Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Noughtnotout

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

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

Sanction being appealed

<Topic Ban Dawoodi Bohra [[1]]. Imposed for being perceived to have declared a winner [[2]] in the succession controversy>

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=663931981&oldid=663672272The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Noughtnotout

<The ban has now extended to almost 5 months. I have complied with the ban and had dialogue with the sanctioning administrator amd also followed his [EdJohnston]'s instructions in this regard including editing experience in other topics. I believe I have understood the reason behind the ban. It was not originally the intention to declare any winner but I can see why it was seen as having done so. I have understood that all information has to be reliably verified and this can be seen in my edits in [Scalextric] - a completely different topic from [Dawoodi Bohra]. I understand WP:NPOV and have no wish to violate it - as I have mentioned to the sanctioning editor several times. My prolonged discussion with [EdJohnston] should also hopefully dispel any doubts of sock-puppetry. WP:SPA>

Statement by EdJohnston

In January, the Dawoodi Bohra article had been suffering from edit warring due to a leadership succession controversy. Partisans of the two sides had been reverting articles about the Dawoodi Bohra to claim success for their respective candidates. I first became aware of User:Noughnotout due to some edit warring taking place on one of the articles in January 2015. I alerted him to the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions here at 05:41 on January 12. In a talk thread I advised him to get a talk page consensus before changing the article. This advice happened at 06:07 on 12 January. Somewhat to my surprise, later that day he went ahead with a large change to the Dawoodi Bohra article which was not supported by anyone else on the talk page. Since I had been watching for socks, and a brand-new partisan editor who avoids discussion is sometimes a sock, I went ahead with issuance of a topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. At the time I indicated I would consider lifting the ban in three months if I thought that progress had occurred. But since that day he has done fewer than 50 edits anywhere else on Wikipedia, I don't see a case for lifting the ban at this time. Since January he has left numerous messages on my talk page that I didn't find persuasive. They strengthened my initial impression of him as someone who was wedded to his POV and wasn't likely to defer to the verdict of reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Noughtnotout

• In four and a half months, Noughtnotout, your contributions to actual Articles space amount to 12 edits on Scalextric. That's it. In fact you've edited less than 50 times since your topic ban. I just don't think it's enough. Now, I see that you were topic banned about four days after you created your account, so you are presumably very new. So go out there, edit even more articles! Surely there's something else you are interested in? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Noughtnotout

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

• I'm not seeing a strong case to overturn the enforcing administrator's decision. Noughtnotout appears to be a single purpose account with a non-neutral POV so is probably best removed from Dawoodi Bohra. Since they haven't made a significant number edits to other articles it's almost impossible to tell whether they've developed the necessary experience and knowledge to edit an idea they aren't neutral in in a way which is beneficial to the project. I would therefore decline the appeal and advise them to actively edit in other areas for at least three months then appeal the ban again showing what they've learnt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Restored from archive other comments welcome/needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Noughtnotout hasn't edited in over a week, since filing this request. I would be interested in his response to the comments so far, so let's hold this open for a few more days. However, if he doesn't respond in a reasonable time, I'll agree with declining for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge

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 A Quest For Knowledge

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

A Quest For Knowledge (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/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

Watts Up With That - a blog which promotes fringe views on climate science - recently canvassing their readers to "correct" our coverage. Since then, we've been having a tough time handling the increased attention and fervor, and consensus building has been turbulent. I requested page protection to facilitate discussion, but we kept hitting the same walls, so JzG created an RfC to address a recurring issue.

Unfortunately, A Quest For Knowledge has been disrupting the RfC and other methods of consensus building, which has made our task considerably harder. He has repeatedly inserted his opinions into the RfC question, suggesting that responding is a waste of time, and all but one of the options contravene policy, making the RfC's summary markedly non-neutral. In two cases, he added his opinions in the middle of JzG's comment, which mixed up attribution of JzG's words and the origin of the RfC. My first effort was to move his comment to the discussion section, but he reverted me, and approaching him on his talk page hasn't helped.

• May 30, 09:05
• May 30, 13:06
• May 30, 18:11
• June 1, 19:28

While the RfC's wording may not be perfect, it was obviously a good faith effort to aid discussion and build consensus, and the structured format has helped us tease out a few suggestions already. AQFK's edits are clearly an effort to stop discussion and collaboration, which has not been helpful in an already terse environment.

AQFK has also been edit warring on the article for a considerable time. He is not the only one, but his history is extensive, and his reverts are often not coupled with substantive discussion. The following diffs are all removing the same sourced content from the article: June 1, May 30, May 29, May 26, May 23, May 23, May 22, May 12, May 10, May 10, May 10, May 7, May 7, May 6, May 3, May 3, April 30, April 29, April 27, April 21, April 21, April 20

AQFK has been exhibiting other problematic behavior as well, which I'll add to this request as I'm able. It is worth noting that disruptive behavior is not limited to AQFK, and broader sanctions may eventually be needed, but at the moment AQFK is the only one attempting to hinder collaboration.

AQFK was previously topic banned from climate change by arbcom in 2010. The ban was lifted in 2012. The topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, and I'm asking that they be applied (in whatever form is deemed necessary) to prevent further disruption.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AQFK has also been misrepresenting the conversation, and not working toward a goal of building consensus and collaborating with editors of different viewpoints. For example, when discussing the inclusion of this quote, AQFK has repeatedly summarized the dispute as the addition of the word "denier": [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

This has led to confusion, since the contested edit does not contain the word "denier". Yet, AQFK continues to assess sources based on their use of the word "denier" and not variants like "climate change denial". Editors have asked AQFK to be more careful in his choice of language ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), and method of assessing sources ([21]), but his behavior has not changed ([22]).

Note that the last diff is one AQFK has copied and pasted several places. In it, AQFK misrepresents the sources by saying the word "denier" does not appear in any of them, when in reality some variant of "denier" appears in nearly 30%. ([23])   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#A Quest For Knowledge's battlefield conduct and this DS notice on May 3rd

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[24]

Discussion concerning A Quest For Knowledge

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 Guerillero

I have no horse in this race, I just formatted Jess's request in the format that AE likes --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit

This is an issue that needs attention. AQFK has been tendentiously ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and making repeated recourse to WP:WTW, for example, ignoring the numerous comments on the Talk page refuting the attempt.
The Watts BLP and WUWT blog article are subject to WP:PSCI, and the semantics issue between "denier", etc., and "skeptic" would seem to be clearly subordinate to the policy-based prioiritization of the mainstream view of scientists versus Watts' pseudoscience views, which do not correspond to scientific skepticism, but do fall under the rubric of environmental skepticism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that the article was under a 1rr restriction, either. Perhaps someone should post a banner or the like on the page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• It bears noting that the discussion regarding denialism vs skepticism has been going on for a couple of months now at Watts' BLP, predating the appearance of both Man Jess and Sphilbrick. A substantial number of sources and interpretive aspects have been discussed, and I added most of the sources that had been previously discussed at the BLP to the WUWT talk page yesterday, rounding out this list.
  
  • It also bears noting that the issue of including "denialism" on WP:WTW has also been under discussion for a couple of months, with an emerging consensus to delete the term from that guideline. AQFK did participate in that discussion[25] as well, though he subsequent deleted his comment[26].
    
    • It further bears noting that Dave souza has been tackling the definitional aspects in a professional manner, with this edit[27], for example, and more to come[28] from this source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I have to say that AQFK's approach seems to me to be unhelpful. AQFK states as fact that an RfC cannot possibly succeed because of WTW, even though it includes nothing more skeptical than the result of the previous RfC, and numerous good-faith comments by long-time Wikipedians have already accepted that the question is valid.

It is fine to dispute the question put in an RfC. It is not fine to insist on stating as fact that the question is invalid, when that is just an opinion, and is rejected by most others commenting.

AQFK also repeatedly removes a statement which is sourced and attributed to a well-known authority, citing BLP, despite, again, numerous long-time Wikipedians arguing in good faith that this is not a violation since it si high profile, sourced and attributed.

Overall the impression is that PAG are being used not as a guide to good practice, but as a magic talisman to wave away opinions for which the editor very obviously harbours a visceral hatred. And AQFK comes across as a Warrior for Truth™, where Truth equates to a philosophical view divorced from scientifically established reality. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick I am not sure what you're implying re. Mann jess, I would have thought that the involvement of experienced editors new to the article would be highly desirable, given the history of entrenched views and fights between the usual suspects on these articles. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

As indicated in the request, this is an editor with a history of egregious disruption in this topic. The topic ban was lifted on the basis that the topic was under a sanctions process and the editor had kept their nose clean for a good while. And so we're back here.

On the face of it, the editor has returned to their disruptive ways and is now interfering with serious consensus-building attempts. It seems reasonable to me to consider once again an indefinite topic ban. --TS 11:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Robert McClenon

I was not involved in this particular controversy, but have a comment. I was involved in a Request for Comments where one of the parties to the conflict protested the RFC vociferously. That sort of behavior is very disruptive, especially because an RFC is often the last option of resolving a content dispute before going to conduct dispute resolution. Also, inserting one's own comments in the middle of another editor's comments, even if meant in good faith, is problematic because it is very likely to cause other editors to mistake who is saying what. Aside from the more general matter of whether the subject editor is POV-pushing or personalizing the dispute (and I haven't researched that), disrupting an RFC is a conduct issue that complicates the resolution of content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sphilbrick

• As Mann jess correctly points out, there is a post at WUWT reacting to recent edits to the article.
• Guy was understandably concerned about potential external influence, (see my talk page). I shared this concern, reviewed the article edit logs and recent edit history. I am sure there is some involvement, my casual review suggested it was not significant. Please note that Guy and I hold very different opinions on the substance of the dispute, but Guy concurs. Most of the recent edits, and most of the contributors to the talk page are "regulars", the exception being Mann jess, who had zero involvement prior to 17 May, but who is now the fifth leading contributor to the article.
• The very first edits by Mann jess to the WUWT article were a consecutive sequence of 14 edits, adding relevant material, but also changing the lede to characterize WUWT as a "blog dedicated to climate change denial"
• Mann jess has over 10,000 edits. Most editors with that much experience would know that such a contentious statement should be discussed on the talk page first.
• The edit was reverted, by AQFK, with edit summary (Per WP:WTW.) a reference to a guideline which specifically singles out "denialist" as a word to watch
• The article is subject to a 1RR editing restriction, but Mann Jess re-introduced the wording with less than 24 hours elapsing between the first entry, the removal, and the re-introduction. In fairness, not every editor is aware of which articles are subject to 1RR, so I think this should mot result in sanction.
• To her credit, Mann jess immediately went to the talk page to open up discussion. However, per WP:BRD, one should then reach a consensus before re-introducing contentious wording.
• Mann jess requested semi-protection, I requested full protection. It has achieved the goal of stopping the edit war, and starting talk page discussion, which while heated, is proceeding.
• I understand Mann jess's objection to the edit by AQFK that inserted a comment near the top of an RfC, rather than at the bottom. However, the RfC failed to mention that "denialism" is covered by WP:WTW, and thus, while not prohibited, requires a much higher hurdle than simply a consensus of editors to use the word. It is understandable that AQFK was trying to be helpful, so that outside editors would not spend time reviewing sources, and thinking about the best wording, only find some time later that a specifically relevant guideline existed.
• I do think AQFK could have handled the attempt to inform readers differently, but we do not levy sanctions for failure to be perfect (for which I am thankful). --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JBL

There is a long-term content/wording-based edit war going on about how to describe Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog, and particularly about the use of various forms of the word "deny." AQFK is very involved in this dispute (as are Mann jess and I). Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue. In this context, most of AQFK's behavior has been consistent with the battleground approach being taken by editors on both sides, but the disruptive edits to the RFC are I think notable for their inappropriateness. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add: it is worth mentioning that Mann jess has been making substantial improvements to at least the Watts article (unrelated to ongoing edit warring) while all this has been going on.

Statement by MONGO

I cannot say whether or not AQFK has or has not acted inappropriately as far as edit warring and disruption, or whether others have in this matter. My take on the blog is that it posts guest speakers that are at least skeptical if not openly in denial of AGW. The lack of sturdy science in the blog which agrees with the scientific consensus that AGW is fact is alarming...so I would not consider the blog to be a reliable source. In one post on the blog, apparently written by Watts, he states in essence that he agrees with the scientific concensus that the planet is warming and that some of this warming is caused by us. He did not elaborate on how much is caused by what source. Watts then proclaims he considers himself a skeptic and scoffs at being labelled a denier. He also seems to be calling on his readers to correct this information. I do not know if AQFK saw this and is trying to help, but I doubt it. I won't link to the blog post as it makes a personal attack against one of our editors. Anyway, my take is that Watts opinion of himself, though it is a primary source, is important since this is a BLP issue. The parties need to work towards a consensus about incorporating Watts's proclamation and also listing what reputable scientists say. I suggested the source by an antagonist of Watts (Mann) be kept out since other scientific viewpoints of similarity could be used instead.--MONGO 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

Mann jess's accusation should be dismissed.

Re JzG's RFC: I also complained it was not neutral and warned that JzG says people who don't call WUWT a denial blog are "idiots", Mann jess says about A Quest For Knowledge "he reverted me" but actually three different editors reverted.

Re the diffs: Mann jess says this is about the Watts Up With That article but actually the diffs are from the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, a BLP, which did not have a recent influx of new editors or perturbation caused by Watts's blog post. On Anthony Watts (blogger), by my count five different editors have reverted the addition of the quote in the lead saying Watts's blog is a denial blog, with oft-expressed concerns on the talk page about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There are more editors re-inserting (I counted eight), but that is not a consensus and A Quest For Knowledge deserves a defender-of-wiki barnstar. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I followed the Anthony Watts page for a bit, but honestly got tired of it and unwatched it. I'm disappointed to see that the exact same thing I saw weeks ago is still occurring. Without commenting on the content itself, AQFK's actions seem quite inappropriate and battleground. Especially so for the RFC comments. I opened the diffs, closed them, and reopened them thinking I had accidently opened the same one over and over... the fact that I hadn't and that the same comment was essentially spammed is what prompted me to comment now.

Given the past sanctions but otherwise good behavior (unless someone knows of similar disruption related to AGW outside of this recent event), perhaps a short reinstatement of the topic ban (e.g., 4 months) would be appropriate. It would provide cooling off time as well as time to demonstrate intent to cease disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber

If a person is perverting the use of or misrepresenting sources according to our sourcing guidelines, that is a much more difficult and time-consuming problem to deal with than incivility and filibustering and undermines wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia...and should be dealt with accordingly. has someone done that here yet? I've only just scanned this page but reams of talkpage notes I haven;t had time to read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (Arzel)

AQFK actions have been no worse than those that would complain against him. In particular the statement by JBL is extremely troubling. JBL says that after enough "denialist" are blocked from editing these pages then everything will be ok. How is that not a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? Not to mention calling all of us that disagree with him "denialists" Simply put, there will never be compromise with attitudes like that, and I doubt that opinion is limited to JBL. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge

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

• My initial reading suggests that this is actionable. Edit warring on both the article and on the RFC, as well as little attempt to engage with those supporting the RFC suggests a battleground approach. I have some concerns that there may be others in this topic area with unclean hands (even some of those accusing AQFK seem to allude to edit warring by others), and in part for that reason, I would prefer to wait a bit and see if AQFK will post a statement here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Posting a note at the top of an RFC declaring it "a waste of time" and edit warring to keep it there certainly appears to be disruptive behavior and evidence of a battleground mentality. I'm curious to see what the justification is for this behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Awaiting A Quest for Knowledge's statement. He should post that statement here before making any further edits to the RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Handpolk

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

Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Zad68 12:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Minimum editor qualifications for editing the Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page of 500 edits and 30 days old. Originating AE request is here. Page-level sanction filed in the DS log here. Original Gamergate Arbitration decision is here.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I am aware of this request. Zad68 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Handpolk

Talk:Gamergate controversy has a sanction of 30 days and 500 edits which is intended to prevent people from using socks and such. I am me. I have been on Wikpedia a year. I happened upon this article and think it is extremely non-neutral and am interested in helping to improve it -- and I find it frankly offensive that I'm being told I'm not trusted to be a real person just because I only make edits when I think I legitimately have something to add (like now).

I'll leave it to your discretion if or how to modify, or remove, this restriction. Thank you for your consideration. Handpolk (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zad68

Note, I am the administrator that handled the original AE request and applied the page-level sanctions, so I am uninvolved regarding that article content but I am involved in the application of this page-level restriction. Handpolk's original request didn't use the AE Appeal template, because as they state, they "couldn't figure out how to do that"; I have reformatted Handpolk's original request, with their permission here. Zad68 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My statement: According to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, AE sanctions may be appealed directly to the enforcing administrator, at AE or AN, or an email to ARCA. The page-level restrictions have already been challenged just 10 days ago by an uninvolved administrator at WP:AN, discussion here, section Removal/Modification of restrictions on editing on Talk:Gamergate controversy. I purposefully stayed out of arguing my position in that discussion to see what the community consensus was. My evaluation of that discussion was that there was no "clear and substantial consensus of ... uninvolved editors at AN" (per the wording at Appeals, my emphasis) to overturn the AE action. (In fact I'd say there was a pretty good consensus supporting it.) Zad68 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Handpolk

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