Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:16, 17 April 2012

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

ZScarpia and WLRoss

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning ZScarpia and WLRoss

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users against whom enforcement is requested

ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

10 April 2012 Restoration of clearly unreliable source by user:WLRoss with edit summary "per RSN"
10 April 2012 Restoration of clearly unreliable source by user:ZScarpia

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

User user:ZScarpia is frequent on the AE board so he aware of the case.
User user:WLRoss is not a new user and he is frequent of the WP:ARBPIA articles so he aware of the case too.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The source is clearly unreliable as was determined by uninvolved editors please see those two discussion from WP:RSN

1.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Institute_for_Research_Middle_Eastern_Policy

Here is some quotes from the discussion:

Not reliable.. by user:Itsmejudith
...this does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability or reliability. There are hundreds of websites which have colourful opinions about controversial issues, but Wikipedia is not a clearing house for such views.. by user:Hyperionsteel

2. Wikipedia:RSN#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence In second discussion most of editors were involved expect of two:

...There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy Until then I would say it was a questionable source and advise against using it... by user:Cusop Dingle
The user User:WhatamIdoing says "being biased or partisan does not make a source unreliable." It doesn't clear if he thinks that the sourse if WP:RS

Even one involved editor that cannot be called Pro-Israeli thinks that this source have some problems:"There are two outputs from this organization, namely its commentary and the third-party documents it publishes. The former are unreliable and I don't think they should be used (except maybe as attributed opinions in some cases)." by user:Zero0000

3.Misleading edit summary by user:WLRoss claimed that he restored the source per RSN is clear example of WP:TE

Only recently User:Shuki was banned for wrong usage of sources.I think the same standard should be apply here.To the very least users should warned on WP:ARBPIA sanction

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1] [2]

Response to T.cannens

1. First of all the case is not retaliatory and there no proof for it.I brought Shuki case only as example.Please assume WP:AGF. Second while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion it doesn't even matter we don't use unreliable sources even with attribution from WP:RS "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.".This source was found unreliable by uninvolved editors in WP:RSN like I showed earlier so I don't understand how this request can be considered frivolous.--Shrike (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have not asked that Wlross will be warned just because he edited A-I articles.I have asked him be warned because of his misleading summary.Or do you consider his summary not misleading?--Shrike (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ed.Jonston

But IRMEP is not reliable source even with attribution there are many sites in the web that criticize many things should we include it too?.Everyone can set up a page and call himself an "institute" it doesn't mean there are. Because of it in such matters WP:RSN should decide.And the decision of uninvolved editors was that the site is unreliable for anything and shouldn't be used in Wikipedia--Shrike (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC) I refer what GabrielF(involved said about this "institute":[reply]

:Like any non-profit, IRMEPs tax filings are available to the public. Here are their 2009 filings. The organization has a budget of less than $100,000 and while it has three board members besides the Director I don't see how it could support more than one researcher. (Crossposted from Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute.) GabrielF (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Last comments

I didn't change my claim.The source in unreliable to be included in Wikipedia as was decided by WP:RSN even with attribution. As far as I understand there is three types of sources according to WP:RS and WP:V

Reliable for statements of facts
Could be used only with attribution(usually because of the bias)
Couldn't be used in Wikipedia at all.

As far as I read the WP:RSN it 3rd type of source as was established by uninvolved editors

The violation of both editors is that they included this source against WP:RSN while one doing it with misleading summary.--Shrike (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning ZScarpia and WLRoss

Statement by ZScarpia

ZScarpia

In the past four days, I have reverted removals of text (1, 2) made by Shrike in different parts of the MEMRI article twice (1, 2), the second revert being the one listed above. Both reverts were made because of an apparent misunderstanding of the reliable sources policy by Shrike. Shrike removed attributed opinions which were sourced to the attributees' own websites. In those cases, the only reliability issue arising was that it was shown that the attributees had actually made the attributed opinions. The sources given satisfied that requirement. Shrike seems to have difficulty understanding that an individual's own website can be a reliable source for that individual's opinion and that an individual or organisation do not need to be reliable in themselves, only notable as far as the subject matter of the article is concerned, in order to include their opinion. I have no particular views about the notabily of the opinions Shrike removed, my only concern was that Shrike made the removals on specious grounds.

Reference has been made to the AE request which I recently brought against Shuki. The claims of similarity between cases are false. I brought the case solely on behavioural grounds. Nowhere, either in the request or on the talkpage of the article concerned, did I refer to source reliability. Although others referred to source reliability, I think that it was Shuki's behaviour that the outcome of the case hinged on.

← ZScarpia 17:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talkpage discussions here and here may be relevant. Shrike made the following comment, which, I think, demonstrates his or her lack of understanding of how WP:RS and WP:V are applied: "Even if the site is reliable for its own opinion we don't use it unless it WP:RS. Please read WP:V." ← ZScarpia 19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: The WP:RS (see the Self-published sources section) and WP:V (see the Statements of opinion section) rules do not say that self-published material cannot be used as sources of opinion in general, only that it cannot be used as such when the subject is a living person. It doesn't really matter to me whether the opinions removed by Shrike are deleted from the article or not, so I don't have a dog in the race either. In fact, it looks to me as though the final consensus will come down in favour of removing the second opinion, an outcome which I will not be unhappy about. You'll notice that, on the talkpage, a very good case is made for retaining the first opinion that Shrike wanted to remove, even though it's from a self-published source which would not be regarded as a reliable source for statements of fact. All that concerns me is that, if the material is removed, it is removed for valid reasons. I reverted Shrike because the reasons he gave in his comments weren't sufficient justifications for the removals. If Shrike hadn't used the same reason for making his second deletion as he did in the first, I probably would have waited to see how things developed on the talkpage rather than reverting it quickly. ← ZScarpia 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: I reverted Shrike's second edit prior to the talkpage discussion developing. I was going on the edit comment Shrike left, "I didn't see any agreement between univolved editors that this source is reliable," the same kind of reason Shrike gave for his previous deletion of text. Shrike didn't seem to appreciate that sources that aren't reliable for statements of fact can be reliable for statements of opinion. From the discussion taking place, it does look as though the IRMEP's opinion is not notable enough to merit inclusion. Shrike, though, didn't state that his reason for removal was notability, but reliability. ← ZScarpia 14:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike's quotations from the rules are selective and don't uphold his position. Whereas Shrike is now saying that "while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion," that didn't seem to be what he was saying in his edit and talkpage comments at the time. Shrike argues: "while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion it doesn't even matter we don't use unreliable sources even with attribution from WP:RS." So, a source which is reliable as a source of opinion but not fact cannot be used because it isn't reliable as a source of fact? ← ZScarpia 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: An editor who reverts an edit which was done for invalid reasons was in the wrong if it turns out later that there were other, valid, reasons for that edit having been done? ← ZScarpia 15:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: I did not know who the IRMEP was when I reverted Shrike. The revert was carried out before the talkpage discussion developed. I was depending on WLRoss's reasonable sounding talkpage comment for the IRMEP's respectability. The revert was based on that and Shrike's evident, repeated misunderstanding of the rules on source reliability (see Shrike's first deletion and the talkpage discussion which followed). As I commented after Shrike deleted Juan Cole's opinion from the article, a correct ground for deletion might have been notability. Questions of notability, though, are sorted out by talkpage discussion. That discussion had yet to take place for the IRMEP opinion when I made that revert. Presumably, one of the reasons that other admins find this request frivolous is because Shrike brought this request before any real discussion had taken place. You've talked about the kind of bickering which causes edit wars. I'm pretty sure that I've never been accused of edit warring. A reason for that is that I don't make the same reversion twice. If someone re-reverts a revert of mine, I don't re-revert them. ← ZScarpia 16:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: Based on the wording of Shrike's edit comment and Shrike's previous argument that Juan Cole's website wasn't a reliable source for Juan Cole's opinion because it isn't a reliable source for statements of fact, I interpreted Shrike's reasoning for the removal of the IRMEP's opinion as that the IRMEP's website couldn't be used as a reliable source for the IRMEP's opinion because it, also, is not a reliable source for statements of fact, reasoning that is invalid. Based on that, I think my revert of Shrike's edit was reasonable. As with his or her previous attempt to delete an opinion, Shrike then had the option of taking the issue to the talkpage to try to make a case for the deletion on valid grounds, that is, notability. The IRMEP was being referred to as "the Washington-based Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy", which sounded like a reasonable-sized organisation to me. You'll notice that the discussion over whether the IRMEP is notable is still underway. You wrote: "Claiming you didn't even look into her claim before reverting her isn't helping your argument." But I did look at the claim that Shrike made, which, from appearances at least (personally, I find I have to make guesses about what Shrike's reasoning is), as I've stated, looked like it was a repeat of Shrike's invalid justification for deleting an opinion elsewhere in the article. By reverting Shrike, I expected that she would take the matter to the talkpage where a civil discussion such as the one which followed on from her previous deletion could take place. ← ZScarpia (refactored: 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

@A Quest for Knowledge: The current discussion on the article talkpage is trying to settle the question of whether the IRMEP is a suitable source for an opinion, isn't it? If Shrike had given notability as his reason for deletion, I would have allowed the talkpage to sort out whether the deletion was justifiable, rather than reverting based on the reason he or she did give. ← ZScarpia 17:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: The differences between the cases .... the ADL was being used as a source for a statement of fact, not opinion, which was contradicted by other sources. The ADL source was written 15 years ago, but was being used to assert that a condition is true in 2012. Shuki had broken the 1RR restriction on the article and made pointy edits. I didn't hurry here to file a request before a discussion had taken place. ← ZScarpia 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelNetzer: "ZScarpia and WLRoss were aware of the Noticeboard consensus on the organization and chose to edit-war over it irregardless." Presumably you're referring to the RS Noticeboard. I did not take part in any discussion on the IRMEP there. Judging from the discussion on the article talkpage, it sounds as though the discussion was inconclusive. Even if not reliable for statements of fact, sources can be reliable for statements of opinion, which is what was being given here. How many edits equal an edit war? Based on whatever your definition is, are you an edit warrior yourself? ← ZScarpia 18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to re-iterate more clearly:

Shrike has been deleting opinions because she believes that they cannot be included unless they are taken from sources which are reliable for statements of fact.
I didn't revert Shrike because I believed that the opinions deleted should rightfully be in the article.
I had no firm views on whether the deleted opinions were notable or not.
I reverted Shrike because the reason for the deletions was based on a misinterpretation of policy.
Looking at the deleted text and what comments had been made on the talkpage to that point, there was no indication that the IRMEP was not a regular organisation.
Shrike was, incorrectly, basing her deletions on source reliability. WLRoss (Wayne) was, correctly, basing his reasons for retention on notability.
I thought that, if there was a notability issue, it should be hashed out on the article talkpage.
The notability issue is being hashed out on the article talkpage.
Perhaps someone should talk to Shrike before she deletes more opinions on invalid grounds. Although, perhaps it's me who's got policy wrong, in which case I'm the one who needs talking to.

← ZScarpia 11:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various editors have been stating that Shuki got indeffed for using the ADL as a source, so let me run through the circumstances:

The Settlements article, using an ADL webpage, on which no date or author were listed, as a source, stated that no new settlements had been built since the Oslo process.
On the talkpage, it was pointed out that other, listed, sources contradicted that statement (meaning that the statement concerning new settlements in the article could no longer be expressed as a statement of fact).
Over the course of a number of days, a discussion was held on how best to word the article neutrally.
Three editors agreed that the best approach was to remove any mention of whether any new settlements had been built or not.
The statement was removed from the article.
Shuki then intervened and reverted the removal, even though at that point it was obvious that the original statement could not stand as an unqualified statement of fact as it had been.
It was discovered that the ADL webpage was written in 1997. So, a 1997 source was being used to assert that a condition existed in 2012.
After an editor made a second edit just outside the 24-hour 1RR limit, Shuki requested that editor be given a formal ARBPIA warning.
I pointed out to Shuki that, whereas he was complaining that an editor had almost violated the 1RR restriction, it looked to me as though he, Shuki, had violated the restriction.
Shuki made some pointy edits.
Shuki demanded that evidence that he had violated the 1RR restriction be produced or the accusation (observation, really) be withdrawn.
I listed three reversions that Shuki had made in less than 24 hours.
Shuki listed a couple of reasons why two of the reversions didn't count. By looking at the version history and the changes made, anyone could see that what Shuki was claiming was patently untrue, either a naked lie or a delusion.
Other examples of erratic, irrational or obnoxious behaviour followed, including the posting of an incomprehensible comment that looked as though it was made up of phrases cut out of random sentences and glued together (by pointing that one out as an example of rogue behaviour in the eventual AE request, I was called a dick, maybe even a fucking dolt, as though I'd just been pointing out spelling mistakes and a bit of iffy grammar).
Shuki again demanded a retraction of the suggestion that he'd violated the 1RR restriction, pushing me to finally file the AE request.
In filing the request, no mention was made of the source reliability of the ADL. That was unnecessary.
Shuki behaved obnoxiously to the admins on the AE Noticeboard.
At the time the request was made, Shuki had a current topic ban on a settlement-related article and a history of other blocks and bans in the AI area, which were taken into account when formulating the enforcement action taken.

So, what does everybody think? Is saying that Shuki was indeffed for using the ADL as a source a true representation of what happened? (Hope that listing all that wasn't inappropriate)

← ZScarpia 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: "I recommend a warning or reminder to editors that Self-published sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves, in articles about themselves." The rules section that you're referring to is about when self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, not about whether they may be used as sources of information about third parties. ← ZScarpia 07:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those querying the difference between straightforward factual statements and factual statements which present a view or opinion, see if you can see any differences between the following:

Diego Garcia has played no part in the global rendition programme.
Between 2005 and 2007, the British Government stated several times that Diego Garcia had played no part in the global rendition programme.

← ZScarpia 07:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WLRoss

Yes I did use an inadequate comment for the edit but this was purely due to lack of space. I instead used Talk to fully explain the reversion I made: see here. As the editor who lodged this case replied to that post, it is rather unusual to critisize my actual edit comment for it's inadequacy. I checked both RSN cases regarding IRmep as a source and found them to contain no clear result either way which to my understanding of WP guidelines means we can still use IRmep as a source. The only consensus was that IRmep was biased which, according to WP, has no affect on it's reliability. I also looked at the IRmep reference for bias and found this particular article was supported by references to the raw data it used. The article was not targeting MEMRI specifically but using them as an example in an article critisizing all "think tanks" which includes itself. I found no particular bias so made the edit. Wayne (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@--WGFinley: I have no idea why you cant find IRMEP media. I found dozenss of news releases through Business Wire and PR Newswire, several articles in Reuters, several on Yahoo! News, many in Al Jazeera and other Middle East news sites and numerous court filings etc. I acted in good faith by reverting User:Biosketchs deletion of what was a long standing sentence from the article and have no problem removing the edit if the source is found to be unreliable however, regardless of reliability, User:Shrikes motivation in bringing this case needs to be questioned. I would point out that Shrike brought this case at the very beginning of a content discussion regarding the source, without any AE warnings, made a tendentious claim that I was using a "misleading summary" to support my edit when he had already replied to my detailed Talk page explanation for the edit and is making false claims that The source in unreliable to be included in Wikipedia as was decided by WP:RSN and later The source is clearly unreliable as was determined by uninvolved editors please see those two discussion from WP:RSN. A perusal of the current RSN case shows three editors supporting IRMEP as a RS, two editors supporting that it is not and one editor leaning to using the source with caution. There was no clear consensus. This is properly a content dispute. Wayne (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: How can you support sanctioning editors for using a source simply because it's reliability is under discussion on the RSN? A source should be available for use until such time as consensus decides it is not reliable. Wayne (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000

This is a pretty ordinary content dispute that does not belong on this board. The complainant should be instructed to take the problem to some dispute resolution board. Zero^talk 13:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is unreliable using such kind of sources that most of uninvolved editors think that is not suitable for Wiki is clear WP:TE.--Shrike (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could report someone here with similar validity at least once per day. You have a case, not an overwhelming case but still a case, that this source is unreliable. But others disagree with you and I don't see a reason to believe they are acting in bad faith. It is a content dispute like very many others. You should seek mediation, or something like that. Zero^talk 14:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning ZScarpia and WLRoss

Comment by Who is it, really?

This case is identical to one brought against Shuki a couple of weeks ago, by none other than Zscarpia, where it was found that "using the ADL, an organization with an obvious agenda (whether one agrees with their agenda or not is irrelevant), as the sole source for that kind of claim claim is plainly tendentious. " Shuli was indef topic banned for this. Let's handle these cases with some consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who is it, really? (talk • contribs) 14:37 & 14:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC) ( Account indefinitely blocked at 17:24, 10 April 2012 UTC for abusing multiple accounts. See hidden text. )[reply]

I don't think you should comment here.--Shrike (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

Unless I'm missing something, the added material is inappropriate. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. In this case, it's not an article about this organization, it's an article about a third-party. Even if this was an article about the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, it would fail criteria #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. To be honest, self-published sources should be avoided, especially for contentious content in contentious articles. If something is truly worth including in a Wikipedia article, a secondary source will have reported it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens and @EdJohnston: First, I have no dog in this race. Second, that's fine if you think this RfE is frivolous. To be honest, this seems to me to be a typical, run of the mill, content dispute that shouldn't have been brought to RfE in the first place. Nevertheless, it's here. That said, I don't think you should leave a false impression over the actual policy. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, in articles about themselves. This is clearly not the case here. Even if it were, it would fail criteria #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. Glossing over this fact does not serve the project. If I were an AE admin (which I'm not), I'd recommend a warning or reminder to ZScarpia and WLRoss against using self-published sources about third-parties and to Shrike to not file RfE's over ordinary content disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that both T. Canens and EdJohnston have argued that IRMEP is reliable for its own opinion. Of course, this is true but no editor at that RSN discussion made this argument. The concensus reached at RSN was that this was an unreliable source. Shrike should not be faulted for following this consensus. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we are not supposed to use self-published sources for claims about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia: No, WP:SPS requires that the author be an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. No such evidence has been presented that the author is an established expert. If there is such evidence, please present it. Otherwise, it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF which is very clear:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

.the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
.it does not involve claims about third parties;
.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
.the article is not based primarily on such sources."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've placed three (hopefully neutral!) notices asking for more feedback regarding how this source is being used.[3][4][5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I recommend a warning or reminder to editors that Self-published sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves, in articles about themselves. Claims that involve third-parties violate criteria #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment by asad

@WGFinley, I honestly cannot believe that you have the ability to come to this request and completely misrepresent the contents of an ArbCom statement to use in adjudicating an A/E case. You were rebuffed by ArbCom because you took the issue of source misrepresentation as a content dispute, and ArbCom made it clear to you that it was an issue of conduct. Please don't misrepresent an ArbCom statement to further sympathize with an editor who has plainly filed a frivolous A/E report against editors who's only fault was using an organization as a source to quote the organization. -asad (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One falsehood after another.

You said now, "I was chided for my position that we should not be evaluating sources."

ArbCom said in December, "Editors misrepresenting sources is a conduct problem, not a content problem, and as such can be handled under discretionary sanctions at AE or in other cases, at AN/ANI."

Unless you are somehow claiming the editors here are guilty of misrepresenting sources, than you ought to really retract what you said about ArbCom in support of your argument. Also, I don't find your comment "next up in the partisan parade" very helpful and becoming of an Adnmin. You of all people should be aware of the fundamental principle of WP:NPA, be it "comment on content not the contributor". Furthermore, seeing how it was myself who started the discussion on the AN that led to your rebuffing, I find it very appropriate that I may be allowed comment on the issue without you throwing out the silly claim of "partisanship". -asad (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment by MichaelNetzer

In both WP:RSN discussions on IRmep, even supporters of the group agreed it is not a WP:RS for anything other than referencing the third party documents it stores on its site. Everyone agreed that their commentary on the documents was not reliable, with the exception, "sometimes", of being an attributed opinion (on the documents only). But everyone agreed the group had near zero notability to earn it an RS, including for opinions on third parties. The claims that what we have here is one organization opining on another peer organization fails because MEMRI is a notable agency that's often quoted and discussed in third party major media, while none of them extend such recognition of IRmep. IRmep is not a peer organization to MEMRI and is certainly not reliable to comment on it. ZScarpia and WLRoss were aware of the Noticeboard consensus on the organization and chose to edit-war over it irregardless. They should be reprimanded or sanctioned. Shrike should not be faulted for following policy, especially in wake of other recent AE decisions on WP:RS violations - lest we promote a perception of Wikipedia partisanship on the topic. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston and T. Canens, a question: Why is saying "(Israel) was innocent in the matter of creating new settlements" considered making a statement of fact? Such a statement could only be considered a statement of fact if it was said by a body with the authority to ascribe guilt or innocence to Israel, such as the ICJ. If they said it, that would be a statement of fact because the ICJ has the authority to make such a determination of innocence. The ADL has no such authority. Indeed, the ADL can only give its opinion about Israel's position - in the same way that Israel's position that it is innocent, is only considered an opinion of Israel, not a statement of fact.

If an editor in the topic was to say that EdJohnston and T. Canens were not guilty of being biased towards Israel-supporting editors, that would only be their opinion, not a statement of fact. But if ARBCOM issued the same statement, it would be more a statement of fact because ARBCOM has the authority to determine bias by its Administrators.

Seems the ADL is at the level of an editor in the topic area and can only state an opinion about Israel's innocence, not a fact. Also seems that the push to assert it's a statement of fact is a little extreme and inapplicable. Shuki was indeffed for using the ADL on grounds of the organization being an advocate group, not on a fair assessment that it intrinsically stated an opinion. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Jiujitsuguy

~~Tim Cannes’ analysis of Shrike’s AE is very problematic on several levels and demonstrates insidious inconsistencies in the manner in which he deals with certain editors.~~

~~For example, let’s address his first comment:~~

"As a preliminary matter, we have never determined that editing A-I articles, without more, could constitute constructive warning for the purposes of discretionary sanctions. The attempt to bypass the warning requirement on WLRoss is not well taken." However, a similar argument for leniency for MichaelNetzer drew TCs wrath. I had argued that since Netzer had not been formally warned, enforcement action was unavailable.[6]. TC advocated otherwise arguing My view is that MN's history of participation at AE, especially when considered in conjunction with the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Jerusalem ("WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"), compels the conclusion that he has been constructively warned and no additional warning is necessary.

The article in the instant case has same ARBPIA warning plastered on top and the editor in question edits in A-I. Therefore, Netzer and WLRoss present the exact same set of circumstances. Yet TC argues that one (Netzer) was constructively warned while the other (WLRoss) was not. TCs double standard and the contrast between the manner in which he dealt with Netzer and WRLoss demonstrates a certain degree of dis-ingenuousness.

But there is more. TC demands that Shrike "explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous and apparently retaliatory request." This is not the first time that TC has demanded this type of disciplinarian-like punishment from editors perceived as being sympathetic with Israel. On at least two previous occasions, Biosketch had been on the receiving end of TCs “400 words or less,” threat.[7][8] By contrast, the SPA Nableezy has brought numerous AEs that have fallen flat and TC remains mum.

I brought these two examples to highlight inconsistencies in the way TC administers AEs. Editors who are perceived as sympathetic with Israel are dismissed or sanctioned while editors who are openly hostile to Israel are given free passes. TC should recuse himself from all matters pertaining to ARBPIA.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response from named party User:Biosketch

As my name has been mentioned in the course of this discussion, I'll say that at the very least User:WLRoss should be informed of ARBPIA sanctions, as he's an active participant in the topic area and it appears he hasn't been formally made aware of the discretionary sanctions that go along with editing in I/P. I don't identify any bad faith on the part of User:Shrike or User:ZScarpia, and I find it rather disturbing that an Admin would propose punitive measures against User:Shrike when it's clear it was more a matter of misunderstanding policy on his part than anything else. As in the case of blocks, the purpose of sanctions should be to improve editors, not punish them; they should be WP:PREVENTATIVE, not WP:PUNITIVE. In general, it would be beneficial to the project if editors would approach each other before seeking Enforcement and only come here when earlier efforts to resolve things proved ineffective, unless it's something exceptional that needs urgent attention. But it would also help the project if editors were more circumspect in their application of reverts. Not counting my initial removal of IRmep on 1 April 2012, there have since been five reverts of the same content by five different editors. That's counterproductive. User:WGFinley is absolutely correct about the destructive influence of revert wars on the topic area. Even though they aren't edit wars in the strict sense, they make it more difficult to reach consensus, which is what editors' energies should be invested in. In this regard, certainly User:Severino would benefit from at least a stern warning for reverting IRmep back into the article without even participating in the discussion. His behavior is actually the worse of all the editors involved in this case because he's completely flouted the earnest efforts of editors to discuss their way to an agreement and instead acted unilaterally to try to force his personal minority POV in.—Biosketch (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user feels entitled for self-righteous instructing and denuciating while he started edit warring, deleted a criticism he doesn't like WITHOUT discussing.--Severino (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, removing an unreliable source from an article after two RSN discussions determined IRmep to have no established credibility is the furthest thing from starting an edit war. Read WP:BEBOLD, and read the RSN discussion I actually linked to in the edit summary I left when IRmep was initially removed from the article. The assertion that I don't like IRmep is purely speculative on your part, as well as an indication you cannot assume good faith in interactions with editors whose judgments in relation to article content you don't share. Taken together with your participation in a revert war without any attempt at discussion, these are symptoms of uncollaborative editing. Editors who conduct themselves in this manner and won't even acknowledge that their conduct is problematic are an unneeded burden on the topic area.—Biosketch (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Carolmooredc

I find it rather strange that User:Shrike lodges this complaint here quoting and ongoing discussion on WP:RSN as if it is complete. That one asks if IRmep is a reliable source for use of its FOIA and other original documents as primary sources. See (new name) Wikipedia:RSN#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence_re:_FOIA_docs. While Shrike's two examples actually are of IRmep opinions, in such an ongoing WP:RSN discussion there always is the possibility the community might broaden reliability to include opinions. Or that some WP:RS source might be found quoting IRmep or its director with such an opinion. He does not mention the fact that in this discussion - unlike the first one which only mentioned assertions of IRmep's unreliability - there are almost two dozen WP:RS referring to or using IRmep or its director Grant Smith's FOIA documents, analysis of those documents, quotes from IRmep/Smith documents or reprints of IRmep/Smith articles or press releases. More than a dozen of those have not been contested by (User:Biosketch); it was his removing IRmep FOIA documents as sources which first drew my attention to the issue. In fact, there were so many WP:RS about the group and its activities, I decided IRmep deserves a Wikipedia article and I am working on it. Four editors besides myself believe IRmep can be used as a source of primary source FOIA and other documents (diffs can be provided if necessary):

User:Zero's relevant statement here is: The documents might be problematic due to being largely primary source material, but if they are handled within the guidelines for primary sources I don't see why they should be considered unreliable. They are not less reliable than, for example, MEMRI's documents which are widely used on Wikipedia. The main problem with documents produced by advocacy organizations like this is their bias in choosing which documents to present, so any sort of AS Zero points out source material presented by pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc is widely cited in Wikipedia. In my opinion any blanket ban on IRmep on the basis of it being an advocacy group should also apply to pro-Isreal advocacy organisations such as the ones I have mentioned. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC) meta-analysis based on the selection has to be avoided. Zerotalk 01:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
User: Dlv999 writes: AS Zero points out source material presented by pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc is widely cited in Wikipedia. In my opinion any blanket ban on IRmep on the basis of it being an advocacy group should also apply to pro-Isreal advocacy organisations such as the ones I have mentioned. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
User WhatamIdoing writes: Directly below this writes: That's right: being biased or partisan does not make a source unreliable. It only makes it biased. Wikipedia does not require sources to be unbiased. Articles should be neutral. Sources need to be reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
User: Kaldari writes: If the documents are U.S. Government documents obtained through FOIA requests, shouldn't the source be considered the U.S. government rather than IRMep? It sounds like IRMep is just acting as the host. If we were relying on IRMep to interpret the documents for us and we didn't have direct access to them, IRMep would need to meet a higher standard, but if we're just limiting coverage to the primary documents themselves, I don't see why we would need to establish anything other than the fact that IRMep is not a blatantly fraudulent organization (as the U.S. government is generally considered a reliable source). Granted, there may be extenuating circumstances I'm not aware of in this rather convoluted debate, but that's my opinion from the peanut gallery. Kaldari (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only does this look like a frivolous complaint, it possibly could be an attempt to subvert the WP:RSN process. CarolMooreDC 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cusop Dingle

There is a vigorous discussion currently under way at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of this source. Consensus has certainly not been reached. It so happens that I believe this has not been established to be reliable, and am correctly quoted above as saying so, but in the absence of consensus it would be quite premature to launch an enforcement action simply for using this source. I have no opinion on any other actions surrounding this request. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact there was already a consensus Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Institute_for_Research_Middle_Eastern_Policy.Anyhow the admins' argument is different they say its not matter of WP:RS which I respectfully disagree--Shrike (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of an active good-faith discussion while the edits, and complaints, were made, suggests that the edits are not "clearly" disruptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Seems to me like Shrike is over-stepping on this issue. Before getting involved in this dispute Shrike had removed an attributed quote from a highly notable critic of Israel, claiming WP:RS as a defense. As to the claim about WP:ORG, I don't think a source's notability is even remotely a valid argument for excluding information from it. Outside of reliability the only concern I can think of is WP:UNDUE, but that does not seem to apply in this case. The criticism of MEMRI as selective and agenda-driven is a significant POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ZScarpia and WLRoss

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

This is frivolous.
As a preliminary matter, we have never determined that editing A-I articles, without more, could constitute constructive warning for the purposes of discretionary sanctions. The attempt to bypass the warning requirement on WLRoss is not well taken.
Moreover, this request also fails on the merits. Even assuming arguendo that the IRMEP website is not a reliable source for facts (something we need not decide to resolve this case, although it does seem true), it is surely a reliable source for IRMEP's own opinion. Shuki's case dealt with using ADL publications to source a disputed fact. This case involves using IRMEP to source a statement about IRMEP's opinion. The former is unacceptable, the latter is not.
Shrike (talk · contribs) is requested to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous and apparently retaliatory request. T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim that the filing here is frivolous. The actual IRMEP source has various issues which the editors involved can surely work out through consensus. IRMEP may not be a reliable source for facts stated purely on their own authority but they are surely a reliable source for their own opinions. Whether their opinion is important enough to cite is up to editors to decide. You can work this out through normal WP:DR without any need for admin input. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest for Knowledge: WLRoss and and ZScarpia are trying to include the editorial opinion of the IRMEP organization about the Middle East Media Research Institute. It is not out of the question that one research institute's opinion of another research institute might be relevant or interesting. The two institutes seem to be acting as adversaries, so you might consider whether their views deserve space in each other's criticism sections.This would not run afoul of WP:RS because it's a question of opinion, not of facts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, IRMEP doesn't seem to meet the criteria for WP:ORG. I did a Google News search and it returned a grand total of three hits, a press release from PR newswire, an entry on MarketWatch with the same press release (verbatim) and a story from a Turkish website paraphrasing the press release. Even when I broadened the search to a decade it's less than 20 hits and all press releases and "news" sites that reprint press releases. While IRMEP may be a reliable source for its own opinion it doesn't seem to meet the WP:ORG threshold for an opinion worthy to cite in the article which seems to be what Shrike's argument is. --WGFinley (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be true, but whether an opinion is sufficiently notable for inclusion is usually a content question outside our purview. Shrike started out by claiming that ZScarpia and WLRoss have used an unreliable source, drawing parallels with the Shuki case (which dealt with using a biased source for a disputed statement of fact), a claim which is plainly not true. He ought not be allowed to play bait and switch, and change his argument to an entirely different (and in my view, equally meritless, but I accept that reasonable people can disagree on that) claim about the opinion itself, when it is clear that his original claim is gaining no traction and a sanction may be forthcoming. T. Canens (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds a lot like wikilawyering to me Tim. If I see someone beating someone over the head and call it "assault" instead of "battery" it doesn't change the fact a crime is being committed. Shrike is right that it doesn't belong even if her reasons are a bit off. --WGFinley (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - To use your analogy, it sounds to me like screaming "murder" when seeing someone patting someone else, and then switch to "battery" when they are laughed out of court. T. Canens (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Incorrect. This is no difference then us coming down harshly on someone presenting ADL as an unbiased source, this organization has nowhere near the standing of ADL. --WGFinley (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether a source is biased is usually an easy, objective, inquiry that can be performed by uninvolved admins readily. The "standing" of a source and whether it is sufficient to warrant inclusion is a subjective inquiry, requiring research beyond our paygrade. T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, this is definitely within of our purview. I held the position we shouldn't be evaluating sources and was chided soundly over it by ARBCOM no less. We can't suddenly now throw up our hands and say we aren't going to critically review sources. The case remains Shrike removed material and questioned it, it should not be restored to the article until the matter is settled, that's how edit wars start. --WGFinley (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can address misuse of sources - misrepresentation, biased sourcing, or similar issues. This is not a case of source misuse: nothing is being misrepresented, nothing is being falsified, no biased source is being used to support a fact. It basically involves whether mentioning this view is WP:UNDUE, something that should be the task of the community. If admins can decide what weight is DUE for each PoV and enforce that decision by sanctions, then they would have been effectively dictating content. T. Canens (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no difference between misrepresenting what a source says and presenting a source that misrepresents. --WGFinley (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course there is a difference. To determine whether someone is misrepresenting what a source says, one need to look no further than the source itself, a task that can be done by even someone unfamiliar with the subject at hand. You look at the source, and either it is being misrepresented or not. It's a narrow inquiry. To determine whether a source itself misrepresents something (and not merely whether it passes the guidelines for RSes), you would have to look beyond the source and do your own open-ended research into the subject and form a view as to the correct presentation of the matter. That goes well beyond what an uninvolved administrator can or should do, and should be reserved for editors of the article at issue. T. Canens (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia - Frankly, given your intelligence, I think you are being very disingenuous. That is, you know the organization doesn't measure up to WP:ORG and shouldn't be included as a source of information in the article but you are happy to prop it up because Shrike isn't stating the objection the right way. This is the kind of partisan bickering we do not need in this topic area. The correct response would be to acknowledge the issue and the correct policy against its inclusion. The case is clearly made on the talk page IRMEP is utterly lacking legitimacy but you are playing WP:IDHT because the correct policy isn't being cited. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia - claiming you didn't even look into her claim before reverting her isn't helping your argument. --WGFinley (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@asad (next up in the partisan parade) - I didn't misrepresent a thing. I was chided for my position that we should not be evaluating sources. I am evaluating the source in this case which happens to be presented as self-sourcing, that leads one to look at the organization that is presenting its opinion and the legitimacy of that opinion to be included as a valid source of opinion. That organization has no such legitimacy. I will not sit here and indef ban people for trying to use the ADL as a source of unbiased info and turn a blind eye when the same thing is being done here. It is the EXACT same thing. --WGFinley (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim - state for me the difference, in the Shuki opinion that you and Ed both agreed to where we evaluated the ADL as an inappropriate source for an article (rightfully so) and sanctioned that user for doing it and this. It is the same thing. The organization is a blatantly biased one with nowhere near the standing of the ADL. If I did a Google News search on ADL there Iould be scores of articles including their opinions, this one isn't even close to that and you want to give it a wider berth than the ADL. --WGFinley (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF: The difference I see is the fact versus opinion thing. Review the previous case for a moment. ADL has described themselves as an advocate for Israel, per their mission statement as quoted in our article. So in that case, we were asked to accept a statement by the advocate that the state they were advocating for (Israel) was innocent in the matter of creating new settlements. I.e. a factual claim about the behavior of Israel. It is not wise to accept the word of an advocacy group in such a matter of fact. IRMEP is a one-sided group also in terms of their views but we are only asking here whether including their *opinion* in the article on MEMRI could have value. I see that as being up to editor consensus to decide. (Personally I don't think it's valuable enough to be included). The analog here would be asking whether the ADL's *opinion* of IRMEP would have value in the article on IRMEP. I see no reason why not, but it depends on editor consensus. If your judgment of IRMEP's standing was gained only from your own Google search you should also see the list of mentions compiled in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Ed says, using a biased source to source a fact is a straightforward no-no. Whether a source is a biased is usually a binary question with only one correct answer that can easily be determined. Using a biased source to source that source's opinion is acceptable. Questions such as the appropriate weight to be accorded to IRMEP's (or anyone else's) view point in the article involve complex editorial judgment that we, as admins, should stay away from. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't think this had to be brought to AE, after hearing the arguments I would *not* be inclined to sanction Shrike for a frivolous report. Zero0000's comment to Shrike seems apt:

You have a case, not an overwhelming case but still a case, that this source is unreliable. But others disagree with you and I don't see a reason to believe they are acting in bad faith. It is a content dispute like very many others. You should seek mediation, or something like that.

It is disconcerting that there is so little agreement (even among admins) as to how to qualify the sources used in this case. I doubt we will be able to settle those differences any time soon. It appears that closing with no admin action is a viable option. AE cannot solve all of the world's problems, and there is no egregious misbehavior that I can see. Do any of the admins have anything else they would like to do here before closing? EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with EdJohnston. The source here is problematic, for reasons elucidated above, but I think it was being used to present an opinion as opposed to being used to support a factual claim. However, I don't think the request was without any merit (if I saw the same editors doing a similar thing again, I'd have no problem sanctioning then), so I don't think Shrike did anything worth of sanctions either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Maunus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Maunus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBR&I#Decorum

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

12:50, 12 April 2012 "lie"
13:26, 12 April 2012 "trolling"
13:40, 12 April 2012 "You wouldn't recognize a minority view if it was a yard up your butt" Edit summary: "troll"
19:24, 12 April 2012 Maunus added this during the discussion on this page. Latin "praeterea censeo Miradrem esse delendam" = "furthermore, Miradre should be destroyed/annihilated/wiped out" or something similar.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:ARBR&I#Decorum: "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited."

This has clearly been ignored here. This is not the first time Maunus is incivil. See earlier blocks for incivility as well as [9].

I ask that the Maunus should be warned.

Reply to Hipocrite

I have not promised anything. I have stated that do not to intend to edit any of the core topics in this area due to this obviously being pointless with a very strong local group of editors here in Wikipedia vehemently opposing the biological view and everyone disagreeing with this view has been successfully banned by this group. Not very surprising when a Nobel Prize winner like James D. Watson can be fired for saying the not politically correct thing in this area. I have also stated that I intend to make occasional talk page comments. As can be seen and expected, the group now trying to get me banned also. I do hope that being civil still applies also towards those expressing unpopular views.

Hipocrite also brings up an edit regarding IQ research in China which has absolutely no mention of race. So obviously there is no advocacy of genetic racial differences as claimed.

Hipocrite has already called me a racist elsewhere so to clarify: I do not argue that there are proven racial genetic differences in IQ. Only that the issue is unresolved and that the biological arguments are not properly presented in Wikipedia. Furthermore, racism includes advocating discrimination which I certainly do not not. My view is the opposite: If there are biological advantages and disadvantages, then only by acknowledging this can those disadvantaged get proper help. See also the moralistic fallacy. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Maunus

Regarding who is correct regarding non-US anthropologists and other scientists views regarding race, I have presented sources supporting my view at talk:Human, Maunus has not.

Maunus is making a claim regarding what racism is without any sources. I refer to the racism article which states, with sources (in the article body), that racism includes advocating discrimination. Also Maunus's definition is rather strange. It is racism to say that some groups may have higher genetic resistance to malaria than other groups? Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reply to further arguments: Maunus has added a straw man argument regarding racial slurs. I have not made any racial slurs. Neither have I edited the definition of racism with sources in the racism article.

I see that Maunus has now have added some sources to the article. However, Maunus has still not presented any systematic study supporting his claims regarding the views on race by by non-US anthropologists. I have on talk:Human showing much greater acceptance of race by non-US anthropologists. There are also sources there stating that most US forensic anthropologists support the biological reality of race as well as the issue not being resolved in genetics and medicine. I agree that certain subfields in American anthropology completely reject the existence of races and that the American Anthropology Association has issued a statement, lacking scientific sourcing, to that effect. However, Wikipedia should mention all significant views, not just those vehemently argued by certain groups. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reply to further arguments: Again going back to the definition of racism, is it racism to say that some groups are better adapted to living at high altitudes than other groups (which applies to the Tibetan people in recent studies)? No, I would argue, there has to be some form of discrimination argued for also. I would argue that racial slurs more or less openly include an argument for discrimination which is what makes them racistic. Anyway, this is not just my definition, I again refer to the definition and sources (in the body) in the racism article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reply to further arguments: The last edit [10] with the Latin phrase "praeterea censeo Miradrem esse delendam" ("furthermore, Miradre should be destroyed" or something similar) can only be considered new incivility. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mathsci

Regarding the content dispute I refer to my earlier statements above. Race (classification of humans) is under WP:ARBR&I as stated on the talk page of that article. The dispute regarding the Human article concern a section discussing the same subject. Mathsci, as could be expected since he belongs to the same group of editors (including also AndyTheGrump) who constantly show up and support one another on this topic and demands bans for those stating opposing views, is demanding that I should be punished for asking for some basic civility to be respected in this topic! Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

Discussion concerning User:Maunus

Statement by User:Maunus

I cannot assume good faith regarding user Academica Orientalis/Miradre. I have several years of experience with his editing style which is prototypical case of a civil POV Pusher. He repeats the same invalid arguments an mischaracterizations where ever he goes and no amount of contrary evidence makes him change his story. Among his favorite delusions is the idea that outside of the US most anthropologists thinks race is a valid biological concept, and that the fact that forensic anthropologists stubbornly stick to it means it has any scientific validity. It doesn't and this is demonstrated by mountains of sources literally. Miradre doesn't care - and keeps repeating his references to a few very low profile studies that have been generally criticized or ignored. Over and over and over. That is extremely tedious and tiresome to deal with and it causes frustration - for which reason I sometimes do tell him my opinion. In discussions apart from being repetitive Miradre is also routinely covertly incivil by twisting his opponents words or misrepresenting their arguments. I do not doubt for a second that it was a calculated strategy that made him arrive out of the blue at Talk:Human when he eyed a chance to goad me into insulting him so he could post this request.

Miradre as usual plays the victims card suggestion that he is a member of a stigmatized minority group persecuted for his viewpoint. Note however that I have been perfectly able to collaborate amiably with many other editors who share his viewpoint such as the now banned Captain Occam/Ferahgo and David Kane who have mentioned me as a particularly collaborative editor, able to compromise and engage in civil arguments in spite of differing viewpoints. My problem with Miradre is not and has never been his viewpoint but his editing behavior.

I stand by my opinion that he is a troll and a POV pusher who should not be editing and will not retract or apologize. The best solution for wikipedias integrity would be to permanently topic ban Miradre from editing articles related to Race and human psychology. I will gladly accept a mutual interaction ban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been blocked for incivilty. I have only ever been blocked by my own request. User Lhb1239 was a trolling sockpuppet who like you worked hard to deserve the verbal treatment he received. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racism by the most common definition of course does not require explicit argumentation in favor of discrimination it is simply any view that elevates one supposed racial group at the expense of another. The definition provided by Miradre is almost exclusively used by racialists arguing that since they just believe that racial groups should be kept separate politically and genetically they are not actually racists. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre is as usual being disingenious to the point of disruption. Is it not racism to say "you are a stupid [Insert racial slur here]"? Or would it require to have the added statement "and I feel justified in discriminating against you for that reason". The racism article is of course simply wrong - I have not looked at the history but I don't doubt that you have a hand in that.

He also states an untruth when he says I have not provided sources - I have inserted ca. twenty sources into the article following our dispute. I have not presented them on the talkpage because I don't want to interact with him anymore. Also not a single one of the sources state that belief in race is the mainstream viewpoint outside of the US. (it is also a false dichotomy to suggest that US anthropology is isolated from other anthropological traditions - indeed the AAA have members from all over the globe and anthropologists from the entire word participate in its meetings, publications and public statements). untruthes, distortion and disruption as usual.

I am not accusing you of being a racist and I know you have made no slurs. I am showing the flaw in your proposed definition because slurs are obviously racist but do not "advocate discrimination".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre misrepresents what the article on racism says, and has apparently not read any any mainstream literature on that concept. The Tibetan argument is also an obvious strawman since nobody has suggested that pointing out differences between populations is racism. I am going on an enforced wikibreak now and the next month. That does not mean that I am rescincding my case against Miradre or conceding as much as a millimeter - it just means that I need a break from the frustration of having to deal with him and other similar editors - they are distracting dfrom other more important work. I do hope and wish that he will be topic banned for a long time, as that in my view is imperative to maintaining wikipedias integrity. .·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning User:Maunus

It would be nice if admins reading this also reviewed Academica Orientalis/Miradre's continued disruptive presence in article related (and not related but still related by him) to Race. Please recall that he was topic banned for 3 months as a result of [12], that he promised to leave the topic space alone recently (diff by request), and that he's apparently on a quest to make it appear that human races, are very, very different than each other and that some of those races are inferior in some ways to others - I wouldn't want to comment on his motive - see attempts to do this on articles as totally unrelated as Science and technology in the People's Republic of China. But, hey, he's supportive of a widely discredited theory mainly promoted by virulent racists (which he is CLEARLY not, lest I be accused of calling someone a racist), so how dare someone lose their cool at him! Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Academica Orientalis/Miradre repeatedly makes the same false claims regarding the supposed acceptance of 'race' as a valid scientific concept in non-US anthropology, I'd say that any statement to that effect is of minor significance, when compared to the " disruptive point-making" routinely engaged in by the complainant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning User:Maunus

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

I suggested to Maunus that he fix his three comments at Talk:Human that were cited as civility violations, and he has done so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winterbliss

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Winterbliss

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grandmaster 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Winterbliss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); Dehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

I included diffs in my comments

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

No warning is required, because both editors mentioned in my report were active in the discussion about the report on Nagorno-Karabakh article, and are well aware of AA remedies. Plus, soon after registering his account here Winterbliss already filed a report requesting AA2 remedy enforcement, which also demonstrates his familiarity with the remedy in question: [13]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a follow up to the recently closed AE request on the article about Nagorno-Karabakh: [14], which resulted in the article being placed under the 500 article edit restriction for the recent accounts. In particular, the remedy holds that "Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions". Now my request is related to the activity of the 2 of the accounts that were covered by that remedy, i.e. Winterbliss (talk · contribs) and Dehr (talk · contribs). At the time they both had around 100-150 article edits. Now they have more than 500 edits, which they gained by making minor edits to just one article each, Melikdoms of Karabakh by Winterbliss: [15], and Ghaibalishen Massacre by Dehr: [16]

Both articles are written by adding 1 word at a time! See for instance:

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

The same is with the article created by Winterbliss. What could be written in a dozen of edits maximum they wrote in 500 edits, by adding a 500 word text word by word. My question here is, isn't this kind of editing just gaming the system to gain the required number of edits? Maybe the remedy needs some adjustment so that it could not be so obviously gamed? Also, Dehr and Winterbliss edit in exactly the same manner, which leaves an impression that those accounts are related. Note that they never are active at the same time, usually when one is gone, the other one takes his place. This similarity of editing is also something to consider. Grandmaster 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [23] [24]

Discussion concerning Winterbliss

Statement by Winterbliss

Comments by others about the request concerning Winterbliss

Result concerning Winterbliss

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

Both indeffed. This kind of attempts to game the restriction, disrupting the encyclopedia in the process, is not well taken. T. Canens (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 421: / Line 421: @@
 <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
+:Both indeffed. This kind of attempts to game the restriction, disrupting the encyclopedia in the process, is not well taken. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 21:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards