Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:33, 24 May 2017

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

Kevin McE

No action taken. Anyone who wants to nominate Robert Young (endurance runner) for deletion should go ahead with that. A number of admins gave advice, with one suggesting that User:Kevin McE should avoid this article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Kevin McE

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kevin McE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons :

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

11 May Kevin McE removes biographical paragraph, claiming the person interviewed is not reliable.
11 May Same edit, claiming no one on the talk page disagreed with him
11 May "Unreliable, no independent verification"--obviously incorrect, since the sources are The Daily Telegraph and New Statesman.

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

User was notified of AC/DS for BLPs with this edit. This is right after I warned the editor for BLP violations (for basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar in their edit summary), and I left an extensive explanation on the talk page, here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This little affair has a long history: as you can see on the talk page, the article, Robert Young (endurance runner), was a BLP nightmare from the get-go--created as a puff piece, it got turned into an attack piece. Admins can see the long and sordid history, which is littered with BLP violations including a number by User:Kevin McE, and a few real bad ones by User:Woodywing. The long and short of it is that I saw no other option than to delete the whole damn thing and start all over again--I explained this on the talk page. (I also left a note on BLPN.) I believe I have good reasons for my actions, and the support of a number of admins, including Ritchie333, who was kind enough to pitch in and help write up a neutral stub. Kevin McE (and Woodywing) were notified of the problems with their edits and yet persisted--Kevin McE's disruption is obviously based on either a crusader mentality or a personal animosity toward the subject, or both. In his zeal to discredit even the subject's own account of his childhood he seems to argue that it does not matter that there are reliable sources for the subject's account; I explained how problematic this was on the talk page. In the meantime, NeilN visited the talk page, and TParis fully protected the article since Kevin McE is now at 3RR (and Ritchie and I can edit/revert through protection, of course--I understand TParis's protection but I'm glad they protected the version that is not a BLP violation and does not tacitly endorse one).

I am neither involved with the subject or this particular editor, but I would rather have someone else confirm that this behavior is unacceptable. I want this editor topic-banned from this article: they clearly cannot edit objectively, and have no desire (or competence) to remain within policy. While we're on the topic, you can see that Woodywing's edits are even more problematic, and they need to be banned from this article as well, but it's Kevin McE's edit warring that brings us here.

No such user, the article has already been deleted and stubbed. You're looking at the "new" version: admins can see that Kevin McE was quite active in that first version also, though those edits were more moderate; calling the informant "unreliable" (diff above) and (in an edit on the talk page "a proven liar", that's not "content". He clearly is way too involved with the subject, which combined with a lack of understanding of BLP is problematic. Sandstein, the dispute isn't so much whether one or more sources are reliable, but rather the principle of reliability: Kevin McE does not seem to understand the principle of voice and of editorial oversight, which is why he keeps removing content--see this comment and this one by Ritchie333, and this one by GoldenRing. If y'all can talk some sense into this editor I'll gladly drop this case. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reiterate: if Kevin McE understands the problems with these edits (having been reverted three times by three different administrators) and edit summaries, I'm fine with dropping this. But please understand I'm not asking for anything draconian: the request is for him to stay away from this one article only. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification on Kevin McE's talk page.

Discussion concerning Kevin McE

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

Statement by Kevin McE

In view of the comments made by others, I really don't see that I have any need to defend myself here. The only accusation against me is that I removed information that does not seem trustworthy.

I object strongly to Drmies's attempt to categorise me; "Kevin McE's disruption is obviously based on either a crusader mentality or a personal animosity toward the subject, or both." I have no knowledge of Young other than having been involved in challenging several articles that have been started about him over the course of many years by a whole series of sockpuppets, which many admins have assumed to be incarnations of Young himself or someone very close to him. If trying to keep false claims out of Wikipedia makes me a crusader, then strap a breastplate with a picture of a lion on me. Otherwise do not make ad hominem attacks.

I believe that the conduct of Drmies in this situation is thoroughly reprehensible. Apart from the above, he has made false accusations about my posts; he has refused to state whether he has made himself aware of the history of deleted articles about Young; he deleted an article without any reference to those who had worked on it; he has acted arrogantly and rudely, and unbecoming of an admin. Kevin McE (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Bbb23 below was deleted, apparently I am not allowed to reply to comments about my edits in the place where such comments are made, which seems odd, but hey ho... So I replicate it here: His self-authored attempts at articles about himself here were full of palpably false claims (that he was on top level road race cycling team Milram, that he was a Triathlon champion, etc); he denied accusations, subsequently proven, that he had cheated in the run across America. I fail to see how, in the light of this, my description is flawed. Kevin McE (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No such user

May I suggest that everyone takes a deep breath and dials back some?

Kevin is apparently aggravated now, but Drmies did not help de-eascalate, on the contrary. In particular, I don't find diffs provided by Drmies as BLP violations per se, but a rather plain editing dispute. And I find it odd that removal' of material may constitute a BLP violation, particularly as it is not used to counterbalance anything. – There, Kevin has a point that an interview with the subject is not a first-class reliable source, as it gives ample opportunity for self-serving statements. At a minimum, if veracity of information provided by the subject is challenged, we avoid stating it in Wikipedia voice but use disclaimers such as "claims". And we always have an editorial option to exclude information brought by supposedly reliable sources if there are serious reasons to distrust it – see e.g. Talk:Bijeljina_massacre#RfC: Plavsic "stepping over a dead body"?.

During the dispute, Kevin lost his cool and he probably did violate BLP in edit summaries or talk page comments, but I'd suggest closing this AE with no action, taking a deep breath, and starting a serious discussion what to do with the article, preferably with a clean slate (=minimal stub). No such user (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

I simply want to highlight this edit made by Kevin at WP:BLPN ("the only source of any biographical information (the subject himself) is entirely unreliable and a serial liar in the media"), which I subsequently reverted as a BLP violation. If this diff has already been posted, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

@Sandstein: - My primary concern when protecting the article was that the removal of material only left a single sentence introducing the subject followed by a paragraph of negative information. The removal, then, produced a WP:COATRACK. I'd rather the article be deleted and salted, but I decided that protection with reverted version alleviated the immediate BLP concerns while discussion could happen.--v/r - T P 18:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: - Could I recommend that the article go to AfD during the full protection? This article is essentially a WP:BLP1E and Kevin's concerns of self-promotion matched with Drmies' concerns of a negative BLP seem to equate to a "burn with fire" scenario.--v/r - T P 14:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: When an editor removes all material except negative material resulting in a WP:COATRACK, that is a WP:BLP violation. The authenticity of the removed content, and the authenticity of the saved content do not matter. It is better to propose such an article for deletion than to have a negative WP:BLP1E with very minor press notice.--v/r - T P 18:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: You don't seem to understand. Deletion of material is not intrinsically a BLP violation. No one has proposed it is. This deletion of material is a BLP violation because it results in a coatrack. That's why article deletion, and not stubbing, is the only solution.--v/r - T P 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: Calling a living person, the subject of a biography, a liar is not a BLP violation?--v/r - T P 12:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: Seriously? Did you not even look at the diff?--v/r - T P 16:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

While this request concerns Kevin McE, I can understand his subsequent frustration as admin behavior surrounding the full protection of this article hasn't been the best. While I understand why TParis restored the material before fully protecting, I don't agree the restoration met the level of being treated as an admin action. And Black Kite's removal, while made in good faith, was based on an incorrect assumption as I explained on the talk page. [1] Kevin McE's main argument I believe is that newspaper reports should not be taken at face value. Drmies article edits and talk page posts seem a bit inconsistent on this matter. He says that "newspapers that are considered reliable have editorial oversight" but this edit seems to be at odds with that statement as the source reports the abuse as a fact, and not simply a claim by Young. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Given that edits by admins through full protection have been problematic and that all editors are aware of the increased scrutiny on this article I don't think a month of full protection is called for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The Telegraph "article" is by a "Formula One Correspondent", and the New Statesman article is by a "Features Editor". Both appear connected with release of a book by the person, and refer to claims made therein.

The problem, alas, is that the "problem editor" here is likely correct, noting that The Guardian in [2] states "“[His] tracker and GPS data are cans of worms,” Robert Lopez wrote to Ultra List subscribers. “There is a day that Rob’s RV got stuck in the desert. The location is known. [...] Whether he legged out the 40-plus road miles or somehow orienteered his way through the brush without navigational aids, [his] time is incredible. And I mean that in the literal sense.”" and so on. [3] states that his sponsor found that Young had received "unauthorized assistance" in his record-=setting trek.

Sports Illustrated in [4] has "So Delmott decided to accompany Young as he ran through Lebo (just east of Emporia) about 1 a.m. on Sunday, June 5. The problem, said Delmott, was that he found Young's RV, but never saw the Brit running. " and ""The part where I disagree with their account is simply whether Rob was running with the RV," says Delmott. "In total that night, I saw the RV at four separate occasions, and never saw a runner. I also got videos, which do not show a runner, or the flashlight they claim he uses to signal a stop. In summary, they might have been scared, but Rob wasn't running down the road." ".

Thus we ought to recognize that an autobiography and press releases for such a book may not be allowed under WP:BLP as being essentially an SPS with no actual fact-checking. And that reputable reliable sources do, indeed, raise substantive doubts about the veracity of the record-holder who was not seen running. Runners World has [5] that Young's "TomTom account" indicates that he did not run large portions of the route. I urgently suggest that no punishment ensue for a person who has accurately reported what the fact-checking publications say, and not rely on press release material. Collect (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The report made to the runner's sponsor is at skins.net. The bad part is a chart (figure 3) showing a stride rate of under 10 per minute for long distances (slow walk). "A. Before observation, a high number of sessions had impossible step length implications. This has been shown in various ways previously (Figures 4-7 and Table 1). B. Before observation, there was a significant difference between day-time and night-time sessions, with the majority of impossible stride parameters coming from night-time sessions (see also Table 1 for details)" This is a strong factual assertion by people skilled in making such determinations. I am inclined to give credence to the expert report, noting that Skins ceased supporting Young, and that many European journals have printed this material at this point. Collect (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

I never heard of the subject until this AE request. I read an uncritical article and based on that, this article came up [6]. We aren't in the business of truth but we are in the business of attribution. Claiming that someone is not a reliable source for Wikipedia is not the same as calling them liars. That leap is very disconcerting. We make sourcing and attribution decisions all the time based on how reliable a source is for facts. When we remove statements in BLPs sourced to "unreliable sources" we are not calling the author of those articles liars. The BLP violation is making that leap, not removing that material. Every time someone removes, say, a Breitbart cited statement, we aren't calling the Breitbart author a liar. That's a ridiculous leap and kind of scary that we would be here accusing an editor of calling the author a liar and seeking sanctions. For the editor that made such a leap, what are we to think when they weigh in on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and say a source is unreliable? Close the request and send it back to the talk page to work out attribution. If the only thing left is a negative coatrack, stub it or delete it. --DHeyward (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I think I said the exact same thing If the only thing left is a negative coatrack, stub it or delete it. I wouldn't characterize deletion or stubbing as a BLP violation even if it removed material that the subject stated as fact. The deletion of material is not intrinsically a BLP violation which is what is being proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: This is right after I warned the editor for BLP violations (for basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar in their edit summary) is the opening accusation. As far as I can tell, the edit summary being discussed only says that the material was not from a reliable source. That is not accusing anyone of being a liar just as deleting the entire article would not be calling anyone a liar. --DHeyward (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@TParis: Your not getting it. The editor under review never said the subject was a liar. He said material was from an unreliable source. That is not "basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar" as is stated in the complaint. We remove material all the time due to unreliable sourcing. It does not amount to calling the source for that material "a liar." That leap, This is right after I warned the editor for BLP violations (for basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar in their edit summary) is an aspersion as "basically" he did no such thing since the two are never equivalent. I would hate to think the complainant sees a liar accusation behind every removal of unreliably sourced material. There is a chasm between saying material is from an unreliable source and saying that material was written by a liar. Unless their is an edit summary I am missing, no one called the article subject a liar and we shouldn't view such removals with that lens. --DHeyward (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: Doh. My bad. That diff wasn't in the complaint. Just saw it and yes, you are correct. Apologies all around. I thought it was an inferred accusation from article edit summaries. --DHeyward (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kevin McE

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

This looks like a content dispute to me, and I would take no AE action. It is difficult to conceive of somebody merely removing material as a BLP violation, except in unusual circumstances (e.g., omitting that a person accused of a crime was later acquitted). The complaint does not make sufficiently clear how the edits are supposed to violate the BLP policy. They may be problematic under other aspects, such as edit-warring, but that is outside the scope of AE. Disagreement about whether a source is sufficiently reliable is a typical content dispute. Sandstein 11:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, you make a good argument that the actions by Kevin McE do raise BLP concerns by resulting in a negative coatrack article. This is the sort of dispute that I'd expect veteran editors such as him to be able to handle with more nuance and tact than blind reverting. I do also have a problem, though, with admins Black Kite ([7]) and Drmies ([8]) now editing the article through full protection, even if they seem to be acting on good faith BLP concerns: this could well be seen as the use of admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. On that basis, I'm still reluctant to sanction Kevin McE alone, and recommend that all interested editors take it back to the talk page and attempt to develop consensus in a collegial manner. Sandstein 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein and would just add that Kevin really needs to exercise more restraint in some of his edit summaries. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, actually, agree with TParis. Removal of material can result in a biographical article becoming unduly negative, which therefore may raise BLP concerns. The "serial liar" comment is also obviously a BLP violation. I wouldn't say it warrants a topic ban, but if problems continue, that certainly would become more likely. El_C 03:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that no other admin wants to ban Kevin McE from the article, even though he has been pushing the limits of proper behavior and does not seem to be assuring us of anything better in the future. I would be OK with closing without a ban, but recommend that the closing admin apply at least a month of full protection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:TParis (above) that the article could be nominated for AfD during the period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with no action. The admins who commented have a range of opinions. User:Drmies has requested that Kevin McE avoid the article on Robert Young (endurance runner) and that sounds to me like good advice. One of Kevin's edit summaries was "What a proven liar tells a journalist is not necessarily true" and if he does that again, I think he is risking a block. In the third diff offered by the filer, Drmies, Kevin's edit summary was "Unreliable, no independent verification" which at first glance seems to violate our policy on WP:Reliable sources. The paragraph he is removing cites the Daily Telegraph and the New Statesman which are considered good sources here. If Kevin's point is that Robert Young is a serial liar and these respected papers should not be trusting anything he says, that is going way out ahead of our policy and he needs to get a consensus for whatever he is trying to do. If proper sources question Young's credibility, you can quote what those sources say but you should not be drawing your own conclusion with the intention of stating it in Wikipedia's voice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

Action doesn't require a consensus or action by an admin who hasn't opined, so I just unblocked him myself. Probably more symbolic than anything, but still. The block was absolutely valid, the block time was absolutely valid, even if others might have handled it differently. The unblock for "time served" was just because the usefulness of the block had worn off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Request moved from talkpage by Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Block for 72 hours: AE request

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notification.

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

I did not realize 1RR was the issue, as the complaint focused on the consensus clause and I thought, based on previous precedent (in another complaint Oncenawhile lodged against me, so he was aware of this) that providing a source as a response to a revert would not be frowned upon. Oncenawhile did not warn me, as is common practice, about the 1RR. Nobody participating in the discussion mentioned 1RR, everyone focused on the consensus clause. I would have self-reverted if I had realized there was an issue, like any experienced editor would have. There's no preventative purpose in blocking me and 72 hours for a first offence for an editor who's been around for years and has never been blocked seems unduly harsh. This sanction seems punitive and I would like my record clear, as I have been able to maintain it for years.

(additional message from NMMNG) ... because of the precedent (that the filer was aware of) and because the filer didn't note next to the diffs that they were a 1RR violation I didn't realize I was being reported for 1RR? Nobody in the ensuing discussion mentioned 1RR, either. I am not arguing that what I did was OK, I am arguing that I was not fully aware of the charges against me and would have corrected the violation had I known, as I have done in the past. I feel like they're missing the point here.

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend declining the appeal. No More Mr Nice Guy has conceded violating the 1RR. The rest is wikilawyering. No More Mr Nice Guy has had ample time to undo their edits after the AE request was made. It was apparent from the complaint that 1RR was the issue, or part of the issue; and in any case the remedy provides for blocks without warning even on the first offense - let alone an AE thread open for days. Sandstein 21:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding any unwritten norms, etc: The rules applying to this topic area are already overly complicated. I therefore apply only the Arbitration Committee's remedies as they are currently documented on the arbitration case page(s), and ignore any other discussions. Sandstein 08:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Kingsindian

Copy pasting my comments from NMMNG's talkpage (minor condensation):

Hi. First, a correction of a minor factual error in your closing statement: NMMNG's prohibition on AE discussions was lifted a few months ago. Second, at the time this request was made ARBPIA did have the consensus clause operative, but recently, after an ARCA request, it has been dropped because it leads to more trouble than it is worth. Keeping this development in mind, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the block. In my opinion, it is not necessary and people fighting over silly rules only leads to bad blood; discussion about how to phrase the lead is proceeding (as well as can be expected) on the talkpage.

Oncenawhile mostly focused on the consensus clause, because that was the main issue. I am, in general, in favour of giving people a chance to self-revert before reporting them to AE. And NMMNG has earlier shown willingness to self-revert when asked. This is very common practice in ARBPIA because 1RR can be so easily broken, even by mistake (I have done it many times). While blocking for 1RR is within admin discretion, I think it's not necessary here to prevent disruption. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem and TParis: The closing statement cited both the consensus clause and 1RR violation. It is of course true, as I myself noted, the block was within admin discretion. However, please look at this matter from the perspective of people who edit this area (on all sides). The fact of the matter is that 1RR is very easily broken, even by mistake, because sometimes it's unclear what a "revert" is. In this case, the revert consisted of adding text back together with a reference (which was requested by the person who removed the material).

As a response to someone breaking 1RR, the norm in this area is that people are asked to self-revert, before reporting them for 1RR. I think it's a good norm (I have myself benefited from it in the past). Even long-time sockpuppets follow the norm. It is not worth trashing the norm for dubious gain. You can guess what will happen if such norms break down in this highly polarized area: people may try to report their opponents to AE in the hope of getting them blocked; while they are really interested in getting rid of them for unrelated reasons.

In this particular case, Oncenawhile (as far as I can see, they can speak for themselves), was annoyed at NMMNG because the text was inserted repeatedly without sufficient discussion. That is a legitimate complaint, though, in my opinion, AE is not the correct venue for it; and since the lead needs to be rewritten anyway, it's not worth fighting over. I started a section on the talkpage, and discussion is indeed proceeding, as well as can be expected. 1RR is just a distraction here; a technical infraction largely unrelated to the roots of the problem. Now that ArbCom has dropped its silly "consensus clause", we can once again return to common sense talking to one another, instead of reporting them to AE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oncenawhile

Kingsindian is correct that I would not have reported this if it was just a 1RR breach or just a consensus breach. What I consider unacceptable is that an experienced editor chose to repeatedly remove the same text while making an explicit statement on the talk page that he does not intend to engage in discussion. I objected to the text on the talk page after each revert in January and March, and other editors objected to the same in May, but we were unable to make any progress as a result of this conscious lack of engagement. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Ok, I’m a 100% involved editor ....from "the other side of the divide" as to NMMNG. And I think NMMNG can be a complete pain in the neck, at times. I totally understand Oncenawhile frustration with NMMNG, not engaging in discussion.

Having said that (and having read the whole thing) ...I’m actually in no doubt that this was an honest misunderstanding of the rules by NMMNG. As such, I think he should be unblocked, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

Decline. No warning was required as an edit notice was attached to the page advising all editors of the 1RR restriction. A second revert w/ an added source is surely a mitigating factor in my mind, but it's still a second revert. This occurred less than an hour after the first. While I may have imposed a slightly shorter block (or issued a warning of some kind) I nonetheless think this was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. For those reasons, I'd decline this appeal. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As initially mentioned, I would've imposed a shorter length block. Would not be opposed to unblocking as time served. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline The 'precedent' argument is a decent one and mixed signals from admins is nothing new. But in a topic area with AE sanctions, it's best to be cautious and not count on some de facto rule that isn't written in policy.--v/r - TP 02:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kingsindian: I actually looked at this a few days ago when the AE case first closed. Initially, I was sympathetic. No More Mr Nice Guy added text on 11 May, it was reverted, and NMMNG subsequently reverted. However, if you read the AE case, or the article history, you'll see that the text NMMNG added was removed only three days earlier. In such a small timespan, I'd consider NMMNG's first edit on 11 May a revert of the 8 May edit. I think any reasonable admin would. And I think any reasonable user would consider it a revert as well.
  NMMNG was given a chance to self-revert. The whole AE case was a chance to self-revert. He chose to stick to his guns.--v/r - T P 12:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I think the "didn't realise a second revert with source was disallowed" thing is a good enough excuse for what seems like an honest mistake, and I reckon we should be wearing our helpful hat here rather than going round with the rule book stuck up our ass. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as time served. A block was justified, although I might have chosen a shorter time. I think reality is mix of all this, and the AE wasn't just about the 2RR, but all that is moot now. As this was his first block of any kind, I think the point has already been made and any continuation is probably not preventative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept also as time served. For first xRR offences I usually go with 24 hours rather than 3 days. El_C 07:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, but with full understanding that this is not on the grounds that the block was invalid (it was valid), but rather on grounds that there should now be a clear understanding of the restriction and we will not see the same thing happen again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Would the next admin who happens along care to enact the consensus here and unblock before the block expires in a few hours? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans

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

Request concerning Snooganssnoogans

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TParis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

BLUF: Snooganssnoogans edits almost exclusively to add negative material to Conservative articles or to attack conservative viewpoints in political topics.

In March 2017, Snooganssnoogans began by editing votes on issues the he finds "interesting" to articles of politicians. He seems to be trying to shame them for their votes ([9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]). This led to the first discussion.

Then, Snooganssnoogans started adding material en masse to the leads of articles regarding political positions that they personally find unsavory to articles of Republican politicans ([24][25][26][27][28][29]). This led to the first ANI case where Snooganssnoogans was warned about WP:UNDUE and how it affects WP:NPOV in articles. Particularly, that WP:LEAD prohibits adding undue material in the lead.

In May 2017, Snooganssnoogans again made a mass addition of material to 34 Republican articles (Curbelo -> Trott) in 29 minutes which means he spent 51 seconds on each edit. The second sentence of the material included mention that it "allows insurers to charge the elderly up to five times as much as the young". This material is unsourced at best, WP:SNYTH or WP:OR at worst. It's also WP:UNDUE in a BLP and belongs in the article about the bill, instead ([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]).

Later in May, he again added WP:UNDUE material to BLPs which were describes by User:Drmies as WP:SYNTH. ([69][70][71][72]). This led to the discussion on Drmies talk page.

Also in May, added additional WP:UNDUE material to tie politicans to Trump. These four edits were made in 6 minutes with different sources which appears to support the perception that Snooganssnoogans searched for sources that supported what they wanted to say. This is generally called cherry picking. ([73][74][75][76][77][78])

Finally, I reviewed Snooganssnoogans's last 400 edits. Of those 400, 65 out of 67 BLPs edited were politicians. 60 out of those 65 were conservatives. And each edit to a conservative article was to add negative information to the article (a cursory look by anyone is welcome). Additionally, Snooganssnoogans seems particularly interested in politicians that are from states that are advantageous to win in a Presidential election. He particularly favors New York, California, and Florida.

New York: John Faso, Chris Collins (U.S. politician), Lee Zeldin, Ed Royce
California: Darrell Issa, Steve Knight (politician), David Valadao, Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Dana Rohrabacher
Florida: Mario Díaz-Balart, Brian Mast, Carlos Curbelo (politician)
Ohio: Jim Jordan (U.S. politician), Steve Chabot
Texas: Pete Sessions, Ted Poe, Blake Farenthold, John Culberson
Iowa: Rod Blum, Steve King, David Young (Iowa politician)
Other Conservatives: Greg Gianforte, Liz Cheney, Sean Hannity, Ben Swann, Charles C. Johnson, Brigitte Gabriel, Martha Roby, David Clarke (sheriff), Karen Handel, Andrew Napolitano, Kris Kobach, Donald Trump Jr., Mo Brooks, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Roger Stone, Rod Rosenstein, Larry C. Johnson, Tom MacArthur, Sebastian Gorka, Martha McSally, Susan Collins, Mark Levin, Michel Chossudovsky, Justin Amash, Mark Sanford, Scott Tipton, Dave Trott (politician), Bruce Poliquin, Martha Roby, Erik Paulsen, Tom MacArthur, Jason Lewis (congressman), Rodney Davis (politician), Dave Brat, Don Bacon (politician), French Hill (politician), Randy Hultgren, Peter Roskam, Kevin Yoder
Liberals: Rob Quist, Peter Navarro, Jon Ossoff
Other Political BLPs: Julian Assange
UK Conservative: Louise_Mensch
Non-political: Kenedy (footballer), Tony Levin

And then two days ago, he had an edit summary removed for making a BLP violation in an edit summary [79].

Despite this, very very recently, he has tried to make a couple edits that have the appearance of neutrality. I believe these are deceptive because the issue was heading to WP:AE soon([80][81]).

Often when these issues are brought up, Snooganssnoogans quickly reverts but the behavior only stops long enough for folks to stop watching (as demonstrated above).

The real issue here isn't WP:V or WP:RS. Snooganssnoogans's edits are often well cited. The problem is that this editor is singularly interested in adding negative information to conservative BLPs and conservative articles. Often ignoring WP:UNDUE in the process which results in a slanted article. But their efforts to singularly trash Conservative articles also results in a slanted topic area as well - for which we don't have a policy about but perhaps should.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Previous attempts at dispute resolution

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Aug 31, 2016
Reminded of the Arbitration Sanctions during this ANI.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Now, I've spent many hours compiling this information and I'm quite exhausted. But if someone gets a chance, I'd ask that a report be drawn up of Snoo's last 100 edits to determine the ratio of [edits that add negative info to a conservative article]:[all other edits].--v/r - T P 03:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: As I said, these diffs are very recent and only after this appeared to be heading toward ANI or AE. I believe they're an attempt to manipulate. I was tempted to take this straight to a case, but I was concerned that the Arbs would've preferred it come to AE first. If you recommend a case, I will draft one up.--v/r - T P 13:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: It could not possibly be a request to gain an advantage in a content dispute because I haven't engaged in any content dispute that Snooganssnoogans has been apart of. WP:RS and WP:V are only two of our content policies. There are others like WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. You'd be wise to mention them in your list of policies you think Snoo hasn't violated. I have engaged in one that you've been apart of and your reply appears, on the surface, to be retaliation for that.--v/r - T P 13:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: Also, your comment misrepresents the statistic. I never said 65 out of his last 400 edits were to BLPs. I said he has edited 65 political BLPs in his last 400 edits. He has also edited conservative organizations, political topics, and those 65 BLPs multiple times.--v/r - T P 13:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done up some numbers. Before this looked like it was headed to AE, approximately 78% of Snoo's edits were to a conservative topics and were intended to add negative information to the topic. 2% were to remove poorly sourced negative information. 0% were to non-political articles (this is probably because of sample size). While inspecting these edits, I also found significant evidence of altering claims to change allegations into Wikipedia's voice. If this goes to Arbcom, I'll write up a separate evidence section on that.--v/r - T P 14:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just become aware of an additional Arbcom remedy that this editor appears to fall afoul of: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Single_purpose_accounts--v/r - T P 14:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like AE admins to consider Volunteer Marek's comment as evidence of his own POV pushing. WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD are mandatory. WP:NPOV is mandatory. In isolation, Snoo's edits could be fine. Taken together, they show an effort to systematically attack a group of BLPs. And VM wholeheartedly supports it. WP:NPOV requires that we summarize what the reliable sources say as a whole. But Snoo selectively picks RS's that supports his POV. Again, Volunteer Marek seems no problem with this at all. @Volunteer Marek: Have I misrepresented your position in this? You see zero problems with this at all?--v/r - T P 21:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Do you care to address the SYNTH and unsourced material I've provided diffs to above, then? Those are uncontroversially policy violations no matter what bias anyone has. What about the effort to link unrelated BLPs to Trump?--v/r - T P 22:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: 10% of this complain is about WP:LEAD. Do you want to address the other 90%? Like, as I just said, the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues? See diffs above.--v/r - T P 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Are you suggesting a WP:NPOV in topic areas guideline? I agree, as I said above, that aside from the SYNTH and OR above, there is no guideline that specifically addresses a user systematically making minor edits across a wide topic area. How and where would you propose to start such a discussion? Talk page of WP:NPOV?--v/r - T P 00:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: With your own conclusions drawn, would you say that after 4 discussions, insufficient effort has been made to correct the behavior?--v/r - T P 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown, GoldenRing, and Snooganssnoogans: Let me offer a compromise. I think there'd be a huge improvement in Snoo's editing if they refrained from making mass-edits of the same variety "XX did something..." and also if they avoided SYNTH in the future. Whether this is a voluntary or enforced rule, I'll leave up to you all. If they did this, I believe it'd alleviate my immediate concerns and I'd be willing to sit back and see how it shapes their editing. I think that's a fair compromise that focuses on improving the encyclopedia.--v/r - T P 12:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: Standard discretionary sanctions only require that a user is notified of their existence. Snoo has been made aware several times, I've provided the diffs.--v/r - T P 16:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with Snoo's commitment in this edit to seek a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics before any mass edits. But I'd urge that it'd be a consensus of more than just a handful of editors after a hour.--v/r - T P 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: I believe that the other problems can be resolved as simple content disputes. It's easier for all editors to collaborate and come to a consensus before mass changes. If he's no longer mass-editing, then regular editing by others can resolve the rest of the issues. Per my essay on desirable outcomes, we should try to least amount of sanctions necessary, first. Snoo isn't a bad person, their editing just needs shaping. Previous attempts to get them to stop mass-editing had failed. If they're willing to try it now, I'm comfortable giving it a shot. As they've pointed out, when asked to quit editing leads, they had. If more trouble arises, I can either bring it back here or open a full case next time. For now, I'm comfortable with the change in direction and I think it's a fair compromise that everyone can agree on.--v/r - T P 19:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: If you truly believe that, then this is not the project for you. Wikipedians have an obligation to make a good faith attempt at impartiality. That good faith attempt should be evident in their edits to article space.--v/r - T P 20:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Reverting blatant vandalism proves nothing at all. Reverting vandalism doesn't disprove that Snoo has introduced more nuanced POV violations into the articles. The number of people here pointing to WP:RS and WP:VAND as justifications to excuse Snoo is staggering, as the uninvolved admins have already said. It says a lot about those commenting, trying to excuse the behavior. WP:UNDUE and WP:OR are policies that have been demonstrably violated. The number of red herrings trying to turn this into an WP:RS and WP:VAND issue, to conflate the issue, is making a underlying issue more evident.--v/r - T P 17:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Snooganssnoogans

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

Statement by Snooganssnoogans

The claim that I edit almost exclusively on Conservative articles or political topics is false. I edit extensively on pages on history and social science. In the last month, I've for instance added at least 30 studies to articles. I do edit a lot on the pages of political figures but not exclusively.

TParis's description of the March 2017 discussion is inaccurate. I did not add content to "shame" Republican politicians or issues that I considered "unsavoury". I added political positions that were easy to find to those articles, and thus could be sourced and added. So usually the positions on issues such as abortion, healthcare, same-sex marriage, and then on issues that had extensive and recent RS coverage. What I did wrong in that ANI discussion is that I added political positions to ledes, which is something I apologized for and self-reverted upon hearing complaints. I explain my erroneous reasoning here in the paragraph that starts with “I understand the concern and will comply“[82]). So, I apologized for adding political positions to ledes and haven’t added any such content to the ledes of any congressperson since.

As for my additions of AHCA content to congresspeople's articles: I added congresspeople’s votes on the May 2017 version of the American Health Care Act, as I believed there was encyclopaedic value in adding those votes to Wikipedia (the extent of RS coverage for each individual congressperson on this issue substantiates that it was notable). Instead of just saying, “congressperson voted for the May 2017 version of AHCA”, I wrote “congressperson voted for the May 2017 version of AHCA. That version of the American Health Care Act would allow insurers to charge people significantly more if they have pre-existing conditions, and allows insurers to charge the elderly up to five times as much as the young.” The first part of that sentence was in the NYT source (so both sourced and notable), but the second part was not. As I explained in a discussion on the American Politics board, I mixed up the NYT source and the Wikipedia article for AHCA in adding the second part of the sentence. I apologized for the error and offered to self-revert. I also explained to the American Politics board that these were intended to be initial edits and that other edits sourced to in-depth pieces (from both local and national news sources) on each congressperson’s vote would be added.

As for the claim that it’s undue to outline the contents of legislation, I disagree. If RS cover the contents of legislation in the context of a congressperson’s vote, it is consistent with Wiki policy to add it. It is in fact common practice. It would make no sense to, for instance, say “In September 2006, Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act”, because it’s unclear what that entails. That’s why her positions article says “In September 2006, Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act, authorizing the construction of 700 miles (1,100 km) of fencing along the United States–Mexico border.”[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Border_barrier] Unless the intent is to obfuscate, you’re supposed to explain what the legislation is and what sets it apart provided that it can be RSed. If other editors come to a consensus that legislation shouldn't be elaborated on, I will of course abide by that.

TParis notes that Drmies considered some of my edits SYNTH: After discussing with Drmies and hearing his/her concerns, I decided to self-revert one sentence related to the firing of James Comey (note though that the claim of Synth was never correct, but other concerns were valid). While RS do find it relevant to mention that Comey was fired by Trump while the FBI were conducting a probe into Russia ties, I heeded the concerns and removed it from the pages. The claim that I'm cherrypicking is also false. The politicians who explicitly supported the Comey firing were listed by New York Times and Propublica, and received coverage and attention for it.

Most of my edits on congresspeople are on high-profile pages that have gotten a lot of coverage by reliable sources in the Trump era. All the congresspeople that I've edited have been frequently covered by national news organizations (e.g. will they / won’t they support healthcare reform, the Comey firing), which is very uncommon. The reason why I’ve edited the pages of those congresspeople from NY, Cali and Florida is because of the extensive coverage by reliable sources and the national news attention that those congresspeople get. TParis claims that I edit those pages because they are the three of the largest states and carry the most votes in presidential elections, but I'm unclear what the logic behind that would be.

Note also that I’ve edited the few high-profile Democratic politicians’ pages in the Trump era: Rob Quist and Jon Ossoff. My edits to Quist and Ossoff’s pages are the exact same edits that I’ve made to GOP congresspeople’s. I created the “political positions” sub-sections in those articles, see this[83] and this[84]. These pages are indistinguishable from the political positions sub-sections in GOP congresspeople’s pages with one exception: there is less RS coverage of Quist and Ossoff because they haven’t served in Congress and are only very recent candidates. It’s therefore harder to find their positions on many issues. So, just to re-cap, TParis is complaining that I’m adding political positions to the articles of GOP congresspeople in an attempt to negatively portray GOP congresspeople in particular. Yet, I’ve done the exact same thing to Democratic politicians. The truth however is that I’m of course neither trying to portray Democrats negatively nor Republicans.

According to TParis[85], a typical example of me trying to portray a Republican candidate (Karen Handel) negatively is this edit[86] wherein I add her self-description, a description by Politico of her philosophy and positions on the minimum wage and the gender pay gap (I’ve added more positions to her article in other edits). Three weeks earlier, I added this[87] to the page of Handel’s opponent, Jon Ossoff: a description by the New York Times of his philosophy and positions on various issues (many of the same positions as on Handel’s page). These two edits are indistinguishable, yet by merely presenting info on the GOP candidate, TParis is convinced that I’m intentionally portraying her negatively. I presented the same info on the Democratic candidate (the candidate of course holds different positions on those issues), am I trying to negatively portray him too?

One of the complaints that TParis brings up is that I BLP violation in an edit summary: Yes, I apologized for that. I didn’t realize that you couldn’t say mean things (I called someone a wackjob - this individual had wrongly been added to a section containing the views of scholars) about a public figure in an edit summary.

TParis claims that my edits that have the appearance of neutrality are disingenuous and that I'm playing some long con. This is completely false. I’ve always attempted to keep Wikipedia articles neutral and I do add negative things to articles that leftwingers are inclined to like, as well as positive things to articles that conservatives are inclined to like. One of my recent edits was making sure that Louise Mensch’s Wikipedia page (a person that some conspiracy-minded Democrats like) notes that she promotes conspiracy theories and makes unsubstantiated claims. I added that a few days ago for the simple reason that I stumbled upon an RS making the case. According to TParis, it’s because I knew that he was going to come after me again and that this is my way of conspiring to produce evidence of my neutral posture. I’ve also edited Michael Chossudovsky’s page (a person that some conspiracy-minded Democrats like) and have butted heads with people over there for noting that his leftwing conspiracy website should be described as such. I started doing that in March 2017

I regularly revert vandalism and unproductive edits to GOP figures’ pages, many of which seek to attack them. Just some examples: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105].

I also add studies to articles that end up defending conservative viewpoints and arguments. In the article on 'Immigration and Crime', I for instance added a study (sometime in 2016) showing that immigration from terror-prone states increase the risk of terrorism in the host country[106]. In the article on "Voter ID Laws in the United States", I added research and significant amounts of text which noted that there is no clear-cut evidence that voter ID laws reduce overall turnout or minority turnout (which is a huge Democratic talking point). As an example of my neutrality and interest in improving the Wikipedia project, I added a recently published study which added support for the Democratic talking point[107] but when other research was published which rebutted the study, I added that too[108]. In fact, I devoted more text to the critique than the original findings.

Earlier today, I fought to include language that did not cast aspersions on Fox News’ motivations in re-igniting the Seth rich conspiracy[109]. These are just some examples of my desire to keep things neutral and due.

I always try to abide by the instructions provided by senior editors when there’s broad agreement, and always heed well-reasoned concerns (such as in the various self-reverts I’ve done) when there are mixed views and no consensus. When I have erred, I usually ask for clarifications so that the errors are not repeated. I add notable and relevant info to both conservative and liberal articles. This info is almost always well-sourced as was noted and in my view due, though the occasional inadvertent error may occur. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply to Sandstein moved from admin section] I did a search through my contributions. I'm not sure how I can comprehensively see all my contributions, so this is only a partial list that I could easily find and remember: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading several comments above and below where it's being debated whether I have previously been warned and told not do these kinds of edits. Just to clarify, the only time that I've been officially warned about my pattern of editing was back in March 2017 when I was told explicitly not to add content to the ledes of congresspeople unless it uncontroversially adhered to Wiki policy. I took that warning to heart and haven't added anything to the lede of any congressperson since. The March 2017 ANI discussions did also revolve around my addition of political positions to articles, but the editors disagreed amongst each other as whether adding political positions to articles was wrong. I have often also been involved in content disputes and had complaints raised against my pattern of editing (common to most who edit on US politics pages) but there were never any conclusions or consensus reached about whether what I did was wrong. Those discussions led me to improve my editing but I never took them as official warning that I should not do mass-edits at all or refrain from US politics pages. Were I to be officially warned about diffs 42-96, I would of course abide by whatever instructions and rules that senior editors and admins set out for me. Even if the admins opt not to warn me or sanction me, I will definitely consult with the American Politics board[125] (or whatever the appropriate forum is) before adding any mass-edits like the ones I added on the health-care vote. In those discussions, I will ask other editors involved on the board whether the content is notable enough to be included and how/if we should describe the legislation. If the other editors oppose my proposed content, I will not add it. 16:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Even reading the discussion here, there seems to be significant disagreement as to whether and to what extent I did something wrong (beyond the inadvertent errors that I've copped to) and to what extent that my errors are malicious as opposed to sincere attempts to add notable and due content. I think it would be very unfair to just blanket ban me from US politics pages before instructing me on what's acceptable when even the editors and admins below think that the rules surrounding this are hazy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I do understand the problems with the mass edits. That's why I'm voluntarily offering to consult with the American Politics board[126] (or whatever the appropriate forum is) before adding any mass-edits like the ones I added on the health-care vote and where I'll only add them if the board agrees with them. This is also something that TParis, the complainant, finds an acceptable resolution. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, may i suggest a modification?: "Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles, unless he can get a consensus on the precise language for the mass edit on the "American politics" WikiProject". You can replace the "American politics" WikiProject with some better venue if there is one (I'm not seasoned enough to know what venues are available). The problems with "[using] the talk page of any article to request edits" are (i) that these pages are extremely low activity, so there is no healthy back-and-forth on what to include and (ii) fulfilled requests will give rise to concerns that I'm conspiring with other users to circumvent the ban (which is the last thing I want). Seeking consensus before mass edits on a large forum would avoid both of these problems while preventing me from adding any content that violates NPOV. What do you think? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a second modification?: "Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for BLP pages an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles, unless he can get a consensus on the precise language for the mass edit on the "American politics" WikiProject". The concerns that TParis raises revolve around mass edits on BLP pages. I also edit extensively on academic pages, some of which are of a political nature in a broad sense, so I'm worried that I'll get snagged by virtue of copying content from one page to another. For instance, the content that I've added to 'Immigration' is almost exclusively studies[127] and I sometimes export content from that page to other immigration-related pages. The content is primarily academic and beyond dispute, but it would breach the ban that you're considering giving me. Also, sometimes a new study gets published that is relevant to several pages, and this ban would also prevent me from adding that study to more than two pages. I'm one of few editors that systemically adds new research in political science and economics to pages (I've only encountered one other editor who seems to do the same), so the language in the proposed ban could cause collateral damage. The ban could also be rewritten as "...in the area of American Politics post-1932 unless of a primarily academic nature...". What do you think' Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I am looking at the last page about conservative politician edited by Snooganssnoogans. He makes this edit. Here is corresponding section of the page. This is all well sourced. OK. Is it a negative information about a living person? From a "liberal" standpoint, that might be seen as something negative, but in reality it is not. This is simply a sourced opinion of a politician delivered to a reader. That politician is probably proud of her opinion and wants it be delivered to public. Is it undue? Hardly. The subject/opinion is certainly important, more important than her opinion about grey wolves in the previous phrase. This edit by Snooganssnoogans has been already reverted by another user [128]. Did Snooganssnoogans participate in discussion? Yes, they did, and their arguments are convincing [129]. I do not see any problems with behavior by Snooganssnoogans in this example. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd example: [130] - the edit was made to include last phrase into the paragraph. Yes, that makes it judgemental, however this particular connection was made in a large number of sources. This is not WP:SYN. Nevertheless, this should not be included in this page and was correctly removed by another contributor later. Overall, this looks to me as a typical work in this subject area when Snooganssnoogans did contribute something reasonable to the page [131], however not everything was accepted by others.

P.S. I saw previously an ANI discussion about Snooganssnoogans and gave him this advice. He did follow my suggestion and fixed their previous edits. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked many diffs provided by TParis in his request. I agree that many edits by Snooganssnoogans (like that) were disputable, but only in one aspect: they provided certain negative qualifiers of the law which was passed by the legislature. The included qualifiers were basically a "majority view" on the law, as reflected in RS, but still qualifiers. However, all of them are already fixed by other contributors if you look on current versions of these pages, for example here. What had happen? The text about controversial aspects of the law was usually modified in a such way that the relevance of the aspect to specific politician became clear. Hence this is no longer a disputable content. Based on that, I believe that contributions by Snooganssnoogans to these pages were rather positive: they partly remain on the pages, and party were modified by other contributors, but this is a normal process around here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing. That would be a good argument if we had a previous consensus that Snooganssnoogans must receive at least an official warning. But I do not see it. Probably the "closest call" was that ANI discussion started by the same admin. Still, it did not result in a clear consensus that Snooganssnoogans must receive an official warning. Simply having someone debated at ANI is not really an argument. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis. Yes, sure, S. was previously warned about the existence of discretionary sanctions. However, GoldenRing tells that S. was previously officially warned about his inappropriate behavior and therefore he must receive something stronger this time. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just would like to tell that (a) admins should not rule on the content, and (b) 99% of significant content edits around here (excluding grammar, links and other technical corrections) are actually biased. This can not be fixed. Why? People who are not experts read just a few of books or articles on the subject and therefore prefer quoting them (this is not WP:NPOV). People who are experts know the subject, but they also have an opinion that is going to be reflected in their writings. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis. Topic banning S. would be unwise because his overall contribution in this subject area is very big "positive". My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutrality

This filing lacks merit, because no arbitration remedy has been violated. Frankly, this filing smells of an effort to gain an advantage in content disputes by barring a productive editor from a topic area.

Note:

The filer acknowledges that Snoogans's editing conforms to reliable-source policy.
The filer acknowledges that Snoogans's editing conforms to verifiability policy.
Snoogans has not engaged in edit warring. (And the filer does not allege that he has).
Snoogans routinely discusses issues at talk, and does not (insofar as I have seen) improperly restore contentious material under active discussion.
Snoogans does extremely helpful work in adding peer-reviewed studies to articles on a broad range of matters, including on politics and public policy.
It violates no policy for a user to focus primarily, or even exclusively, on one topic. And even if it were, by the filer's own calculation, i.e., less than 17% of Snoogs' last 400 edits ("65 out of 400") were to politician BLPs. That's entirely normal.
- The claim that Snoogans is a single-purpose account is demonstrably false. He has, over a series of months, added peer-reviewed studies and other useful material related to Iceland and Icelandic history. (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6 (dating back six months). He's also added great new material (and removed unsourced and badly sourced content) on articles ranging from farmer's markets to China's one-child policy to women in Russia. There are many other topics as well, which a cursory look at his contribs would entail.

In sum, this filing is the continuation of a content dispute by other means (as the face of the complaint shows), and should be closed with no action against Snoogans. Neutrality^talk 06:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Two further comments:

First, none of what I wrote above should be read as suggesting that Snoogs has never made a mistake or never erred. I would say, for example, that he was too hasty to edit those sentences of copy into multiple congresspeople's articles in rapid succession. But: (a) that was in good faith, (b) he stopped when objections were raised and was very receptive to feedback/discussion, even when critical; and (c) he has shown every sign of being a better editor (which makes sense given more experience).
Second, I concur with MrX's comment in its entirety, including the trenchant analysis of both Snoogs's diffs (the substantial majority of which are reasonable, proper, or innocuous, with a smattering of errors or bad diffs) and TParis's diffs (the latter furnishes ample reason to be skeptical of the motives of this filing).

Snoogs doesn't have a perfect "batting average" but his score is as good or better as many editors. Neutrality^talk 04:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I think it's pretty clear that if we take any one edit by itself there's nothing wrong here. It's sourced, it's encyclopedic, yada yada yada. What people are disagreeing over and where some people are trying to see wrong doing is in this: "do politicians' stances on various issues, and how they voted on them, belong in the lede"? And this is a judgement call regarding CONTENT.

Some think this is undue. Others think it belongs in the lede. There's no policy or guideline one way or another. There's nothing in discretionary sanctions language which prohibits this. Even if one disagrees with these edits (myself I think that "it depends" on the politician and particular issue) it's impossible to argue that anything has been violated here. If some "incorrect editing" took place here it's the fault of policy or its absence, not any particular editor. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, you're making the implicit assumption that adding the text that says "Person X supports Y" is adding "negative text". This is peculiar. If politician X supports bans on abortion, then from their point of view, adding "Person X supports bans on abortion" would be "positive text". You're working on the basis of a whole bunch of strange implicit assumptions there in your statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly, WP:DUE is always gonna be an editorial judgement call and as long as stuff is reliably sourced, it's not edit-warred into an article and no other policies are broken, you can't sanction fro someone for exercising their judgement just because you disagree with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TParis - please quit it with the WP:BATTLEGROUND comments and unbacked WP:ASPERSIONS. That's really some "conduct unbecoming" there. Of course NPOV is mandatory - nobody here is disputing that (WP:LEAD actually isn't but nm). The problem is you have failed to show (here or at Drmies page, or at ANI or wherever else you've block shopped this proposal) that it has been violated. All you've shown is that a user has made some edits you don't agree with. Yeah, so what? That's a CONTENT dispute.

Furthermore you are grossly misrepresenting my statement with the whole "VM wholeheartedly supports it". Where the hell did you get "wholeheartedly"? Where the hell did you get "supports it"? I explicitly said above that my opinion is "it depends" which is a far cry from "wholeheartedly supports". So please stop making stuff up. Your comment just provides more evidence that this is some irrational grudge against Snoogans (and those who dare to speak in their favor) rather than any policy based concern.

Seriously, coming from an admin, this kind of behavior is deeply disturbing. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike your attacks on me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, yeah I can address those accusations. Can you strike your unfounded attacks on me? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the diffs provided by TParis in more detail, it looks like most of these aren't even in the LEDE, so now I really have no idea how they're supposed to be objectionable. So a politician supported Trump on something. There's lots of sources on that. This is added to the politician's article (not LEDE). Annnnndddddd? I mean, yeah, if it was added to the LEDE I can see how someone could argue WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE. But it's not even that! Mountains meet molehills.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:GoldenRing - you yourself admit that Snoogan's edits are verifiable and based on reliable sources. Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it? There's no policy being violated here except a vague assertions about WP:UNDUE, which are always a judgement call and subject to editor's discretion. Now, if there was a consensus not to include some ifo on some article per WP:UNDUE and Snoogan tried to get his way anyway, then you'd have a case. But that's not what happened. All these diffs are "diffs I (meaning TParis) happen to disagree with". As others have pointed out at the end of the day this is just a content dispute because no policy has actually been broken. You think the edits are wrong for some other reason? Fine. Rewrite the policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on my point above and one on my talk page - yes, GoldenRing, verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. But then you flip it and proclaim the fact that someone followed verifiability as a... reason to sanction somebody? How does that work? You can say "WP:UNDUE" all you want, but others can just as easily say "No, it's DUE!". How does the matter get settled? ON THE TALK PAGE, NOT at WP:AE, which is not for content disputes. If you, or TParis can show that Snoogans ignored talk page consensus somewhere and did so consistently, then you might have a justification for some kind of sanctions. Otherwise you're really just running around yelling WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT (50 points - how do we tell IJDL from UNDUE?).

Also, I find it a bit disingenuous of you to claim, quote, "There seems to be fairly general agreement that the editing pattern is problematic " where there's obviously NO SUCH AGREEMENT, neither between admins here or users commenting on it. Three of the admins (Sandstein and Masem, with Lord Roem indicating that they agree with Sandstein) are taking the view that this is not sanctionable (or not suitable for AE) and is essentially a content dispute, and only you and Dennis arguing otherwise. I'm sorry, that's suppose to be "fairly general agreement"? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Snooganssnoogans and I have edited more than 30 of the same articles, and my general impression is that he is a constructive editor. I did notice some minor concerns in August of last year, so I gave hime and alert and some advice then.

I was surprised to see that Snooganssnoogans had been brought before arbitration enforcement, until I saw who who brought them here. More on that later.

[Note: I am reviewing every diff in evidence and will comment in subsequent posts.]

Diffs 51 through 65 show a bulk approach to editing, in the spirit of Dr. Blofeld and dozens of other editors who edit in that fashion. The material is brief, neutrally written, and verifiable in multiple highly-respected sources. The material satisfies a reasonable interpretation of WP:DUEWEIGHT (which, by the way, is a means of evaluating and achieving WP:NPOV, not a separate policy). Many of these edits were reverted. Snooganssnoogans does not seem to have edit warred or personally attacked editors who preferred the material to remain out of the articles.- Mr X 23:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs 66 through 71 are mostly reasonable edits. Some are not great. 68 was a bad edit in that it made a controversial BLP claim in Wikipedia's voice.
Diffs 72 through 110 show more bulk editing. The edit includes a couple of unsourced claims. I assume that this was a mistake and that the unsourced portion was from an uncited source. That, and the "voted voted" typo, was replicated 38 times. That deserves an 8 lb. trout, but it's hardly a sanctionable offense.
Diff 111 is part of the same edit as in diffs 72 through 110. Diffs 112 through 114 are WP:SYNTH, but Snooganssnoogans made a sincere effort to understand the issue and self-correct. I made similar WP:SYNTH errors in my early editing career. It took a similar discussion with a more experience editor before the lightbulb came on and I realized that my edits violated WP:OR.
Diffs 115 through 120 show the introduction of properly-written, sourced content. In some cases, it may not be the best content for those articles, but there seems to be nothing that breaches policy, especially in the context of the American politics 2 Arbcom case.

Wikipedia editors are not required to be generalists. Some editors focus on a narrow scope of subjects. Wikipedia does not have an SPA policy. The cited 2011 Arbcom case does not have an SPA remedy. It states a general principle about SPAs, the key takeaway of which is "users should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral". In this case, the evidence that Snooganssnoogans has edited from a non-neutral point of view is subjective. To paraphrase what Volunteer Marek pointed out in his response to Dennis Brown, what is construed by some as negative may be construed by others as positive. For example, if I say I want to ban Muslims from entering the US, about a third of the U.S. population would view that as positive, while others will view it as neutral or negative.

The OP's motivation for bringing this to AE are suspect. He has soapboxed before about enwiki's "left leaning bias" [132] and he's keeping a list [133]. Some of his comments [134][135][136][137], including accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence on this very page, and here[138][139], suggest a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset that leads me to believe that this is an attempt to RIGHTGREATLEFTS.- Mr X 03:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: You haven't made a convincing case that there actually is a behavior problem. What I see is an editor who is very receptive to any advice given them, and who is making progress as an editor.- Mr X 04:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

I’ve had little interaction, if any, with Snooganssnoogans. I didn’t agree with a recent revert that they made; another editor quickly said it was against consensus, and they said oops, and that they would look at it. This will happen when you make so many edits. Looking through their edits, they appear far more researched than most of what we see day-to-day. OTOH, I’ve seen multiple edits from the filer of this request claiming there exists a systemic bias in Wikipedia. I will not supply diffs as my intention is not to seek a boom. The enormous detail that the filer has provided, I think to be bothersome. I may be wrong, but in my mind, an AE sanction should be based on obvious infraction(s); not a “pattern” that requires so many words to describe. We all have our opinions. If we follow the guidelines, such opinions are not a problem. And yeah, we are likely to spend more time on articles of interest. I’m disturbed by a complaint against an editor that makes large contributions who may be sanctioned for a pattern that requires so many words to “prove”. I suggest that the filer retract the complaint. If those that have spent more time looking at the rather large body of contributions find a problem; then warn the object of the complaint. From what I’ve seen, a minnow at most. Objective3000 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, thanks for the link to EEng. I’ve quoted RECENTISM and NOTNEWS many times and nearly always tend to suggest a delay to see if a story has legs or falls off the radar. Besides, “breaking news” is becoming a part of comedy routines. But, for those that edit political articles, a strict time period doesn’t work. Obviously there’s a difference between so-and-so said such-and-such and an assassination. But, where do we draw the line? Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

@TParis: Thanks for the effort in your request. I wonder if you have any response to this edit. It is in mid-March, so not particularly recent. It added a study which argued against a "Democratic" position.

My own viewpoint is the following. Most people who edit political topics (I am one of them) have biases, and it is often possible to figure out their POV after a few edits. Also, Wikipedia is not compulsory, so people edit what they like. So Snoogan's behaviour is largely normal in political areas. I think, primarily, only egregious behaviour can be tackled. Does editor's edit add so much negative information that it becomes a COATRACK for the main article? Is the subject creating articles to primarily push a POV, filled with COATRACK stuff, for instance? Do they refuse to discuss on the talkpage, refuse to compromise, canvass, fail to cite reliable sources or don't understand reliable source policy, indulge in personal attacks, bad faith and so on?

Short of egregious behaviour, things become much more murky. I am not sure if these things can be fought (or whether it is even desirable to fight them) if they don't rise to egregious behaviour. There will be many many editors who fall in the category of "less than egregious" and I know lots of people who are much worse than Snoogans in this respect. I think politics and religion are topics in which such behaviour is inevitable. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I analyze several of the claims by TParis, and give my opinion. Snoogans often adds content of the form "Congressman did A. Here's an explanation of A". Snoogans states that they did the same for Hillary Clinton. Let's look at the diffs now. To avoid any confusion over diff numbers, I am using the numbers in this revision.

Diffs 48 to 81 are, in my opinion, wrong. Here is why. The diffs first say: that Congressman X voted for AHCA. Then it says That version of the American Health Care Act would allow insurers to charge people significantly more if they have pre-existing conditions, and allows insurers to charge the elderly up to five times as much as the young.. This kind of editing is wrong. The correct way to go about doing this would be to say "Congressman X voted for AHCA. Here is a short, neutral description of what the bill does". Or, "Congressman X voted for AHCA." (full stop). The bill has many provisions. It is not permitted to randomly pick two provisions (which, coincidentally, happen to be negative) of the bill to highlight in an unrelated article. This is archetypical WP:CHERRYPICKING.

Snoogans states that part of the description was in the NYT source, so it's notable. But that's not the correct way to go. On this topic, so much is written, that you can find a source to say practically anything you like. If you wish to summarize the AHCA, you look at a broad variety of sources, or a source which summarizes a large variety of sources, and write a summary.

I don't think diffs 87 to 90 are SYNTH, but they come quite close. Still, assuming WP:AGF, we can say that the most notable aspect of firing of Comey is the Russia connection, the edit is defensible, though not ideal.

Diffs 91 to 96 add the position of various politicians on the firing of Comey. Whether or not it should be included is an editorial decision. One can make a case either way.

Overall, I think TParis' contention that Snoogans is editing to add negative information to conservative politician's BLP is correct. Do these changes overwhelm articles and result in COATRACKs? I don't think that's true. TParis' contention that Snoogans is an SPA is plainly not correct, because they edit plenty of other pages.

What should be done about it? I am not sure. The behaviour isn't egregious, and one can find biases in the editing of all editors; and I'm sure I know plenty of people worse than Snoogans in these topic areas. Wikipedia isn't compulsory, and people edit what they like. Editors are allowed to be biased, but are expected to edit neutrally. Perhaps a warning to Snoogans is enough. Perhaps a sanction is justified. I leave it to the judgement of admins. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize one point in response to the comments made by a couple of people here, including BullRangifer and MVBW. They state that as long as other people add something to balance one editor's contributions it's ok. No, it isn't. See WP:NPOV: Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.. It is the responsibility of every editor to add neutral information, or at least move the article towards neutrality (if the article was earlier imbalanced). It is not permitted to add (say) the propaganda of one side and hope someone else balances it out. I see far too many people doing this in political areas. Of course, neutrality is, to some extent in the eyes of the beholder; so one can't be too strict about this. But, in my opinion, the diffs 48 to 81 are clearly on the other side of the line. By no stretch of imagination can the text I quoted be said to be a neutral description of the AHCA.

As I said, the behaviour is not egregious (I have seen much worse). And I'm not sure if it deserves some kind of sanction (I leave it to admins). But I don't agree that the behaviour was ok, as some people argue here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MVBW that one can find an awful lot in political areas which is biased. The editing by Snoogans is by no means the worst in political areas on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is a hobby and most of us are amateurs; are editors really expected to be familiar with the literature on a topic? No, nobody is asking for expertise; the comment is fundamentally misguided. One does not aim to completely, or even mostly remove bias: human beings are biased, and Wikipedia is a human project. What is required is for people to strive to present a neutral view of the topic as presented in reliable sources, as required by WP:NPOV.

To make it concrete: in this case, the AHCA already has a Wikipedia page. If one wants to give a short, neutral description of the act, one could simply summarize the lead of the AHCA page (sources can be taken from the references on the page). It's not too much to ask editors to do this kind of stuff. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Politrukki

(March 9) Less than two days after the ANI thread was closed and Snooganssnoogans was told to respect NPOV, they make an edit,[140] adding breaking news to the lead.
(March 29) Snooganssnoogans reverts[141]. Later when a DS template is added to the article,[142], they admit making an error and self-revert per request, only to reinstate the same edit few weeks later.[143]
(April 6) Snooganssnoogans reinstates[144] a partial revert[145] that challenged an edit[146] which introduced original research. They were asked to explain a reason for their revert [147] and I asked them to self-revert, actually twice,[148][149] but they were completely unresponsive. If Snooganssnoogans didn't violate the "consensus required" remedy, then it must be I who violated the rule by reverting[150] their revert after I got tired of waiting for at least some kind of response.
In March Snooganssnoogans created Lawfare Blog. After their edits yesterday[151], the article mostly consists of Donald Trump controversies. I don't know exactly how well the article adheres to NPOV, but this seems fishy.
~~It is somewhat troubling that Snooganssnoogans doesn't seem to take their recent BLP violation seriously, judging by their comment "like slinging spaghetti on the wall".~~

I don't think it should matter whether Snooganssnoogans edits conservative or progressive topics. I reviewed only a tiny portion of diffs – and I'm afraid I can't review all of them. It is clear that some are unwise (for example edits adding SYNTH), but I'd say most are innocuous. For example I agree with what they say about Louise Mensch, and their edits to that topic are good (TParis didn't actually say there were problems in that area). Snooganssnoogans can be co-operative if they want to. Review of Snooganssnoogans edits should be focused on what they have did after the ANI thread. Politrukki (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timothyjosephwood

This is a bit of an interesting test for whether we should be applying policy in terms of intent or that of effect. I think if we had two users: one who made only SS's edits to BLPs, and another that made all other edits, we may find fairly good agreement that we had one POV pushing user and one fairly normal constructive, even commendable user. We don't however, and that seems to make the moral judgement much more difficult, although the effect for readers, and for the overall POV of the encyclopedia is the same. TimothyJosephWood 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that SS offering some kind of resolution in submitting to outside oversight is commendable. Personally, if I were king of Wikipedia I would have probably leaned toward a topic ban from political BLPs back when the ANI thread was filed. If they're fine with using the WikiProject and/or edit requests on political BLPs for probably six months, then I'm personally satisfied. This will help them get a feel for what other editors think is acceptable (I would hasten to add for others that doing this in good faith means not doing it with an accomplice, intentionally coordinated or otherwise). But I do think that this should apply for all political BLPs and not just for mass edits. Overall, I think voluntarily submitting for something like this would go a long way toward lending credibility toward their good faith willingness to try to understand and adapt to community expectations. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Stating a politician has taken/supported political stance 'X' (which is a matter of public record) would only be a negative issue if it was deliberately phrased in a negative way. For any political position supporters will always see it as a positive addition. 'Senator X supports repealing a woman's right to an abortion' is only a negative if you start from the base position women have a right to an abortion. A good portion of the US citizenry dont believe that. An addition like 'Politician X has supported bill Y which would result in millions of unborn children not being murdered' or 'Politician X has supported bill Y which would take away women's freedom' would be an edit that is not neutral. From taking a look at the edits above, most are written neutrally, but fall in the area where the liberal/left-leaning average wikipedian would consider them 'negative' information. A conservative right-of-center politician/voter would have a different opinion. You might as well argue that the editor has been biasing conservative politican articles in a positive way (for a conservative). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond - the impact of the cost disparity on the elderly for the new AHCA can be trivially sourced online from secondary sources. Its also easily calculated using basic math from the primary documents. And keep in mind plenty of people actually *applaud* these changes. Obviously not anyone affected by them, but they will be dead soon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

I'm puzzled by OID's rationale. He says that stating a politician's support for a given position "would only be a negative issue if it was deliberately phrased in a negative way", then proceeds to argue that Snooganssnoogans' edits could be construed as positive if you're a supporter of said politicians. That seems a stretch, and regardless of the political leanings of readers, we can't deny that Snoogans' edits deliberately emphasized the potential negative consequences of AHCA. Adding this occasionally in a couple articles discussing healthcare would be just fine, but adding it deliberately to dozens of politicians' BLPs must be labeled WP:ADVOCACY. As Timothyjosephwood mentioned, if those tendentious edits were made by one editor and the benign edits by another one, the first one could be rightly topic-banned. However, Snoogans being an otherwise productive and amicable editor, we can't slap him too hard beyond warning him to not repeat such a pattern of edits in the future. Surely our wise admins will know where to draw the line. — JFG ^talk 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just to respond, I never said the cherry-picked information on AHCA premiums was incorrect or unsourced, just that adding it to dozens of BLPs was tendentious and borderline advocacy. — JFG ^talk 12:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer

I see a problematic approach to a slippery slope situation. The result could be the imposition of limitations on editors who are specialists in one topic or subject area or hold certain POV, without them having violated any policies. Keep in mind that part of WP:NPA is "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Bringing it to a noticeboard doesn't make it any more legitimate.

Edits must be judged on a case by case basis, not by any type of pattern extending over multiple articles. If the edit is proper in the article, whatever else is happening is irrelevant. If an edit is improper in an article, then deal with it there. Every editor makes mistakes. Only if most of their edits are creating a real problem should there be any action beyond what happens at the relevant article.

We just need to be very cautious here. There is no justification for any serious sanctions. Maybe a trout for some particularly poor edits, but no more. Otherwise the editor is being punished for their specialty or interest. No editor has an obligation to add content that covers all sides of an issue. We are many, and together we create the whole. The individual editor doesn't have to do that. They find some good sources and content on one aspect of a subject. Great. Let them add it without making them feel guilty. Other editors who hold opposing POV will come along and balance things out. We are happy to have anyone make any positive contributions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anythingyouwant

I wouldn't mind these edits by Snooganssnoogans if they were all made subsequent to edits by a hypothetical editor Unsnooganssnoogans who had made similar edits except with an opposite POV (e.g. distancing the politicians from Trump). In that case, one could plausibly argue that Snooganssnoogans was merely restoring a semblance of NPOV by adding balancing material. That's not a good way to write an article, but it might excuse Snooganssnoogans (though it wouldn't excuse Unsnooganssnoogans). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

The user seems quite able to edit on pages of conservative politicians in a positive and constructive and helpful manner, including cleanup, reverting vandalism, and reverting violations of WP:No original research:

[152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169].

This shows the user is knowledgeable of site policy and edits in a helpful manner to improve biography pages of politicians on the site, including those of a conservative bent.

In addition, the user seems most able and willing to engage in polite discussion on talk pages to help others come to friendly resolutions to issues. Sagecandor (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Snooganssnoogans

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

I'm of two minds about this:

On the one hand, ~~WP:N~~ WP:NPOV does have a conduct aspect, and editors who systematically edit to promote a particular point of view are not here to write a neutral encyclopedia. (That this may be true for very many veteran editors in contentious topic areas is another matter.). I also think the complaint has a point in highlighting several occasions in which Snooganssnoogans has added material to BLPs in such a way that, even if individually verifiable, it is read as criticism of the subject's political positions by Wikipedia. To paraphrase, these are the edits in the vein of, "Senator X supported the AHCA which would reduce health care coverage, and supported Trump's firing of Comey when Comey was investigating Trump"). This is, in aggregate, non-neutral, because it confuses the political positions with (even reliably sourced) criticism of them by third parties. In articles about politicians who have taken a political position, we don't really have the space to fairly address all relevant views about the position, and therefore such views normally belong in the articles about the political issues themselves.
On the other hand, Snooganssnoogans has submitted (in their otherwise overlong and difficult to read reply) recent diffs in which they removed derogatory or problematic content from articles about conservative politicians ([170], [171]). In my view, this substantially weakens the complaint's assertion that "Snooganssnoogans edits almost exclusively to add negative material to Conservative articles". Furthermore, the (necessarily) broad scope of the complaint makes it very difficult to untangle from the underlying content disputes, which AE does not address, and makes it not well suited for action at AE. This forum relies on action by individual admins, which makes it well suited to clear-cut cases of disruption that can be shown with a few diffs and resolved with a block or ban, but much less to cases that require analysis of much evidence and long-term editing patterns, and perhaps a more nuanced remedy. Concerns of this type are probably better suited to a full arbitration case.

Because of this, I think that we should not take AE action at this time. But I advise Snooganssnoogans to take into account the concerns that have been raised about their editing and to take care not to make edits that, individually or in aggregate, can be perceived as non-neutral. Sandstein 08:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: In response to the complainant's contention that what you say is your practice of "regularly reverting vandalism and unproductive edits to GOP politicians’ pages, many of which seek to attack them" is a recent development in response to the complainant's concerns, can you provide diffs of such edits over an extended period of time prior to May 2017? Sandstein 15:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: Thanks for your reply, which does indicate similar edits (although mostly reverts of clear vandalism) from earlier in 2017. On this basis, I don't think I'll change my assessment of the issue above. Sandstein 17:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the subsequent discussion, I would not oppose appropriate sanctions, because I think it is now more clear that Snooganssnoogans has in fact edited in a manner that is, in aggregate, not compliant with WP:NPOV. But it would be preferable if Snooganssnoogans could make it clear that they understand the problems with their editing and give us clear assurances that these problems will not reoccur. Sandstein 10:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a ton to read over, so this will take time. I'll just say at the onset that I agree with Sandstein as to his last point-- this highly-complex request is better suited for Arbitration. However, that doesn't preclude action here. I'll continue reviewing diffs over the weekend. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- VM, I haven't said "this is essentially a content dispute," only that this type of complex evidence might be better suited for arbitration. Having had a chance to actually look through it, I'm inclined to agree with the concerns below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I'm only part through reading. What bothers me most is that I see a lot of repeats in adding things like "In February 2017, he voted against a resolution that would have directed the House to request 10 years of Trump's tax returns" being put in many different articles. It isn't about the truth or sources, this is just kind of a minor thing that doesn't say much about the person but does seem to be added solely to be prejudicial. Really, it isn't interesting enough for any article, and we don't do a blow by blow on everything that a congressman has voted for, so cherry picking this fact and using it multiple times, well, is odd. WP:DUE and WP:NPOV are concerns if I seek seeing this. I still have more to read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seeing more than Sandstein. Perhaps he hasn't read as much, or just sees it differently. The common thread in all these diffs appears to be to add negative information that aligns the person with Trump, even those that never endorsed him as a candidate, which is a high number. Many of the facts are rather mundane, meaning the article isn't really improved or damaged by the single fact, but there is a common theme and I can't ignore that. This strikes right at the heart of WP:NPOV. NPOV is much easier to spot and enforce within a single article, but when shotgunned across a host of articles, it requires a lot of reading to spot. Adding material to the lede, that was obviously a problem. Individually, the edits are not very useful, but if you step back enough to view them as a group, and a problematic pattern arises. When you have this many edits and every single one is framed as a negative and it is only for one political party, I can't help but to see that this is a real problem. American Politics 2 made a point of passing a resolution that covered NPOV. If the political leanings of an editor is brutally obvious, that editor should excercise restraint when editing in politics, to do so in a neutral manner. I am not convinced that is what is happening here. Again, spread over many articles, the pattern is harder to detect, but there is no way to ignore this pattern. It is not enough to have good sources, editors must consider the WP:DUE value of their contributions and how it affects the neutrality of not just that one article, but our political articles as a whole. I want to read more of Snooganssnoogans's contribs before drawing a conclusion, but I think it would be foolish to dismiss the charges out of hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Masem makes a couple of interesting points below that I would expand on. I do think there is a bias at work here that let good judgement be overridden. Snooganssnoogans isn't the first to flood political articles with factoids that are trivial and would not be expected in an encyclopedia article, yet they have been willing to take on criticism in the past, so allow me to add some now: If you have strong political feelings, you need to go out of your way to seek balance in what you contribute and ask yourself if those factoids are what people are really going to care about in 10 or 20 years. I would go beyond a "trout" and instead strongly warn you that your edits do in fact border on NPOV violations when taken as a group and are rapidly approaching the point of sanction. I can accept that sometimes passion about a topic can cloud someone's judgment, but this isn't a justification, it is just a potential reason. When you edit here, you have to put your personal opinions to the side and find that inner kernel of objectivity, and if you can't, you need to avoid the topic or only use the talk page to suggest edits. Wikipedia does have serious issues with objectivity in political articles on the whole, so perhaps Masem is correct in that we need a larger discussion on the topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - GoldenRing, I wouldn't be against that. I'm stymied as to a solution and agree that a warning rings a bit hollow, but something needs to be done to get the point across. I fear this is soon going to end up in a full blown Arb case if we don't find a way to put an end to this kind of editing. There are others who are likely as guilty, but for day, we just have the issue at hand to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - TParis, GoldenRing and others: It seems to me the problem is always related to entries that are more news than anything. Not so much politics since 1932, but politics in the last couple of years. Maybe some kind of restriction that is narrowed down to more current events is in order. A restriction to the talk page of politics 2010+ perhaps, or a restriction on adding material on events that have taken place in the last 10 years. Something of that sort that might tamp the temptation of padding the articles of one political party as he has done. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the more I think about it, the more I agree a simple warning just isn't going to get the job done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - TParis, I agree that [172] does solve some of the problems. I think he also needs to reflect on NPOV even when not doing mass edits, as the mass edits indicate a pattern, but the pattern is still there for single edits. If we can solve without complicated sanctions, all the better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - GoldenRing, the fact that people think this is ok also disturbs me. I think they are missing the big picture and looking at edits in isolation. TParis has touched on something, that the real problem was the mass entries to articles. Generally speaking, adding something to one article can be hashed out on the talk page, but adding it to a dozen or more is the bigger problem. Maybe a ban against putting the same information in more than one article, ie: mass posting. I would also strongly warn about adding material that is more akin to a news site rather than an encyclopedia, which is part of the problem as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - GoldenRing, I think "posting the same basic content in three or more article in the Post 1932 American Politics covered areas, construed broadly." plus the warning. Really, mass posting in any subject area is usually a bad idea and a recipe for sanction. A couple of articles is one thing, but mass posting is usually overkill or POV pushing. He's offering to get consensus before he mass posts, but the fact is, the whole idea of mass posting itself is the problem. Looks like you might be in a different time zone, we can wait, and maybe others can jump in or implement something to this effect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would think is best described as a content issue at this point -- but it represents a larger trend that's been growing more and more in the last few years of editors rushing to fill in articles on current political and ideological issues as they break rather than from hindsight when summarizing a political career, which is against the intent and spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS and documented more at WP:RECENTISM. Are the edits bad? No, not individually or hard to say taken as a whole, though it hints at a bit of coatracking particularly when it is including Trump's name, but not enough to take action yet; but it is also information that is likely not appropriate in its current form if we look back at any of these people 5, 10, 20 years down the road. I think the project needs a larger discussion of how we should be handling current politics knowing that these articles draw intense conflict within the project and potential POV editing (as it is being claimed here). So no action here beyond cautionary trouts, but I think we need a full discussion of how we really should be writing on these types of topics now which is beyond the scope of AE. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TParis I'm not so sure it is strictly isolated as an NPOV issue though that's central to it. Again, many of these edits strictly aren't NPOV violations in isolation, but they tickle the edge of coatracking for me to warn/trout. I'd personally say they should be added with much more hindsight over time if the point is still relevant. There is something that is happening on User talk:EEng that extended from a few recent AN/ANI issues that are in the same territory of rushed edits of "breaking" news in the US political arena to try to set some type of moratorium, but it really needs a larger discussion once something more concrete can be developed. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Objective3000 It is not a simple solution. There is a balance to be made about some information that should be included because it is objectively true and not going to change, but going beyond that should be avoided in the short term; a good example is that we should identify that Comey was let go from the FBI from the get-go, but we should avoid the reams of opinion on why that happened and what it means, at least until a bigger picture is known. But that dividing line is very hard to set, and why we need a larger discussion to figure that out; we definitely shouldn't single out Snooganssnoogans here for something that affects many articles and many editors. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting my own agreement with GoldenRing's statement below that while the information meets WP:V, and seems neutral in wording, missing a bigger picture of what our purpose should be, and why we really need to have RECENTISM in mind when dealing with ongoing politics and ideological battles. Editors need to think if that information would be added en masse if we were talking about Congresspeople from 20 or 30 years ago, and if that makes doing the same appropriate. Again, this to me is a trouting situation to not call out one editor for a larger problem that is going on. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be fairly general agreement that the editing pattern is problematic (and I agree), but no agreement on what to do about it. A number have suggested that a warning might be sufficient - but the complaint lists multiple attempts at resolution and here we are. On at least the AN and ANI threads, Snoogums appeared to heed warnings and the threads were closed on that basis, but here we are. IMO either a lengthy topic ban - say one year - or a full case are the viable outcomes of this. A warning seems unlikely to be effective, given the history. GoldenRing (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dennis Brown: I quite see the problem. I have considerable difficulty thinking of a restriction that would be effective and is tailored to the situation. Any narrower topic ban seems to me a recipe for trouble: a topic ban is usually a message to stay well away from the area, so any narrow TBAN seems likely to lead either to actual editing around the edges of it or to groundless accusations of violations. Any restriction that amounts to "edit neutrally" is just a restatement of policy anyway. The problems are widespread enough that anything to do with mass edits or edits to the lead etc won't capture it. A topic ban from all post-1932 AP does seem a blunt tool, but it might be the only effective tool we have. What about a shorter TBAN (1-3 months?) to give some space to gain perspective?
- On a wider point, which may be part of the underlying problem here and related to what User:Masem has to say above, I'm a bit worried by the number of editors here who see no problem with Snnogums' edits because they are all verifiable. I'm aware of the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability#Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion, but neither version of that policy text makes verifiability sufficient grounds for inclusion. GoldenRing (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dennis Brown: It's too late here for me to draft anything clear. I'm tempted by something along the lines of, "is prohibited from adding substantially similar content to multiple articles in the post-1932 AP topic area and is warned that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION are compulsory policies with which their recent editing has not complied and that further violations may lead to a topic ban." But it still all looks like a can of worms (not to mention a run-on sentence) to me. How substantially similar? How many articles? Over how long a time period? I don't want to end up creating a trap that opponents will end up using against him or a sanction that is easily violated unintentionally. GoldenRing (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read through this when it was filed, and I've read through it all again now that people have commented. My initial thoughts, and my further thoughts now, are pretty much in alignment with those of Dennis Brown. I see lots of edits which, examined individually, might appear acceptable - perhaps with a debatable touch of WP:UNDUE, but not deserving of any action. But taken as a whole, I do see a clear bias against conservative politicians and I see editing that highlights "shaming" comments in an NPOV and UNDUE manner. I'm not sure that any sanction is needed right now, but I do think we need at least the serious warning that Dennis suggests, such that further biased editing will result in sanctions. (Disclaimer: by US political standards, I'm liberal rather than conservative.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

"Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles. He is free to use the talk page of any article to request edits if he feels more articles should have the material. He may appeal at WP:AE after one year and every six months after that if the first appeal is unsuccessful."

I think this is the least aggressive way to deal with the problem at hand, while not putting undue restriction on his editing and recognizing he has the ability to contribute in a positive way. I would prefer other admin input (below this is fine) before anyone enacts, although I do think this is the minimum we should do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Sandstein, Boing! said Zebedee, GoldenRing, Lord Roem and Masem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonably fair given all statements above, without eliminating the ability to still contribute constructively. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that should be a fair and effective result. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Dennis. This is a narrowly-tailored restriction that gets at the heart of the issue while still allowing them to edit in this space. I agree with Boing! that there's biased editing going on in the aggregate that justifies a remedy. I'd support this with the proviso that it can/should be modified/expanded to a TBAN if there's an effort to wikilawyer out of it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Goldenring hasn't edited today, but I think their opinions are pretty well known, so we seem to all agree here. I will implement shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster

Content dispute, no action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Malerooster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Malerooster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :

Standard Discretionary Sanctions as applied under ARBPOL2. Specifically, that the user be placed under a revert restriction.

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

19 May 2017 Reverts my content 1, minimal communication in edit summary
21 May 2017 I ask why on Talk page
01:51, 22 May 2017‎ After not receiving an answer, I restore the content
02:42, 22 May 2017 An unsubstantive reply that has no relevance to policy.
02:43, 22 May 2017 They revert again.
02:59, 22 May 2017 I challenge again for a justification.
03:02, 22 May 2017 Refuses to discuss

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Alerted here [173] on 5 September 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If you can't give a reason to revert something, it's edit warring if you go ahead and do it anyway. Given that that article is largely about a Fox News controversy involving Fake News, it's logical to include See Alsos to Fox News controversies and Fake news. I don't understand why Malerooster doesn't like it. Saying that they don't like is not enough, see WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Geogene (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unwillingness to justify reverts in a content dispute, when asked, and then reverting again is a conduct matter. It doesn't help that the content issue seems obvious. Why shouldn't an article covering a Fox News controversy have a See Also to an article about Fox News controversies? The party reverting wouldn't say. That's not good faith collaboration. Geogene (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malerooster&diff=781591280&oldid=774127010

Discussion concerning Malerooster

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

Statement by Malerooster

Statement by JFG

This is a frivolous complaint. After a revert, the onus is on the inserting editor to defend their edit, however Geogene immediately turned around asking Malerooster to justify his revert, and then demanding more justification as he was not satisfied with the explanation provided. Another editor, Stevietheman, also reverted one of the "see also" items independently,[174] so clearly more discussion is required. I would close this with no action and enjoining both editors to get consensus one way or another: if they can't agree, they should seek input from other editors. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Malerooster

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

What specific remedy from the case do you want enforced? How is this more than a content dispute? Sandstein 04:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would take no action. This is a content dispute. The complaint does not identify the conduct policy or guideline that was supposedly violated. I also see no actionable misconduct. Malerooster did give valid reasons for their revert by writing "Links in the see also should ideally be worked into the article if applicable." The question of whether or not this is a good reason is a content issue that needs to be resolved via WP:DR. Sandstein 07:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JFG sums it up rather neatly and so does Sandstein, so I won't repeat. This is a content dispute, not something for WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archwayh

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

Request concerning Archwayh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Politrukki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Archwayh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement : WP:ARBAPDS

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

20 May In consecutive edits, and without obtaining consensus on the talk page, reinstates a series of edits [175] that were challenged [176].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 2 August 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Archwayh reinstated edits that were challenged – violating the "consensus required" restriction – and copied basically the same content to the lead.

The content is questionable at best and I assume that Archwayh did not read the cited source. The content includes fake quotes that don't appear in the source, "part of operations to compromise Donald Trump", "close ally and friend" and other original research, including The intercepted communications allegedly claimed that the goal of interference in the election was a White House that was pro-Kremlin and anti-European Union. [emphasis added]

Asked to self-revert [177]. They have not reacted in any way.

On April 4, in another article under ARBAPDS, they used personal attack in an edit summary [178], and doubled down on it [179].

They've marked their edits as "minor" and mark nearly all of their edits as "minor", even after they've been told to stop it: User_talk:Archwayh#Minor edits, User_talk:Archwayh#May 2017 Politrukki (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[180]

Discussion concerning Archwayh

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

Statement by Archwayh

Statement by JFG

Looks like a straightforward DS violation despite warnings. Whatever remedy ends up enacted, I would insist that this editor should stop marking their contributions as minor, because many people filter out minor edits in their watchlist or edit history. As noted by the OP, "minor edit" has a pretty restrictive meaning on Wikipedia. As soon as the meaning is changed, no matter how slightly, it's not minor. — JFG ^talk 16:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Archwayh

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

There's a consensus restriction on the article that shows up in an edit notice. This wasn't complied with. I'd like to hear from them first, but otherwise I'd propose a short topic ban. This individual incident, plus the personal attacks (or what are at least unhelpful barbs), along with the failure to respond to feedback, justify a sanction of some kind. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, JFG. He hasn't edited since my comment above, so I'm hoping he gives a statement. If he doesn't, or edits and doesn't contribute here, I'd impose the short TBAN proposal above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2017 (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 492: / Line 492: @@
 *Yes, I think that should be a fair and effective result. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 22:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 *Thanks for the ping, Dennis. This is a narrowly-tailored restriction that gets at the heart of the issue while still allowing them to edit in this space. I agree with Boing! that there's biased editing going on in the aggregate that justifies a remedy. I'd support this with the proviso that it can/should be modified/expanded to a TBAN if there's an effort to wikilawyer out of it. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 22:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
+*Goldenring hasn't edited today, but I think their opinions are pretty well known, so we seem to all agree here.  I will implement shortly.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 23:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 ==Malerooster==

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