User talk:Anythingyouwant

DYK for Euphorbia arbuscula

On 12 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Euphorbia arbuscula, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the succulent Euphorbia arbuscula of Socotra is used to feed goats? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Euphorbia arbuscula. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Euphorbia arbuscula), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit at Donald Trump

Anything, there is no way that your latest revert [1] was “a continuation of your last edit”. There were multiple intervening edits, and a time gap of more than 8 hours, between those edits. I suggest you self-revert. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted per request. I could have made that edit together with my previous one, so it doesn’t seem like edit-warring, but whatever. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

DS Violation at Trump

The following sanction applies to this article:

Consensus required: 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.

You have asserted "no consensus to replace "co-author" but you have not demonstrated that (probably cuz it's false) and so you have violated DS by reinserting your POV that Trump "co-authored" all those books when the cited source states "ghostwriter". This is a required warning. Please self-undo your violation. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

See article talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

For the avoidance of any uncertainty, please be aware that I pinged you at a post on Coffee's talk page where I asked him to look at your behavior at Donald Trump in light of what appears to me to be willful gaming of the sanctions there. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Explain yourself immediately: in no way can these back-to-back edits be considered a challenge or revert by the restrictions I placed on the article. Moving data is NOT a challenge nor is it in any way possible a revert. You have one option here and one option alone: undo your edits immediately (which I will remove the full protection placed once I receive your word you are going to) or face a sanction (from a block, up to a 1 month topic ban from the article) for gaming Arbitration Enforcement remedies. I do not like to see this type of behavior out of someone who knows the sanctions are not supposed to be used like this, considering how often you've gotten involved in ensuring the restrictions are enforced when it suits you. I am not pleased with you at all right now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that the article has been locked, User:Coffee. Otherwise, I would be glad to revert my edit pasting the material lower in the article. However, I see absolutely no reason to revert my first edit removing it. It is new material, and I am allowed to challenge it by reversion, obviously, and I did challenge it by reversion. Yet it has been restored despite an obvious lack of consensus at the talk page where the matter was discussed at considerable length. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What? You are the one who originally restored it, but regardless two consecutive edits are taken as the same edit. So, no, you did not challenge it one bit. You will now be facing a month long topic ban for your refusal to understand the proper use of the page restrictions, and for a clear attempt to game them. Ban is to follow. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Coffee, I made two edits. First edit: "Revision as of 06:40, 20 January 2018: Per talk age discussion, I am going ahead and challenging the recent insertion of this material by reverting it." Second edit: "Revision as of 06:41, 20 January 2018: Per talk page, inserting profile info lower in BLP. Feel free to revert this particular edit, but consensus would be needed (per DS) to insert it elsewhere in the BLP." I would be happy to revert the second, but the first was entirely within rules, I was challenging this material by reversion, it is not longstanding material, and there was no consensus for ANYONE to revert my first edit, as far as I know. They were certainly not intended to be the same edit, and I am very surprised that you find any problem whatsoever with the first one. THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONSENSUS FOR THIS MATERIAL TO BE INSERTED THERE PER THE DISCUSSION AT TALK PAGE, WAS THERE? You are suggesting to block me for a perfectly legitimate challenge to material that lacked consensus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It was not long-standing material; however it was indeed backed by a consensus (see MelanieN's analysis on Talk:Donald Trump) meaning that reversions to it are "clear vandalism" Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The talk page discussion is here. People can judge for themselves whether there was consensus. Even if I am mistaken abut the lack of consensus, I am certainy allowed to make a single revert and then someone else can (per DS) restore per consensus. I carefully read what Melanie wrote before making the edit: "Putting the 'Image' section at the end - after the 'president' section - makes sense to me. It's a kind of summary-of-his-entire-life section, it has no chronology....I think it is OK where it is but I wouldn't object to putting it at the bottom." So she was basically neutral, whereas many editors were not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Two edits that are consecutive without any other editor editing between them are considered the same edit. The ban is below, if you do not heed it, you will face a week long block, with escalations from there. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've said several times now that I would be glad to revert the second edit. And you apparently would not be blocking me now if I did revert the second edit. So this all seems pretty weird. Obviously, editors are normally allowed to revert the second of two consecutive edits. They were intended to be distinct edits, and they were distinct edits. Consecutive edits are treated at Wikipedia as a single edit for purposes of 1RR and 3RR to benefit that editor, and I have never heard of two consecutive edits being treated as a singe edit in order to block the editor, especially when the editor has said he'd be glad to revert the second edit. Have you ever heard of such a thing? You wouldn't be blocking me if I had just made the first edit, correct? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As an additional point, your first edit removed a lot of long-standing material also - that just had been in other sections (like political image, popular culture); so it was poor there too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If that was a defect then it was quickly corrected. If it was a defect and had not been corrected, it does not seem like it could have been a blockable defect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Splitting up an edit (which was clearly for moving the material) in an attempt to make it immune to being reverted is, well, clearly gaming of the restriction. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Galobtter, would you kindly vacate this talk page for the time being, I think Coffee can explain himself pretty well. I said I would be glad to revert the second edit I made, but would not revert the first. If I had only made the first, no one suggests that would have been any violation at all. And the first is the one that everyone is actually upset about, so the gaming is not on my end whatsoever. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything, I was not part of the decision to topic-ban you, and anyhow I am WP:INVOLVED and do not make this kind of decision. But just to clarify: if I understand you correctly, you are objecting to this TBAN on the grounds that you did not violate 1RR. What I objected to had nothing to do with 1RR. What I objected to - what I described as a cute trick - was gaming the system: using a fake “removal” of material as a way of moving the material, even though the move was still under discussion and had not achieved consensus. Coffee will have to speak for himself if this was also his motivation or if he was concerned about some other violation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

My main objective was to remove the disputed material. I made the second edit because I thought it would make other editors such as yourself happy, but I've said about fifty times now that I want to revert the second edit and let the first one stand. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your main objective was to remove disputed material - which you immediately restored to the article in a different place? You're going to have to come up with a better argument than that. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I could probably come up with a better argument, but it wouldn't be true. The material in that section grossly interrupts the chronological material, and much of that material is also not NPOV, especially in the "Racial views" section, and I would rather have such biased POV-pushing removed. One small example: "In 1975, Trump settled a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1973 alleging housing discrimination against black renters." There's no mention here that the settlement did not include any admission of wrongdoing, or that the Trumps said they were discriminating against low-income people not based on race, because they wanted people who would pay the rent (moreover this material is redundant given that it is discussed earlier in this article chronologically). The section is riddled with such things. Now, as I kindly asked Galobtter, please vacate this talk page for the time being, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with MelanieN. Your combined edits simply moved material to the end the article, the exact edit you pursued in two (or was it three?) discussions. On top of that, you seem to have tried to disguise it as challenging the material, when your history of (I'll call it, perceived) WP:GAMING suggests that your intent was otherwise. I hope that this break will give you the opportunity to reflect on how import trust is in a collaborative project. You're obviously an intelligent person who could be an asset in the American politics subject area if you would thoroughly embrace the principles that Wikipedia is based on, instead of what appears to be trying to fix liberal bias.- MrX 🖋 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I continue to feel very strongly that the first edit alone is very well-justified, and would rather be blocked than revert it for no legitimate reason. The second edit I am glad to revert, it is not important to me, though I believe there is greater support substantively for both edits together than just the first one. Also, you've had your say, so I kindly ask you to vacate this user talk page for the time being, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think you are justified in deleting content of which about half has been in the article for months and has strong consensus, and half of which is new, but also has consensus, then you absolutely should be topic banned. That you try to defend such actions is rather astounding. I'll show myself out now.- MrX 🖋 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Much of the content in the section I removed was redundant, out-of-chronology, not NPOV, and the section itself is new. By deleting it, I do not support permanent deletion of everything in it, only careful review of what should be restored and where it should be restored. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In a perfect wikiworld, lines would be crystal clear, but Wikipedia editing is and will always be a messy affair with all kinds of blurry lines. What works for me and others is to steer well clear of the fire, lest we sometimes get burned. Many of us don't feel it's reasonable to flirt with boundaries and then demand that the community spend time sorting out the complex and nuanced situations one has created. Especially at an article under ArbCom remedies, I don't make any edits involving content under discussion without some reasonable amount of discussion first. I'll now vacate unless you request otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are hereby topic-banned until 18:59, 27 January 2018‎ from editing any page that could be broadly construed to be about, regarding or related to Donald Trump.

You have been sanctioned For gaming the page restrictions system, by using a move of data in an article and claiming it was a revert protected by the challenge clause of the active page restrictions.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision

User:Coffee, per the link you provided in this template, my first step is "ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision". So I am asking you now to reconsider it in view of the discussion above. Also, you promised the following: "You have one option here and one option alone: undo your edits immediately (which I will remove the full protection placed once I receive your word you are going to) or face a sanction (from a block, up to a 1 month topic ban from the article) for gaming Arbitration Enforcement remedies." I agreed prior to this block to revert the second of my two edits, and you have nowhere suggested that I would be blocked if I only had made the first edit. Why won't you let me revert the second of my two edits, as you promised you would let me do? This was my first edit: "Revision as of 06:40, 20 January 2018: Per talk age discussion, I am going ahead and challenging the recent insertion of this material by reverting it." This was my second edit: "Revision as of 06:41, 20 January 2018: Per talk page, inserting profile info lower in BLP. Feel free to revert this particular edit, but consensus would be needed (per DS) to insert it elsewhere in the BLP." Obviously, the first edit did not restore any material that had been challenged by reversion. Anyway, the combined effect of my two edits was to move a new section to a different location in the article; what's wrong with doing that as long as I don't violate 1RR? You have got me totally perplexed here. What this comes down to is you disagreed with the edit summary in my second edit, not with the second edit itself, and not with the first edit. So before this topic ban, I volunteered to revert not just the second edit summary but the whole second edit, as you suggested I could do in lieu of a topic ban. And then you slam me with a month-long topic ban anyway. If I knew in the first place that you will not consider any consecutive edits as being distinct, then I would have simply stopped after my first edit, instead of trying to please other editors by inserting the material in the second. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Edited ending at 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you doing so. The ban is currently in place so we can come to an understanding (we've been able to the entire time I've been working with you, so I'd hate for that to change now), and of course if we don't come to one this is to ensure further disruption does not come to the article. So I have a few questions, and all of these are going to be key in finding out 1. What went wrong here. 2. What can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again. The first question I have for you is: Do you have any idea why it appears you were gaming the system of discretionary sanctions? (Please try to keep your answers focused to the questions I'm asking too as I'd like our conversation to have a positive outcome optimally. There will be follow up questions after this one too, so don't think I don't want to understand where you were coming from when you made the move of the data in the article too. It is always possible you didn't intend to game the system, but for now that's how it looks to me as an uninvolved administrator. [I'm not just throwing topic-bans like this around without thinking of the impact they have on the user involved]. At worst, after this discussion I'll be at least considering a sharp reduction in the time limit of your ban if possible, and at best we can hopefully find a way to be able to remove it entirely and I can trust something like this won't happen again.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Coffee asked “Do you have any idea why it appears you were gaming the system of discretionary sanctions?” Well, knowing what I know now about what the sanctions mean, I would not have written the second edit summary the way I did. And I might not have made the second edit at all, though you have not objected to either the first edit or the second edit, but only objected to the second edit summary. The second edit summary stated a rule as I understood it, and I don’t understand it that way anymore. I don’t think my misunderstanding was malicious at all, I simply did not realize that moving material within the article doesn’t count as a challenge by reversion. The main reason I moved the material in two separate edits was because it was a whole section, so the easiest way to move it was to click edit on that section, select all, and cut....then go down to the “See also” section and click paste. So the actual two edits I made were totally legitimate. The second edit summary was not legitimate in retrospect, but I did not know that at the time. Should I have known it? Maybe, maybe not, but in any event I know better now. The suspicion is that I gamed the system in order for the initial removal of material to be irreversible without consensus, but I could have easily accomplished the same exact thing by not making the second edit, and the only reason I made the second edit was to be more cooperative with other editors. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that well-thought out reply. Your cordiality is noted. You are correct that I have no issue with the edits themselves, it is the connotation that the summaries carried with them (both actually, as the first summary seemed to indicate that you believed you were reverting the material when in fact you were moving it from one part of the same article to another part of the same article). But that explains a lot from your perspective thus far, at least a lot more than I could see at first. The question I now have, then, is whether you have/had a problem with the content existing in the article at all? The reason I ask this is that it didn't appear you were actually challenging the content itself, just the placement, and that's not the intention of the "challenged" clause in the restrictions. I fully understand using the two edits to have to copy then paste, it's just I didn't see how you saw the first part of a copy/paste move as a "challenge" to the content's existence. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

My point of view was that placement is an important part of inserting content, and that challenging placement by reverting the edit that placed that content fell within the DS: “All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)“. If you say that point of view is not correct then I’m glad to accept what you say about it. I also have big objections to a lot of the content in that section, and intended to address that after moving the section. That plan didn’t work out so well, alas. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the placement was the subject of an open consensus required discussion on the article talk page at the time of this event. The location was of the essence, and the appearance of gaming has been a longstanding concern about this Anythingyouwant, who has been sanctioned at least twice already per DS. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome User:SPECIFICO. Please explain how consensus was required if no one had challenged that content by reversion. You seem to be twisting policy here. Is consensus required to alter or move all content that you like or that you have inserted? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, I have decided to reduce the topic ban to 1 week (updated expiry time is in the sanction template above). Please note, repetition of such behavior in this topic area after the ban expires, or any such thwarting of the DS system in any other applicable article will cause you to face a longer topic-ban. Also note, any failure to adhere to the current topic ban while it is active will result in blocks starting at 1 week in length, and then escalating from there. I hope you use this time to reflect on what happened here, and how you can ensure you do not misinterpret any discretionary sanctions like this, ever again. Thank you, and happy editing! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)