks for editing. However, you need to conform to the expectations at Wikipedia when it comes to behavior. Most of this activity came before a proper Arb notice was posted, but some of it was completely pointless, like the reverts with Ed. The problem I often find with "experts" in any field is they often know a topic very well, but perhaps to a point that they are inflexible when it comes to dealing with others in a collaborative environment. Expert or not, you are on the same footing as me or any other editor when it comes to the topic of chlordane, and I freely admit no knowledge. Still, we are equals. That expertise doesn't allow you to force your edits to an article. It is best used to persuade others to your point of view on the talk page. Even if your edits are the "truth", we build this encyclopedia by consensus, not by what one man thinks the truth is. This feels more like an ANI case than an AE case, so let me offer you this: choose your words carefully, don't cast aspersions about others, USE THE TALK PAGE. And while I'm here, if you want to add a citation to your own published works: Don't. Put it on the talk page, tell others where you would like it inserted, and let them decide. Then be sure to admit you have a COI on your user page. Even I have a COI statement on my user page. Most people have a COI when it comes to one thing or another. Of course, my speech here doesn't stop any other admin from coming in and sanctioning you (either as an AE or plain Admin action). Before I would opt for that, I am curious to hear how you want to move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think a topic ban for actions that happened before they were informed of the Arb case would be too strong. Not saying it won't happen eventually, but I don't see that they had fair warning for us to take such a strong action today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Coffee, perhaps limiting them to the talk page on this article (or any article on the same topic) for a month while they get up to speed on how we do things. They obviously have some skills, albeit not necessarily social ones. If they can learn the ropes while still participating in limited way, there is a chance we can gain a useful editor. Honestly, they could use just a little mentoring. Regardless of how we approach probation, it is a better solution than outright tbanning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• This is a WP:SPA with a WP:COI. Both are problematic. I suggest a chlordane topic ban until they prove that they can make useful contributions to other topics in a collegial manner. Sandstein 22:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• With these many issues easily identifiable, I believe what's in order is an indefinite topic ban from all things that can be broadly construed to do with chlordane. Violations of this topic-ban should result in a first block of a week in length followed by escalations from there if necessary. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: Perhaps we can use the rarely utilized Probation (supervised editing) editing restriction here? The user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way (usually disruptively) by an uninvolved administrator. Probation is usually used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Then mark me down as for the editor being placed on probation, as this seems the best way forward here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• I could see the probation being worth a shot. Having dealt with massive disruption from self-styled experts in longevity topics, this isn't rising nearly to that level; go with it and anything that goes awry from there will be easy to handle, and if nothing does then we have an expert editing in the field. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Probation is an obscure remedy and is hardly ever used. (Check WP:DSLOG). You may have to explain probation both to the user and to any future admins. (Explaining bans is hard enough). Why not just close with a warning: if User:Racassidy54 makes any further reverts on the topic of chlordane (without getting talk page consensus first) they may be banned from the topic by any administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Given this edit made about three hours ago, with no attempt to address issues here, I support an indefinite topic ban from Chlordane, broadly construed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, hard to argue with that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Edgar181 has blocked Racassidy54 24 hours,making the following note in the block log, "Disruptive editing: continued edit warring and inappropriate edit summaries despite being warned by three separate editors..". EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing with the suggested topic ban. Sandstein 09:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Sanction being appealed

diff - Debresser (talk · contribs) blocked 2 week as a result of a consensus of administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Administrator imposing the sanction

A consensus of administrators at WP:AE. Actioned by Coffee.

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.

Two reasons: 1. I would have reverted myself if not that the page was protected. 2. It would be more logical to simply topic ban me for two weeks, then I could continue editing in other areas.

Note: Reason copied from the user's talk page and the remainder filled in by GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

AE sanctions can be appealed at AE, or AN or ARCA. Of course, appeals are rarely granted, but still, there's nothing wrong with the request itself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy and Dennis Brown: Just on one point, Debresser did indicate (late) in the AE that they are prepared to self revert (and that the article was protected). See this diff. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that the appeal be declined. The reason Debresser was unable to self-revert is that 15 minutes after he started edit-warring at an article where he has a history of edit-warring, Favonian protected the page. It seems to me that Debresser is complaining that he should be unblocked because he was prevented from cleaning up the disruption he created because others had taken steps to minimize its damage. That's a lot of chutzpah. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have had a long history of severe problems with Debresser, (he thinks my edits 'inferior' to his) but, on a point of order, I think he didn't, Coffee, deliberately try to disrupt 'AE' where this notice has been posted on his behalf. As comments on his request on his talk page show, he didn't know where to post it, -AN was one option- and in fairness, this should be cleared up.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose an AE topic ban as was suggested below. Appealing something immediately after a decision being reached is entirely proper (and, in fact, is more appropriate than waiting a long time to do it). Realistically, Debrasser should've requested an appeal at AN, or just submitted it directly to the Committee via e-mail. The timing of this appeal is entirely non-disruptive, and in my view, cannot be disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A two-week topic ban seems more appropriate than a two-week block given the discretionary sanctions are topic related. Agree with Sandstein that ban is more appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• I agree that the intervening protection preventing a self-revert is a complicating factor here - but I see no indication from before this sanction was placed that the user would have self-reverted if they could have. Their response when it was suggested was "I'll think about that". Otherwise, the block was within admin discretion and supported by multiple admins. Decline. GoldenRing (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Since you opined in the first, not sure if you should in the appeal. Opinions vary on that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been established, I think, that admins commenting in AE threads do so in an administrative capacity and therefore remain uninvolved in appeals. It's up to the user if they want to appeal here, where they are likely to meet the same admins again, or at WP:AN. But the sanctioning admin is normally treated as involved solely for the purpose of the appeal. Sandstein 16:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee and Dennis Brown: Sandstein's comment here summs up my understanding of it; the relevant committee procedure (which has already been quoted repeatedly, I know) is "Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal," which I read to mean that administrators are considered involved in appeals of sanctions which they have placed themselves. GoldenRing (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing, Dennis Brown, and Sandstein: So what you're essentially saying here is that it's best to never be the actioning administrator? Because it seems a hell of a lot like my administrative opinion loses value by simply taking care of what needs to be done. This is ridiculous. I will never close an AE thread again, you can guarantee that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You extrapolate too much out of what I said. I only said that if an admin participated in an AE, they shouldn't participate in the appeal of that exact same AE case. It doesn't make them involved in any other way, just in that single report. That wouldn't stop them from sanctioning on a different issue, nor invoke WP:involved at all. Allowing an appeal to be considered by completely different admin is just good judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of however you paint this ridiculous picture, my position stands. You all can enjoy handling closing these from now on, and I'll sit back and keep my ability to use my administrative voice using the experience I have to actually have an impact here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Decline appeal with one note - What I have to look at is not what I would do, but what is normal, necessary and reasonable. Considering your history, two weeks block is within admin discretion. There isn't any question that broke 1RR, although the fact that it was full protected directly after DOES complicate it a bit, as you had no opportunity to revert. That doesn't mean you would have. Had you gone to the talk page or to the protecting admin and requested a revert, then that argument would carry more weight. I looked at Favonian's page and the article talk page, but didn't see it. The problem is that on technical grounds, I don't see a fault here. The sanction might be on the strong side (your last block was 3 days) but not so far outside the norm that it is outside of admin discretion. Of course, if Coffee wants to modify the sanction to a topic ban for a month +/-, I would be supportive of that as well, as that would be more in line with what I might have recommended, but I can't see any justification to compel him to, nor any reason to overturn his decision, as at least two admin thought a 2 week block was due. As far as his comments go, I don't see that relevant or prejudicial considering it was an obvious case of breaching 1RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Decline or convert to longer topic ban Since Coffee only instituted what multiple admins had said, I see 2 weeks block within discretion as well. I also note that while protection made self-reverting impossible, there is no indication that Debresser actually wanted to self-revert, per Dennis et. al. However, since we cannot rule out that he would have done so, I'd be open to offer Debresser an alternative to declining the appeal, i.e. converting said block to a topic ban for a month as Dennis suggests. Regards SoWhy 16:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agreed with the ban and I would accordingly decline this appeal, which provides no new arguments and does not address the conduct for which the ban was imposed. Sandstein 16:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – zzz (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

 Talk:Donald_Trump#Adding_criticized_as_racist_to_lead

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

"sanctioned for casting of aspersions and overall displays rudeness and disrespectful behavior" No aspersions. Any "rudeness and disrespectful behavior at Talk:Donald Trump" pales into complete insignificance compared to the rudeness and direspect shown by this user who out of the blue tells me I'm "sanctioned" and he will henceforth allow me to edit under his supervision for "6 months of probation (supervised editing)".

The probation restriction is explained in detail at WP:EDR, which is the list of restrictions I'm permitted to use (along with blocks) per my discretion in the topic area, as per WP:ARBAPDS. This sanction is merely more of a severe warning, with one additional caveat: it states that regardless if they edit an article with a direct editnotice on it, with the civility restriction required, they are not allowed to violated our civility policy in any area of the AP2 topic area. This is simply a way to attempt to prevent disruption, without levying an actual topic ban or a full civility restriction on the user in all topic areas. The full explination of this is found at our policy: WP:PROBATION: The user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way (usually disruptively) by an uninvolved administrator. Probation is usually used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior. I'm not going to disparage any of the admins reviewing this, but I am disappointed by the fact that it seems I'm the only one reading our editing restrictions policy. Regardless, I think this is a smart sanction and will prevent edits like alluding to editor obtuseness, claiming editors are trying to push a biased (in their words "Fox News line") image of the article, without evidence, and accusing an editor's completely fine to have opinion as "fringe", twice. That's all in the course of one day on that talk page. While they didn't go so far as to make a personal attack (wherein I would have levied a block or topic-ban), they did go so far as to begin a tone of discussion where consensus would inevitably be hard to find, as egos and tempers easily start to flare with such aspersions, enough to where a rather respected administrator even noticed the glaring issue. As such, I believe this is an appropriate sanction. And indeed, a light one. It means nothing more than they are on very, very thin ice when it comes to civility now (in dealing with any post-1932 AP2 article) and that they've been given a chance to change their ways instead of simply being blocked. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lankiveil: See above, for explanation and relevant diffs. (forgot to ping you) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I think you likely began editing your comment before reading this (based on sig time)... so pinging you so you know I've made a comment here already. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, Sandstein, and Lankiveil: Here is just one of many times such an editing restriction has been used to enforce ArbCom cases: Eric Corbett prohibited. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: No. They would only be blocked for violating WP:UNCIVIL, specifically in the AP2 topic area only. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein: As a friendly reminder, your comment here and in the above appeal are both falling into rather questionable territory when it comes to the Arbitration Committee's expectations of administrators in dealing in AE: "Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions."

@Dennis Brown: I'm all for us opening an RFC on the probation restriction's existence. But, until that happens I don't see a policy backed reason to decline this appeal. At this point the restriction is permitted to be used by administrators, and similar restrictions as yourself stated have been used without successful appeal in the past. Based on precedence alone then, this appeal also holds no merit. But, like I said, if an RFC or ARCA can change or remove the existence of this sanction from the allotted options DS/AE admins have at their disposal, I will be more than willing to follow that new policy/motion. Per WP:AC/P#Dismissing an enforcement request: When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches. I do not think that applies here, per my reading of WP:AC/DS or any other relevant policies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: If the uninvolved administrators below inform me that the restriction should be changed to specifically state a block would be the result, I will gladly do so. My reply above to you was a bit informal: I was still considering a potential ban from, let's say, Donald Trump or making comments about other users, etc... but a block is just the easiest response for me to point to (as it is usually the most common occurrence after any sanction violation). But, yes, if found necessary I will change that happily. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Sandstein: It is not our job to speculate on or change the policies that ArbCom created just because we don't understand them. If this appeal is overturned I'm taking this directly to an ArbCom case against administrators who "are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions" against the stated Arbitration Committee's expectations of administrators. This isn't personal, it's just that you both need to realize you have no authority to second-guess ArbCom. You do have the authority to see if my sanction was within discretion (it was), and whether the ArbCom policy exists to back up the sanction (it does). If you "grant" an appeal that literally goes against ArbCom rulings (purely out of personal reasons), then I'm afraid you are obstructing the ArbCom's written intent and policy. I realize you're just trying to look out for some sanity in these processes (hell everyone has since they were created) but I have to stand firm on this. No administrator is allowed to repeal an Arbitration Committee ruling. If we want to hold an RFC on this matter, specifically at ARCA or like manner, then by all means do so. But, as of right now I'm literally enforcing something that is linked to in the {{ds/alert}} template: This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. (emphasis mine) And directly in the link provided under "Types of restrictions" is this: Probation (supervised editing) - The user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way (usually disruptively) by an uninvolved administrator. Probation is usually used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior. - To in any way not enforce this, or to in any way grant an appeal here, is to claim that we know better than the Arbitration Committee, or that we somehow have authority over the Committee's rulings. This is a very dangerous road to walk down my friends, as that is most certainly not what WP:AE was created for, especially considering the name here is "enforcement" not "clarification" or "review board". I urge you again to reconsider, based on this overwhelming supply of evidence and policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: My intention there was not for you to think I would even name you in the case (unless you closed this of course), which is why I simply said "administrators" not "Dennis Brown and Sandstein". Just to clear that up. I do understand your right to opine differently about certain policies/procedures, but I'm also reminding whomever closes this appeal that doing it because of questions about ArbCom decision's validity or likewise would be entirely out-of-process, and likely actionable by ArbCom themselves. This reminder is not intended as a threat (god how I wish I was talking to you in person... so you could hear my intent)... I'm literally just trying to nail into y'all's heads that AE isn't ANI. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Would you rather I placed a topic-ban on talking about other user's intentions instead, or perhaps a block? I'm interested to here your solutions to these problems. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• To closing administrator: If this appeal is granted (against ArbCom policy I'll reiterate)... can y'all at least state for the record that I was following a procedure which is linked to inside of {{ds/alert}} as an option for administrators? To commenting administrators: Can we all go to ARCA on this case after this since everyone who just showed up (and some who are rarely are even/around in this noticeboard) appears to be stating probation is an impossible thing to understand or implement. To me that means the only way to fix this is to have the Arbs clarify/or remove probation from the list at WP:EDR it at this point. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

These are some of the most recent diffs I could find, but I am not sure if these are the diffs that formed the basis for Coffee's decision to sanction here:

• "Racism is surely the most significant in terms of repercussions and connecting with voters, not just a "controversy" like the other examples."
• "This article can continue to follow the Fox News line, or it can follow reliable sources, which will tell you that Trump's racist statements are "an important aspect", as you are well aware. And no sources contradict that, as you are equally well aware."
• "Countless reliable sources report that Trump's racist statements are indeed "an important enough aspect", so (unsourced) WP:fringe theories like that expressed above by User:Emir of Wikipedia can be ignored, in line with policy."
• "I have yet to see any sources backing up your fringe theory that Trump's racist statements are "not an important enough aspect".
• "The past year of research has made it very clear: Trump won because of racial resentment. Another study produces the same findings we’ve seen over and over again.]"
• "Yeah, they are a reliable source, though. That's what articles are based on. You don't have any backing up your opinion."

Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Same sanction as TTAAC above. --DHeyward (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really understand what the new "civility restriction" is - I think this has been floated before, but I thought WP:NPA was enough? I have seen editors sanctioned for it here before, but these cases have been more difficult and controversial than a simple 1RR or consensus required violation. What does the page restriction add that is not already covered by existing policies and procedures? Our policies say a lot of things: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectations_of_administrators, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions
• I am having difficult understanding why multiple appeals about novel issues are currently open at AE that have never been discussed at AE or anywhere else. This makes it difficult to discuss an appeal, especially if the sanctioning admin is not available to respond to requests for diffs post-sanction. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So, if I understand Coffee's explanation correctly, and I am not sure that I do - this was not an WP:NPA but since the user has been put on probation, for a second occurrence that similarly is not an WP:NPA a full topic ban would be applied under the new restriction? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: Thank you for clarifying that. In the sanction notice you left for Signedzzz you wrote If you do not adhere to the standards of WP:CIVILITY as is required on many controversial articles, this sanction will be escalated to either a topic-ban or block. - the language of probation also directly references topic bans or article bans so I was confused by this. Would you be willing to revise the current probation sanction you placed to limit it to a block, as you confirmed above? I will leave it to admins to consider whether there was an enforcement request etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--
  • We aren't kids studying in the 2nd standard and neither is ArbCom the equivalent of the class-monitor.What matters is the worthiness or functional benefit of the imposed sanction and that could be defended without clumsy attempts at unnecessary process-wonkery and threats to run off to the Arbs.
  • Echo Sandstein and DB in their entirety as to Probation.Winged Blades^Godric 15:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I fail to see an diff that supports anything that ought to be rather than, can be DS sanctionable.So, I will prefer to let off with a warning to avoid these, failing which sanctions may be imposed at any time by any uninvolved sysop at their discretion.Winged Blades^Godric 16:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment on "Probation" - I can think hypothetically of a situation where an administrator may prefer probation to an outright topic ban, but this isn't one of them. I don't think it was ever intended to justify a future topic ban or block for something that was not sanctionable in the first place (like the comments at issue here). Additionally, I am afraid to edit in Arbitration areas as long as this is ongoing, including discussing on talk pages where significant discussion has recently been redacted as a violation of the civility requirement and final warnings have been given for "inappropriate discussion on talk pages" . I think ARCA may shed some light on this arcane sanction.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• I'm not too keen on wading through that talk page. @Coffee: can you point us to some diffs of this user's objectionable conduct? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC).
• As above, I'd grant the appeal because "probation" is a sanction that does nothing in a DS topic area, where everybody is already on probation. Sandstein 09:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Grant appeal - I had never heard of probation until it was suggested in a case a few notches up the page, and then I noticed it has only been used a half dozen times. Might be best to RFC it off the books because it accomplishes nothing that DS itself doesn't already accomplish. The other problem I have is a "civility" restriction, which is entirely too easy for any admin or editor to game. There is so much systemic bias in the system, no one can define "civility" in a universal way, so there is no way to objectively enforce it under most circumstances short of a WP:NPA or long term abuse, both of which don't need a special sanction to enforce. I'm not saying that a sanction wasn't warranted because I don't have examples from the sanctioning admin in front of me. The examples given by Seraphim System don't seem that egregious, people are going to bump heads a little and I don't think we can police that away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It isn't about you doing anything "wrong" Coffee, it is about the unenforcability of the sanction itself. As Sandstein points out, everyone is already kind of on probation with any DS topic, particularly when they are notified and a sanction can be issued without any further warning. The Eric Corbett case (which I am very familiar with) is a perfect example of why formal civility restrictions do not work, and are prone to interpretation thus unequal enforcement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Coffee, you are of course welcome to file it at Arb and I wouldn't take it personal. In this situation, we have to decide if the sanction fits the situation, and it seem that Sandstein and I agree it does not, although for atypical reasons. Opining in this section isn't an admin action, closing and implementing an action is (see previous Arb cases) but I have no issue being named in an Arb case as I'm quite confident I haven't violated any policy. Just because Arb authorizes a sanction, that doesn't require us to use that sanction, nor does it require us to accept that sanction on appeal if we feel it is inappropriate for a given situation. I fully accept that you do, and I'm not questioning your faith in this, but in this particular case, my judgement is that it is not an effective and/or fair solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I got that Coffee. I already saw how others might misinterpret it but I know you well enough to understand you are talking about procedure, not personalities. If it goes to Arb, I fully expect to participate, which isn't something I do often nor enjoy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Grant appeal per Dennis Brown. I'm not crazy about the assumptions about others' motives in the diffs provided, but I don't see them as rising to the level of incivility that needs to be officially sanctioned. Also add me to the list of people who doesn't understand what "probation" is supposed to achieve. It feels like it's just a scary and annoying way of saying "I'm watching you." (Note about involvement: I think I remember being in a content dispute with zzz last year. I don't feel that is influencing my opinions here.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Further note: It looks like these new civility restrictions are now being applied to at least 75 different articles per (Ctrl+F civility) ~Awilley (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Following up on what the "probation" restriction means (at WP:EDR), I can definitely see how a "probation" restriction would make sense in the context of an arbitration decision or ANI discussion. If a user has shown disruptive behavior but also signs of reform, you give them a second chance with the "probation" that allows for a single administrator to place a topic ban later on if the disruptive behavior returns, and without having to go back through ANI or arbcom. But that kind of provision isn't necessary (IMO) under discretionary sanctions where any administrator can do whatever they want anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Grant appeal. I can't see anything in the diffs that should attract a sanction, and it isn't clear what probation would be in this context. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Decline The diffs presented do not rise to the level of meriting a ban or a block but they are not exemplars of collegial consensus-building, either, and probation is a very mild sanction that is proportionate to the situation. Probation is a valid form of sanction authorised by policy. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Grant appeal Admins are saying that a probation sanction is not needed in a DS topic area. That leaves blocks and topic bans as the available effective sanctions and I see little in the above diffs that would merit one of those. Editors are allowed to point out they disagree with other editors' positions and statements and why. They are allowed to say why they feel another editor's !vote should be dismissed, especially if they cite a policy or guideline backing up their position. So the appeal should be granted as the sanction seems to be not necessary in DS areas and also because it was unmerited. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Doc9871 (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
• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive205#Doc9871 Doc9871 is indefinitely banned from any edit about, and any page related to, post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.

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

1. January 29, 2018 "How about the resident White House physician, appointed in 2006, treated with utter incredulity that Trump is not just simply a blithering idiot teetering on the very edge of insanity."
2. January 29, 2018 "SHS is such a badass!!! Love her!!! Snowflakes don't even dare really to watch her. They are way too wimpy, really. Idiots like Cher tell her not to dress like a "sister-wife". ...Cher. Who the fuck wants her in office?!"
3. January 29, 2018 "I've never met a liberal who is tolerant of non-liberal ideology. It's black and white there. Literally."
4. January 29, 2018 "But... Trump is probably the most racist person in the very history of all of humanity. How can you reconcile your preposterous claim vs. "the rest of the world"?"
5. January 29, 2018 Warning by me
6. January 29, 2018 Warning by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
7. January 30, 2018 "FDR? I think he was a pretty good president.Oops! Damn! I just violated my topic ban by commenting on post-1932 American Politics. Fuck me."
8. January 30, 2018 "The Civil Rights Act of 1964? I think it was a very important, benchmark decision that was long overdue. Oh, dang! We got a Topic Ban violation over here!"
9. January 30, 2018 "'m thinking of perusing the "handful of Web sites which exist to promote and reinforce such viewpoints" that MastCell says are out there. Now, as a stereotypically toothless, inbred, cross-burning Trump supporter, I may need some help negotiatin' da intranets. Lil' help?"
10. January 30, 2018 "Don't put me in the basket, Man! Don't put me in the basket!" A funny guy I know would actually say this to this liberal freakshow who would mentally dismiss and put people in "the basket of deplorables" when discussing politics. Who even comes up with such a stupid concept? The one who lost? Yes!!!!"
11. January 30, 2018 "I wish Dianne Feinstein would get the "unfit" label as well. 84 years fuckin' old. Corrupt as hell, wanting re-election. Career Dems are the worst."
12. January 30, 2018 "Hi yourself! Yes, "probably seven years of his presidency" is on track with the current state of general hysteria. 90% of mainstream media coverage of Trump is negative. Unheard of. Cheers!"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. December 12, 2016 Indef topic ban from post-1932 American politics
2. August 1, 2016 One month topic ban from Donald Trump.
3. June 9, 2016 ARBAPDS block

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

• 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 December 12, 2016 by MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also violated his topic ban immediately after coming off a block for violating his topic ban. See his talk page and contributions. If it's not obvious, go ahead and ignore it. I can't waste any more time digging for diffs on these two.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

See also my talk page here. Doc despite having a retired tag on their userpage was editing while logged out (prior to their block) in violation of their topic ban. You couldn't claim they were avoiding scrutiny since they were openly admitting their primary account, but its clear they have no intention of abiding by their topic ban when they have a soapbox to climb up on and be disruptive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Recommend that IHTS & Doc's blocks remain at 2 weeks & not extended to 3 months each, as has been suggested. A block in progress, shouldn't be extended, IMHO. Oh btw, I briefly commented at IHTS's talkpage, in his discussion with Doc, but then reverted my comment. Wasn't aware until now, that they were under topic-bans & so didn't want them to respond to my comment there, only to get themselves into more trouble. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As a member of WP:RETENTION, it saddens me to see that we've lost 2 editors, today. However, it must always be remembered, ours is a community of privileges not rights. When you use up those privileges? the result is inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• I've blocked Doc9871 for two weeks for coming back from a year's break solely to violate their topic ban (or so it seems from their contribs). If anyone feels this needs to be upped, it's fine by me. GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • And likewise Ihardlythinkso. GoldenRing (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• I would concur with GoldenRing here, both in his conclusion and the duration of the blocks. I hate to see it from these two, but Mastcell clearly and politely warned them and offered guidance just before they both violated the terms of the tbans, and in the very same thread. I can't see any possible justification for comments that followed, other than to push the limits of their respective tbans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking closer, I would not be opposed to extending the blocks for both of them. Not only because of the fact that they violated the topic ban, but because of the way they did it. As Courcelles has already issued a CU/sock block for Doc, that one is a bit moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with the blocks. Two weeks is pretty lenient for those edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: I thought seriously about just indeffing both of them and I'm still open to the idea - but didn't quite feel ready to do it off my own bat. What would you have considered a reasonable block here? GoldenRing (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: Three months each. They knew they were breaking their topic bans, were warned they were breaking their topic bans, and still continued to break their topic bans with completely inappropriate posts. Also would add a warning that the next violation will result in an indefinite block (first year under AE). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I'll see what others say here, but may well take your advice. If anyone wants to up the length themselves, take my consent as read. GoldenRing (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• I'd have indeffed both of them for this. Courcelles (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • And I've done this for Doc9871 after CU proves they have been violating their sanctions while logged out. Courcelles (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• In spite of the fact that GoldenRing's suggestion is the most lenient here, IHTS has decide to copy/paste all of the opposes at GR's RFA to their talk page in lieu of an unblock request. I've removed it, and will remove talk page access if it is restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone notified IHTS of this thread. While I don't think that affects the block for a clear-cut topic ban violation, it's reasonable to allow them to make a statement here in their defense regarding an increase in duration, if they choose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I guess we've reached the end of the line. They restored a link to the portion I removed, and when this is combined with their previous battleground approach, and this intentional topic ban violation, and considering the comments of other admins here, I've reblocked indef with no talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Someone needs to close and log the sanctions, perhaps one of the sanctioning admin, but for the record, I support all actions taken, after reviewing the available evidence. This appears to be "suicide by admin". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Coffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

EEng (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 WP:BLPDS:

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

diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7 - these are some of the most egregious violations I've seen... at one point even saying they wanted to see tweets and tabloid coverage
diff 8 deliberate violation of this restriction and this page restriction

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

07:21, 12 June 2015 The ed17 (talk | contribs | block) blocked EEng (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing and personal attacks on WT:DYK) This isn't their first rodeo at disruptive behavior at DYK

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

User is clearly aware:

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are other users involved here, but this user has given the inch I gave them and took it a mile. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I implore the admins who review this to look into almost everyone involved in these discussions I've linked to above. I do not have the time nor energy to do it all myself. But, this type of behavior is simply not allowed in the topic area and every single person who participated in the "shenanigans" knew it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please do explain how an administrator who ticked an already ticked hook just to say DS was okay with it... is involved? I would have 2xticked any hook that wasn't in violation of the sanctions. You're also going to need to explain how you consider yourself uninvolved here after our recent conflicts? Answer per WP:ADMINACCT, thank you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: So your answer to how you aren't involved is to say that you've only interacted with me here? I'm talking about the specific conflicts on my talk page and elsewhere regarding non AE matters even, or are you denying that I can find diffs that show this? I'm truly interested to here an answer to this one. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I did not supervote in any form or fashion. I did tick a hook, after it was already ticked, because I felt it was necessary for Mr Ernie to understand AE would be okay with a hook like Alt1... I will specify here as I have several places... Alt1,3,4,5 are all perfectly fine. I do not care which of those are chosen as they are all within policy, but this all started because I had to notify Ceranthor that he had ticked a hook the WP:ARBAP2/WP:BLPDS rulings would not find acceptable and that the WMF would frown upon. The Executive Director of the Foundation is being notified of all of this on Saturday. So I'd like to hope that we would take this a bit more seriously when we're talking about libelous/defamatory jokes making it to our Main Page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) is discussing it with her, not me. If you think the WMF has no authority here, you are very, very mistaken. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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.

• Everything you need to know about this matter is contained in the edit notice Coffee added to Talk:DYK:

You may not allude to, nor joke about, connections between Donald Trump and the country of Russia

Coffee has clearly lost all perspective about... well, everything, including his role as administrator. One is reminded of (Coffee's the tall bossy dude in the big hat – and note the final boomerang).

• @Masem: What Arbcom said in the Gamaliel case is April Fool's Day jokes are not exempt from the biographies of living persons policy. Not for a moment did anyone suggest that we should run a hook not compliant with BLP; what we were trying to decide was whether this or that hook was indeed BLP-compliant. Coffee supervoted the discussion out of existence because he was certain he knew the answer better than the dozen editors participating. His edit summary in his earlier attempt to stifle discussion (Arbitration enforcement: ALT1 ALT3, ALT4, or ALT5 are the only hooks approved by our BLP policy, that is final) is telling. Policies don't approve things. What Coffee really means is "I have decided that this or that is policy-compliant, and what I decide is final!"

• @Dennis Brown: You're dead wrong with your claim that EEng is ... using Wikipedia as a forum for his political beliefs, and you're out of line saying that. As I said in the discussion , It's got nothing to do with any political point. If we had an article about uranium being discovered on Mt. Everest, I'd write some hook like "Hillary let the uranium go" in a flash. I take 'em where I can find 'em, and anyone who knows my work at DYK, or anywhere else on the project for that matter, knows this.

And I'm sorry, you want to warn me for what, exactly? Is it for being one of ten persons to propose various hooks or discuss whether they are BLP-compliant? What??? Well, then you better warn Ritchie333 as well – and Ceranthor and Tryptofish and Alanscottwalker and LlywelynII and ... Or will you be warning me I'm because I rejected Coffee's bullshit supervote aborting of a discussion actively underway? No matter what you may think about the merits of the hooks under discussion, Coffee's action was clearly out of line, and I was perfectly right to ignore his supervote and carry on discussing, as did other editors.

EEng 08:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why is EEng particularly deserving such special attention/treatment?! In particular, given the conversation over the entire thread, I don't think that any sanctions are merited.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • And, while sanctions and loggings are discretionary, Coffee, you do really seem to have super-voted over there, your's closing of the disc. which was itself dealing on whether there are BLP vios etc. to be inappropriate and as I have often said, I can shall never equate to I shall.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, as Cullen said, I dont care an iota about what Katherine thinks unless there's any OFFICE-ACTION, which is almost never going to happen over this case.And, AD....Sigh...~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• But, I will agree with Masem that all the parties (incl. you) ought to have behaved more properly.Further, BLP is not a very bright and clear-cut line, as it seems to many and it's wrong to thing one's interpretation to be superior esp. in light of opposition.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Coffee needs to develop the ability to distinguish between jokes and actually disruptive edits. EEng should be cautious about joking in highly contentious topic areas. I do not see any sanctionable conduct by EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Coffee, your claim that you will discuss all of this with Katherine Maher on Saturday may be the weakest Argument from authority that I have read in a long time. As you should know, the WMF does not intervene in such matters except in the most egregious cases. Some behind-the-scenes joking is way below that threshold. Please reconsider your aggressive stance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No action required: There is a point where we go from ensuring reasonable dialogue remains alive and unmarred by political extremism on Wikipedia, and venture into truly "no fun allowed" land. EEng's sense of humor is well known, highly appreciated, and extraordinarily valuable. And yes, my friends, American politics is a place where we are allowed to have fun. The whole purpose of this project is volunteers making an encyclopedia because they enjoy doing it.

The only action appropriate is to deny the DYK hook as "not a good idea", and that is frankly probably outside the jurisdiction of AE. But EEng's effort here is actually quite valuable insofar as it ensures the discussion of whether the extreme protections of AP2 are fully necessary. No, we must ask these questions and keep asking these questions. Where we disagree and dissent with editorial and policy decisions, we must be able to do so without being dragged to this newest drama board.

The purpose of AP2—indeed, every DS—is to terminate actual disruption and to prevent further actual disruption. Not to preempt disruption, nor even to prevent editorial arguments, and certainly not to silence dissent. I believe Coffee is acting in good faith, but that he should reassess the fundamental reasons for these protective regimes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• And to absolutely clarify, there is no BLP violation here. Over the years we have moved from BLP meaning "don't libel people in articles" to "don't post unsourced derogatory information about people in articles" to "don't say something about a person that could hurt that person". Now, we're venturing into the impossible territory of "don't say something about a person that could either (1) give that person a platform upon which to say something nasty about WMF/Wikipedia, or (2) upset anybody who has strong feelings about that person." This is not what BLP means, nor is it what BLP has ever stood to mean. Even if we can justify all the previous moves in terms of respecting the dignity of individuals, there comes a point where we're harming the dignity of our own editors in the process.
  And before the inevitable responses that this is an AP2 situation roll in, that is not the point being made here. The point that the people down below are making is that it's a BLP violation. Not that it's an AP2 violation. I'll be happy to debate that when everyone switches midstream when it's realized how insultingly preposterous the BLP violation claim is, but we're not there yet.
  The bottom line is EEng did not violate BLP. The proper result to the DYK discussion would have been to reject the hook on the entirely valid grounds that making jokes on the main page about hot button issues in the American culture wars is probably not a good idea. EEng, I'm sure, would have disagreed on that point, and I would have been happy to debate him on that issue. I'm sure any number of us would have been happy to debate him on that issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote something like this on my talk page earlier this evening when Coffee showed up there to remind me of this AE case, but I'll repeat it here: Cutting short talk-page discussions that are about whether something is in policy by unilaterally declaring that it is not, because you say so and that anyone who disagrees will get blocked (i.e. what Coffee has been doing) does not meet my definition of appropriate behavior by an administrator, nor is it what the sort of action requested here should be used for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

These are not BLP violations. Donald Trump is a public figure. Regarding the addition to the main page, the editors wisely came up with the Alt 6 option where the image is sufficient to avoid any BLP implications. They exercised extreme caution and good judgment in taking this precaution.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I should modify my statement - Re a possible meeting between WikimediaUK and WMF to discuss this on Saturday, the laws in the UK are very different. Discussion is good, I'm supportive, I hope they get everything sorted out. But in the United States, we have a requirement of actual malice. It is a free speech issue regarding public figures - you can find out more about it at oyez if you want.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding The Gamaliel case Masem mentioned, I think in this case the proposal for Alt 6 to include an the image of the streets makes it clear the the hook is about two streets. This isn't a BLP violation. Something like this which was tagged as a hoax falsely presented a joke as factual. (That could be a violation). This is why I said the editors exercised extreme caution during the discussion to ensure that the hook complied with BLP. There may be disagreement about this, but the ongoing discussion should not have been closed prematurely when there was significant support for the proposal .Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to shut down the discussion at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trump_Street or elsewhere (discussion about whether something violates a policy or not, is not something that needs to be stopped), nor is wanting to see tweets about it bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump is a public figure so BLP applies differently. EEng is well known for his good humour. No action is necessary here and Coffee should be more careful since they wear an Admin hat. The chilling comment posted and the edit summary here is inappropriate and potentially actionable. Why is a 400 year old London Street under US Politocs since 1932 DS anyway? That's just wrong. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about this improves the encyclopedia. If a DYK is divisive, it needs to be dropped. It's really simple. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to clarify a point made upthread referring to Andrew Davidson contacting the WMF director this weekend. To put this in context, this is part of the Future of Wikipedia conference presented by the directors of WMF and WMUK in London. It's going to be concentrating on reducing systemic bias and helping bridge the gender gap, and how to deal with the problems of "post-truth" politics when reliably sourcing information. In this context, I would say that hectoring editors over criticism of Trump and threatening administrative sanctions over it is probably a strategic error. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding BLP - I would like to draw people's attention to this 2006 keynote speech where Jimmy Wales stressed the importance of BLPs. Specifically : "During this past year, in the English Wikipedia in particular, our policies on biographies of living persons have become much more refined and really a a strong focus on higher quality.... But also because the project's gotten larger and larger, we're actually writing articles about less and less famous people. So, you can write anything you want about George Bush and he's not going to call up on the phone and complain, right, he's heard it all. But what happens is, we have very minor celebrities and sort of controversial people, they read their article on Wikipedia and if it isn't good, then they complain, they get upset.." I don't think Jimbo really means you can trash-talk Bush ad infinitum, rather that BLP was designed to protect relatively minor figures from harm by well-meaning but misguided editors. Additionally, if anyone is really concerned about BLPs, I have some links on my userpage that track biographies cited to tabloid newspapers. We currently have about 50 BLPs that cite The Sun. I want that figure down to 0. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going to comment on the original topic, the interesting DYK idea which was original and not at all controversial, but the section had already been shut down and I assumed that someone had moved it over to the April Fools nomination page. In missing it I guess I also missed a chance to be included in the watchful eye of Coffee, who had put one of those giant warning templates on my page just a couple of days ago apparently because, looking at edit history, I had added two names to the FBI template under the section "People". The discussion about the April Fools DYK nomination was about an innocent and appealing twist on the current rage in the states to blame Russia for everything regardless of background information, and the going on two-year effort to tie the nation's president into what seems to be a false and unraveling narrative. Street names do not a violation make, especially in an April Fool's DYK discussion. I see creativity and good nature all around in this case, and no violation. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't much care for the fact that when it comes to Donald Trump, seemingly almost anything goes on this site. We need to do a better job of fostering a climate that is welcoming to all editors, conservative, liberal, or otherwise. That being said, given that pretty much anything has gone up to this point, I don't think it's fair to specifically sanction EEng. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Coffee used his admin tools to win a content argument, and now is trying to levy a sanction against an editor he clearly dislikes, instead of the editor responsible for the content in question or any of the other editors who contributed more vociferously to that discussion than EEng (including me). For those of you who recall me berating people for their abuse of Coffee last week, you may be surprised to know that I'm seriously considering asking ArbCom to desysop him over this, and I know I'm not the only one. This is one the single most egregious misuse of the tools I have seen in my years on this site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I just looked at the two diffs you provided, and not only do I completely disagree about your interpretation of them, I'm having serious difficulty in assuming you characterized them that way in good faith. In what fucking universe does making a pun turn an editor's agreement that people should stop antagonizing another editor into a personal attack? In what fucking universe does wishing to get noticed by Trump and tweeted about constitute a partisan statement?

I'm not being hyperbolic, here. Not trying to make a point. I am completely serious when I say: Please explain this to me, per WP:ADMINACCT (your statement was made as part of an AE discussion in your capacity as an admin, so it's an admin action). I cannot make heads or tails of your claims here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN, Masem, Dennis Brown, Hut 8.5, Black Kite, SoWhy, Sandstein, and GoldenRing: Please note this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Masem: Whether or not these violate BLP is a matter of opinion, not fact. Note that at no point was any proposal put forward that ever stated anything about any living person, but rather stated facts about a street. IF an editor is willing to read the obvious implication into the statement that it is referring to Donald Trump and the state of Russia via a double entendre, then one must also accept that the implication is not intended to be taken as a statement of fact, and that the entire DYK statement was a joke, precisely because it remained a direct reference to streets.

Additionally, I don't see where in BLP any reference is made to jokes which are obviously not intended to be taken seriously. Nor do I see anything in BLP or in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to suggest that "connected" -the actual word used in the DYK- could not be interpreted in a sufficiently large number of way so as to permit it to be interpreted as a bland statement of fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole thing was handled in a very heavy way - Whilst I appreciate we all need to abide by DS restrictions and all that at the same time the main DYK page was kept civil and as far as I know on point ..... talkpage on the other hand was repeatedly derailed by various things so maybe that page should've been locked instead of the the main DYK page,

Coffee (and others) disagreed with the DYK (and that's fine) but as Coffee opened the discussion on the talkpage (and then closed it repeatedly) IMHO he shouldn't of locked the DYK page nor should he of re-closed the talkpage - I'm just going to be honest but I feel Coffee disagreed with the hook and he used the DS stuff as well as his admin tools to "win the dispute" or atleast find a way for the hook to not go further - If he cared that much he would've done the DS stuff right from the start but he only chose to do so a good day or so later,

I think it's fair to say EEng was quite rightly frustrated with it all as was everyone else and in reality if he's being reported here then each and every contributor to that DYK/TP should also be here but that all being said I'm not seeing any violations or really anything worth caring about - EEng, myself and others have all said their peace and I think it's best if this gets closed as No Action - What's been said has been said and what's been done's been done. –Davey2010^Talk 13:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO - I can't speak for everyone but for me personally I would've objected to all this regardless of who the admin was ..... I don't believe his actions were correct at all and as far I can see many different admins actively enforce DS .... If not one admin enforced DS at the DYK then doesn't that say something ? (IE it's not worth enforcing), –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• {{u|GoldenRing} - Since when is "Yes, stop stirring Coffee up" a personal attack ?, Last I knew puns weren't personal attacks and I honestly cannot understand how they could be perceived as such ? ... Trolling .... Baiting .... maybe but Personal attacks ?, Definitely not.. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC) (Struck as it wasn't the pun that was the issue. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Views and sensitivities about Trump are polarized and intransigent, pro and con. If even 20% of our readers find a Trump joke offensive or inappropriate or "biased" that's clearly unacceptable and can only undermine WP's mission.

As to enforcement, it seems to me the real problem with DS/AE is not that Coffee is trying to do his job. It's that so few other Admins are joining him. If another dozen Admins were actively engaged in keeping American Politics policy-compliant, we wouldn't have all the personal disparagement of Coffee every time he tries to do the right thing. And none of his adversaries and critics here should be casting the first stone. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

• Decline to levy any sanctions against EEng. I consider Coffee to be WP:INVOLVED in this matter and they overstepped placing this restriction, forcing their views upon a content discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Coffee 1) "There is to be no more discussion or jokes made about the AP2 topic area." This is not a "reasonable measure" by any means but you shutting down discussion and casting a supervote on content matters. 2) This is the arbcom enforcement request and appeal board. Admins are supposed to formulate their own views on a request or appeal and not just parrot the views of other admins. Just because I've disagreed with other admins from time to time here does not make me involved with those admins (and vice versa). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Coffee We've disagreed on other administrative matters. I don't think we've had any content disputes. And I think it would set a dangerous precedent if only admins who always agreed in all matters with the admin requesting enforcement or whose sanction was being appealed were considered uninvolved. If that was the case, we might as well look to renaming this the "rubber stamp" board. However, if an uninvolved admin familiar with this board disagrees, they may move my posts up to a separate section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• It seems rather obviously from the Gabriel Gamaliel and others case two years ago that experienced editors should not be making well-intended jokes that appear in predominate pages (like the main page) about BLP. I'm not 100% sure if all of Coffee's actions are legit, but I cannot excuse those that were justifying BLP violations to be shown on the main page fully aware of the previous case. (ETA corrections on case name) --Masem (t) 06:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Per Seraphim System, if it was knowingly made aware that to avoid a BLP violation that we needed an associated image to "defuse" the text, that's still clearly a BLP violation. Keep in mind accessibility, and not everyone sees images; it is clear editors knew text alone could be taken badly. --Masem (t) 11:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd generally agree that this is a case of no action that can reasonably be taken, but I do think that those that were wholly supportive of the "joke" DYK hooks that were BLP violations that this type of joking is not tolerated per the previous ArbCom case. I also think that Coffee probably coul dhave been a bit less aggressive in the approach here - they had every right to try to shut down the BLP-violating parts of discussion, but might have closed off too much, and there is a fair question of how involved they were to make the call. However, I do fully support that if Coffee wasn't involved, or another admin that wasn't involved took unilateral action to shut down the discussion on the BLP-violating hooks, that's well within appropriate admin responsibilities to do. --Masem (t) 15:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• EEng is obviously violating BLP here, and using Wikipedia as a forum for his political beliefs, which is a big problem. Claiming to do so in humor isn't a defense, as WP:BLP makes no mention nor exception for humor. His actions aren't isolated, this is a problem all over Wikipedia that tends to get overlooked, for various reasons. That he's doing it within DYK makes it worse. I'm not sure how you put the whole of DYK under DS with a simple declaration, however, and think the restriction he placed on the whole of DYK is outside admin discretion. Not saying it would be a bad thing, just that an admin doesn't have that authority, making it a moot action that needs reverting in the log. I don't feel we can ignore EEng's actions here, nor the actions of others participating, but the problem is so widespread, I'm at a loss as to the solution. I'm not sure how WP:INVOLVED comes into play here, since Coffee didn't sanction EEng but brought him here instead. I've said it before, but I've avoided DYK for years because of the poisonous environment, thus I don't see what we can do here to fix that here at WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking a warning may be sufficient, but I would note that all the political jabs and squabbling make Wikipedia a "no fun zone" for people that actually want to build an encyclopedia. I personally get sick of the obvious political partisanship on Wikipedia, and I think that NPOV gets thrown out the window when we excuse BLP violations because we agree with the politics behind it or justify it by labeling it humor. It isn't always easy to draw a line in the sand, but I think this is close enough to justify a warning. This kind of constant, low-boil political jabbing does not foster a positive environment for all editors and needs to be curtailed. It doesn't belong at an encyclopedia, regardless of political affiliation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• I suggest that we just declare that running this kind of thing on the main page is a bad idea and move on to other things. I don't think actually blocking someone for making those comments would be a good idea, even if they are technically BLP violations. Hut 8.5 08:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• One of the remedies in the Gamaliel case was, "The community is encouraged to hold an RfC regarding whether the leniency for April Fools Day jokes should be continued and if so, what should be allowed." I don't recall this RFC ever happening. I don't think a small group of admins should be declaring AP2/BLP jokes off limits in lieu of holding this RFC (if that's what you meant by "bad idea"). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• No hook - regardless of whether it's one that Coffee decided is OK or not - is going to be promoted at the moment anyway, because he fully protected Template:Did you know nominations/Trump Street at the same time, which means that someone would have to edit through protection to do it. I think that can be safely unprotected or else the process is going to stay in limbo, generating more heat than light. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• That protection was labeled as an arbitration enforcement action. It would therefore need to be appealed by somebody. Sandstein 11:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  I love following procedure as much (or more) as the next guy but do we really need a formal appeal when we can just decide within this discussion that the protection should be lifted? Regards SoWhy 12:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• No action (edit conflict). With all due respect to BLP enforcement, I don't see why EEng is singled out here. The nomination was created by respected admin Ritchie333 and the ALT0 he proposed is basically what Coffee takes offense with. EEng and others might have participated in the same vein but it seems strange that Coffee singled out EEng to report them here and has not even talked to the nominator or the other editors if BLP was his main concern. In the end, it's clear that all involved merely tried to use established DYK rules to create "hooky" language to draw in readers which includes shortening some information without withholding it. The discussion also shows that the proposed ALT6, which keeps the short language but adds a picture to make clear that streets are meant, gathered consensus. I propose we agree that this was an attempt at some humor that backfired but all people involved should take a step back and let non-involved DYK regulars sort it out. I see no reason to place restrictions on the hook or WT:DYK in general for this and suggest they be lifted. Regards SoWhy 08:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, I think Coffee certainly crossed the threshold to WP:INVOLVED when he protected the template mentioning which ALTs he thinks are correct while discussion was still underway, thus making it clear he had a personal opinion in this matter. Consequently, this edit and all subsequent edits regarding this matter were made by an involved administrator. Regards SoWhy 09:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would take no action. The request is deficient. The user making an enforcement request is expected to explain how a specific edit violates any applicable remedy or sanction. The information provided here falls far short of that. There's no explanation, no dates for the diffs, and as to the first part of diffs no link to a specific remedy or sanction. I haven't even read anything else in this thread. Sandstein 11:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Pretty much per Dennis Brown. I agree that the original hook is a BLP violation which was proposed (and seriously argued) for the main page, and in that context, most of Coffee's actions were reasonable administrative ones, enforcing BLP policy. While there was lots of bad behaviour in those two discussions, I think I do understand why EEng has been singled out; comments such as this are nakedly partisan and this is right on the edge of a personal attack. The only action I would query is placing "this page and the related topic area broadly construed" under an editing restriction; where "this page" is WT:DYK, I guess that makes all of DYK "the related topic" and anything nominated for DYK "the related topic broadly construed". That seems to me to be expanding the area subject to discretionary sanctions beyond what the committee has authorised. In short: EEng, don't do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The subsequent discussion which Coffee shut down was not about the original hook and I disagree with your characterizations of EEng's comments. The first was sarcastic and the second was far from a personal attack. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'll admit that I don't quite see how labelling it sarcastic makes that remark any better. Sarcasm is perfectly capable of also being partisan. As for the personal attack, calling other editors "wussies" might be very mild in PA terms, but the edit and the edit summary together put it "right on the edge" for me. GoldenRing (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: For the second edit, I thought you were referring to the content so I didn't look at the edit summary. Having now looked, I agree with your assessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• No action I'm not even sure it was truly a BLP vio, let alone one requiring AE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• No action. There were no policy violations, and it isn't clear why EEng was singled out. As for Template:Did you know nominations/Trump Street, indefinite full protection was added by an involved admin (for example, see this comment) and should therefore be unprotected. Sandstein, if a page is protected out of process, an AE request is surely not needed to undo it. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Unprotected the DYK template after comments by SoWhy, SarahSV, Black Kite. Sorry Sandstein for cutting through the red tape. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)