Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive274

SPECIFICO (2)
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning SPECIFICO

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: GamerGate sanctions, BLP discretionary sanctions

Background:

 * October 13-17, 2020 AE case contains evidence that on Sept. 16th they made a knowingly contentious rewrite of the section Ansari#Allegation of sexual misconduct, without first discussing it, after weeks of disputes about one of its sentences, and then gaslit on the talk page to give the appearance of consensus. After the AE close resulted in no action, I reverted their rewrite. (m) They have completely disregarded the arbitration complaint.

Diffs of edits:

 * 1) 01:49, 18 October 2020 They restored the DISRUPTIVE, NOCONSENSUS rewrite with an edit summary containing:
 * 2) *False claim of one month consensus (The rewrite was immediately and repeatedly challenged, and was part of the previous AE case.)
 * 3) *False claim of BLP violation used to justify a rewrite with mostly unrelated changes. (See below)
 * 4) They ignored my requests for them to revert their rewrite and discuss their proposals.


 * Diffs of relevant AE sanctions demonstrating long-term behavior:
 * 1) 3 June 2018 WP:AN/EW warning by NeilN, BLP: This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus. [30], [31] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed.
 * 2) 20 May 2018 logged warning by for violating behavioral standards.
 * 3) 22 April 2017 sanction by NeilN for a pattern of disruptive behaviour which contributes to a poor editing climate, described here.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * See previous AE case above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I believe GamerGate sanctions were enacted to prevent disruption like this — from an editor who has repeatedly belittled women who have made allegations of sexual misconduct.

The 11 month stable consensus section has never been respected by SPECIFICO, and yet they demand that their bulldozed rewrite remain in place while I am expected to somehow discuss reverse engineering each of their edits until RfCing a disputed sentence which was removed from a paragraph which was removed from a section which was rewritten? SPECIFICO is reversing the onus and has no respect for the consensus building process. (If you can't follow all that, good luck following the original content dispute.)
 * ( has noted the stability of the article as a whole. The section itself only had copyedits and one sentence added in 11 months.)

This is all unnecessary complications which can be avoided by simply restoring the stable version and working out what to RfC from there. Regardless of all the convoluted content details, what we know is that SPECIFICO has been violating the DS with their disruption, which can be prevented by banning them from editing Aziz Ansari for at least six months (but they could still be permitted to vote at RfCs).

If anything is unclear in this report, please ask for clarification before making a statement judging the case.

SPECIFICO suggests that they alone created a consensus version by claiming that the section has not been updated since the allegation occurred in 2018. That's simply not true; for example, our initial dispute was over preexisting 2019 media commentary text, and the only source SPECIFICO added from after the event was a 2019 source which they selectively chose to deprecate the allegation story as "some combination of as-told-to and reported piece and morning-after group-chat gossip".

There was no BLPVIO, because as I explained to them, the section already included Ansari's denial of the allegation — his public statement that the encounter "by all indications was completely consensual." ("Apologies" are not required per WP:BLPVIO, and critics disagree on whether he apologized. Regardless, the apology text is unrelated to the rest of the rewrite, and this is a distraction from the original content dispute.

please strike your comments which are misrepresenting what happened and ignoring my diffs showing that they knew their rewrite enjoyed no SILENTCONSENSUS. As I requested above, if you say you are "puzzled", please ask for clarification before repeating false narratives. I do not "want to add" text; I want to restore the status quo ante version so we can end this confusion and discuss SPECIFICO's many proposals. (Editors at the talk page are arguing against proposals I am not making.) This repetition of false narratives feeds on itself; please do not contribute. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that we just closed an AE case is precisely the point; SPECIFICO has completely ignored warnings about their behavior and continued being disruptive immediately by restoring their edit and making editing Aziz Ansari impossible. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

continues to misrepresent the SPI case about sockpuppet User:Kevin4762, which closed and which was part of the investigation for the previous AE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please save the community the trouble of my AE appeal of an IBAN. The issue here is that it is impossible to edit collaboratively and the community does not want to do anything about it; it's easier just to kill the messenger. We can't count on another user to report this behavior when admins here did not have the stomach to deal with my previous report. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

is shockingly misrepresenting what happened at their talk page. I reported new disruptive behavior to them after their AE close where they warned SPECIFICO. I did not ask for the previous case to be relitigated. Their comment below that they do not care to examine the new behavior, and their comment that "no one has an appetite to enact harsh sanctions" is telling of the real problem here. I even proposed minimal sanctions above to simply allow content discussion to continue to prepare for (likely multiple) RfCs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not at all what's happening and I think that's obvious to anyone who scratches below the surface. In addition, I have never argued for preserving the stable version or even argued that that's a reason for the revert. I have repeatedly asked that we keep that stable consensus version in place while we discuss or RfC controversial edits which I've said violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. And I'm not sure how you can argue that this is a "straight up content dispute" while also arguing that my conduct is inappropriate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the SPI, do you appreciate that that was part of my investigation into SPECIFICO's long-term behavior for my AE complaint? I am shocked by the reaction to it; I feel like no one is willing to extend good faith to me. I don't understand the concern with "outing"; I had to cite SPECIFICO's (self-disclosed) IPs to connect them to Kevin4762. Just look at User talk:Kevin4762; this is the staged argument I described with SPECIFICO's IP; SPECIFICO uses their new named account in the last comment. I always check if an editor is a sockpuppet when investigating their behavior, and SPECIFICO's second edit creating a userpage raised the red flag to look further, and literally their first edit was identifying themselves as the IP. Editors in their first block discussion accuse SPECIFICO of not being a new editor and provide research in the comments connecting them to the IPs and pointing to activity at Talk:Peter Schiff, and that's where this Kevin character was used: Talk:Peter Schiff/Archive 2 (Ctrl+F to find where SPECIFICO name's Kevin). SPECIFICO's comment, "it was not I but 'kevin' who changed the template to infobox person" is textbook sockpuppeteering behavior. From there it's necessary to perform a thorough investigation, which I feel is straightforward due diligence. It's perplexing to me that SPECIFICO's history beginning their editing career with a sockpuppet is not relevant character evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What about an agreement for me to not report SPECIFICO's misconduct? That appears to be the only complaint about my behavior. If I am unable to edit or discuss content to the point where I would have to comment on their behavior, I would have to move on. For example, it is unfeasible to for me to edit Aziz Ansari at this point, so I would move on to avoid conflict, following the example of the other editors there. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What would be an improved wording? "...for me to not file conduct complaints"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to see how that proposal is not punitive. If the only complaint about my behavior is filing complaints about SPECIFICO, and I agree not to, then I would think sanctions would be unnecessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Is no one going to answer my question about how an IBAN is not punitive if I agree to not file conduct complaints about them? I even offered to not comment about their behavior and leave articles before I feel that's necessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you give me something to work with for why it's not sufficient? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have to consider the appeal process, because you are 100% wrong about this case. I haven't looked into the appeal hierarchy yet. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me what's wrong with the word misconduct? That's literally the characterization of the behavior the AE process is used for: Please use this page only to...request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I think it's important to be honest about what the evidence shows we can expect about their future behavior, but if what you object to is my conduct reports then I can stop filing them. There clearly has been no behavioral investigation, but that will not be necessary if the disputed conduct complaints cease. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been no proper behavioral investigation into either of us, so it's improper to make a ruling about either of us, but that isn't necessary if the complaints stop.
 * The rest of your question is complex; I believe that the problem is obvious to anyone who SPECIFICO has chosen to make their enemy, and to many other perceptive individuals who have spent time observing disputes in which they have participated. I believe many people don't see the problem; I believe many people are afraid to report the problem. I don't think their behavior will be ignored per se, but certainly folks will be discouraged from reporting them if they see the reaction to my reports.  WP:SEALIONING is a difficult problem for the community to address; this behavior is not unique to SPECIFICO.
 * I cannot make conclusions about the participants here who I have little experience with, but I am not impressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Notification

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

Statement by Jonahloci
To the admins evaluating this case, please also consider KB's Sockpuppet accusation against SPECIFICO at Sockpuppet_investigations/SPECIFICO/Archive. KB demonstrates no sign of ceasing their harassment of SPECIFICO. I recommend a one-way ban, or a tban inasmuch as their conflict is centered around Aziz Ansari. I think TheTimesAreAChanging explained it much better than I can! Jonahloci (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging
While I know that SPECIFICO may be too busy editing articles to waste her time responding to Kolya Butternut's latest tirade, this attempt to rehash an AE report a mere four days after it was closed by Dennis Brown with a result that was not to the OP's satisfaction is plainly tendentious and disruptive. At a minimum, WP:BOOMERANG sanctions should be imposed to deter Kolya Butternut from misusing this administrative forum to "win" content disputes or to harass SPECIFICO (such as a temporary ban from commenting at AE or even a topic ban from Aziz Ansari). Combined with Kolya Butternut's unsuccessful effort to dox or "out" SPECIFICO at SPI just two weeks ago, which was called out by the clerk at the time, this escalating pattern of harassment and weaponization of Wikipedia's administrative tools against a perceived opponent may merit additional sanctions against the filer, such as a lengthy block or one-way interaction ban, followed by an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block if the harassment continues.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I propose a one-way IBAN between Kolya Butternut and SPECIFICO. This is yet another case of Kolya Butternut complaining about SPECIFICO's opinions, not his behaviour. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Objecive3000
I think your suggestion might have had a chance had you not included the word "misconduct". O3000 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We've gone past the first law of holes. I suggest instituting the one-way IBan before Kolya talks their way into something more stringent. O3000 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum
I'm involved in this ongoing dispute concerning Aziz Ansari (though I haven't commented on it lately). I must say based on my interactions with KB, as seen on the relative talk page, I think we ought to be taking a hard look at whether they should be allowed to continue editing Ansari's article and any related pages at all. -- Calidum 02:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
AE #1, 8 Sep 2020, Specifico v. KB, involved (among other things) Specifico referring to KB as "it". Closed with "Kolya Butternut is reminded to be more mindful of the boundaries of their TBAN. SPECIFICO is warned to be more careful in their use of gender pronouns, and to avoid the use of object pronouns for human beings. No further action at this time; if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so." Because of that last sentence, we can't fault editors for bringing further AEs.

AE #2, 26 Sep 2020, Thucydides411 v. Specifico. Another editor had removed content that had been in the article for years  and Thucydides reverted the removal. Specifico re-removed the content with this 24 Sep 2020 edit, with the edit summary "Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant", which is either a BLPVIO (if aimed at Assange) or uncivil (if aimed at Thucydides). That thread was closed with "No consensus for sanctions".

AE #3, 13 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico. That involved (among other things, including edits to Aziz Ansari) two statements made by Specifico on 7 Oct 2020 about Thucydides: "Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda" and "Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently". That thread closed with "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later ..."

AE #4, 21 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico, is the current thread, involving this 18 Oct 2020 edit at Aziz Ansari with the edit summary "Restoring current consensus version that has been stable for a month ...".

So in this AE #4, Specifico is reverting someone claiming that if the content has been stable for a month, it's the "current consensus version". But in AE #2, Specifico was arguing the exact opposite, re-instating a reverted edit that removed content that had been in the lead for years, and claiming that the onus for inclusion was upon those who wanted to include it. This sort of editing is disruptive, and it should be addressed. An IBAN won't help. Lev!vich 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Bilorv
Having succeeded in bludgeoning all other users at Talk:Aziz Ansari to death, KB and SPECIFICO have now reached an impasse. But let's not call the users' behaviour the same. One—SPECIFICO—is repeatedly making demeaning and aggressive comments towards a specific person (known pseudonymously as "Grace"), and the other is not. A one-way IBAN is a ludicrous suggestion because SPECIFICO will then have "won" the game they are playing, that of forcing their opinion to be accepted as "consensus" through deliberate poor etiquette. Topic banning both users from Aziz Ansari and/or a two-way IBAN are more reasonable suggestions. Yet it seems to me that this would not solve the issue of SPECIFICO's continued disruptive modus operandi on contemporary American biographies (a possible scope for a wider topic ban).

Statement by Atsme
- please, no i-Bans, they suck and create more problems than they resolve. We're not dealing with a couple of kids fighting over the game controller - these are 2 adults. I really dislike boomerangs which are typically punishment for filing a case against a seasoned editor over a content dispute, and I very much dislike vexatious litigation for whatever reason. In this case, we're dealing with a relatively new editor (KB) who just learned a valuable lesson. Let it go. KB needs to tone it down, and specificolly avoid interaction with SPECIFICO, (pardon my play on words because even something that silly has been used as a reason to warn/block/t-ban an editor - I think it was warn, it was me, and today SPECIFICO and I get along famously.) Let's get back to the basics - disruptive editing at an article - nothing here to take action over. It has been brought to the attention of AE because of DS, the parties have been duly warned - log it as such in DS, and let them get back to work. Next time it happens - t-bans all the way around. That simple.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
Topic ban them both from AP2 at least until the end of the year.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
While most of the discussion of remedies seems to have focused on ibans, the issue here seems entirely confined to a single article, Aziz Ansari; all the other process stuff has directly stemmed from that. I would just topic-ban one or both of them from that article (only) and leave it at that. This has the advantage of being a simple, straightforward, easy-to-enforce resolution that seems like it would definitely end things, whereas ibans (especially one-way ibans) are much trickier and go way beyond what's needed to put a stop to what's ultimately a dispute on a single page that has gotten waaaay out of hand. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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


 * I tried a couple of links and I just don't get it. The first substantive link appears to be "01:49, 18 October 2020" with a "False claim of one month consensus". My reading of the edit summary is that SPECIFICO was thinking of WP:SILENCE and I think it is correct that the article had been without the disputed text for a month. Does anyone else support the text that Kolya Butternut (KB) wants to add? The only recent comments at Talk:Aziz Ansari seem to be arguing against KB. The correct way to resolve an issue like this is to start with a relevant noticeboard (e.g. WP:RSN since Babe.net seems to be disputed on talk). If WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:BLP appear to be ok, then start an RfC with a clear question. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Silent consensus" remains only so long as the silence is not broken. As soon as someone does object, be that in an hour or in a year, the "silent consensus" vanishes. That aside, we just closed this request, and I think we're at the point of use of AE as a means of harassment. I think it might be time to take some action against the filer here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would entirely agree with the suggestion by Vanamonde to refer this to AN for community sanctions. It's right about enough of this constant bickering. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the general feeling here is a one-way IBAN on KB with regards to SPECIFICO in the BLP/GG/AP2 topic areas, I've got no objection to that as the resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For your reference, KB, since you asked me specifically: I have read your proposal, and do not believe it to be at all sufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a few outlier proposals here, ranging from an acceptance of KB's "voluntary restraint" proposal to a topic ban from the topic areas, but the general consensus seems to settle on a one-way IBAN. This would, at this point, restrict KB from interacting with SPECIFICO on the topics covered by GG/AP2/BLP. It is unclear whether an AE IBAN could be sitewide, and I do intend to ask about that at ARCA, but those can take a while to answer and this shouldn't be left open waiting on it. So unless any uninvolved admin strongly objects in the next 24 hours or so, I intend to close this with a one-way IBAN on KB with regards to SPECIFICO in the topic areas of GG/AP2/BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Could we please give interaction ban to these two users, including filing AE requests against each other, and be done with it? Sure, if one or both of them regularly breaches our policies, there will be another user to notice this and to file ANI/AN/AE/AC whatever case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, based on the discussion I would agree to the one-way interaction ban as well. One year would be fine, with the understanding that if issues reappear after a year, we can go for an indefinite interaction ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think an interaction ban is necessary. We cannot impose a site-wide IBAN here, but we could do an IBAN across GG-, AP2-, and BLP-related articles. Alternatively, we could go to AN for a site-wide IBAN. One of those options strikes me as being long overdue. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's been substantive engagement from admins here, but my understanding is that we do not have the standing to apply site-wide sanctions; our remit extends only to areas under ARBCOM sanctions. And if that sounds bureaucratic, enacting something that will inevitably end up at ARCA immediately does not seem wise to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown, Guerillero: I'm still uncertain of our standing when it comes to a site-wide sanction; however, I think Dennis Brown's proposal is the right way forward, regardless of which venue it is coming from. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't study the merits of this case, doesn't seem to be necessary. After the last close, KB took it to my talk page, where it should have been clear I wasn't interested in relitigating the case. They said they were going to file a new AE case, but I thought it was just talk, that they weren't really thick enough to do so.  I would not support a 2 way ban, which would be unfair to SPECIFICO.  I would support a 1 way ban (and I hate those) with a *request* to SPECIFICO, asking him to avoid discussing KB.  I would imagine he would be fine with that request.  I do not think we need to drag this to AN, btw, although that is utterly allowed.  We already have enough eyes and experience with the situation to handle it here, as a non-AE remedy.  While a 1 way iban is certainly an option, so is a tban, btw. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93, we can do anything that any single admin can do, so yes, we are limited to a degree. I forget that AE is setup that way.  If any admin thought that a block, or other sanction that doesn't require a "community" consensus was appropriate, they could, but this might not be that case.  So I agree that WP:AN is the way to go.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right Guerillo, as long as it is a DS sanction or based on action in a DS area. In that case, I would propose a ONE way interaction ban, one year duration, which will end up acting as a tban in areas that SPECIFICO edits, as KB will need to avoid articles where SPECIFICO is active (although not every article he's ever edited).  This is an ugly solution and KB isn't going to enjoy it, but it's the least aggressive solution I can think of. We don't need a consensus to do this, any of us can simply unilaterally impose it, but I think it would be best if we did seek consensus among the admins here at AE. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's probably already clear, but I am fine with anything resembling a tban and 1 way iban. I don't think that SPECIFICO is a saint, but I would oppose a 2 way iban simply because I haven't seen anything that justifies it on his part.  My opinion is that a one year duration is probably the right way to go, but I'm not fixed on duration.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is well within our right to impose a project-wide interaction ban between two users that started to cause issues within a topic area under DS. I also think that going to the community would be a fair option -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am feeling an interaction ban and a topic ban from Aziz Ansari for KB -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed by this report in the slightest. What's going on in that article is insane. This is a straight up content dispute, that has been going on for months, with Kolya endlessly arguing about preserving the "stable version". There is no such thing as preserving the "stable version". The concept literally isn't valid. See WP:STABLE. And yet the phrase has been written two dozen times on the article's talk page. Stonewalling edits for the meta-reason of "needs consensus" or "needs to be discussed" or "restoring stable version" is not valid, it's disruptive editing. I don't see anything particularly egregious about SPECIFICO's behavior except that KB disagrees with them and is stonewalling their edits while refusing to pursue dispute resolution, choosing to file frivolous AE reports instead. I don't think a two-way IBAN is a reasonable solution, that's a sort of no-fault sanction for two editors who have an interpersonal problem, and I'm seeing this is more of a behavioral problem on KB's end. Reviewing KB's own complaints about Specifico's "misconduct", there's really nothing there. However as an uninvolved observer, KB's tendentiousness is quite obvious. I don't think a topic ban or one-way IBAN would be an "ugly solution" here, it seems to be the relatively straightforward solution. ~Swarm~  {sting} 06:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In general I dislike I-bans, especially one-way I-bans. It's just hard on the editor with the one-way to expect them to make absolutely sure the other editor hasn't edited an article "too recently", and it can be a tempting invitation for abuse by the other editor. But the SPI referenced by TheTimesAreAChanging shocked me, and the continued use of 'misconduct' is troubling. I think it's possible a 1-way I-ban is the only real solution. Changing my mind. This is a newish user. Let's accept their promise to not comment or action on the other editor's behavior. —valereee (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * KB, for me the problem with What about an agreement for me to not report SPECIFICO's misconduct? is that you appear to be assuming there is clearly going to be future misconduct, but you're promising you won't be the one to report it. If you'd worded it as "What about an agreement for me to not make reports about SPECIFICO's conduct?", it would have felt like a neutral offer. Just my interpretation. —valereee (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * KB, when you say There clearly has been no behavioral investigation, but that will not be necessary if the disputed conduct complaints cease what I'm hearing is "I'm the only person who clearly sees and is willing to call out an obvious problem, and if I stop reporting, everyone else is just going to ignore it." Is that an accurate reflection of what you intended? —valereee (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * KB, FWIW the other editor has plenty of people watching their talk, and it's IMO unlikely the majority would be afraid to report a problem just because of your experience here. At worst your experience here would cause people to be in general cautious of taking people to noticeboards. Which IMO they should be. For the vast majority of cases, taking someone to a noticeboard should be treated as a last resort. General advice: don't go to noticeboards unless someone else drags you there. Much better to just go to some admin or other experienced-and-known-to-be-helpful user's talk and ask for help/advice. I just did that myself yesterday in hopes of avoiding taking someone to ANI. I'm changing my opinion to accepting your promise of just avoiding commenting/reporting on the other editor's behavior and leaving it to others. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally don't like IBANs and would prefer something with less grey area like a ban on taking each other to noticeboards. But if a ban is to be imposed I think it should be two-way. From what I can remember this noticeboard feud started with this AE report] by SPECIFICO against Koyla Butternut. (Remember? the one where SPECIFICO called Koyla "it"?) And to be fair, we closed that one with the statement "...if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so." We certainly got that in plenty. ~Awilley (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why a one-way AE IBAN couldn't be sitewide — I agree with (who has Arbcom experience) on that. I myself have a one-way IBAN instituted by the Arbcom itself, where I am the non-banned party (no need to mention the banned party here). Why would an AE ban be different from a direct Arbcom ban? An IBAN for only GG, AP2, and BLP would indeed cover most of it, but I also see it as an invitation to borderline disputes. As for some people's generalized dislike of one-way IBANs, I'll just point out that in practice, they work just like two-way IBANS — I can't, and won't, in reality mention the user who's IBANned from me, as it would look like provocation and quite rightly cause outrage. It's just that a formally one-way ban in some cases, such as regarding KB versus SPECIFICO, is more fair. Summing up, I'm for a sitewide one-way IBAN against KB, but if that doesn't gain traction, I will alternatively support the same for the GG, AP2, and BLP areas only. I do not support a two-way IBAN in any form. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC).
 * , hey, I might have a bit of ArbCom experience myself after all. I don't recall that question ever having come up though. My main concern is that the DS page says enforcing administrators are not authorised...to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope. That's generally been considered to mean that something like a topic ban can only be as wide as the scope of the case it's imposed under (which makes sense, "sitewide topic ban" is just another way of saying "site ban"). I don't think it's ever really been considered with IBANs though, but they've generally been imposed the same way; just within the DS area. I think it would make sense if they could be imposed sitewide, as a sitewide IBAN is not analogous to a total site ban, but I'd be hesitant to just go ahead and do it without knowing whether it will fly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (since we are breaking format..;) If we block an editor, that also extends to all articles not within the scope of AE. In this case, extending the scope of the iban to being sitewide is likely doing a favor for a lot of people, as there won't be another case asking if an interaction was DS related or not.  I'm fine either way, but I don't think a sitewide iban is beyond our scope since this is because of problems in DS areas.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Searching Arbitration enforcement log for "one-way" shows several examples of site-wide one-way interaction bans imposed from discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct. Looks like it's better settled on that than I thought. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Heba Aisha

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA :


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


 * 1) 20:45, 17 October 2020 "According to media report in the meantime ... assassinated Bhartiya Janata Party leader Satyanarayan Sinha" introduced in a BLP with a purported attribution to an unspecified "media report".
 * 2) 20:50, 17 October 2020 "According to media reports he assassinated his rival Chunnu Singh at Chhath ghat in Neura" introduced in the same BLP with a purported attribution to an unspecified "media reports".
 * 3) 21:16, 17 October 2020 "... faced Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha who was murdered by him. After the conviction of ..." introduced in the same BLP cited on 21:19, 17 October 2020 to a source which states "... is the main accused in the murder of former BJP leader Satyanarayan Sinha".
 * 4) 10:11, 18 October 2020 Removal of a DS alert on BLPs with the edit summary of "I m aware of this and this is put to create a negative image of mine by the user who is not agreed to me on other article".
 * 5) 10:19, 18 October 2020 Re-introduction of the same BLP violations after being warned on 09:20, 18 October 2020.
 * 6) 11:43, 18 October 2020 Bans me from their talk page with the claim that it is for their peace of mind.
 * 7) 00:02, 19 October 2020 Re-introduction of the same BLP violation, but this time followed up with a number of edits which add "was accused" or some variation of that but leaves out the line stating "After the conviction of ..." still unsupported by any source and which still gives the impression that the subject of the article was convicted (obviously).
 * 8) 00:20, 19 October 2020 Follow up comment on the talk page stating "I have made edits to change the words and put those words which presents him as accused not convicted.This shouldn't be reverted as of now." There are still a number NPOV violations which were introduced on the page but the above is the most apparent instance.

Similar instance of gaming behavior in a previous dispute.
 * 1) 17:30, 11 October 2020 Restores disputed content with a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of policy in the edit summary.
 * 2) 17:39, 11 October 2020 Immediately opens up an RfC on the talk page without any proper formatting.
 * 3) 17:41, 11 October 2020 Leaves this comment on my talk page stating "Untill discussion is over the editing of content under discussion amount to WP:Vandalism...discussion can go for 30 days.Plz be aware with rules of WP:Rfc".


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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


 * 1) 21:03, 18 August 2020
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * 1) 21:05, 18 August 2020
 * They claim to be aware of the sanctions as well.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Mostly appears to be WP:CIR issue along with some WP:GAMING behavior. I have tried my best to make them understand policies but to little avail. Date and time of the diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't have a WP:COI with main parties, this is a mainstream encyclopedia which is reliant on the coverage of mainstream newspapers on current affairs and not a place to promote minor viewpoints or formations. I nominated that article for deletion because it isn't notable enough for a separate article, imv.


 * You still don't seem to understanding that the lines you left even after your "fixes" still imply that he was convicted for murder.
 * Whereas the source that you yourself cited very explicitly states that "Yadav was released from Patna’s Beur jail in August this year, after being granted bail by the Patna High Court in a money laundering case." In comparison the slanted article that you quoted from here uses an ambiguous "in connection" to refer to his incarceration which makes me wonder if this is just a CIR issue. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 07:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding that "provocation", I'll stand by what I said as in it's not my job to clean up after their violations of wikipedia policies which is what they "virtually begged for" (Special:Diff/984103289) after being asked to provide a source (Special:Diff/984103134). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding that "provocation", I'll stand by what I said as in it's not my job to clean up after their violations of wikipedia policies which is what they "virtually begged for" (Special:Diff/984103289) after being asked to provide a source (Special:Diff/984103134). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There's also this inappropriate canvassing of sorts (see Special:Diff/984241297 and Special:Diff/984090635) which I suppose is an example of gaming as well, they also don't seem to understand that they can't !vote twice in an AfD (see Special:Diff/984097633). Frankly, there's too much of these little CIR issues which ultimately build ups into disruption especially with the amount of resistance they provide towards changing their behavior. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Since they banned me from their talk page, which I agreed to on 12:04, 18 October 2020, I'd be glad if someone else notifies them.
 * Seems unnecessary now that they have responded. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 07:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Statement by Heba Aisha

 * plz check properly now I have made the edits and changed the sentences into accusation as no conviction was mentioned in the source. It means I undid the lines with which had problems and now nothing libelous is left.The user has lodged this complaint without properly observing my recent edits. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

So the new sentences after my recent edits goes like. 1.According to media report; in the meantime Ritlal was made an accused in the assassination of Bhartiya Janata Party leader Satyanarayan Sinha at Jamaluddin chowk near Khagaul.

2.According to media reports he is also accused in assassination of his rival Chunnu Singh at Chhath ghat in Neura

3.In the 2020 elections to Bihar Assembly Ritlal faced Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha who was allegedly murdered by his men.

After that I also talked to a very senior editor according to his advice the article just needed minor edits to remove libelous words.User talk:Fylindfotberserk    That's what I did and I don't think something more could be done as all sources talk only of subjects crime history. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually this is a sort of personal attack by this user who is not liking my steps like opening up WP:RFC on Talk: 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election as amidst the edits by many users he is repeatedly removing the Grand Democratic Secular Front from the article.It seems he has some WP:COI with main parties.A support for this lies in his delition nomination for Grand Democratic Secular Front where I m also keeping my views against him. So to derail my works and made me blocked he is on personal attack mode.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)



'''Dear admins; if I failed to write in WP:POV;I don't know what neutral from this source anyone can extract. When the sources itself are full of crime records. This is nothing just personal attack to teach me a lesson so that I can learn not to counter him on righteous things.'''Heba Aisha (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I told you already that if you have problem in reading hindi ask for translation rather than resorting to blatant vandalism.The 2nd source says this.

other hindi sources also say this ...plz stop proving me a policy violator I have made more contribution than you and 98% of them are undisputed. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I realized but the problem occurred due to a hindi source depending upon which I wrote this article.(I am reading daily edition of Dainik Bhaskar i got it there).The language was fancy and it didn't cleared in which case he was jailed for 10 yrs.(he has 33 cases against him) It seemed that he was jailed for that murder only. But as soon as I realized I made necessary edits.Its not fair to bring me here for a single mistake given until now 98% of my edits are undisputed. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * yes but confusion occurred due to sources(case of murder is on trial....I researched now) but it was a minor error and I don't liked user who reported me here to revert whole article to stub version.something he is doing across numerous articles. Actually if any other editor had been there he must have corrected that minor mistake but since I was against him at many other forum example delition discussion of Grand Democratic Secular Front he saw it as a pretext to book me for that and ban me.Sorry for inconvenience.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * see example this sentence Ritalal, who is at present lodged in the Beur Central Jail in connection with multiple criminal cases, including murder charges,. It creates confusion.... Source is above.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/984241297 and Special:Diff/984090635) regarding these. The user is a newbee and he has created a number of thread on the talk page of Bihar legislative assembly elections 2020....helping him to keep comment at right place and not making many thread is not a Gaming behavior. Also I do not believe in vandaling pages liks Tayi Arajakate if small issue is present.It is seen that many people added about GSDF in the article but he reverted it expressing WP:OWN behavior. See and [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/982830899] This is blatant vandalism. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * an admin relisted the article and asked for more comments for thorough discussion.And he is presenting it as an incompetency of mine that I voted twice.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde
The addition of the claim that Yadav murdered Sinha when the source only says he stands accused, is an extreme BLP violation. Can you please address that specific edit? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you recognize that it wasn't supported by the source, and that you need to stick very carefully to what the sources say? Also, please keep responses to your own section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Heba Aisha

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


 * There's a fair bit to go through here, but I don't want to see this go without attention just because a couple other cases sucked so much air out of the room. I will try to take a look at it over the next couple days. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Beshogur

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 19:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2 :


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


 * 1) 25 October "keep your bias to yourself"
 * 2) 25 October Doubles down at Diyarbakir but this time removes native names in a form of a note. Disingenouous edit-summary: "pure aesthetic purpose".
 * 3) 24 October Removes Kurdish, Armenian, Assyrian, and other native names from the Diyarbakir article. Diyarbakir has historically and continues to be a multi-cultural city. Such removals have gotten various users banned before.
 * 4) 22 October. Insists on using Azeri names instead of the much more common Armenian names of villages in Karabakh. He then slow edit-wars to maintain this over the course of this month: 20 October, 20 October, 10 October. Even goes so far as to remove the fact that there's an Armenian school in the village . It is still questionable whether Azeri forces are in control of this part of NK. Nevertheless, this is against WP:COMMONNAME and the user has been told several times already to stop doing this, let alone edit-war for it.
 * 5) 20 October Blanket removal of loads of reliably sourced information pertaining to Azerbaijani nationalism and the Armenian Genocide on Pan-Turkism article with an edit-summary that is entirely false and misleading.
 * 6) 20 October Consistenly refers to Artsakh forces as occupiers, the official language of the Azeri government. The long-standing consensus in AA2 articles has always been to use more netural terms like control and/or more legal terms like de facto. Beshogur has been on a spree to call the Armenian forces occupiers in many instances since the flareup of the conflict. Some other examples: 24 October, 24 October, 24 October, 22 October, 22 October.
 * 7) 2 October Uses very questionable sources to justify military changes on the battlefield. The NK war is very fluid and to rush to judgement on the capturing of one village is disruptive, let alone edit-warring to maintain it is doubly so. Edit-warring diffs: October 3, October 3, October 3 (WP:GAME with this one as it's only 8 minutes over the 24 hour mark of the initial revert). Beshogur's edit-warring lead to him getting immediately blocked. Even after the block and another reminder of AA2, the user continues to disrupt the project and it appears that is not willing to revise his approach towards it.
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 3 October blocked for disruptive edit-warring by admin


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

Warned about AA2 sanctions:


 * 1) 25 October
 * 2) 1 October

Wikipedia is not a venue to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The removal of native names and the insistence with calling Armenians occupiers coupled with the edit-warring and a disruptive pattern of editing should raise alarm bells. The user has a history of edit-warring and was just recently blocked a couple of weeks ago for it.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * makes several claims in his rebuttal that must be answered. For one, he refuses to acknowledge the importance of WP:NCGN by removing anything pertaining to Armenia or Armenians in these villages as the war continues. He goes so far as to point to an ongoing discussion that he started (might I add, the WP:VOTESTACKING is quite obvious there) to which no consensus has been reached. Yet, even as the discussion continues and no consensus has been reached, he continues using the term occupation. Another fallacy in his argument is that not only did he do this before he opened that discussion, he did it after. In other words, gaining consensus does not phase him in this regard.


 * He then states that he only calls these villages occupied if they're outside of the NK Republic. This is false. In the 20 October diff, for example, he added this phrase to the article: "When it was under Armenian occupation, Hadrut was twinned with:" Hadrut lies plainly in NK boundaries. With that said, the term occupation is still used by him whether or not these territories are in NK boundaries.


 * His response for the Madagiz issue is misleading. The issue with Madagiz is not the infobox, but rather the first sentence of the article to which he changed the first sentence to the official name rather than the WP:COMMONNAME even as he was told several times to avoid doing so. The slow edit-warring of this is also a recurring problem given that he has been blocked several times for edit-warring. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by Beshogur
About occupation. Literally every international source, including OSCE minsk group mentions this as an occupation. Both Zengilan and Fuzuli cities were outside the former NKAO, and those cities had predominantly Azerbaijani majority. If you knew it, both cities' Armenian names are not its native names, but had been renamed after the Armenian occupation. (discussion about the term)

Additional note:
 * Füzuli (city)'s old names: Qarabulak, Karyagin, and Varanda, named after 1993 when the city actually became a ghost town after NK war, and outside NKAO.


 * Zəngilan: Pirchivan, Zengilan, and later renamed to Kovsakan after Armenian occupation, another place outside NKAO.


 * Jabrayil: renamed to Jrakan after NKR war, another ghost town, and outside NKAO.

These are not traditional names used by Armenians but later renamed by an occupying state.

To clarify Madagiz yet again, I am not against that name, the problem is, you are changing "official_name=" into Madagiz. , an admin, even realized that he was also wrong about that. See talk of that page. And I didn't move that page at the first place, stop putting the blame on my.

About Diyarbakir, I found a note better for an excessive name section. For the first edit, I removed it because it was already on the name section below. That's the main reason. If that was wrong, my apologizes, that was not my intention. Also I noticed that I did the same thing for Sultanate of Rum and Anatolia articles. I really don't understand how this is equal to removing the names.

For Iranian Azerbaijan. That article had been under scope of WP Azerbaijan. Removing is ok, but restoring it not?

Also I don't think it's ok to judge me of my block which is already passed. Regards.

For his second statement: Before accusing me of Votestacking, administrators are free to check my editing or mail history. I did not sent any user, nor did notify about that requested move. Beside that, I do not call only places outside NKAO occupied, I call them all. I was clarifying the name issues, these cities not being majority Armenian at the first place, and the names being changed after Armenian occupation. To clarify Madagiz yet again. I didn't move the article at the first place. I thought that it was looking weird when you had two different names. As I explained, I am not against its old name, and that had been solved on the talk page, why do you bring this up every time?

Additional note: UN: "Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan;"

About the status of Madagiz. AJ report about Azerbaijan building road to Madagiz. Another by Euronews from inside of Madagiz. Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

what's the reason of topic ban? seems to agree with me on the term occupied. I have never seen those users discussing this term on the talk page. Reporting is an easy way of course. Also I am keeping my good faith, apologising if I did something wrong, but topic ban wouldn't be fair. I explained my edits. Beshogur (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (Wikaviani)
is not assuming good faith when they interact with fellow Wikipedians and the compelling evidences provided by make me wonder if  is here to build an encyclopedia, or rather, to be on a mission of Turkification. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  01:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How could you explain your edit. Mine is not disruptive, you're is. And what kind of conspiracy is that?


 * I explained my edit thoroughly in my edit-summary, just take the time to read it instead of attacking fellow Wikipedians. Your above answer alone is enough to show that you are not assuming good faith when you interact with others, and judging by and 's comments, you have been behaving like that for a while here, on Wikipedia ... ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well your edit was wrong then. Again I apologize for my text. Beshogur (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it's not up to you to decide what is wrong or right, it's a matter of reliable sources and consensus. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You alone, isn't a "consensus", removing WP Azerbaijan from that page. You do not have any reliable source that shows Azerbaijan Republic isn't related to Iranian Azerbaijan. Pure original research. Beshogur (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I never said that i alone am a consensus, again, you better read what people say instead of attacking them. Also, i would be interested to understand how a 102 years old country (Republic of Azerbaijan) can be related to a historic region that predates the Republic by centuries ? I suggest you to answer this question on the Azerbaijan (Iran) talk page. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because R of Azerbaijan is populated by same people, speaking the same tongue? Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will answer on the article talk page, but your argument is clearly irrelevant. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment : Topic ban sounds ok, since 's editing profile appears to be biased when it comes to Turkey and surrounding areas ... ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (HistoryofIran)
Beshogur has a tendency to not assume WP:GF of his fellow editors. These are two of my recent experiences with him:

1. I was removing information from Turkestan which was not WP:RS, which then led to him create a whole section just to say this:

you will almost claim that such a region does not even exist.

2. Because I was arguing that the President "Library" of Azerbaijan was not RS, because it is a country without freedom of press, (I did also say that the source cited Wikipedia and Tourism Az amongst others, which was ignored), clearly without any bad intention, my own background for some reason became involved in his following comment:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stepanakert&diff=981657048&oldid=981656890 Ah throwing bait and saying that you are going to be accused of racism. And again(?) But Iran does not have freedom of press either. Considering, a lot of Iranian sources are used here. Do you have anything where it states you can not use state sources? Plus the source only states that Khankendi means City of Khan, do you really oppose that? Or didn't you like it?]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, don't play the victim. And you do not have any proof that source is not reliable and the info being wrong. I did not further edit to avoid any dispute. Since it's usual people reporting eachother from such small things. Beshogur (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk)

Statement by (Mr.User200)
(Beshogur) editing behaviour adjoins disruptive editing in many issues (All regarding Turkey). He likes edit warring 1 2 3 4 5 6Especially those regarding modern historical events related to Turkey. Most editors that have experienced editing disputes with him cannot asumme good faith because of their particular POV editing and peculiar way of expressing.

He also reverts other users edits calling them jokes and making non civil edit summaries that turn WP into a Battleground.1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

Most of his edits are reverts on other users edits, by the way.

He uses minor errors on edits to revert the whole content, only because "He dont like" 1.

He have a very particular POV when editing Armenian related articles and Armenian Genocide (I.E "Nothing to do with Turkey") 1 2

Calls Amnesty International reports on Right abuses by Turkish forces "Propaganda". 1

He canvasses Admins when there is no need to 1.

When his wrongdoing is discovered or faced with diff, he just use the "racism card". Something he have done times before. August 2016 October 2020.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would add that reported User, keeps with his reverting behaviour 12 even he does not have a civil attitude toward other editors ("You really need to be blocked" at edit summary).3.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Konli17
This user does great work with some historical and cultural articles, but I have to agree about the Turkish nationalist POV I've also seen, e.g. rewriting history, and refusing to allow the placenames of the enemy, in defiance of WP:COMMONNAME:   Konli17 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Beshogur

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


 * Looks like the only solution here is a topic ban from the area. Doug Weller  talk 12:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Beshogur

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 19:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2 :


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


 * 1) 25 October "keep your bias to yourself"
 * 2) 25 October Doubles down at Diyarbakir but this time removes native names in a form of a note. Disingenouous edit-summary: "pure aesthetic purpose".
 * 3) 24 October Removes Kurdish, Armenian, Assyrian, and other native names from the Diyarbakir article. Diyarbakir has historically and continues to be a multi-cultural city. Such removals have gotten various users banned before.
 * 4) 22 October. Insists on using Azeri names instead of the much more common Armenian names of villages in Karabakh. He then slow edit-wars to maintain this over the course of this month: 20 October, 20 October, 10 October. Even goes so far as to remove the fact that there's an Armenian school in the village . It is still questionable whether Azeri forces are in control of this part of NK. Nevertheless, this is against WP:COMMONNAME and the user has been told several times already to stop doing this, let alone edit-war for it.
 * 5) 20 October Blanket removal of loads of reliably sourced information pertaining to Azerbaijani nationalism and the Armenian Genocide on Pan-Turkism article with an edit-summary that is entirely false and misleading.
 * 6) 20 October Consistenly refers to Artsakh forces as occupiers, the official language of the Azeri government. The long-standing consensus in AA2 articles has always been to use more netural terms like control and/or more legal terms like de facto. Beshogur has been on a spree to call the Armenian forces occupiers in many instances since the flareup of the conflict. Some other examples: 24 October, 24 October, 24 October, 22 October, 22 October.
 * 7) 2 October Uses very questionable sources to justify military changes on the battlefield. The NK war is very fluid and to rush to judgement on the capturing of one village is disruptive, let alone edit-warring to maintain it is doubly so. Edit-warring diffs: October 3, October 3, October 3 (WP:GAME with this one as it's only 8 minutes over the 24 hour mark of the initial revert). Beshogur's edit-warring lead to him getting immediately blocked. Even after the block and another reminder of AA2, the user continues to disrupt the project and it appears that is not willing to revise his approach towards it.
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 3 October blocked for disruptive edit-warring by admin


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

Warned about AA2 sanctions:


 * 1) 25 October
 * 2) 1 October

Wikipedia is not a venue to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The removal of native names and the insistence with calling Armenians occupiers coupled with the edit-warring and a disruptive pattern of editing should raise alarm bells. The user has a history of edit-warring and was just recently blocked a couple of weeks ago for it.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * makes several claims in his rebuttal that must be answered. For one, he refuses to acknowledge the importance of WP:NCGN by removing anything pertaining to Armenia or Armenians in these villages as the war continues. He goes so far as to point to an ongoing discussion that he started (might I add, the WP:VOTESTACKING is quite obvious there) to which no consensus has been reached. Yet, even as the discussion continues and no consensus has been reached, he continues using the term occupation. Another fallacy in his argument is that not only did he do this before he opened that discussion, he did it after. In other words, gaining consensus does not phase him in this regard.


 * He then states that he only calls these villages occupied if they're outside of the NK Republic. This is false. In the 20 October diff, for example, he added this phrase to the article: "When it was under Armenian occupation, Hadrut was twinned with:" Hadrut lies plainly in NK boundaries. With that said, the term occupation is still used by him whether or not these territories are in NK boundaries.


 * His response for the Madagiz issue is misleading. The issue with Madagiz is not the infobox, but rather the first sentence of the article to which he changed the first sentence to the official name rather than the WP:COMMONNAME even as he was told several times to avoid doing so. The slow edit-warring of this is also a recurring problem given that he has been blocked several times for edit-warring. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by Beshogur
About occupation. Literally every international source, including OSCE minsk group mentions this as an occupation. Both Zengilan and Fuzuli cities were outside the former NKAO, and those cities had predominantly Azerbaijani majority. If you knew it, both cities' Armenian names are not its native names, but had been renamed after the Armenian occupation. (discussion about the term)

Additional note:
 * Füzuli (city)'s old names: Qarabulak, Karyagin, and Varanda, named after 1993 when the city actually became a ghost town after NK war, and outside NKAO.


 * Zəngilan: Pirchivan, Zengilan, and later renamed to Kovsakan after Armenian occupation, another place outside NKAO.


 * Jabrayil: renamed to Jrakan after NKR war, another ghost town, and outside NKAO.

These are not traditional names used by Armenians but later renamed by an occupying state.

To clarify Madagiz yet again, I am not against that name, the problem is, you are changing "official_name=" into Madagiz. , an admin, even realized that he was also wrong about that. See talk of that page. And I didn't move that page at the first place, stop putting the blame on my.

About Diyarbakir, I found a note better for an excessive name section. For the first edit, I removed it because it was already on the name section below. That's the main reason. If that was wrong, my apologizes, that was not my intention. Also I noticed that I did the same thing for Sultanate of Rum and Anatolia articles. I really don't understand how this is equal to removing the names.

For Iranian Azerbaijan. That article had been under scope of WP Azerbaijan. Removing is ok, but restoring it not?

Also I don't think it's ok to judge me of my block which is already passed. Regards.

For his second statement: Before accusing me of Votestacking, administrators are free to check my editing or mail history. I did not sent any user, nor did notify about that requested move. Beside that, I do not call only places outside NKAO occupied, I call them all. I was clarifying the name issues, these cities not being majority Armenian at the first place, and the names being changed after Armenian occupation. To clarify Madagiz yet again. I didn't move the article at the first place. I thought that it was looking weird when you had two different names. As I explained, I am not against its old name, and that had been solved on the talk page, why do you bring this up every time?

Additional note: UN: "Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan;"

About the status of Madagiz. AJ report about Azerbaijan building road to Madagiz. Another by Euronews from inside of Madagiz. Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

what's the reason of topic ban? seems to agree with me on the term occupied. I have never seen those users discussing this term on the talk page. Reporting is an easy way of course. Also I am keeping my good faith, apologising if I did something wrong, but topic ban wouldn't be fair. I explained my edits. Beshogur (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (Wikaviani)
is not assuming good faith when they interact with fellow Wikipedians and the compelling evidences provided by make me wonder if  is here to build an encyclopedia, or rather, to be on a mission of Turkification. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  01:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How could you explain your edit. Mine is not disruptive, you're is. And what kind of conspiracy is that?


 * I explained my edit thoroughly in my edit-summary, just take the time to read it instead of attacking fellow Wikipedians. Your above answer alone is enough to show that you are not assuming good faith when you interact with others, and judging by and 's comments, you have been behaving like that for a while here, on Wikipedia ... ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well your edit was wrong then. Again I apologize for my text. Beshogur (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it's not up to you to decide what is wrong or right, it's a matter of reliable sources and consensus. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You alone, isn't a "consensus", removing WP Azerbaijan from that page. You do not have any reliable source that shows Azerbaijan Republic isn't related to Iranian Azerbaijan. Pure original research. Beshogur (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I never said that i alone am a consensus, again, you better read what people say instead of attacking them. Also, i would be interested to understand how a 102 years old country (Republic of Azerbaijan) can be related to a historic region that predates the Republic by centuries ? I suggest you to answer this question on the Azerbaijan (Iran) talk page. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because R of Azerbaijan is populated by same people, speaking the same tongue? Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will answer on the article talk page, but your argument is clearly irrelevant. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment : Topic ban sounds ok, since 's editing profile appears to be biased when it comes to Turkey and surrounding areas ... ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (HistoryofIran)
Beshogur has a tendency to not assume WP:GF of his fellow editors. These are two of my recent experiences with him:

1. I was removing information from Turkestan which was not WP:RS, which then led to him create a whole section just to say this:

you will almost claim that such a region does not even exist.

2. Because I was arguing that the President "Library" of Azerbaijan was not RS, because it is a country without freedom of press, (I did also say that the source cited Wikipedia and Tourism Az amongst others, which was ignored), clearly without any bad intention, my own background for some reason became involved in his following comment:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stepanakert&diff=981657048&oldid=981656890 Ah throwing bait and saying that you are going to be accused of racism. And again(?) But Iran does not have freedom of press either. Considering, a lot of Iranian sources are used here. Do you have anything where it states you can not use state sources? Plus the source only states that Khankendi means City of Khan, do you really oppose that? Or didn't you like it?]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, don't play the victim. And you do not have any proof that source is not reliable and the info being wrong. I did not further edit to avoid any dispute. Since it's usual people reporting eachother from such small things. Beshogur (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk)

Statement by (Mr.User200)
(Beshogur) editing behaviour adjoins disruptive editing in many issues (All regarding Turkey). He likes edit warring 1 2 3 4 5 6Especially those regarding modern historical events related to Turkey. Most editors that have experienced editing disputes with him cannot asumme good faith because of their particular POV editing and peculiar way of expressing.

He also reverts other users edits calling them jokes and making non civil edit summaries that turn WP into a Battleground.1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

Most of his edits are reverts on other users edits, by the way.

He uses minor errors on edits to revert the whole content, only because "He dont like" 1.

He have a very particular POV when editing Armenian related articles and Armenian Genocide (I.E "Nothing to do with Turkey") 1 2

Calls Amnesty International reports on Right abuses by Turkish forces "Propaganda". 1

He canvasses Admins when there is no need to 1.

When his wrongdoing is discovered or faced with diff, he just use the "racism card". Something he have done times before. August 2016 October 2020.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Konli17
This user does great work with some historical and cultural articles, but I have to agree about the Turkish nationalist POV I've also seen, e.g. rewriting history, and refusing to allow the placenames of the enemy, in defiance of WP:COMMONNAME:   Konli17 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Beshogur

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


 * Looks like the only solution here is a topic ban from the area. Doug Weller  talk 12:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Doggy54321
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Doggy54321

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doggy54321 :


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


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation
 * 3) Date Explanation
 * 4) Date Explanation


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation


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


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
 * Placed a Ds/aware template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Result concerning USERNAME

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



SPECIFICO (3)
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning SPECIFICO

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS :


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


 * 1) 15:20, 27 October 2020 Removes longstanding text whose removal days earlier was contested.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 23:58, 12 May 2020: "sanctioned for violation of the 1RR and enforced BRD sanctions at Joe Biden."


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


 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 23:58, 12 May 2020 by.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

has been engaged in a longstanding and understandable effort to trim page length at Julian Assange. I restored one removed sentence, a NYT paraphrase of the Obama Administration's views on the constitutional implications of indicting Assange; the text had been in the article for over a year. SPECIFICO reverted my restoration of the sentence, and I informed SPECIFICO their action violated DS (see discussion here ). While SPECIFICO has continued to edit at Talk:Julian Assange and elsewhere, they have not self-reverted, nor participated in the ongoing talk page discussion that appears to favor keeping the sentence.

At Talk:Julian Assange, SPECIFICO has previously acknowledged that removing longstanding text, if the removal is contested, is a violation of discretionary sanctions on the page:,.

recently confirmed at Talk:Julian Assange that re-removing longstanding content is a violation of the DS on the page. Guy, who originally placed the sanctions on the page, has responded , "that might apply in another article, but this one has been WP:OWNed by a small cabal of fans and Mueller denialists for a long time." Needless to say, this is offensive, untrue, suggests a battleground mentality, and also creates a situation where DS has opposite meanings depending on Guy's views. Guy has expressed very strong opinions on Assange previously, and I'm unsure if someone with such charged attitudes regarding Assange should be acting as an admin on Assange's BLP. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply to Guy
 * I strongly dispute Guy's description of conflicts on the page, and ask that any characterization of my or others' edits there be supported by diffs and sources.
 * In this edit, Guy refers to Assange as an established "Kremlin asset"; I don't recall that I have made any similar comment on Assange, and I don't think anyone should, either for or against him.
 * In this edit Guy opposes the inclusion of even one sentence in the body of the article that would report a German political appeal on Assange's behalf, a letter covered by every large newspaper in Germany. Guy writes, For all the fervour with which this is promoted off-wiki by Assange cultists, it was one letter that was not, as far as I can tell, covered after its original release. Cult leaders are very good at exploiting what Lenin termed "useful idiots". Do the phrases "Assange cultists" and "useful idiots" refer to to journalists for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, or the Süddeutsche Zeitung? Or is this a reference to signers of the letter including journalist Günter Wallraff or the former Vice-Chancellor of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel? I'm not sure, but this is not about the "consensus view of independent sources": Guy is frequently arguing against them.
 * I think Guy is a great editor and agree with them about plenty of things, but this attitude towards the topic is not neutral, and is contributing to rather than resolving disputes. -Darouet (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, anybody can check to see if I've ever suggested you can't disagree. Otherwise, your repeated suggestion that all editors at Julian Assange be topic banned after SPECIFICO is alleged to have violated DS comes across a clever way of punishing other editors for SPECIFICO's editing, and reversing both the letter and the spirit of the sanctions you added to this page. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply to 


 * In this case I've documented a single clear instance of a violation of DS, according to metrics that SPECIFICO understands . Apparently DS is very important to SPECIFICO: in the past month, they have repeatedly threatened DS at Talk:Julian Assange using an interpretion of DS exactly opposite their earlier reasoning, and contrary to the understanding of admins here . In SPECIFICO's 22 edits currently found at Talk:Julian Assange and its most recent archive, SPECIFICO references WP:DS four times in various forms (e.g. "Per the page restriction Discretionary Sanction" and "you will... face sanctions"). A brief perusal of their editing elsewhere on Wikipedia shows that they are frequently warning other editors about discretionary sanctions and possible blocks or bans.
 * SPECIFICO's violation here is not an anomaly: I asked them to please revert and participate in the "discussion" portion of BRD, and they will not do so. Further examination of their editing at Talk:Julian Assange shows that this incident is consistent with SPECIFICO's behavior overall. In those 22 edits I mentioned, SPECIFICO never links to a single reliable source or even bothers to quote from one. Instead, they invoke WP:ONUS 5x, WP:FRINGE 3x, WP:UNDUE 2x, WP:CONSENSUS 2x, WP:NPOVN, WP:WEASEL and WP:POV. How is this alphabet soup of WP:WIKILAWYERING supposed to be supported without references to reliable sources? SPECIFICO sums up their attitude here : "policy, fact, sourcing, whatever."
 * All this amounts to textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. If you would like to remove the BRD consensus required portion of the DS, I humbly suggest we take this to WP:ARBCOM, which as far as I understand it, is the body that drafted these measures. I have also believed these sanctions are designed to address exactly this kind of behavior. Is that correct? The diffs and quotes above show we have strong evidence that if the sanction were actually enforced, the editing environment at Talk:Julian Assange would improve dramatically, and it's within ARBCOM's mandate to represent the community in putting a stop to disruptive editing. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Struck "BRD" and replaced with "consensus required" (bolded) per . -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply to 
 * At Talk:Julian Assange, five editors support keeping the text, and two oppose it. Here, the two admins actually commenting on the behavioral issue — and  — agree that SPECIFICO violated DS on the page. Not one admin has suggested or presented evidence that SPECIFICO's editing there is helpful, or supports consensus. If you're asking us to ignore both DS and also consensus, what evidence and policy do you have to support this course of action? -Darouet (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply to 
 * 985 editors are watching Julian Assange: it requires no conspiracy for others to object to your misusing the discretionary sanctions on the page, and I have never engaged in meatpuppetry there or anywhere on this site. SPECIFICO, your edits also significantly overlap with mine, and with other editors commenting at this AE case — something that shouldn’t be surprising for people editing on topics prominent in the US and international news.
 * In the appendix to the first book of his Ethics, Spinoza remarks that humans wrongly suspect intention and intelligence behind all events significant to them. However, rather than blaming everyone else, why couldn’t SPECIFICO simply discuss the Obama Administration and New York Times’ comment, instead of reflexively reverting with a false edit summary ? Contrary to SPECIFICO’s allegation  that I was not immediately responsive to their request that I change the heading of my complaint, I asked what heading they wanted one minute after their request, and changed the heading three minutes after that . Why didn’t SPECIFICO self-revert when asked , or just apologize and promise to collaborate in the future? Nobody forced SPECIFICO to interpret DS at Talk:Julian Assange in multiple contradictory ways according to what seemed convenient at the moment ( vs ), including while threatening other editors with those contradictory interpretations of DS.
 * Lastly, SPECIFICO continues to assert here that they should be free to edit Julian Assange against DS or consensus because they are right. That has never been a valid excuse for unprofessional behavior. But as often happens when an editor runs afoul of page restrictions, SPECIFICO is arguing against coverage in reliable sources. The Obama Administration viewed prosecution of Assange for his publishing dangerous on first amendment grounds, and the NYT reported that : "The Obama administration had also weighed charging Mr. Assange, but rejected that step out of fears that it would chill investigative journalism and could be struck down as unconstitutional." This is a prominent view in the US and Internationally, also expressed by the Columbia Journalism Review , by Human Rights Watch , and by the United Nations special rapporteur on torture . Of course, this view doesn't need to be shared by Assange's biography here, but it should be recorded where appropriate. In short, SPECIFICO’s attitude towards reliable sources has been similar to their attitude towards professional conduct and page restrictions: dismissive. -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply to 
 * The only admin who has questioned the "applicability of the sanctions" is Guy, who earlier acknowledged they are WP:INVOLVED, and has explicitly stated that the ordinary interpretation of DS, repeatedly demonstrated by other admins , is correct but should be ignored  because Julian Assange is "WP:OWNed by a small cabal of fans and Mueller denialists." Guy is actually stating that they are shifting their definition of DS in order to deal with other editors he calls a "cabal" , and  you find that to be good-faithed and reasonable? -Darouet (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I have notified SPECIFICO here, and also left a comment at Guy's talk page. -Darouet (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by SPECIFICO

 * I see that you feel I should respond to this complaint. Please be assured my silence was not, as you apparently felt, out of disrespect for AE. I had nothing to say in rebuttal because I did not see any Admin sentiment favoring the complaint.

As has been stated below, Darouet escalated this to AE in record time -- less than 24 hours -- without the customary courtesy of a warning message on my talk page or of allowing a reasonable time for an article talk page response. This minimal content disagreement could easily have been resolved on talk in short order, much better than the immediate escalation. My edit summary explained -- too tersely I now see -- what I meant by SYNTH. In hindsight, it would have been clearer to say UNDUE WEIGHT because the SYNTH depends on the larger narrative of the article. My concern was that the repeated and excessive mentions of First Amendment press freedoms reinforces Assange apologists' narrative that he remains a journalist rather than an accused felon. This has been a longstanding matter of contention on that article. As you'll see on the talk page after my removal, I am not the only editor who was concerned about this. Sources' reporting on Assange has changed a lot in recent years, but the article has clung to some now deprecated narratives about him.

In a previous talk page thread, the interpretation of the DS page restriction was discussed and appeared to support the removal of disputed text pending talk page consensus to include. See here. I don't see anything in the sequence of events to suggest that I willfully flouted that page restriction.

Why didn't I immediately give a detailed substantive reply on the article talk page after my removal? I am busy with community responsibilities IRL during the pandemic and my history shows that I currently edit sporadically while I am not at my desk. But you'll note that Darouet launched a talk thread with a personalized title naming SPECIFICO rather than the content issue to be discussed. When I asked him to correct this he was not immediately responsive, and this didn't make me eager to hasten my reply about the edit. Darouet then continued to personalize his concern in that thread and the following thread wherein I don't think it's appropriate to refer to a violation that had not yet been adjudicated.

Given that the restriction has now not only been removed from that page, but deprecated as fundamentally flawed and unworkable, it's hard to understand any rationale for a sanction at this time. I edit in AP2 and BLP areas where disagreements are common and I do not edit war or push the limits of DS or consensus processes. What is the preventive purpose of a sanction at this time? It would appear to be more a case of rules for rules' sake, and not the way I have ever seen AE or WP operate.  SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me for repeating myself, but at this recent thread, who was the "owner" of the Consensus Required page restriction, confirmed my interpretation of that sanction. On that thread and on 's talk page, it is documented that there was disagreement about which version requires talk page consensus before reinstatement. If Admins believe that it is a substantive disruption to revert reinstatement of old content without prior talk page consensus, why have you opted to remove this page restriction? I am not understanding why -- now that any editor can arrive and make the same removal I did -- it is not "disruptive" now but it was seriously disruptive a week ago? As Levivich showed (by reinstating the disputed content) the problem was easily resolved. I don't edit war and the matter would have proceeded to talk page resolution as the minor and routine editing disagreement is was and is. Bradv, as you know from various discussions on your talk page, there is disagreement among experienced editors and Admins as to what constitutes a revert and which edit triggers BRD and ONUS. I'd be very disappointed to learn that I could not rely on the recent Admin opinion of in the cited talk page thread to remove what I continue to feel is UNDUE emphasis created by the disputed text. Again, the text conflates a specific concern of the Obama Justice Department regarding prosecution with the general narrative that Assange is a journalist. As another editor has pointed out on the talk page, this information is already stated elsewhere in the article. Yes, the disputed text is properly sourced, but SYNTH-like and UNDUE text is not about Verification. It's about NPOV.

Finally, in case it's not known to all the Admins here, Darouet and Thucydides411, who have not denied being real-life friends have a longstanding coincidence of their editing in what many have called battleground style and often appears to be meatpuppetry Their interaction history demonstrates this is widespread and longstanding. I have long been among the targets of their animus, dating to when they were disruptively tag-teaming the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article and Thucydides was sanctioned. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_10#%22Interfered_in%22_the_elections? here] among the dozens of times that eventually led to his TBAN. It feels to me as if Darouet's hair-trigger AE complaint, hours after opening a talk page thread with a WP:POINT-y header was Darouet's payback for Thucydides411's frustration that his recent prior AE complaint against me was closed without action. I think this is disrespectful of the AE process and the time and attention of multiple Admins and editors.  SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a clearly documented disagreement as to whether "longstanding" text that lacks talk page evidence of prior consensus is privileged. JzG as owner of the page restriction had recently affirmed my interpretation. I'm not dumb or inexperienced enough to willfully violate a page restriction or to disrupt a contentious article. I really think this should be closed and we can all consider whether any of the add-on restrictions beyond 1RR makes any sense for the community. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page thread, including a link to the 2019 RfC which closed documenting that editors rejected portraying Assange as a "journalist." SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC) I'm not understanding why you went from pointing out that I am not a disruptive editor at that article to a fairly long topic block for an edit that any WP editors could now repeat without tripping a page restriction. Be that as it may, I'd ask you to leave this open for several days (during which I'll stay off that page, if you wish) because I've just now responded and pointed Admins to a lot of information and context that some of them may wish to review.  SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (SPECIFICO eleventy)
I applied the DS in November 2019, but since then I have become involved with discussions on the Talk page so as noted a previous time someone dragged SPECIFICO here I consider myself involved on that article and don't take any administrative role in this endless ongoing dispute. My opinion as an editor expressed on Talk has no more or less weight than anyone else's and I would hope would not be interpreted any other way.

It mainly just frustrates me, for exactly the reason noted above: in my view (and in my admittedly limited experience there) the article is WP:OWNed by a small group of people whose view of Assange appears to be almost Messianic, and at odds with the consensus view of independent sources. My view of Assange is ambivalent. I think that's also a fair summary of the RS, but not the current state of the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Darouet, the idea that Assange was a Kremlin asset is taken directly from the exceptionally conservative findings of Robert S Mueller III. And yes, I think that letters full of special pleading are of no encyclopaedic merit, but, on point here, your rather obvious failure to get over the fact that I disagreed with you on that is a point against you, not for you. People are allowed to disagree. If you want to raise the issue of bludgeoning and stonewalling on that article's talk page, I will chip in with a resounding "hell yeah!" and encourage any uninvolved admin to TBAN every editor who has engaged in this, including me if they think it's justified. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , except that it's not clear that it was a violation. That's the point: it could be read either way. Reasonable people may differ. So the result here would be to "resolve" a POV-pushing problem by removing one of the few remaining editors working for NPOV and who has not yet been driven off. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Arkon (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Regardless of how many watchers that page has, it is dominated by a very small number of voices, almost all of them strongly pro-Assange. I encourage anyone to go and read the talk page and its archives, as I did after placing the DS. To me, this looks like naked activism. I don't doubt the good faith of those involved, but I do doubt their neutrality, and I sincerely believe that the article would be better if everyone with more than 100 edits to the talk page was topic banned from that article for six months. I recognise that I may be in a minority in holding that view, but there you go. That seems to me to be the best way of removing both first mover advantage and groupthink. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000
Frankly, I think the characterizations of SPECIFICO not engaging in discussion and the talk page discussion appearing to favor keeping the sentence are premature since you filed this 18 hours after starting the discussion. I also think perhaps it may have made sense for you to go to the TP before restoring text that appears redundant in an overly long article, particularly in a consensus required article; no matter the letter of the law. Just my humble opinions about collaboration. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy's description of conflicts on the page; but think it's irrelevant to this discussion and should not have been brought up by the filer in the first place. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the edit summary was incorrect -- it was not synth. Not a reason to file at AE. I suggest that this kind of content dispute is not why AE was created and could easily have been handled elsewhere (ATP or UTP) instead of jumping to a board of near, last resort with less than a day of discussion. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of suggesting admins agree with her politics, so she is above the rules, consider the possibility that AE is being weaponized and this particular rule enables such. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Having read the discussion on the TP and the rationale for inclusion of this twice, I now understand the SYNTH characterization and have stricken my previous opinion above. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Arrgh. Examining this discussion and that at the TP still looks like a gross misuse of this noticeboard. Part of this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Part of this discussion belongs on a few boards that can discuss the purpose and/or mechanisms of DS/AE. Filing this here without one day of discussion illustrates how this noticeboard can be weaponized. Frankly, I think the filing should have been immediately sent back to the article TP for discussion. If anyone is sanctioned as a result, I think multiple editors, including the filer, should be included. But, I’d prefer trouting (just finished some rainbow trout for dinner minutes ago), followed by a discussion on the rules with less distraction. I don’t like what looks like drama for the sake of drama. Leave drama to soap operas. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
It's really simple, do all editors need to abide by DS? And if so, was this violated, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit."? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
The text that Specifico removed:

Specifico's edit summary for the removal:

What the source (NYTimes) wrote:

It is not WP:SYNTH, it is directly stated by the source. Lev!vich 18:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

So far, we've tried doing nothing, and it hasn't worked. I know it sounds crazy and it's not what the AE admin are used to doing, but how about we try actually enforcing a rule this time? I know what you're thinking: "it's a clear violation, we don't know what to do", or perhaps, "she's an AP2 regular, and I agree with her politics, so she is above the rules", but consensus required just might work if admin actually enforced it, you know, equally, as if everyone were held to the same rules. You may have noticed that AE is not getting inundated with reports of editors breaking consensus required left and right, it's just getting inundated with reports about Specifico. So maybe, just maybe, doing something more than issuing a fifth warning (or throwing up our hands in defeat), who knows, actually might make a difference. After five reports in two months, maybe we can give doing something a try, mmm? Lev!vich 14:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@O3: I've considered whether AE has been weaponized by three different editors bringing four valid complaints with diffs of clear PAG/DS violations, and rejected the theory as implausible. Now please consider whether the diff in this case is or is not a violation of the consensus required restriction, and whether the edit summary did or did not state a valid reason for the edit. Lev!vich 15:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Seriously with that question? Because no one wants to get sanctioned; because it's pending at AE; because the last person to complain about this was sanctioned. Let's not fault editors for reporting things to a noticeboard instead of edit warring. So, I've restored it now. Let's see what happens next. Lev!vich 03:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The way we know that the sentence has consensus is that it's been in the lead for a long time (WP:SILENCE). The way we know that removal of the sentence does not have consensus is that it was reverted (and there's no consensus on the talk page supporting the removal).
 * Also note in this AE, Specifico is arguing that longstanding text can be removed and it needs consensus to be reinstated, but in the last AE, Specifico was arguing the exact opposite, reinstating removed text and claiming that it has consensus because it's been there for a month, and in an AE before that, Specifico was arguing the same thing as here. Can we address arguing one thing and then arguing the opposite?
 * Can somebody remove longstanding text or not? If someone removes longstanding text, can another editor revert that? And can a third editor re-remove it? Were Specifico's edits policy-compliant, or not? Lev!vich 03:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not judge one person's action by another person's reaction. Lev!vich 03:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can somebody remove longstanding text or not? If someone removes longstanding text, can another editor revert that? And can a third editor re-remove it? Were Specifico's edits policy-compliant, or not? Lev!vich 03:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not judge one person's action by another person's reaction. Lev!vich 03:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Upland
The text is a paraphrase of NYT and not "SYNTH". By the way, I am not a fan of Assange, still less a cultist, and I have made extensive edits to the page, so I reject the claim of "ownership" by a cabal. Yes, there is a small group of editors who are clearly pro-Assange, just as there is a small group who are anti-Assange...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
This is another example of why blanket "consensus required" DSes are a terrible idea. This one should not be enforced and should be removed from the article.

Consider: There is no indication that the text under dispute has ever had any discussion. Yes, it has a degree of implicit consensus due to its age; that would be worth considering in any discussions, and would matter if an RFC failed to reach consensus otherwise. But that is not a strong consensus, certainly not enough to try and shut down editing or to substitute discussions with a pointless digression in an effort to win a content dispute, followed by a near-immediate leap to AE in an effort to remove the other editor. Is that the sort of "discussion" and consensus-building we want to encourage on controversial articles? Is that supposed to represent the first step in our consensus-building process on the articles that most sorely need it?

Consensus is an important part of how Wikipedia operates, but it is always required - and reaching it, in any sort of constructive long-term sense, requires discussion of the actual issue under dispute; when editors are sharply at odds, that discussion only happens because both sides feel a pressure that brings them to the table to hammer things out. It's clear (and has been for a long, long time) that so-called consensus required DSes are actively harmful to such discussion; putting too much force behind one default outcome encourages people who prefer that outcome in any particular dispute to stonewall and contribute minimally to discussions outside of insisting that policy backs their version. A situation where any editor can, at any time, via a single revert, demand that any change to an article go through a full consensus-building process before any changes at all can be made to the relevant text is simply not viable, especially when so much of our process depends on lightweight "implicit" consensus and a willingness to compromise or back down without going to such lengths every time.

Even Donald Trump, the article which (if I recall correctly) was the genesis of the Consensus Required restriction, is now under the much more reasonable If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit one, which slows things down enough to encourage discussion and avert revert wars without allowing endless, easy stonewalling and red tape. I would argue that the fact that any articles exist which have not been updated to that restriction yet is merely an error stemming from way DSes are mostly under the discretion of the applying administrator (which makes it difficult to update them all at once); while Julian Assange is a controversial topic, it makes no sense to argue that it is more controversial than Donald Trump at the height of an election. Why on earth does it still have a vastly more draconian restriction? --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thucydides411
The question here is simple: will an editor who intentionally and repeatedly violates a DS restriction be sanctioned in any way? SPECIFICO is perfectly aware of the "consensus required" DS restriction. SPECIFICO simply thinks they don't have to abide by it. At the same time, SPECIFICO asks others to abide by it at Julian Assange, and even threatens to go to AE to enforce it.

Just a few weeks ago, SPECIFICO violated the "consensus required" DS restriction at Julian Assange, by re-removing longstanding content from the lede:. The only reason SPECIFICO was not sanctioned was because some (but not all) admins reasoned that SPECIFICO's edit could be interpreted as falling into a BLP exception. I found this argument absurd, since SPECIFICO was removing material that WP:BLP requires to be included (a living person's denial of accusations made against them - per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.), and because SPECIFICO's edit summary completely needlessly insulted the living person in question: Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant. Interpreting SPECIFICO's last DS violation as falling into a BLP exception was extremely generous. Now, SPECIFICO has again violated this restriction, on the exact same page, and nobody is claiming that it falls into any exception this time.

The DS rules are supposed to prevent disruptive behavior, such as removing longstanding content from an article and then demanding long-winded discussions in order to re-insert it. It would be one thing if a normally collaborative editor inadvertently violated the DS restriction. That's not the case here. Last time SPECIFICO violated the DS restriction at Julian Assange, they barely attempted to justify their removal of the material in question. They repeatedly asserted that the material was WP:UNDUE, without any explanation. When I and other editors provided a long list of reliable sources that backed up the material in question, SPECIFICO again simply asserted that the material was undue, again without explanation. When asked to provide any justification for the assertion that the material in question was undue, SPECIFICO just asserted that they had already done so - despite the fact that they hadn't (as I detailed here). They were just stone-walling. You can see the full conversation here, and verify that my summary is accurate:.

In this case, SPECIFICO has again justified their edit with a nonsense reference to a Wikipedia acronym that doesn't apply. They assert that the material is WP:SYNTH, despite the fact that it's quite obviously an accurate paraphrase of the source (see Levivich's statement above). Again, we are not dealing with a collaborative editor who has inadvertently run afoul of a technical rule. We're dealing with someone who needlessly insults the subject of the BLP, who refuses to justify their edits (and when they do, throws out obviously non-applicable Wikipedia acronyms), and who threatens others with this very same DS restriction, while at the same time violating it themselves.

SPECIFICO has not commented in this case, just as they didn't comment in the last case about their violation of "consensus required" at Julian Assange:. They apparently don't think they have to answer here, because there won't be any consequences for their violations of the restrictions. Last time, stated, As for the violation of the DS rule, this is about as clear-cut as it gets. I'm surprised SPECIFICO didn't self-revert when asked. The reason is clear: while SPECIFICO is not shy about threatening others with this very same DS restriction at the very same page, SPECIFICO feels empowered to violate the rule, and doesn't believe they will face any consequences. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts on the disruptive behavior I've detailed above? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO intentionally violated a DS restriction here. They were asked to undo their violation and given time to do so: . SPECIFICO acknowledged this request by commenting in response to it, but chose not to undo their edit. If this is weaponization, it's the softest, most considerate weaponization I've ever seen. SPECIFICO could simply decide to abide by the rules, and none of this would happen. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * How is this weaponization? This is as clear-cut as it gets. Just this February, at Talk:Julian Assange, SPECIFICO explained the "consensus required" restriction in this way:
 * -
 * Based SPECIFICO's own very clear explanation how how "consensus required" works, SPECIFICO's recent re-removal of material from the article was a violation. The problem here is that when convenient, SPECIFICO does a 180-degree turn and argues the exact opposite interpretation of the "consensus required" restriction. Compare the above explanation of "consensus required" to the new explanation SPECIFICO gave last month, when the shoe was on the other foot and they wanted to remove material from the article:
 * -
 * It is only after SPECIFICO made this reversal that "confirmed" SPECIFICO's new interpretation (Note that JzG was, by this point, very much involved as an editor at Julian Assange. I asked, as an uninvolved admin, to clarify. They contradicted JzG. JzG's response was essentially that Awilley would normally be right, but that the rule should be changed to its exact opposite at Julian Assange because of the supposed existence of a "cabal"). SPECIFICO's transparent gaming of the rules should be addressed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss
As far as I'm concerned, Donald Trump is as close as we have ever come to peace in political areas – that's even more remarkable given the article's subject – and could serve as something of a model for the best we can expect. We use fairly strict BRD there (consensus required for any change that has been disputed by reversion), and a rule that prior consensus is required to change something backed by consensus. The article's consensus list, now at 38 active items, embodies the response to 's comment, Coffee added consensus required to a number of articles but he also kept track of the consensus.

When this system doesn't work, it's an editor behavior problem, and no system will work very well without enforcement of some degree of good editor behavior. That means more than blocking disruptive IPs and newbies.

Recipe for chaos: Decline to enforce standing rules because we (still) can't agree they are good rules. Work toward rule improvements all you like; in the meantime enforce the rules we have. That's how civilization has worked for at least eight centuries, and it was good enough to get us to the Moon.

I'll offer my standard challenge: Show me a system that is proven to work better over some amount of time in areas of politics, and point me to said proof.

I am responding to previous comments, but I otherwise consider this area of discussion to be off topic on this page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
We've had a lot of discussions the past few months over 1RR, reverts, consensus, onus, and enforcement. But I go back to what said in their first comment in this discussion, namely "these restrictions need to be applied uniformly, or they simply won't work." And in their first comment "I agree that I don't want to see discretionary sanctions enforced selectively." I don't think there's any real question that the edits here (and in SPECIFICO 1) violated the sanction. I guess that the restrictions are not applied uniformly to all editors, and I'm not sure why that is the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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


 * Responding to the "Consensus required" portion of this report: I did a little analysis of my own and I find a technical violation of the rule.
 * 26 September 2019 The sentence beginning The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act... is first added to the article. It sits there for a year, enough to be considered "longstanding".
 * 21 October 2020 The sentence is WP:BOLDly removed by Jack Upland (no edit summary)
 * 27 October 2020 The sentence is restored by Darouet (edit summary: Restoring this one sentence, as the Obama administration's view (according to the NYT) is relevant to this section)
 * 27 October 2020 SPECIFICO reverts without having obtained consensus for the re-removal. (Edit summary: SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists)
 * A couple other points:
 * This is almost exactly the same thing that happened last month at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive272. Same article, same user, same sanction. We didn't find a consensus there to enforce the sanction then.
 * I personally oppose enforcing this sanction because I think it's a stupid rule. The above scenario illustrates some of its problems. I shouldn't have to use Wikiblame to figure out if the rule was broken. And this is SPECIFICO's first edit to the article in nearly a month. Do we want to be blocking users for making 1 revert per month?
 * The admin who placed the sanction is now involved in the article and it's debatable whether he should be able to modify or remove it even if he wanted to.
 * Bottom line: I think we should either enforce the rule or get rid of it. My vote is to get rid of it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've looked at Awilley's analysis above and can't fault it. I really dislike this rule and think it causes more problems than it's worth. We need to get rid of it from this and all articles. I also don't see how enforcing it here will improve Wikipedia. Doug Weller  talk 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I dislike BRD as much as a restriction. Coffee added consensus required to a number of articles but he also kept track of the consensus. BRD, meh. Outside of AE it's just an essay that people sometimes throw around as though it's policy, and many times not practical. Like Bish, I hate it. Doug Weller  talk 10:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've never enforced BRD and I never would, I hate it. Let's get rid of it. Can we do that here? Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Ugh, please let's not muddle the terminology here, Bishonen. "Consensus required" and "BRD" are apples and oranges. "Consensus required" is the DS rule we're discussing here that was added to tons of American Politics articles in 2016. "BRD" is short for WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the behavioral guideline that's been around since 2005. And "Enforced BRD" or "24-hr BRD" is the DS rule I came up with in 2018 to replace the "Consensus required" rule, because at that time the community was opposed to removing the rule entirely. The sanction at Talk:Falun Gong mentioned by User:Guerillero is something new I've never seen before, but is most similar in practice to the "Consensus required" rule. At this point it would take a consensus of admins to retire any or all of those rules everywhere. And I think it would need to be done in a dedicated thread that's not mixed up with an individual editor. ~Awilley (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor point: BRD is an "explanatory supplement", not a guideline.  And it's first sentence, which says that BRD "is an optional method of reaching consensus" (emphasis added) should make it clear that this is never something to be "enforced".
 * See also BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. and BRD is not mandatory and BRD doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress. There are many other options, and some may be more suitable for other situations.
 * If you want to enforce something, 1RR or even CRP might work, but BRD is not the right approach to every dispute and should never be mandatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It helped control things at Falun Gong, so I am not 100% opposed to BRD. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:JzG has now clarified on his talk page that he is OK with admins here revising the 1RR that he originally imposed if they think a different kind of restriction is better. His 1RR was simply American politics AE. This is the 1RR that requires consensus before reverting. My impression from the admin comments above is that the proposal on the table is to abolish 'Consensus required' and make this be a 'BRD' type of 1RR. It appears that both Awilley and Dougweller are opposed to 'Consensus required'. Not sure what they think about BRD, though I see that at least Bishonen is opposed to BRD. Personally I think that 'consensus required' is not a bright-line rule which makes it hard to enforce. With BRD, you can at least check if somebody *tried* to discuss. (that is the 'D' in 'BRD'). The sanction at Talk:Falun Gong looks like a hybrid of 'Consensus required' and 'BRD':
 * where the 'clear consensus … challenged' phrase is made into a wikilink to WP:BRD. The exact wording of BRD seems to say that you must not revert again if you have not reached consensus. So perhaps the two rules are in act requiring the same behavior. The weak link in both is that the admin needs to figure out whether consensus has been reached. This could be a matter of opinion, and might be as hard as closing an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ask me twice. I've removed the "consensus required" sanction and left just normal WP:1RR. I'd rather not add the "24-hr BRD" sanction at this time...that rule is currently confined to the American Politics topic area, and I'd rather keep it that way unless the rule gains widespread acceptance, which it has not. ~Awilley (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ask me twice. I've removed the "consensus required" sanction and left just normal WP:1RR. I'd rather not add the "24-hr BRD" sanction at this time...that rule is currently confined to the American Politics topic area, and I'd rather keep it that way unless the rule gains widespread acceptance, which it has not. ~Awilley (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My view remains that enforced BRD is, in most cases, inferior to Consensus required. I disagree with Awilley for having supplanted CR with enforced BRD on multiple pages in the past, and I am opposed to them continuing to do so in the future. Calling CR "stupid" does not make it so, nor does it make enforced BRD smarter. Just because there apparently is neither the will to observe nor is there the will to enforce CR on that particular page, does not mean enforced BRD would work better for it. So, while Awilley's framing above reinforces enforced BRD's would-be superiority to CR, I, myself, (still) am just not seeing it how that is even remotely so. Anyway, if AE is at the point right now where these beyond-1RR enhancements, in general, are proving too nuanced to enforce, then abolish both and stick to 1RR only. That's fine. CR is not hopelessly complex. Often, when a dispute proves intractable, at some point WP:ONUS may be needed to be enforced by an admin for the remainder of the consensus building process. That happens all the time. That is what CR is — a strict version of ONUS that does so as page-level restriction. But, again, the argument that enforced BRD is the solution to its shortcomings, that it is better than CR in resolving disputes... I have never seen evidence (even of the loosest variety) to support that assertion. El_C 01:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What El C said. Consensus required is in essence a way that ONUS can be enforced. El C has accurately expressed my views on EBRD as well, so I don’t have much more to add. No comment on removing CR, but oppose supplanting it with EBRD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Enforced BRD is just the "consensus required" sanction with the actual requirement to resolve the dispute removed, and replaced with a procedural 24 hour hold on reverting. It's essentially a more lenient version of both 1RR and consensus required, and it doesn't work well in practice since it allows for edit warring to continue and I have seen it do so in practice. No offense, but Awilley is hardly the authority on "consensus required" being a stupid rule when he made up "BRD enforced" and went about trying to systematically replace it with his new rule, and then it went to AN and no one supported him. That was a massive gaffe on his part. I don't see anything wrong with "consensus required" in general, it just says you can't edit war over a disputed edit until a consensus has decided the dispute. That is in line with the basic principle from which this whole project is governed. Now, I'm not saying we should ignore context and blindly enforce sanctions either, so what's the context? SPECIFICO seems to have removed longstanding content per WP:SYNTH. Per 's comment, it wasn't SYNTH, but a rather straightforward paraphrase of a single source. So there's no real justification for SPECIFICO having violated the sanction here, and no convincing reason not to enforce the sanction. I'm fine with a short block, or even a warning, but I'm a bit baffled that some admins are leaning towards just turning a blind eye here as if this is just some "gotcha" technicality that we should overlook. And even if SPECIFICO was like "my bad, it was a mistake, I'll be more careful", fine, but SPECIFICO is apparently at the point of not even taking AE enough seriously to comment at all at this point. Why are we giving special treatment? ~Swarm~  {sting} 05:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is SPECIFICO (3) is a sign that they are either engaged in misconduct or being hounded -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh...yeah. I literally explained in my comment that they engaged in misconduct here. They literally violated the editing restriction. People have repeatedly explained this. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the discussion of the sanction and focusing on the user, I wouldn't be opposed to something like a short (couple of weeks?) topic ban. As people have pointed out it's not really fair to have one person repeatedly flaunting a rule that everybody else is following. ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying so, I think that's very reasonable. Any objections, not involving meta-commentary about the editing restriction itself? ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With SPECIFICO's comment, we now see that your rush to remove the sanction, was not only arguably abusive as an INVOLVED admin, but it has backfired spectacularly, with SPECIFICO now hiding behind it as "deprecated as fundamentally flawed and unworkable", rather than acknowledging that they committed a straightforward violation of an editing restriction which had no consensus to be removed, and which you removed because you thought it was "stupid", and they are now misrepresenting the removal as evidence that they cannot be sanctioned. Your removal was apparently based on the fact that you don't like the restriction and simply removed it because you could. It's uncontentious that SPECIFICO committed a clear-cut violation here and was on the path to receiving a sanction unless they responded in good faith, and now we have them arrogantly responding in bad faith, and at this point it is actually, genuinely unclear, whether they can be technically sanctioned, when the sanctions have been lifted in the middle of the AE discussion, whether your removal itself can be overturned per WP:WHEEL, and whether there's any recourse for SPECIFICO's violation and your extremely dubious lifting of a sanction that you were biased against. This has already gone to the community and no one supported your approach of procedurally removing "consensus required" because you personally don't like it. Now you've done it again and it's apparently given a free pass to a user who committed a violation, and hamstrung the AE process, even though even here there's certainly no consensus for you to have lifted the editing restriction. You did it because you personally oppose that restriction in general. That is patently inappropriate. I'm not sure where we go from here, but next time you arbitrarily lift a "consensus required" editing restriction without a consensus because you have deemed it to be "stupid", and in doing so give a free pass to a user who has violated a clear-cut rule, I will be bringing it to Arbcom. As for SPECIFICO, I'm not sure where we go from here, they deserve to be sanctioned, they're now claiming we can't sanction them since someone has lifted the restriction, it's a proper mess. However I can certainly say that based on their arrogant comment here I will have no inclination to cut them a break if I see another violation from them. Shame on everyone involved here for botching this report so completely and utterly. I apologize to . ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be this complicated. I apologize for removing the sanction before this thread had been closed. That was a miscalculation on my part. I can clean up my own mess. If you don't object, I will close this thread with a 2-week topic ban. That's something we both found reasonable, and no admin has objected to that in the 2 days since you first said a sanction was needed here. As for WP:WHEEL, it's fine with me if you or any other admin restores the CR sanction if you're willing to take ownership over that. If you do, it might be a good idea to avoid using the "American Politics" template again since Assange is neither an American nor a politician. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If Specifico's removal of this content was so disruptive as to warrant consideration of a sanction, why has it still not been restored to the page? – bradv  🍁  02:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the point of this wasn't to say it should be restored – it was to suggest that if an edit has consensus it can't be at the same time considered disruptive enough to warrant sanctions. "Consensus required" is a reasonably effective article restriction, but it doesn't work if we enforce it blindly. – bradv  🍁  03:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed this point, we're not talking about blind enforcement, it has been specifically articulated that SPECIFICO didn't have a legitimate reason for their edit warring. Their SYNTH argument was straightforwardly not convincing. We're not talking about "blind enforcement", we're talking about a clear violation with no mitigating factors when examining the rationale and context. Are you seriously an Arb? Because you're ignoring things that people have already written, and writing things that people have already refuted. What are you doing? Just throwing random statements at the wall and seeing if it will stick?! ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why I framed it as a question – I was surprised at the argument here that Specifico's edit was disruptive enough to be worthy of sanctions, and trying to reconcile that against the reality that the text hadn't been restored. I didn't mean to imply that anyone was enforcing things blindly, nor am I unappreciative of any of the work that's being done here in trying to resolve this. I'm sorry if my question made things less clear – that was opposite to my intent. – bradv  🍁  03:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If your question is whether edit warring is disruptive, we already know the answer. If your question is whether violating an editing restriction is disruptive, we already know the answer. So at this point, your "question" is whether the violation itself was disruptive or constuctive, and that has already been clearly answered. It was disruptive, because the underlying reason for the violation was dubious at best, false at worst. In that context, why would the violation possibly be not worth sanctioning? You're posing a question that has already been answered, many times. Yes, it is absolutely a violation fairly worth sanctioning, and myself and others have literally explained this simple fact. A better question is why are you even asking this question? We're clearly at the point where it's been demonstrated that a violation took place, and that the context surrounding the violation does not reasonably excuse the violation. In spite of that, an admin who already felt that the editing restriction was "stupid" has lifted the editing restriction, in an apparent violation of WP:INVOLVED. So now we're left to wonder if enforcing a clear-cut ACDS violation will leave us facing negative consequences in our own right, with no obvious recourse. So to see an ARB stonewalling enforcement with an already-answered "question" as to whether an explicit violation is actionable is extremely chilling and concerning. ~Swarm~  {sting} 05:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't object to any sanctions being applied here, and I hope my comments don't have that effect. My main concern was about the effectiveness of the "consensus required" sanction versus the various alternatives, a topic which has been discussed extensively on my talk page (thread 1, thread 2), and specifically the concern that "consensus required" occasionally results in the wrong version being endorsed. Without saying more here than I need to (I'll save that for the next talk page thread), my thoughts on these various custom restrictions largely align with your own. – bradv  🍁  14:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion illustrates why I have come to think DS a poor idea--if experienced good faith admin can differ to the extent shown above about the applicability of the sanctions it permits, it adds to conflict, rather than prevents or resolves it  DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)