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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Template:2016_US_Election_AE, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

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

1. In this edit at 16 October, 22:08, Volunteer Marek edited the lead of the Donald Trump article, and in particular he edited the last part of the lead dealing with sexual allegations. He replaced a text of 15 words with a text of 67 words (more than quadrupling its size). He added much of the material by reinstating verbatim from a prior version, including the last sentence, and his edit also reinstated various other parts of the prior version. When Volunteer Marek made this edit, there was an RFC ongoing at the article talk page about whether this material should exceed 15 words. Here is the talk page as edited by Volunteer Marek one minute after his big edit to the lead, showing that the RFC (section 23) includes three no's, one yes, and a maybe, and thus there was obviously no consensus for going beyond 15 words in the lead regarding the sex allegations (incidentally, Trump's denial of the allegations could be easily included while staying under 15 words, though editors such as User:MrX have tried to exclude the denial from the lead even though WP:BLP says, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported").

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

Prior notification of discretionary sanctions at article

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't like filing complaints and such at Wikipedia, and rarely do so. I think the system is all fucked up, and that Wikipedia should use a rules-based jury-like system instead of a centralized hierarchical system. I'm sticking my neck out when I file a complaint here, and have little confidence in a reasonable or fair outcome. 'Nuf said?

@User:SPECIFICO, I disagree with just about every word you wrote. If anyone wants me to elaborate on any particular point, please let me know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, calling something a consensus version does not make it so. I have already described (above) the consensus in the ongoing RFC, at the time you made the edit, and that RFC is even more against your edit right now. Check it out. If you revert soon, I'd be glad to withdraw this AE action.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, the RFC asks whether 15 words is insufficient in the lead to cover the sex allegations; calling such a simple question nonsensical is itself nonsensical, no matter how many people said so (or continue to say so). You say that the relevant discussion is in a talk page section titled "Removal of sexual misconduct accusations" but, actually, opposition to removal of the sex material from the lead obviously does not equate to supporting more than 15 words of it in the lead (my first comment in that talk page section makes clear that I was proposing removal of the 15-word version rather than removal of your later 67-word version). I have not analyzed whether this edit that you mention was done with consensus or not, and it's irrelevant anyway, because the question here at AE is whether you had consensus when you returned to a 67-word version (not at some previous time). As for your accusation that this edit of mine was somehow "POV", my edit summary clearly justifies the edit, and explicitly quotes WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, I have corrected the inadvertent formatting faux pas that you pointed out, thanks. You also said below "you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus." Absolute nonsense. I know it was done without consensus at the time it was done, though I do not know whether it would have had consensus at previous times (such as at the time when the text was originally inserted by someone else). I cannot make it any clearer than that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, you're critiquing stuff I said to James J. Lambden (e.g. "None of the former are mentioned in the article body"), which is fine, but please indicate when you're doing that for clarity's sake. And I will try to be clearer too. Notice that I'm not making up some venal motive here to attribute to you, and I'd appreciate the same if possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, I don't follow your further comments. The simple fact is that when you reinstated a 67-word paragraph in the lead about sex allegations, the consensus in the RFC clearly indicated that 15 words or less was sufficient. Fess up and all will be forgiven.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, you mentioned below that "The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act". Indeed, the allegations inserted into the lead now include "rape, child rape". None of the former are mentioned in the article body (due perhaps to retraction), and the latter (child rape) is now described in the article body as follows: "A 'Jane Doe' had charges brought forward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 10, 2016, for alleged forcible and statutory rape in 1994, when Doe was thirteen years old;[358] according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this 'Jane Doe' against Trump 'appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.'" So thanks for helping me convey that we're talking about jamming stuff into the lead that is about as sensitive as can possibly be in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, incidentally, the stuff in that quote after the semicolon was added by me a few minutes ago, and so the material in the BLP text about the child rape was even briefer when Volunteer Marek jammed it into the lead without consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, also incidentally, Volunteer Marek inserted "rape" into the lead, referring to the alleged child rape of "Jane Doe", and then someone else came along 50 minutes later and put "rape" into the lead a second time.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nomoskedasticity, I see that you have decided to replace the 15 words in the lead by reinstating over 70 words. All done without discussion at article talk, and without giving any hint that you care one whit about article talk. So, in the unlikely event that admins actually take some action here to enforce the discretionary sanctions as I've requested, then maybe you and I can engage further about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrX, you say "Hey Anythingyouwant, thanks for throwing me under the bus and not notifying me!". Anyone can see above that I pinged you, as was my intent. You don't gain any credibility in my eyes by starting with such an obvious falsity. I am busy and will respond more later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MrX, you say that you were not pinged, but I took the necessary steps above to ping you. If Wikipedia software failed here (unlikely in my view), then that may explain things. The next thing you say below is also a falsity: "Anythingyouwant started a competing RfC a little over two hours later." No, I never started a competing RFC about this. Here is a diff of me starting the RFC at 21:47 on 15 October. Anyone can see that there was then no competing RFC at that time (I had previously made an edit just like this later one specifically to remove the impression that there was any competing RFC). Adding to this falsity, MrX (who has been a very involved editor at the Trump article which should have precluded closing an RFC per policy) has today purported to close the RFC I started (without mentioning it at this board), and his closing statement is as follows: "There seems to be consensus that this RfC is seriously malformed and based on the false premise that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus, which it does not." That is another falsity. I never suggested that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus; in fact, within four hours of starting the RFC I replaced those 15 words in the BLP with 12 words.[2] The very first comment in the RFC (written by me) said "Please note that if this RFC concludes that the number of words [15] is not insufficient, that would not decide whether this number of words is too much, nor whether the wording should be changed without lengthening the sentence". I wanted to keep the scope of the RFC narrow and binary, to reach consensus quicker, which we did. The RFC question itself says "At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, 'Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.' Is this number of words in the lead insufficient, for the time being, regarding this subject?" Obviously, this RFC question does not ask whether the current language in the lead should be retained (and obviously assumes that it may not be retained). Mr X adds below a bunch of further attacks unrelated to this RFC/ sex controversy, accusing me of "Wikilawyering over the term 'firm consensus'; using the presence of citations in the lead as a reason for opposing; asking the closer to consider a completely different version of the proposed content; and creating a competing RfC six days after the original one was created." If anyone seriously wants me to turn this proceeding into an utter mess by responding to these bogus unrelated charges, then please let me know and I will do so (though not gladly), and would then reciprocate with a whole bunch of equally unrelated (but valid) further charges against MrX.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. I have re-opened the RFC improperly closed by MrX.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANNOUNCEMENT: A mostly uninvolved administrator, User:AWilley, has now re-closed the RFC that I started. I emphatically disagree that the RFC was unhelpful, and I believe people who were complaining about it were mostly trying to undermine any effort to put a cap on how much sex stuff goes into the lead of this very high-profile BLP. But since AWilley disagrees with me, the RFC is done with, and the present request for enforcement is now moot. I therefore hereby withdraw it. I did not foresee such a thing happening, and I apologize to any bystanders who have spent time trying to sort this out. The behavior at the Trump article and talk page regarding sex allegations in the lead has been disgraceful, and I hope we can at least share consensus about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, if any admin would like to take action sua sponte (i.e. of his, her, its or their own accord), that is allowed: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." My complaint above was perfectly valid, but it is moot, and I do not want to devote the rest of October having my soul crushed by the asymmetry principle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

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.

Huh? I restored the consensus version. I didn't edit war or revert or anything. This is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC you started makes no sense, as several commentators have noted. It's not clear what the point is. The relevant discussion [5] (which you started in addition to the RfC for some reason) does indicate a consensus for inclusion. Furthermore it's clear from the discussion, particularly your proposal for removal, that the text was there initially, having consensus, and then it was removed without consensus. The removal was here. You didn't go running to WP:AE all out raged and self righteous when that was done. No, instead you even POV-ed that already POV sentence even more. And I didn't go running to WP:AE when that was done either. Please stop treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Lambden, my comment (so far) is succinct so I have no idea what you're going on about. You, on the other hand, are bringing up the same ol' crap that you've brought up several times already, so long that you have to hat it, that didn't work the first three or four times you dragged it out. Might as well point out that you are in fact the editor who removed the consensus text here without discussion that Anythingyouwant DIDN'T file an AE report about. If I was following your and Anything's script I would've filed an AE report right there. But I didn't because, unlike you and Anything, I don't treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Anythingyouwant, please don't change your comments after I've replied to them as that makes it seem like I'm replying to something I'm not, as you did here. Make a separate comment please. Anyway, when you state "I have not analyzed whether [this edit] that you mention was done with consensus or not" you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus. I mean, if editor 1 makes revert X and then editor 2 undoes that revert, and you have no idea whether editor 1's edit had consensus then you clearly have no idea whether undoing of that edit had consensus. So you are admitting that this report you filed is spurious and just opportunistic "let me file another report against VM as soon as he makes an edit on a Donald Trump article". It's meritless and just shows that you are playing games, trying to abuse the DS/AE process (as Specifico above mentions) and treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

And that's giving your statement a generous interpretation - that you had no idea whether my edit had consensus or not but chose to file this spurious AE report anyway - and assuming good faith. A less generous, though more common sense, interpretation would be that you knew damn well that James Lambden's edit had NO consensus but supported him (by tweaking it to POV it even further) because it accorded with your POV then ran over here the minute someone tried to restore consensus (also in the meantime filed a nonsensical RfC that nobody can understand as a way of "protecting" the non-consensus version - sorry, filing an RfC isn't some magic pixie dust that you can sprinkle on an article talk page to protect POV non-consensus edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Anythingyouwant - "None of the former are mentioned in the article body" - that is clearly false if you are referring to the version at the time I made the edit [6]. Now since then you have made edits to the article, so that later it was changed. Seriously, this is blatantly dishonest: "the text Marek restored to the lede did not summarize article text... because I changed it later so that it wouldn't, even though at the time he made the edit, it did". What the hell???? But please, keep on digging.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, in fact, you JUST NOW (as in a few minutes ago) ran to the article to alter the text [7] and then ran straight over here to claim "oh look! That text doesn't summarize the article!". No shit. You. Just. Changed. It.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. My comment at 7:51 [8]. Anythingyouwant's comment at 7:54 [9]. I do like that "Incidentally". As in "oh this has nothing to do with the fact that it was just pointed out I edited the article just now and pretended that my edits had been there for a long time".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - please consider this an AE report concerning Anythingyouwant and James J Lambden as well Anythingyouwant, after making a show of making multiple edits to the article, the purpose of which appears to be solely so that he could come here and claim "the lede restored by Volunteer Marek doesn't summarize the article" (with those edits made AFTER the fact) has now completely erased all of these edits (I guess they didn't serve the purpose well enough, the attempt being fairly transparent) and has simply restored the earlier non-consensus version [10].

Just to be clear, here is the timeline

• The text under discussion was added by long standing (since 2008) User:JJARichardson [11] on October 14, 20:15.
• This was first reverted by a newly created single purpose account (I'm guessing - just guessing at this point - sock puppet of a recently topic banned User) [12] and restored by User:JJARichardson with a very accurate edit summary shortly after [13].
• The text then remained in the lede unchallanged and also unmentioned on talk until October 15, 16:11, so basically a full day which is quite awhile for a hot topic like this article, until it was removed without discussion and a fairly ridiculous reason in edit summary by James J. Lambden [14] (do you really think the biggest story of the election is "UNDUE"???)
• This was undone by User:Tataral shortly there after [15] who correctly noted that per discretionary sanctions James. J. Lambden needs to get consensus before making such controversial changes. JJ Lambden is aware of discretionary sanctions and how they work
• The text was again reverted by James J Lambden on Oct 15 17:24 [16]
  • This constituted a violation of the 1RR restriction by James J. Lambden.
  • The edit summary by James J. Lambden falsely claimed that consensus was needed to undo his edit. Note that this is exactly the same tactic that recently topic banned User:CFredkin used to try and railroad his POV into the article.
• This was again undone soon there after (17:55) by User:Steeletrap [17] who again correctly note that the actual consensus which is required is for removing the text.

Likewise, with his latest edit, Anythingyouwant here is edit warring to restore his preferred version and is making changes to the article which do not have consensus. At the very least, he could've waited for this AE report to get some traction or something, but rather they decided to go ahead and try to get their way.

The above 1RR violation by James J Lambden is way more serious than any single edit by any single user restoring or undoing what they thought was consensus (and I just have to point out that at least three other users made the same edit as I did, yet, Anythingyouwant did not file WP:AE reports on them, so yes, there is an element of a grudge stemming from previous disputes here).

I could file a separate WP:AE reports against Anythingyouwant and James J Lambden based on these edits but it could get taken as being "pointy" or simply retributive. It's not. But it'd probably be best if this report here also involved looking over these users edits (recent and not so recent). Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the edit I made which is the subject of this report, was also made by my count by SIX other editors. Exactly same edit or same substance. THREE of these other-editor-same-edit edits were made BEFORE my edit. I don't see Anythingyouwant filing WP:AE reports against them as well. I guess if he filed an AE report against six editors simultaneously that'd sort of give the game up - the text has consensus. So he picked me. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again a battleground Trumpside POV editor files a specious AE against Volunteer Marek. Anythingyouwant is almost laughably tendentious in her contortions to contrive what she can plausibly pitch as content- and policy-based rationalizations of her POV edits across the range of American Politics related articles. I have stated previously that much of this appears to be an extension of her rabid pro-life editing for which she was TBANned. In my opinion the TBAN should be extended to American Politics because the two subjects are inseparable given the current Supreme Court vacancy with more expected to come. Anythingyouwant has repeatedly violated 1RR on American Politics related articles. There are many such warnings on her talk page.

In the present case, the Trump article has been hog-tied with convoluted confused and counterproductive hair-splitting that has come down to a minority theory that word count must be used to resolve content disputes. Within the last several hours, Marek sought to clear this colossal roadblock by reinstating the widely supported, succinct and innocuous version of some lede text that had been in the article. This enforcement request is an escalation of Anythingyouwant's tendentious refusal to accept reasoned, policy-based arguments and move on to other areas of this article that we all could work on improving. \ TBAN for Anythingyouwant and thanks to Marek for being the calm steady grown-up in the room on this occasion. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Anythingyouwant has withdrawn her complaint against Volunteer Marek, I urge Admins to consider TBANs for Anythingyouwant and James Lambden, as proposed elsewhere on this thread. Kudos to my friend Anythingyouwant for trying to get this thread closed before her behavior can be fully scrutinized here. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: A speedy close will just prolong and enable more of this tendentious POV warring by Anythingyouwant. Remember how solicitously Anythingyouwant seemed to be receiving your advice to back off and cease this kind of nonsense over a month ago[18]? She's very good at pushing it to the edge and then playing dead. Fool you once, etc... How many times do we want to sit through this movie? SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again we see Marek's successful strategy: throw enough words with enough denial and misdirection into a paragraph and outside observers won't have the energy to sift through it; or if they do, the waters will be muddied enough they're reluctant to sanction. The final act is an appearance by My Very Best Wishes to defend his frequent accomplice.

The meat of this enforcement request is this, and don't let misdirection and equivocation obscure it:

• The article is subject to Discretionary Sanctions under BLP and American Politics
• Marek's edit summary indicates he was aware the content had been removed
• At the time of his edit there were two active discussions concerning the content, neither showing consensus for restoration: 1 2
• The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act

At the last AE Marek was involved in just over a week ago I made this statement:

That request was archived without comment. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek:'s well aware consensus is not required to remove text on BLP grounds. I immediately offered to remove the text added in my removal, but left it as a good-faith compromise between those who wanted no mention in the lede and those who wanted the paragraph Marek restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires consensus to restore removed material. The restored material in this case included the phrase "child rape." Whether the RFC stays open or closed is irrelevant - if Marek can show consensus anywhere on the talk page at the time of his edit this AE should be closed. If not, he and every editor who restored it ignored the rules in one of if not the most visible BLP on the site. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I don't know whether your question was directed to editors or admins but if this request is withdrawn I intend to submit another with the same diff against the same editor. When an editor restores "child rape" without consensus that is to me an open and shut case. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a point of order, doesn't there need to be consensus for INCLUSION of RECENTLY added material, NOT removal of such? The Trump sexual bru ha ha was added to the LEAD section of the BIO 3? days ago against any clear consensus, despite what others may say, see talk page. If clear consensus forms that this material belongs in the the LEAD, then fine, add it, otherwise don't.--Malerooster (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek is one of a long list of editors who have simply reinstated the version that was agreed on by most editors in the relevant discussion, a version that is a neutrally worded, concise summary of the text in the body of the article. The RFC referred to by Anythingyouwant was widely dismissed as a nonsensical attempt to derail the issue on the talk page and is currently closed with the summary "There seems to be consensus that this RfC is seriously malformed and based on the false premise that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus, which it does not." --Tataral (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anythingyouwant, thanks for throwing me under the bus and not notifying me! What you neglected to mention was my documented reasoning for omitting Trump's trite denial from the lead.

Anythingyouwant continues to try to WP:GAME the system to gain an advantage in content disputes on Donald Trump-related articles:

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

I'm a little surprised that he would think coming to AE was a good idea, but since he's here, his conduct should be reviewed as well.- MrX 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: You may have intended to ping me, but you did not in fact ping me. No such alert was received, so there's no falsity in my statement. You were wrong to try to discredit me in your complaint against Volunteer Marek.- MrX 20:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Of course, there's no competing RfC if you make it disappear before starting your own.- MrX 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User J.J. Lambden is right about not having the energy to sift through the dozens of daily diffs displaying changes to the article. I try to keep abreast of what is happening at the Trump article as an observer with very few edits to the article or comments on the talk page. The inconstancy of the article is not a magnet to participate. But the strategy to confuse with multiple RfC's is not Volunteer Marek's. Some editors are very adroit at obfuscation. Volunteer Marek is not one of them. Buster Seven Talk 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The banner at the top of the edit page for Donald Trump says in big bold letters:

You [...] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page

Unless VM can prove consensus he should be topic-banned from BLPs.

My last edit a month ago expressed concern over the apparent inability to sanction VM despite repeated requests and convincing evidence. When one editor is allowed to flout the rules others are held to the consensus model can't work. I have stopped editing as a result. D.Creish (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• User:Anythingyouwant now wants to withdraw this AE request, per his statement above. Does anyone object? EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a speedy close would be more conducive to people refocusing on content than trying to determine fault in what seems to be a messy dispute. ~Awilley (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree this request should be closed as withdrawn. Otherwise I would have supported closing as no action required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29; see Talk:Donald Trump, where it is noted that WP:1RR applies to the page

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

1. 00:59, 18 October 2016 - First revert
2. 01:05, 18 October 2016 - Second revert

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After seeing two reverts, I went to the user talk page of Anythingyouwant to give them a friendly reminder of the discretionary sanctions active on Donald Trump. Instead, I found that they've been repeatedly reminded of these discretionary sanctions and have apparently chosen to ignore them. Here's a list of their talk page sections where other editors mentioned the WP:1RR restriction or discretionary sanctions in general.

1. User_talk:Anythingyouwant#Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign.2C_2016
2. User_talk:Anythingyouwant#1RR_on_Donald_Trump
3. User_talk:Anythingyouwant#Donald_Trump_DS
4. User_talk:Anythingyouwant#Violation_of_1RR_--_Trump

Despite an active RfC, a lot of discussion on this issue, and a good deal of support for including this information, Anythingyouwant's most recent edit summary stated "See previous edit summary. This edit and my last one are pursuant to WP:BLP and I will keep reverting for the stated reasons", indicating that he plans to continue edit warring over this issue. I'm hoping a warning in a more formal venue will be all that's needed here.

(Note: I just noticed the kind-of-but-not-really related AE request above before hitting Save Changes. If anyone wants to somehow merge this, go nuts, but it's probably less messy to handle it separately.)

@Anythingyouwant: There's an ongoing RfC addressing this issue and there's been loads of discussion recently about it. There's a rather substantial difference between removing an obvious violation without waiting for procedure and removing something you think is a violation while substantial pre-existing discussion has not treated it as such. For instance, even those arguing against inclusion at the RfC have done so on the basis of WP:UNDUE representation in the lead, not a BLP violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/744884824

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.

@User:BU Rob13, there is a well-established exception to 1RR, and I quoted it at the article talk page without hearing any objection. Do you dispute that there is an exception to 1RR?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BU Rob13, are you prepared to say that putting "rape, child rape" into this lead was not a BLP violation? Yes or no? No one at the article talk page has suggested any such thing, and I started a section explicitly about it. Nor does the RFC address anything about rape: "Should the lede of this BLP include any summary of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump? If the material is included, to what extent should it be covered in the lead?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, I have made further BLP reverts. Regarding this edit of mine, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, the BLP edit that I just described has been reverted.[19] Rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault, the most common form of sexual assault on college campuses,[20] and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault.[21][22] According to the lead of our Wikipedia article about sexual assault, "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead is totally unnecessary and potentially very misleading, so I will continue to insist on the more specific language about forcible kissing and groping.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, I am done for now reverting the lead so that it uses specific language instead of rape-inclusive language. I await your decision as to whether I was right or wrong to make these reverts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, thanks for pointing out that I inadvertently split your comment. I fixed the error.[23] Sorry about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, please, if you want to insist that I not move your comment to a more pertinent section of the talk page, why do you think it's okay to move my comment without my permission?[24]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think on this - the narrow edit in question - Anythingyouwant should get a pass on BLP grounds. If he had made this exact edit earlier - rather than removing a whole paragraph that contained this part - I would not have had any problem with it and that whole AE thing above would've been unnecessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, while the edits listed above can be excused on BLP grounds and do not constitute a 1RR violation, the same thing cannot be said for the following two reverts:

• [25]
• [26]

Here is the relevant discussion on talk [27] where it's clear that there is absolutely no consensus for Anythingyouwant's changes and he clearly knows this, but chooses to start another edit war regardless. Likewise there is a ton of sources using the language that ATW is reverting.

So while I don't think ATW deserves to be sanction for the reverts that were originally made and are subject of this report, these edits are a clear attempt to WP:GAME the rules, they do constitute a 1RR violation, and should be considered sanction able. Unfortunately it seems that with ATW "you give'em an inch and they try to take a mile". Which means that a block would be preventive not punitive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if this should be filed as a separate report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second, on this page, at 5:09, Anythingyouwant [28] says "I am done for now reverting the lead ". Uh, yeah, after violating 1RR and "getting his way". This statement shows that Anythingyouwant appears to be "testing the waters" and seeing how much they can get away with. Again, this means that a preventive block is justified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Now Anythingyouwant is editing my comments and moving them around on the talk page [29]. The way he moved my comment (without my permission) detached my comment from the sources I presented to back it up, making it seem like something it was not. Preventive block... come on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I'm sorry, this wasn't just two reverts but an all out "I'm gonna edit war to get my way" spree

• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]

So that's not just a 1RR violation but even a 3RR violation.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Mentioning alleged rape and child rape in the lead is undue, since they have not received substantial coverage. Note that there is currently wide coverage about allegations of sexual assualt against Trump, but none of them mention the rape or child rape allegations. Wikiepdia articles should not draw attention to matters that we believe the mainstream has overlooked or portray subjects in a more or less favorable light than one would find in mainstream sources. The edit made Trump appear even worse than he has been portrayed by his political opponents, which is a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed quite a few cases of what I think is misuse of the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to enforce the removal of, or the inclusion of, content that editors want out or in for pov reasons. Alleging a connection to BLP policies when doing it also seems common, and is used a way of locking down any discussion of the matter. In reality the two things are completely separate, BLP policies always take precedence and they cover every article; short term sanctions covering a select subject area do not. The content deleted by Anythingyouwant clearly violated BLP policies and required immediate removal. I doubt the competence of any editor who could genuinely support the retention of such content, and to invoke American Politics 2 sanctions as a way of avoiding our obligations to follow BLP policies is very ill-judged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some background material about the child-rape allegation that Anythingyouwant courteously deleted: "A publicist calling himself 'Al Taylor' attempted to sell the videotape of 'Jane Doe' relating her allegations for $1m... When the Guardian quizzed 'Al Taylor' about his true identity, the publicist replied: 'Just be warned, we'll sue you if we don't like what you write. We'll sue your ass, own your ass and own your newspaper's ass as well, punk.'" I suspect that the editor who contributed that allegation to the article would benefit greatly from further discipline. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am recused from acting as an administrator in election-related articles, as usual. However, as an editor I do believe that the BLP exemption was valid grounds for going over 1RR. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment I think its reasonably clear that those reverts are allowed under WP:BLP, which trumps any subject-specific sanctions, and this should be closed without any action. Number 57 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with everything in Number 57's comment, except perhaps his inadvertently ironic use of the word "trumps." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This was clearly a good-faith action taken under BLP, and such actions have long been held to be exempt from revert restrictions. Since the first removal was clearly marked as a BLP removal, it was inappropriate for anyone to put it back at all, absent a clear consensus to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know when "child rape" first appeared in the lead — the Wikiblame tool is being unhelpful, and we all know how bloated the article history is — but Steeletrap seems to have been the first to flesh it out with the addition of "rape" here. After Anythingyouwant first removed both phrases,[34] Steeletrap restored them here, thus pretty much forcing another revert by Anythingyouwant. I agree with my colleagues above that AYW did the right thing in removing an obvious BLP vio. I also propose that Steeletrap be warned. At least warned. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• If we close this with no sanction against User:Anythingyouwant we are endorsing the removal of the 'child rape' phrase from the article under BLP as poorly-sourced contentious material. The sources for the charge do appear to be flimsy, though the fact that a charge was made is reliably published, by the Guardian and by NBC News. Trump's campaign has stated this is a hoax. Excluding the child rape phrase could conceivably go against the local editor consensus, if they do come up with a complete RfC that supports including the child rape charge. At the moment the local editors have not done so. The closest they came to this is the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#Obvious BLP violation. However, the child rape charge is included in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Jane Doe (1994). I draw no conclusion from that, but it is a point that others might bring up in the future. For now, I recommend closing this AE request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we're endorsing any particular result. For me, the question is not whether the material should be removed, whether for BLP reasons or others (which is ultimately a content decision not to be decided at AE), but rather whether a reasonable person could have believed that it should be removed under BLP. In this case, I think Anythingyouwant's concerns were reasonably well founded. What the article ultimately should look like is, of course, up to consensus of editors; if there's a consensus to put it back, back it'll go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with the above, it was reasonable that a person might remove these claims from the article given the obvious BLP concerns. I don't see any reasonable grounds to impose a sanction here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]