Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:58, 28 August 2015

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

Peter Gulutzan

No consensus for action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2015 (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 Peter Gulutzan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Peter Gulutzan (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 :

Reposting. I believe this behavior warrants further review, and since Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution shows the problem is escalating, not resolving itself. Below is my comment on that thread, but other editors (User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Manul) posted additional info I won't reproduce on their behalf. Split comments per request.

---

Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible.

Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources.

Diffs:

Not answering questions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], to NEG below
- Strangely, he accused me of not answering his questions, but then didn't answer me when I asked what question I'd missed. NewsAndEventsGuy asked us both to summarize what questions had gone unanswered. I provided a list, but Peter refused to answer.

Battleground behavior: [8], [9]

Both editors keep misrepresenting others (e.g. by claiming I equate all "skeptics" to "deniers")) Peter repeats this claim, then insists on seeing a citation for it

EW. While discussion ongoing, reverted 11 pages to his preferred version. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]
Aware of DS: [21]

— Jess· Δ ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a note to prevent archiving. Several admins have commented that they have concerns, but there hasn't been any action taken, or discussion to close the case. — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Peter Gulutzan

Statement by Manul

Note that Peter Gulutzan was alerted to climate change discretionary sanctions on 18 March 2015, earlier than indicated above.

Peter's comment on that date is indicative of his general attitude:
By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh?[22]
This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"),[23] and our only prior interaction was a couple comments on the article talk page that were non-personal and on-topic.

Peter proceeded to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, reverting my removal from the BLP of a link to a website publishing the subject's personal address.[24] He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page,[25] even replying to it.[26] This is either blind reverting without care for the reasons behind a change, or worse.

The situation has not since improved. Most recently Peter claimed that I added a "smear" to the article "without attribution", saying in the edit comment, you don't "clean up" by pouring dirt.[27] The over-the-top personalization from Peter is typical, but more importantly the claim is untrue. My change to the lead cited high-quality reliable sources,[28] and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.[29]

Considering the above diffs from myself and others, the disruption appears to stem from Peter's inability to approach the subject dispassionately, imparting a narrative of personalized conflict where editors are simply trying to use the best sources and report them accurately.

Manul ~ talk 04:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Peter:

Re WP:BLPPRIVACY, to be absolutely clear, the timeline is:

Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article, with edit comment See talk page "Improving the lead".[30]
Ten minutes later, he replies to my comment about BLPPRIVACY in the thread "Improving the lead".[31] This is the right comment; I did not link to the wrong one.
Either Peter didn't read the comment to which he replied -- blindly reverting -- or he willingly violated BLPPRIVACY.
Despite the government website clearly showing Anthony Watts' personal address, he later tried to justify his change by saying it was IntelliWeather's address.[32] I pointed out that IntelliWeather is registered to his home address, as are his other domains.[33]

I agree 100% with the Jimbo Wales quote. It is a recurring theme that discussion about accurately characterizing the

WUWT blog as a climate change denialism blog (which it is, according to high-quality and scholarly sources) will eventually be derailed by a switch to characterizing Watts as a "denier". It is a red herring, and I have said so in discussions where Peter has participated.[34][35] When the switch happens, as Peter has done in this AE, the conversation is destined to go round and round.

Manul ~ talk 22:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

Re Mann jess's accusations ...

Re "Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution": I indeed made a request for dispute resolution re redirection to Global warming controversy or Climate change denial, saying "... if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording.". No reply.

Re pointing to something "more sympathetic to the fringe view": no, I said "slightly less vicious redirect", that is, I care about people who are accused of having the view.

Re: "dismissed high quality sources": they're poor quality, I tried to discuss sources despite Mann jess calling my complaints "nonsense" and "insane" and "nonsense"). I questioned repeatedly what these sources supposedly support. No reply.

Re me labelling editors as "activists" or calling them "too biased to find the right sources": no diffs. I've no idea what Mann jess is talking about.

Re me refusing questions from NewsAndEventsGuy: question was prefaced with accusations that I said I found offensive, I explained at WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy.

Re I "didn't answer me [Mann jess] when I asked what questions I'd missed": look at the diff Mann jess supplied. Mann jess misquoted me twice using quote marks, I objected, Mann jess misquoted again and asked "What sources are being overlooked or misinterpreted?" (not "what questions I'd missed"), I answered "As for the question about sources, I have no idea what it refers to".

Re "battleground behavior": no, I said on my talk page "I'm acknowledging the existence of a battle" meaning I thought others did it, and "hit me with your best shot, eh? [etc.]" meaning I thought others intended it.

Re "claiming [Mann jess] equate[s] all 'skeptics' to 'deniers'": I didn't say that, I said it's necessary to show all skeptics are deniers if you're going to change so all redirects for skeptics point to denial.

Re "EW": Look at the 11 diffs: the first doesn't revert anything, the tenth was self-reverted on July 9, the others were all restorations to the state before the dispute began, which is normal when no consensus.

Re Manul's accusations ...

Re "Peter's comment on that date is indicative ...", my note about deleting that comment from my talk page is here.

Re WP:BLPPRIVACY: when Manul refers to my reply he shows the wrong link, my actual reply on March 18 is here, please read it rather than Manul's link.

Re "you don't clean up by pouring dirt": Manul made a section heading which uses a hurrah! phrase "cleaning up", I balanced with a boo! phrase "pouring dirt". I mentioned "without attribution" because the text did not attribute the words "climate change denial" in the lead to the sources (I distinguish attribution from citation and I believe WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does).

Re "editors are simply trying to use the best sources": I don't think editors agree what sources are best, I agree with Jimbo Wales. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I had to trim my post above so that it would be 490 words, without changing content. I cannot reply to anything else unless administrators permit me to go well over the limit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Administrators: I request permission to reply to statements made after the post by Mann jess and the first comment from Manul. So far I've used 490 words, versus around 1200 words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE ... Okay, I have permission to reply.

Manul says: "Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article". That is false. Watts's personal address was not in the article either before or after any edit that I did. Instead there was a cite for Watts's company = a government site containing addresses, added by JournalScholar in 2012. Although this is not a valid WP:AE issue (I had not received a DS alert at the time I did that revert), I'll point out anyway that: (1) the edit which I reverted contained two things, removal of the citation AND addition of the claim that Watts "runs the climate denialism website 'WattsUpWithThat'", a contentious statement about a living person with what I regarded as poor sourcing, and WP:BLPREMOVE says such things should be removed "immediately". (2) In fact I myself removed the citation, 76 minutes later, and wrote "... I acknowledge that such government-related sites shouldn't be publicized by Wikipedia and have replaced with a reference to WUWT which merely says Watts runs IntelliWeather. I apologize for the delay in making this change."

Manul's sources are low quality and the majority of known reliable sources say the blog is skeptic, compare the entries from S Philbrick's lists (ignore the junk) here and here. But I'll happily leave that content dispute aside if Manul stops bringing it up. What's an issue is whether I engaged in misconduct at times when I insisted that sources have to be good enough for BLP -- which I did. To redirect "Climate change skeptic" etc. affects many BLPs, and to make the first sentence of a BLP contain a denigration, about the main thing the person is known for, is denigrating a person. Sure, some people say otherwise. But taking me to WP:AE is more than disagreement.

Penwhale: I hope you will consider that my reply to Manul, and my diffs showing some of the explanation how denial got in the lead of WUWT, may have a bearing on your initial remarks.

Re Artifex Mayhem: I'm accused of violating an essay, and of performing battleground behaviour. The details are that I used the words "side", "misleading", and "destroyed". If the contention were that sides, statements that mislead, and destruction never in fact existed, or are WP:WTW words, there would be something to answer here.

Re JzG: I issued a DS notice two days after JzG referred to a BLP subject as a "swivel-eyed loon". I was not aware that administrators are exempt from DS notices. I deny that I am a single-purpose account, I have done hundreds of non-climate edits and created seven non-climate articles (Burr, Saskatchewan, Edenbridge, Saskatchewan, Points North Landing, Saskatchewan, The Sheepdogs, Peavey Mart, Aspy Bay, YCSB). I also deny JzG's "assessment" of me, but shouldn't need to, unsupported speculations about my defects don't belong here or anywhere. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ArtifexMayhem

Over the past few months civil (mostly) POV pushing by Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) (along with Tillman (talk · contribs)) has been a primary source of disruption in the topic area.

The recent filing of this WP:AE request by Peter Gulutzan against NewsAndEventsGuy was without merit and should be considered vexatious (and sucessfully so as NewsAndEventsGuy has retired from the project for 12 months).

Examples of battleground behavior,

Groups editors into factions e.g., the "put-denialism-in" side, [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47].

Considers another editors calling one of his reverts a "removal of information" to be "misleading" [48], while edits by others are considered done with the intent to "destroy" information [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58].

— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Peter Gulutzan issued a DS notice to me regarding climate change. This does not bother me at all. It is a little weird for an effective WP:SPA to issue an administrator with a DS notice, but there you go.

My assessment of Gulutzan's edits is that he simply does not care what the scientific consensus is, he wants Wikipedia to reflect the world as he believes it to be, not the world as science says it actually is. The fundamental issue is that climate change "skepticism" is pseudoskepticism, which is synonymous with denialism. Not a form of denialism, synonymous with it. Like the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, who are vaccine denialists. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tillman

I believe the complaint against Peter Gulutzan is without merit and and should be dismissed.

Further, I believe the real problem here lies with the originating editor, Mann Jess. She succeeded with her complaint here against AQFK last month: link. The present complaint started out as a side-complaint against both PG & myself. By a curious coincidence, these are the three editors who were having the most problems working with editor Jess at the Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog pages at our encyclopedia. On this topic, a fourth editor has remarked:

"Mann Jess is vexatious and tendentious. In a controversial topic area Mann Jess often uses the most inflammatory language that is not encyclopedic. The worst instances are in BLP's like Watt's but extend elsewhere."

For some time, I’ve been considering filing an ArbComm complaint re Mann Jess’s editing behavior in the CC area, especially in the case of Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog. I regard her actions there as unencyclopedic, uncollegial, egregious POV pushing, tendentious editing and, in general, I found her impossible to deal with as a fellow-editor. She's certainly single-minded (imo). Other editors who couldn't deal with her vexatious editing included both Gulutzan and AQFK. A pattern emerges.

I certainly don’t have time for that now — I don’t really have time to mount a refutation of her charges here, except to note that many appear to be "ruffled feathers". And I hate this sort of unproductive posturing and name-calling.

It's also troubling that MJ (and others) could be putting the project into legal jeopardy. I believe Anthony Watts was receiving legal advice, and perhaps offers of pro bono legal representation, for filing a defamation and slander lawsuit against Wikipedia's parent for the attempted labelling of Watts as a "climate change denier" by MJ and collaborating editors. Watts emphatically rejects this charge. I don't think he expressed any interest in actually filing a suit. I'll research this further for my formal complaint against Editor Jess. This may take some time to prepare, as I am under severe time constraints for prior committments, to at least the end of the following week. I would welcome help in preparing a complaint againt Mann Jess, who I believe is doing substantial damage to the integrity of the Project. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JBL

I think the behavior with respect to NewsAndEventsGuy, a consummate good-faith, consensus-building editor, was an enormous shame. Obviously in practice the articles related to Anthony Watts and climate change denialism are a massive battleground, and NAEG was one of the few editors who really seemed to be interested in doing a decent job with them, respecting sourcing etc. The attacks by Gulutzan on NAEG were really shameful, and have (at least temporarily) driven off a great editor. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

@JBL, while I appreciate the kind words, I disavow the notion that Peter's remarks "drove (me) off". I still log in to see if anyone refers to me, and since you did so I would just like to say that I've been feeling pressed from a lot of real life quarters of late, and quite frankly find little reward in organizing the diffs to demonstrate anyone's violation of WP:ARBCC#Battleground editing. Peter was just a minor thing that put my decision to make a long retirement seem timely. Nothing should be read into my decision viz-a-viz the extent of Peter's disruption or non-disruption. His record of diffs should be read without regard to other factors, and we should trust diligent admins to act accordingly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Peter Gulutzan

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

Manul's 4th point in the bullet list is telling; also, since it is clear that no one disagrees with the fact that Watt runs WUWT and the lead of WUWT does say Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism or denial created in 2006 by Anthony Watts (both as of this edit and on June 27 when Manul made the edit to Watts), I find Peter's position in this discussion to be extremely weak. However, I will wait for others to comment before assessing more. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan: You can reply, yes. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus; closing as NC to act (no action taken). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

Consensus for "no action" (although almost everyone seems to have a different rationale for "no action"). --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2015 (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 Collect

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2600:1000:B001:1FC2:9E5E:5DCF:BF25:8FF8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Collect (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/Collect_and_others#Collect_topic-banned_.28option_2.29 :

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

20 Aug 2015 Reverts contentious edit to Josh Duggar. Josh Duggar is a former executive director of the political action committee of the Family Research Council. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13 July 2015 Collect was blocked for a week for violating his topic ban.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Collect has been forum shopping this topic at BLPN and at Jimbo's talk page. This is behavior consonant with this finding of fact in his arbitration case.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

Discussion concerning Collect

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 Collect

I suggest that folks using Gawker to state that a living person was rumoured to be a user of "Ashley whatever" where the reliable sources state the allegation is from Gawker, has naught to do with any rational delineation of "US politics." Nor does "Ashley whatever" appear to have any rational connection to "US politics either". Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel - you insinuate openly that I arrived at the article because of political considerations. That insinuation is completely and utterly false. In fact, it is an extreme example of "assuming bad faith" in my honest opinion. Out of many hundreds of BLPs I have edited, only a trivial fraction are "political" at all, and to imply I mainly work on political BLPs is ludicrous. I list a few on my User page, and if anyone wants them listed here, I would be glad to do so. What I fear is the idea the "Collect is banned from US politics, and now we can get him before AE every three weeks just by stretching the facts a hair" (On UT Jimbo, one editor even accuses me of being biased on CRU email articles - despite the fact I stay pretty far away from them). Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel Again read this - I did not arrive at this article for any political reasons whatsoever. Nor have I ever made deliberate "political edits" to the best of my ability in the past six years at all (after my attempts not to have Joe the Plumber be officially described as a "plumber's ass." which I found at the time to be despicable, but which seems now the norm in political silly seasons around the world). I am flabbergasted that you would make such a back-handed apology at all as " since it is an article related to politics and thus your topic ban, you should abandon the matter for other editors to deal with" This BLP is a biography of a person known as a TV performer. Did you read some of the biographies I have dealt with? Really? I find this "assume bad faith because the person has damn well been harassed enough, so more harassment is fine and dandy" to be a most interesting example of civility. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Will someone identify the blatant sock who made the OP here? And block the hell out of them? When a person appears out of "nowhere" and has the sole and singular purpose of posting at AE,I suggest that calling such a person a sock is clearly accurate, and that the purpose of harassment is also clear. Any real person should post under their actual account instead of making anonymous complaints in that manner. Collect (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Writegeist

~~Complaint does not warrant enforcement action. Move to close vexatious request. Writegeist (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)~~ Writegeist (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

Floq - IPs are WP:HUMAN... probably should consider their cases on a case-by-case basis (literally).

I think this is a stretch of Collect's t-ban. If he were edit warring on the page and discussing politics directly, I could see the case being made. But that's not the case here. Moreover, WP:BANEX applies to BLP violations (right?) and though I'm not sure this was a huge violation (some of those sources were okay and it's been covered by a lot of news outlets), it was done in good faith and was reasonable. Recommend dismissing this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

The edit in question, here, is to remove rather overtly sensationalist material which might be reasonably seen as being at best dubiously founded, at least at this point, possibly contrary to BLP, and I have to agree with the above that saying this relates to American politics is rather likely a stretch. Alternately, every article even marginally related to American society in general, and by extension American politics, might fall within the scope of the ban, and I have no reason to believe that the sanctions were intended to be that broad. I believe it probably best to let this close without action against Collect, or, if action is to be taken, he should be given a rather clearer definition of what is and is not within the scope of the sanctions. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

When the most reliable source supporting a contentious statement is the Daily Fail quoting Gawker, that is something that MUST be removed ASAP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And with the edits from the IP leading to the incontrovertible conclusion that they are an attempt to WP:EVADE scrutiny, this needs needs to be tossed as an invalid filing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

A revert of BLP violating material on a non-political figure is not a violation. Collect should be encouraged to continue his vigilance. --DHeyward (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix

Re: the speculation that Collect arrived at the article for political reasons, it seems much more likely to me that he was responding to this post at BLPN. In my experience Collect watches BLPN pretty carefully, so for him to see that post, note that no-one had replied to it yet, and rush to remove the info (possibly without even realizing that Duggar has a "political" side to his life) would be pretty consistent with his usual behavior. I actually don't think it was necessarily a BLP violation, but I don't see this as a violation of Collect's topic-ban either. I'm sure he meant well here. I think a gentle reminder to be aware of the topic ban is the most that could be called for here. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Collect

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

Despite the complainant's contortions, I cannot seem to stretch Collect's topic ban to cover the (single) edit presented. Yes, Josh Duggar apparently has at some point had some involvement in politics, but he is by far better known for his involvement in reality television. The edit in question – which involved removing sensational, BLP-governed content – had no direct connection to Duggar's politics or to U.S. politics in general. This request appears to be without merit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are we accepting AE reports from IP addresses now? I thought it said somewhere that we don't do that. If it doesn't, it should. There are probably +/- 5 people who legitmately participate in arbitration-related discussions without an account due to some difficult-to-understand but honest opposition to having an account. There are probably +/- 500 people who use an IP address to avoid scrutiny of their own actions, but who claim to not have an account. The 5 people make dealing with anon's at arbitration complicated, but they should just have to deal with not being able to file an AE case; the 500 have poisoned that well. Also, the snarky "Cheers" in the IP's notice on Collect's talk page, mirroring Collect's own snarky "Cheers", leads me to believe this is one of the 500 anyway. Unless someone thinks I'm really off base, I'll close this with no decision; if a longer-term editor with an account wants to file this complaint, it can be refiled, though I personally don't recommend it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, we have allowed topic-banned editors to make edits and raise alerts about potential BLP violations due to the importance of the BLP policy. So I say we close this with no enforcement provided that, like those other editors, Collect takes no further action now that he has alerted other editors to this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a BLP violation though. It was written neutrally, it was well sourced, and it did not appear to be assigned a disproportionate amount of weight. BLP creep is not good and this is not the first time Collect has used a faulty BLP rationale to justify his edits—in fact, I have blocked him for it before. This being said, I entirely agree with TenOfAllTrades above and concur that no enforcement is needed here. Swarm ♠ 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you've written here, which is why I included the caveat that he abandon this matter. BLP creep is an issue I've spoken out about before, but I am inclined to give an editor the benefit of the doubt where BLP is concerened. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To clarify, are you saying that (BLP concerns aside) Collect's edit violated his topic ban, and that the scope of that topic ban actually includes all of Duggar's article (including portions not directly related to U.S. politics)? That is to say, are you defining Duggar as a "U.S. politician" – rather than an entertainer who has also dabbled in politics – thereby bringing his entire biography (not just the political bits) within the scope of Collect's topic ban? Or are you reasoning along other lines? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Collect normally edit articles about reality show entertainers? If so, then I support him being allowed to edit this article, but otherwise I believe it's clear his interest is political. The Family Research Council is a major US political organization, and since Duggar was director of the lobbying arm of it, according to Duggar's article, that makes Duggar much more than a dabbler, I think. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as actionable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Since I am one of those arguing against taking action in this case because I see your actions as a good faith attempt to enforce BLP, it would seem to be the very opposite of "an extreme example of "assuming bad faith"". It's clear you are interested in politics and editing political articles. There's nothing wrong with that, so there's no reason for you to react in horror that someone would suggest that you are. You're also interested in BLP compliance, which is good and should be encouraged. You deserve credit for bringing this issue to the attention of others, but since it is an article related to politics and thus your topic ban, you should abandon the matter for other editors to deal with. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dukisuzuki

Blocked indefinitely (non-AE) by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (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 Dukisuzuki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dukisuzuki (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: WP:BALKANS :

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

Edit warring, personal attacks and battleground attitude on the article on Meša Selimović

July 29 Revert with edit summary "It's very disrespectful that Bosniak ultranationalists on Wikipedia are trying to distort this man's nationality". Ethnically based personal attacks. For the record, I am neither a "Bosniak" nor an "ultranationalist"
August 15 The edit summary used by Dukisuzuki is: "I don't give a shit about your faggot talk page you fucking baby-brained retard. Maybe if you could understand the language of this author that you are so keen on fucking with, you would realize..." Hmm so let's see. "faggot". "fucking baby-brained retard". So violation of NPA and homophobic language too boot ... the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is almost a side issue.
August 15 This edit removes another editor's (mine) comment from the talk page and also states "I don't give a shit about your notice, posting a notice does not allow you to rewrite history."

The "notice" refers to the big notice on top of the talk page which states: "By a long-standing consensus, and a Wikipedia guideline, Selimović is defined as a "Yugoslav writer" in the lead section, as his (disputed) ethnic affiliation is not directly relevant for his notability as a writer. Please review the talk page archives for endless debates on the subject before starting a new one." I pointed this out to Dukisuzuki and this is his response.

But ok, these edits were made before Dukisuzuki received a discretionary sanctions warning yet. I gave it here [60], on August 18.

Dukisuzuki kept on edit warring on the article, kept removing my comment from the talk page, and kept reposting his "I don't give a shit..." comment:

Talk page:

Continued edit warring against multiple users AFTER Dukisuzuki was made aware of the notice on top of the talk page and AFTER they were given a discretionary sanction notification:

August 20 Edit summary: "... Idiots like NoneSuchUser..."
August 20 WP:BATTLEGROUND

I should note that Dukisuzuki has continued to engage in tendentious editing even after this report was filed, and even after they have commented here:

changing "Yugoslav" to "Serb" in the article on Death and the Dervish
changing "Serbo-Croatian" to "Serbian" in the same article.

Added on 8/21

Below Dukisuzuki says "I now understand the error of my ways". This pretty much evidences that they haven't.

Oh yeah, also, I may as well state explicitly that I am not the same person as User:No such user and have no idea who they are. These accusations of sockpuppetry by Dukisuzuki are completely unwarrented and just more evidence of their battleground attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And more [61].Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on August 18

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a pretty straight forward case of WP:NOTHERE.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

Discussion concerning Dukisuzuki

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 Dukisuzuki

There is nothing tendentious about my editing as evidenced by the following quote by Mesa Selimovic: "Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi" -> TRANSLATION: I COME FROM A MUSLIM FAMILY FROM BOSNIA, BUT BY ETHNICITY I AM A SERB. I BELONG TO SERBIAN LITERATURE

The context of this situation must be understood in order to comprehend my insults towards Volunteer Marek. Marek wrongly edited the ethnicity of a person who explicitly stated his ethnicity in a letter to the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences because he knew that there would be politically-fuelled historiographical revisionism regarding his ethnicity after his death. His ethnicity is and was one of the key details regarding the legitimacy of major political actions, wars, the deaths of thousands of people including some of my personal relatives, and his own literary works because they discuss ethnic questions in the Balkans. This is why I reacted so passionately to Marek's ignorance and intentional censorship of my citation referencing the specific letter included in the author's autobiography "Sjecanja" where he states his ethnicity and the language in which he wrote his works. I was also frustrated by Marek's sense of entitlement to censor my contribution with no explanation seemingly simply because he spends more time on Wikipedia than I do and my contribution did not fit his political narrative.

I reacted passionately to "None Such User" because he called me a "nationalist crap", and also because he was acting the same way as Marek was; censoring all of the citations I added to the article with no explanation for his action. I would not be surprised if VolunteerMarek and NoneSuchUser were two usernames that belonged to the same person.

I now understand the error of my ways, i.e that personal insults and harsh words are not allowed when addressing other users on Wikipedia, and that I shouldn't address users directly but rather solely talk about their content. I admit now that I didn't know the importance of this site's etiquette before this incident: especially Talk page etiquette. I will refrain from using harsh words and personal insults when addressing other users from now on, even if they use harsh words against me. I will also refrain from writing over users' comments in the talk page to respond to their content - in the future I will instead make another section in the talk page to address what they have written.

Dukisuzuki (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CONTENT OF MY EDITS OF THE ARTICLE APART FROM THE PASSIONATE REMARKS DIRECTED TO VOLUNTEER MAREK/NONESUCHUSER I LEFT IN THE EDIT SUMMARY. MY EDITS ARE AND WERE CONSTRUCTIVE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE READERS OF THE ARTICLE. HERE IS THE SPECIFIC QUOTE FROM MESA SELIMOVIC HIMSELF WHICH PROVES ME RIGHT: "Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi" -> TRANSLATION: I COME FROM A MUSLIM FAMILY FROM BOSNIA, BUT BY ETHNICITY I AM A SERB. I BELONG TO SERBIAN LITERATURE

Statement by EvergreenFir

Given the updated language at WP:HARASS, an indef is more than warranted here.

Statement by No such user

Ahem. While I used to criticize AE for bringing rush decisions, I believe we have a clearcut case of WP:NOTHERE and an apparent consensus of administrators. Can somebody please close this? No such user (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dukisuzuki

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

Indef? I'm not sure there's much point in going through the whole DS dance. T. Canens (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with an indefinite block. The tone of his edit summaries and talk posts doesn't suggest he is here to improve the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The August 15 comment alone justifies an indefinite block. Gamaliel (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeffed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman

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 Settleman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Settleman (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: WP:ARBPIA, "general 1RR restriction"

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

20 August 2015 14:00. This edit is a revert by virtue of substantially repeating this edit, which adds the paragraph that begins "According to Regavim...". Both edits are intended to convey the notion that the village did not really exist before 1986. No talk-page consensus supports doing this.
21 August 2015 7:56, straightforward deletion of text added by another editor

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I ask that the 1RR violation be dealt with on its own "merits"; the editor has participated on the talk page Talk:Susya and has therefore undoubtedly seen the prominent notice about "active arbitration remedies". There are other issues of POV-PUSHING we might consider; I think this editor is mainly interested in placing the work of Regavim (NGO) on relevant articles here, and if we don't deal with that issue now we'll likely have to do so soon. I'm also convinced that this editor lacks the constructive attitude necessary for editing in this area; one indication of this is this talk-page contribution, where the final sentence ("But they are fighting zionists so lying is not only acceptable but apparently encyclopedic") is a direct attack on the contributions of other editors -- it indicates Settleman's view that other editors believe that it is acceptable for organisations opposed to Regavim to "lie". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A recent talk page comment reinforces the impression that the editor is here with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude: "Repeating the same speech again and again doesn't make you right, just obnoxious." It also shows the extent of disagreement about this issue that persists on the talk page even now; the notion that Settleman acted per a consensus is simply false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman now says that I have not been active at Susya, nor at Grant Shapps which is the article related to the other AE report I filed. Both claims are untrue; Settleman should strike/retract them. (It's not up to me to demonstrate that they're false; it's up to Settleman to demonstrate that they're true.) Anyway, the real cause for concern is when someone is over-active at an article, i.e., edit-warring... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [63]

Discussion concerning Settleman

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 Settleman

Technically I guess I'm at fault but the first edit was a result of a long discussion with Kingsindian and Nishidani which I took for an agreement.

The POV-PUSHING issue it very good description of what I'm doing as I try to change this article from saying "settlers expeled Palestinians many times" to sometimes that is less simplistic and more accurate.

It is interesting a user who didn't participate in the conversation takes the time the analyze the tone I use and even gets deeply insulted. Settleman (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: Please note additional discussion on RSN. Settleman (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I appreciate your vote. I think full protection will not be constructive. Editors are having good, even if heated, discussions on the talk page and I believe they will all agree the page had evolved in a significant way during the past month. This complaint was filed by an editor with minimal (more like non-existing) contribution who have since filed another complaint for a page on which he isn't active. This is quite a disruptive behavior that does nothing but wasting time (unless it is his official function???). Settleman (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: You know other editors can see what I said and that you're twisting my words, right? I wrote your contribution was minimal to not existing. You filed this complaint after deleting text in discussion on both the talk page and RSN. 32 hrs later you drop a line in RSN and BOOM, a complaint. Is it 'active'? Sure. Is in constructive? Not in my opinion. Settleman (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Don't recruit 'soldiers' (So, can someone undo "Settleman", please?) and you won't be blamed for declaring a war. Settleman (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

While this is a technical WP:1RR violation, and I do think Settleman has a rather obvious POV (I do too, quite his opposite one, and so does everyone in this area), I think Settleman's edits are almost all in good faith. The first edit was made after extensive discussion on the talk page, and had a rough, though not total consensus. See Talk:Susya#RHR_and_b.27tselem_as_RS and many other sections on the talk page. Whatever his real world motive might be, his edits on WP are by and large quite legitimate. This should first have been discussed on the Settleman's user talk page, and if he refused to revert, only then brought here. It is very easy to break WP:1RR in this area, even by mistake. See, for example here, where I broke it by mistake (though the editor who warned me was a sock, that is irrelevant), and here, where I only warned the editor, though he refused to revert. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: To clarify the content issue here. The discussion on the talk page is about two kinds of sources. First, Regavim (NGO), and second Rabbis for Human Rights, B'Tselem, etc. The first edit only pertains to the Regavim source. The rough consensus was to use it with attribution, which is what Settleman did in the first diff. The point which Nomoskedasticity is talking about, pertains to the use of the other sources and is Settleman's second diff. Both are reverts, technically, the first one had a rough consensus, the second one does not. The second issue is still being discussed on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

In cases where an edit is made as a result of talk page discussions, it is clearly not in the same class as a "gotcha" for making an undiscussed revert. WP:CONSENSUS supports the use of "compromise language" discussed on a talk page in search of a consensus, and to make that concept void for the sake of someone being able to say "you addition of 'the' in the lead is a clear 1RR violation - you gonna get banned" would make a mockery of what "compromise discussions" should result in. (Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately) Collect (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

My view is similar to that of Kingsindian. Although Settleman edits with a strong POV, often at odds with mine, he doesn't fit the standard pattern of armchair activist that the Mideast area of the encyclopaedia is beset by. For a first 1RR violation I'd recommend an official warning as the appropriate response. Zero^talk 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Settleman has from his first edit shown classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, latest today, with this edit: "Your request above is a 'declaration of war'." He has also been involved "slow" edit-war on other articles (besides Susya):

2:01, 24 August 2015 remove material
12:01, 24 August 2015 remove same material.

Huldra (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Georgewilliamherbert: firstly, AFAIK I have edited 2 articles with Settleman: Susya and Regavim (NGO). Susya I edited first 27 June 2014; long before "Settleman" was made as an account. The Regavim (NGO) -article I found because I regularly "stalk" Nishidani and Zero000 (Yes! I admit it!), and they had both edited the article extensively.

As for my warning "A-I alert / DS warning June 15." ; this is the first I hear about it, and there is no indication of that on my talk-page. Huldra (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Settleman

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

I don't think acting on the basis of a talk page consensus, subsequent to a single independent revert, is a 2nd revert in a reasonable sense. if that 'screally all it was I'd say not actionable. But I want to inspect the details. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingsindian - Ok, yes I see that. But the restriction is on more than 1RR, which would require that we count the first one (which though technically a revert was discussed and consensused first, correct?). I'm viewing this as a case where the first edit is a consensus change which goes to an earlier version, not a "revert" per se. 1RR (and the more general 3RR) are intended to stop disruptive edit warring; the first one is evidently by all review an OK change, the second one perhaps not but has not been fought over just talked over, correct? Basically, I am leaning towards us just calling the first one an edit, and the second one the policy-limited 1RR, and lacking further disruption we call it a day. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Huldra, you certainly are following him around a lot. Your edit he responded to was not as explicit but contained a bunch of WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. And you received a A-I alert / DS warning June 15. Are you sure you want to keep pushing these buttons?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - (for others) The log date was June 18 not 15, my mistake, but some tech error happened between thr log and page history. Separate discussions snd email to Arbcom unrelated to Settleman. See my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favor closing this with no block of User:Settleman but would recommend two weeks of full protection for the Susya article. The protection could be lifted once consensus is found on the talk page for the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

Consensus is that this request is not actionable. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2015 (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 Collect

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2600:1000:B025:1B16:3EF:73E8:77D7:9C35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Collect (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/Collect_and_others#Collect_topic-banned_.28option_2.29 :

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

22 Aug 2015 Collect contributes to a deletion discussion regarding a photograph of Gary Hart, an American political figure. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace.
22 Aug 2015 Further contribution to the deletion discussion.
23 Aug 2015 Discusses the issue at WP:BLPN.
23 Aug 2015 Discusses the issue at the Village Pump.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13 July 2015 Collect was blocked for a week for violating his topic ban.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Gary Hart is a former US senator, two-time presidential candidate, and at present is the United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland appointed by President Obama. The photograph under discussion was a major contributor to Hart's withdrawal from the 1988 presidential race. Gary Hart is unquestionably a US political figure.

Also, yes, I'm an ip. No, I don't have an account. I'd appreciate it if my request can be evaluated on its merits. Collect is conducting breaching experiments to test the limits of his ban.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[64]

Discussion concerning Collect

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 Collect

Again asking for an investigation of this "anonymous" IP. No way is this a "new user" AFAICT. Not only is the issue of copyright ownership of a photo unrelated to "US politics" rationally construed, Gary Hart is not a current political figure at all, nor are any of my comments remotely construable as being political. I was accused of "crying 'harassment'" in the prior case - but I suggest this is a blatant case which should be dealt with promptly before this becomes a weekly show of stalking. Collect (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The issue of copyright ownership has absolutely nothing to do with any political issues whatsoever, nor did I make any comments on any pages other than those directly associated with the subject of deletion of an image for reasons of copyright. I suggest, moreover, that the IP who avers he is "not a registered editor" is absolutely engaged in stalking here, and failure to act concerning such stalking is unwise for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I specifically made zero comments about Hart whatsoever -- thus I made no comments "about" him. As for the belief that any page which mentions a political figure en passant is thus a "political page" - that is an insane position to take and implies I can never even post on UT Jimbo because someone may mention a political figure on that page. Deletion discussions have as a rule not been considered "political discussions" in the past, and to make all deletion discussions potentially political is unsupportable by any logic at all. Next I will be banned from RfA discussions because someone may mention a former politician in such a discussion? Or mention a "political article" somewhere in a lengthy discussion on reliable sources that I can not comment on reliable sources? I suggest copyright is about the least political topic imaginable anywhere, and that you should be more concerned with the blatant stalker than anything else. Collect (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix - I made no edits to any article or article talk page here - I noted copyright at a deletion discussion and on a proper Wikipedia discussion board, but zero edits on any political article or article discussion page. Just to be clear again I made no comments about Hart on any page whatsoever. Collect (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix Iterating - I did not make any comments whatsoever about the article. Period. Not once. The issue I dealt with is simple - does Rice have a clear copyright to a photo. That only. I did not mention anything whatsoever remotely connected to Hart or to his article other that the single quote from Cramer showing that Rice voluntarily gave the photo to another person. Is this sufficiently clear? (I never mentioned the article, never discussed the photo's use in any article, nor any rationale for fair use etc. - only the claim of copyright which was wrong.) Collect (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix I never even dealt with what was in the photo - if it were a photo of Mount Vernon my position on copyright would have exactly been the same - and you should note with candour that I never mentioned the nature of the photo in any post - dealing strictly with it on the basis of the claims for deletion which hinged on it being copyright by Rice. I also did state that the Miami Herald is generally considered a "reliable source" (having 20 Pulitzer Prizes) despite political arguments raised by the person seeking deletion of the photo. Collect (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

Second AE from an IP against Collect in a week... seems suspiciously like WP:STALK/WP:HOUND... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

(edit conflict) It is pretty chicken shit to be reporting these little infractions anonymously but this one is without question a violation of his topic ban the terms of which read "Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption." (Emp. mine) There is no excuse for Collect to be making the reported edits. A topic ban means stay away from the topic not see how close one can get to the fringes and not get sanctioned. The topic ban is not relating to current US political figures but all US political figures - as it is worded this means all the way back to George Washington, kind of silly but it is what it is. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: That is a reasonable stance to take and I would agree with it if we were talking about people who have not been part of the American political process or debate for many decades. Twelve years is still very recent in US politics. I do agree that the edits were really not political but that in not what the topic ban is about. The applicable wording is any page relating ... to US political figures ... in any namespace meaning ArbCom felt there was potential for disruption in that area. We are not, or should not, be debating whether disruption occurred or was likely to occur but whether the topic ban, as written, was broken. Bans are given out for a reason - in this case that the editor is likely to become disruptive within the area of US politics - continued testing of the boundries should be discouraged it will eventually lead to a repeat of the issues the ban was put in place to avoid. Jbh ^Talk 21:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I failed to make it clear above. I do not think Collect should be sanctioned here but he should be advised that this was a de facto violation of his ban even if unintentional. Collect is a valuable editor and has much to contribute. I do not, however, see how not acknowledging technical violations, once reported - however reported, is of long term benefit to the project.

I do not know how issues of IP harassment are typically handled but, in my opinion, Collect should provide a CheckUser with a list of potential editors via email and have them crosscheck with these addresses. While this not be typical procedure it probably should be and in any case it might be able to nip this in the bud before it becomes a bigger issue. Jbh ^Talk 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

"Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." The figure is of an ancient political figure, and Collect is clearly banned from Gary Hart's page or making an edit about Gary Hart. However, the file for deletion discussion is not a discussion about politics or political figures: it's about copyright, and Collect's edits were focussed on copyright issues. He mentions Rice but in the context of her owning the copyright; mention of Hart seems to be inside a quotation. Collect doesn't even come down as a keep or delete: Collect disputed arguments about Rice holding the copyright; Collect was silent on fair use. Collect may be testing boundaries, and he may want embarrassing photos of Hart published, but I would not ding him on this one. FWIW, I think the photo fails fair use, but Collect is adding valuable clarity to the debate. Glrx (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I'm sorry to say that, at least in my eyes, this has to be counted as being at least marginally political. I can see arguments that "diplomacy" and "politics" are unrelated, but I think that has to be counted as a bit of a stretch. Diplomats engage in government related work, and government generally qualifies as politics, broadly construed. Also, with at least one individual from roughly the same era, Biden, apparently actively considering running for president again, I don't think the argument that he has been grandfathered out of "politics" is well-based. He could well endorse one or another candidate in the race, as a formal candidate, and that would certainly be in the area of "politics." Having said all that, the nature of the existing sanction, to "politics," is itself problematic, as the definition of the term is itself open to question. Maybe particularly in this case, considering that the edit in question is from a discussion in which there seems to be some question of copyright violation. Maybe, at best, a statement from the AE enforcers about whether this is or is not within the scope of "politics," and, maybe, if so determined, a very short block, might be called for. BLP violations, in general, are not considered within the bounds of sanctions, and although I haven't gone into all the details of this case I would have to assume copyright violations might be similar to BLP in being outside the scope of regular sanctions. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix

This reporting-as-an-ip nonsense is incredibly petty and lame, and I think Collect is quite right to call for an SPI here. If the IP can be tied to another editor then that editor should obviously face some serious sanction.

That said; I'm sorry, but Hart is a former Senator and a political appointee of the Obama administration. If he's not a "political figure," then I'm a purple gorilla. And Collect's topic ban prohibits "making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." For Collect to ~~edit the talk page of this article or have anything to do with any disputes related to it~~ make comments about Hart, or related to his article is a crystal clear violation of his topic ban. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:, you're quite right about the talk page, my bad. I've struck that bit. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I can see your point, but in my mind wading into a debate over a photo of someone is pretty clearly an edit "about" the person in the photograph. Hopefully you can see how/why someone might reasonably hold that position. Anyways, it's for the admins here to judge, not me. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I also request that a Checkuser look into the filing IP, in relation to existing or past accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by another editor

Result concerning Collect

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

Hart has not been in politics per se for decades, though he remains politically affiliated (current work is diplomatic in nature). I think this is further from the explicit ban area than the July incident which was ruled a breaching experiment against the topic ban. It's not cleanly away from the area, but also far further removed. That said... The particular thing being edited about seems related to the prior political career. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jbhunley - At some point it stops being politics and becomes history. The case that Hart remains tangentally political is valid, but his last discussions of office were 12 years ago. This photo was regarding something 28 years old. I believe that those are historical. Discussing Pres Carter's cancer would be a hypothetical clearly historical action. But other uninvolved admins need to weigh in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The OP should be sanctioned for abuse of process. Collect has not violated the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hart is a political figure, but Collect's discussion was restricted to copyright issues. It would be absurd to sanction Collect for these comments. This strikes me as a frivolous request. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Gamaliel. This complaint also strikes me as being made in bad faith. The filer is clearly someone trying to evade scrutiny while attempting to seek action against another Wikipedian. Poor form, use your regular account to complain about others if it is not already blocked. Chillum 22:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No action warranted. Let's close this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin

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 Arthur Rubin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Arthur Rubin (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/Tea_Party_movement#Discretionary_sanctions 5 September 2013
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned 5 September 2013
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#August_2014_.28Arthur_Rubin.29 Arthur Rubin amendment 23 August 2014

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

Disruption of an Request for Comment process through deletion of RfC notices and RfC notice updates for Tea party movement-related RfCs notices prior to the expiration of the RfC discussion period.

24 July 2015 deletion of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article (Americans for Prosperity) from noticeboard WP:RSN with edit summary "Spam"
27 July 2015 removal via OneClickArchiver of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article from the talk page of a closely related Tea party movement article (Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, which is listed at Americans for Prosperity#See also)
31 July 2015 deletion of an update to an RfC notice, providing a close date, regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:NPOV
31 July 2015 deletion of an update to an RfC notice, providing a close date, regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:ORN
31 July 2015 removal via OneClickArchiver of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:RSN

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

5 September 2013 Topic ban as party to Tea Party Movement case
14 December 2013 blocked for violation of Tea Party movement topic ban at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers
block log
23 August 2014 Amendment request; TBan lifted; indefinite 1RR imposed, with appeal available August 2015

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Tea Party Movement Final Decision.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see 14 December 2013 and the block log.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 December 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 23 August 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:RFC specifically authorizes RfC notices to one or more noticeboards and the talk pages of closely-related articles. WP:Discussion_notices#Best practices states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and identifies "setting a time for the discussion to end" as a best practice. An administrator of our project failing to model best practices, as expected of all editors in an area of general and discretionary sanctions, emboldens other editors and is seriously frustrating the goals of the Tea Party movement and American Politics final decisions in fostering an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. The reported user's amended remedy has proven ineffective. Respectfully request review of the reported behavior, re-evaluation of the amended remedy, and consideration of a re-instatement of the topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Arbitration enforcement request notice

Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin

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 Arthur Rubin

Hugh already brought this matter up. I can't help it that it got archived without a response from an uninvolved admin. I haven't kept track of Hugh's topic ban, but if it hasn't expired, this is in violation.

As for the edits in question, as far as I can recall, nobody but Hugh ever commented the the edits of his that I reverted weren't spam; technically, making announcements on unrelated pages might not be a violation of WP:CANVASS, but it is still improper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC does state that announcements of an RfC may be made in various locations, and update announcements may be appropriate, but I'm almost sure that noone has ever posted an RfC notice on all such locations (except WikiProject Conservatism, but including the talk page of an unrelated article and a noticeboard unrelated to this RfC, although one in which the article had been mentioned). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh should have mentioned his topic ban, and it clearly would have applied to this complaint. I think, though, I need to request permission to redact parts of my statement which have been shown to be inaccurate. I need permission because Fyddlestix replied to them, and it would make those parts of his comment look misguided. (I was going to ping GeorgeWilliamHerbert about the topic ban when I got home; I have not figured out how to paste diffs on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix

I'm not gonna comment on whether or not Arthur needs sanctioning here, but I will say that the drama between Hugh, Arthur, and a few other editors (Springee springs to mind) seems to be getting out of control - I really think that admin action is needed to fix this, or it's going to just drag on and on.

See Hugh's previous report of Arthur here [65], the multiple ANI complaints against Hugh (only 1 of which led to any action)[66][67][68], Hugh's own noticeboard complaints [69][70][71][72] and the current report of Hugh at 3RR by Springee [73] - note especially the allegation there that Hugh is being followed from article to article by a few other editors, including Arthur (as I've commented there, I think there's actually some evidence of this).

All that just over this summer, all involving more or less the same small circle of editors, and focusing on a small number of articles like Americans for Prosperity, which was paralyzed for a month by this complete disaster of an RFC. It's a mess; these editors are clearly not even trying to get along, and some of them are clearly "out to get" each other at this point. It needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin:, Hugh did already make a complaint against you here (it's here), but that was about an entirely different issue (namely, NPOV tagging/tag removal). You're incorrect to suggest that nobody ever suggested the posts weren't spam, see the several people defending them when his edits were raised at ANI. As for Hugh's topic ban, it is here. It applied only to "anything related" to Americans for Prosperity, and included "any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever." It was a 2 week ban, imposed August 8, so basically 14 days ago. (@Georgewilliamherbert:, there's your answer, it looks as though Hugh thought he was topic banned from raising this until today.) Fyddlestix (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HughD

@Georgewilliamherbert: An administrator recently recommended stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks, and I took the advice. After reflection, there was still something that needed to be done. The behavior of an administrator of our project is a very real impediment to fostering civility in the area of the Tea Party movement final decision, please help. I was not sure if an AE filing would be a violation, but I was very sure some would argue it was, as demonstrated by the reported user's initial response to this filing, now deleted, please see 23:11, 23 August 2015. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: This filing is reporting disruptive editing, by an administrator of our project, who is currently under editor sanctions, in an area under general and discretionary sanctions. This filing makes no reference to content and is not a content dispute. Other editors are influenced by the behavior of the reported administrator in deciding how far they can push within the bounds of our Arbitration Committee's directives to us to be "especially mindful" of policy and behavioral guidelines and to "follow editorial and behavioural best practice". This is a very real problem. Please help. Thank you for your careful consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, @Newyorkbrad: May I respectfully ask, what is the statute of limitations on reports of multiple deletions of RfC notices by an administrator of our project while under editor sanctions in an area under general and discretionary sanctions, approximately? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Arthur Rubin

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

Why... Are these being made three weeks later?... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that I am the only one sick of the constant dramas around Hugh's editing. This request is a rather obvious abuse of process in an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Is a sanction in order for this? For example a six month ban from use of Wikipedia process against other editors with whom Hugh is in dispute? Hugh: in response to your point, insert "long stale" and see how that reads back to you. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as stale, which is not to say it would have been a violation if it weren't stale, but Arthur Rubin could usefully be mindful of the concerns expressed going forward. I hear JzG's point about potentially sanctioning the filing part, but at this point I'm not inclined to pursue that either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take serious objection to one comment by HughD. There was no admin "recommended[ing] stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks," and HughD following good advice. I explicitly imposed a topic ban on HughD from the article for two weeks due to a large amount of disruption which resulted in more arguing by HughD at ANI about the ban itself and then a re-iterated comment that any argument about the topic ban would result in a block. I'm staying largely uninvolved but that's not encouraging. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that's not encouraging, take a look at the Americans for Prosperity since Hugh's topic ban has expired, where he has gone directly back to POV pushing on the page, now that other editors have grown tired of his wall of comments on numerous pages. Another editor has even removed the POV tag from the page, even though the POV is even more slanted now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

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 Collect

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Collect (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: Collect and others, "Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period."

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

23 August 2015, 17:55 Straightforward deletion, removing material added in this edit (with subsequent minor amendments by other editors)
24 August 2015, 12:54 Straightforward deletion after the material was restored following the first deletion, well within a 24-hour period

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See block log...

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Having been banned from US politics, Collect appears to be heading towards the same sort of trouble with UK politics. Be that as it may, there's an obvious violation of 1RR here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brustopher: Collect's sanction offers the following exception: "This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism." It does not include an exception for BLP violations. The reason for this is that Collect has repeatedly and routinely abused the notion of BLP exceptions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brustopher, if you'd like to modify the sanction, there's a process for proposing that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is now touting his "BLP defender" credentials. Let's revisit what the Arbcomm decision said: "Collect's article edits are indicative of incorporating a non-neutral point of view, including added poorly sourced negative materials to certain biographies of living persons". We've been here before: the project is not well-served by having Collect edit-war on BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Report now includes the edit that corresponds to Collect's first revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [74]

Discussion concerning Collect

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 Collect

Again. The question here is clearly whether a source that states "Extracts of the get-rich-quick scheme created by the Conservative Party chairman, Grant Shapps, were revealed for the first time last night since it disappeared from the internet." (The Independent) and "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme. It just sounds like one." (The Guardian) should be given a section title of Alleged pyramid scheme since neither source makes that allegation, and a "pyramid scheme" is a criminal offence in the UK. Per WP:BLPCRIME, allegations of a criminal act require strong sourcing, and neither source makes the allegation. I consider "neither source making an allegation" meets the criterion of "unsourced or poorly sourced" accusation of criminal acts. I posted the concern immediately at the proper noticeboard, as is required. [75]. My two BLP edits on the article were at 12:54 24 August and at 17:53 on 23 August, with posts to the OP at [76] 23:20 23 August, indicating the BLP issue, and [77] 23:22 on 23 August. One might recall I have had a number of AE "suits filed" in the past three days, and I suggest that the BLP issue here is real and substantive - involving making an unsubstantiated claim that a person promoted a "pyramid scheme" when neither source made such an allegation. Collect (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request RevDel of the attack 'The reason for this is that Collect has repeatedly and routinely abused the notion of BLP exceptions noting that the OP has routinely and repeatedly made that accusation at WP:ANEW and the findings there have generally found that BLP issues did exist. [78] where the finding was the material was likely BLP violative but I had not specified WP:BLP in each summary; [79] where the issue was whether calling a person or group "homophobe" in Wikipedia's voice was proper - later decisions have made clear that calling anyone a "homophobe" is a contentious claim, and is opinion, and so on. I tend to, in fact, be pretty good at treating BLP as a serious matter - no matter who is involved (vide Jeremy Corbyn etc. ) FWIW, the OP seems to follow me a great deal (sigh) Collect (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for reminding folks that I went to Europe this year (Hermitage etc.) and was absolutely unable to provide full rebuttals at all to the "evidence" in that case, and that I was barred from providing evidence later. Amazingly enough, when one is unable to actually answer charges, and is forbidden to rebut them when one becomes able to do so, it is a teensy bit easier for "decisions" which assume that the lack of rebuttal meant the charges were not contested. But I am sure everyone appreciates your claims that I am a BLP villain of the first water <g>. But what the ... does this have to do with your assertion here that saying someone is alleged to commit a crime when the sources do not say that? Collect (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH - I noted from the get-go that I was going to be away for a substantial period unless you happened to miss all of that. and asked I be given until July to prepare full responses. (reasons include the extended trip and a minor problem called melanoma for which my wife lost about 800 cc of her arm) Recall -- I had presented no evidence against anyone, so my first section was addressing what had been the charges - - while I was unable to even log in, other "evidence" was presented which there was no way in hell I could rebut because I was not around to do so. Had I been given until July, I would have rebutted the thin evidence presented just as I had rebutted all the initial charges (that I called an editor anti-Semitic was one which rankled a lot!). So now that you assert that my trip to Russia was "bull" I know your position all too well (sigh). So I suppose you feel it is ok to label a person an "alleged criminal" - noting that I did indeed go to BLP/N with the issue? Really? Alleging that someone committed a felony is a big deal. Period. Now I would be impolite left to my own here - but I shall avoid that temptation -- and wish your wife the same health my wife will hopefully have. Collect (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request JBHunley be IBanned from mentioning me in any namespace. He has made specific false claims about me. [80] is clear that I would be unable to do much at all until 15 June 2015. [81] ditto. If those posts were not clear to anyone with eyes at all, then I damn well should give in to the infernal harassment which I have mentioned in probably too many places. To be clear - jbh is not the record holder.

Evidence provided of "harassment" (I have over two hundred other diffs if you need them) (editor is easily inferred)

[82] *I'd also invite Collect to provide a diff for the assertion that someone has called him "anti-Semitic" -- that's a serious accusation, and if it's true then there should be a sanction which was odd as I have never on any post said anyone called me "anti-Semitic" at all.

[83] We now have the proposer opposing his own RfC -- so to avoid any further ridiculousness... hatting an open RfC - and I find no rule saying a person posing a question must have a specific answer to the question. [84] since you have a well-entrenched habit of trying to put words into the mouths of other editors, I've decided not to worry about it when you do that to me. Have fun

Consider the likelihood of two editors just accidentally editing the same page within the timeframe indicated: (FWIW - the time difference is generally between my edit and the subsequent edit of my stalker as in some cases it was not a blatant response to my edit or were in different matter on a noticeboard etc.)

Min time between edits

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 25 seconds
Breitbart (website) 56 seconds
Talk:Pamela Geller 59 seconds
Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot 1 minutes
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 1 minutes
Campaign for "santorum" neologism 1 minutes
Talk:Outrage (2009 film) 1 minutes
Talk:Michael Grimm (politician) 1 minutes
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 1 minutes
Marco Rubio 2 minutes
Talk:Marco Rubio 2 minutes [85] "never heard of talkingpointsmemo" on 21 Nov 2012 ... when he posted in a discussion about sources in 2010 which included it in a list)
Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) 2 minutes
Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines 2 minutes (super example)
James Delingpole 2 minutes (blatant)
Talk:Chip Rogers 3 minutes
Talk:Robert Kagan 3 minutes
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 3 minutes
Michael Grimm (politician) 3 minutes
Talk:Rick Santorum 3 minutes

19 pages all with a maximum of 3 minutes between editor interactions with my edit being first - what are the odds? Especially considering some comments therein. -- if this is not prima facie evidence of my edits being specifically stalked, I do not know what would be evidence. Collect (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it does not look like your interactions is because it is the interactions with the OP here - it would be improper for me to address your edits, but reasonable here to show a handful of his edits. I would have a heart attack if you two were the same person <g>. Collect (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish - I had no intention or relitigating anything - but disliked having a person call me a liar where I show the diffs that I said I would not be able to complete evidence in the allowed timeframe. I know I should have told my wife not to have a life-threatening cancer, but I did not think that would be effective, even if we used homeopathic remedies. As a result, I did not have a reasonable opportunity to rebut multiple sets of "evidence" and noted that some wished most of what I did give to be removed as being over the evidence limit <g>. Amazingly enough, cancer is more important than Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to anyone offended - one might get a teeny bit curt with back to back to back accusations, followed by added accusations of lying about asking for added time in the past, and the like. I would kindly ask others to walk in my moccasins, as the adage goes, to see why I might be curt here. Thank you all. Collect (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brustopher

The information reverted is a completely vacuous accusation of a crime which only has a single paragraph of a news article dedicated to it, in which it is written "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme." Obvious BLP exception. Brustopher (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: Well he's not abusing them right now, and WP:IAR exists for a reason. If anything the more serious issue here is you reverting back very weakly sourced allegations of criminal activity into a BLP, from sources that technically don't even allege a crime. Brustopher (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, what I'd like is for us to approach the situation reasonably. If what Collect did improved the encyclopedia who cares if it's breaking a rule? Brustopher (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

You admins who frequent this page more than me probably know this better, but I am getting the impression, oh, I don't know, that maybe, just maybe mind you, Collect is getting a little more attention than most editors in general get around here, this being at the time of this writing the 3rd section of a total of 7 on the page about Collect. I would be the first to acknowledge that if someone is topic banned from an area of content, it would probably be a good idea to avoid that content, even in terms of BLP, copyright, and other issues. The fact that there are so many complaints might indicate that maybe Collect might benefit from a polite warning that maybe he would be well advised to less obviously dance along the dividing line between sanctionable and unsanctionable here, and, maybe, if there is any sort of (gasp) organized or disorganized "let's get Collect" movement here, maybe in anticipation of the increasingly covered US election races, maybe a bit of warning to others about too dogged pursuit of him might not be a bad idea either. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I think that much of what John Carter said directly above me is very sensible, and I largely agree. However, it seems to me that the sanction in question makes an exception, explicitly, only for unambiguous vandalism. The content that was reverted was not unambiguous vandalism. This is a content dispute with BLP concerns, but it is not a case of vandalism. It does raise BLP issues, and there was nothing wrong with Collect drawing attention to those concerns without actually making repeat reverts. There are multiple editors who could have actually performed the reversions in this case. The BLP issues do not meet the definition of unambiguous vandalism, particularly in the context of ArbCom's findings in the case, regarding the use of BLP as a justification for edits. I think that this AE filing, unlike the two very recent filings by an IP, does show an attempt by Collect to test limits. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, it would be a good idea for editors to focus on the filed claim here, and not engage in a general discussion that re-litigates the ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins: I think that Floquenbeam's question to Georgewilliamherbert and Newyorkbrad is the right question. The case in point is not a "kicks puppies" issue, but rather a genuine content dispute with BLP playing a role in deciding how to resolve it. The decision at ArbCom was explicit about finding that Collect had misused BLP claims, and the sanction was deliberately created so as not to give exceptions for BLP enforcement. It seems to me that the just-closed final decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement is pretty clear in that, although it encourages administrator discretion at AE, it discourages administrators from having "the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision." I think that ArbCom was quite clear in saying that "I was doing it because of BLP" would not be an acceptable excuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

Not directly pertinent to this particular event but whenever his sanction is brought up seriously Collect claims he was prevented from presenting evidence at ArbCom. That is absolute bull. He spent the entire evidence phase repeatedly stating that he would not present any evidence

In response to the Case notification he wrote. "Please note that I shall proffer no evidence on any arbitration case." [86]
Ammended to "Please note that I shall proffer no additional evidence on any arbitration case. This page, in itself, is all the evidence I shall provide." [87]
"...kindly note that I shall not provide any statement nor evidence not present on this user talk page. " [88] (Which he did. See his talk page)
Again he makes it pretty clear that he was not going to participate in the Evidence Phase but was going to defend himself on his talk page "If you (ArbCom) wish to copy the entire pertinent material from this page and consider it "evidence" kindly do so, but do not expect me to suddenly change course and do so for you. "

There is more, it was kind of a theme. There is even an entire section in the case on Collect's non-participation. He did however, later, present 3650 words of evidence. He bases his entire schtick of "not being able to defend himself" on the fact that ArbCom did not grant him a 2 month extension which he asked for in the final hours before the close of the evidence phase. He then used the refusal of this request to try to short circuit the ArbCom process (edit summary: proffer if I do not get until 1 July to answer all the "charges" made). However he spins it now he spent the entire evidence phase taking a 'principled stand', then near the close went over the evidence limit by ~75% and now complains that ArbCom did not give him an additional two months! Since this was a planned trip one would think he would have brought it up at the beginning of the case. Of course this way there is an injustice to claim to offset the sanctions. Jbh ^Talk 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I watched/participated in the events leading up to your case pretty closely and I do not recall you making any attempt to say you would be away and unable to participate before the time of the diff I linked. If you can show a diff of where you brought this to the attention of ArbCom and the other participants I will apologize and retract. Anyone who wants to read the history can and they will see you had enough time to carry on about the case on your talk page and to write a 3600 word response. As I said at the time I might have been inclined to support your request if you had made a good faith effort to address the evidence throughout the evidence phase. As the diffs show, you did not.
As to the BLP, what you are missing is that you are not the arbiter of BLP nor OR nor SYNTH nor anything at all except your opinion. We had a protracted case where this problem was addressed. No matter the BLP violation you can not violate your restrictions. That is the whole point of a bloody ban - it defines certain actions which you no longer may do. Jbh ^Talk 23:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The ArbCom case was created 23 March 2015 and the evidence phase closed 6 April 2015. You seem to have been pretty active throughout that time [89]. Jbh ^Talk 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: You do not get an IBAN just because you do not like what I have to say or because I point out areas where your claims are not fully congruent witth objective reality. Why do you not post an actual link to the editor interaction tool like this. It does not show what you have copy pasted nor have I edited most of the pages you mention at all. I strongly suggest you strike your false claims and apologize. Jbh ^Talk 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~You still must make it clear your accusations of harassment above have nothing to do with me.~~ The editor you dis not name is Nomoskedasticity, the diffs seem to be of his edits maybe the interaction times are as well but you imply otherwise. You asked for an IBAN with me based on a comment I made here which your diff shows was true then you load it up with a bunch of claims having nothing to do with me while making it look as if they do. That behavior appears very deceptive to me. If you want an IBAN present some real evidence. Jbh ^Talk 00:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However this goes, sanction - not - whatever, the end result will be some sort of drama if Collect manages to pull out a BLP exception to his restriction. Much of the conflict that was addressed in the case had to do with his ideas of "obvious" being at odds with many others view ie the very definition of not obvious. I fear wiggle room will become squirm room will become elbow room will become ArbCom drama fest. I do understand your positions, anyone should be able to revert obvious vandalism and BLP violations. However the whole reason we have restrictions and bans is that some editors have shown that their views of certain policies are not in line with the community's frequently enough that they cause disruption and therefore should be restricted from doing what "everyone can do". In this case Collect has shown he can assess "obvious vandalism" but, in enough cases to be disruptive, not "obvious BLP violations" hence the wording of his 1RR (Excepting obvious vandalism) restriction.

That said I think it would be right, as an exception, to not sanction Collect on this report but it needs to be made clear that if he violates 1RR again claiming BLP he will be sanctioned. Jbh ^Talk 01:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Fyddlestix)

Oh dear, we seem to have gone off the rails a bit here. There's no need for rev dels or IBANs that I can see, Collect and JBH are quite capable of getting along - when they're not discussing the ArbCom case - and have worked cooperatively together in the past.

Collect, if you feel that nomo is harassing you you should probably raise the matter at ANI. One thing, though: have you considered the possibility that both you and nomo just watch BLPN really closely, and end up editing the same articles a lot because of that? I know that's often why you and I cross paths, and both you and nomo tend to be quite active there.

I note that Collect has announced that he's taking a wikibreak. Given that, the unusual situation of him having had 3 reports made against him on this page in a very short amount of time, his apology for (understandably) being a little bit testy, and just the general weirdness of this situation (with the IP reports), I personally think this would be a good time for us to cut Collect a break, and for everyone to just move on. It may be that Collect needs to be more careful with reverts and his topic ban - but the hassle of being reported here three times (twice anonymously) seems like more than enough of a reminder of that. Hopefully he will take a bit more care not to violate the restrictions ArbCom placed on him on his return, and I certainly hope that he won't face further anonymous complaints. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no one cares what I think - but FWIW I've changed my mind on this. I'm convinced by Floquenbeam and JBH's arguments that if we give Collect an inch here, he's likely to take a mile in the future. Using his own personal, often over-zealous interpretation of BLP to remove content he doesn't like is a long-standing issue with Collect, and one of the main reasons he ended up at ArbCom. Plus, I think Floquenbeam is right to worry that giving Collect a pass here will just give him an excuse to flaunt/ignore/undermine ArbCom's decision in the future. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Settleman

I'm new around here but it seems like Nomoskedasticity is more busy requests against other editors then editing. He wasted my time and now he wastes Collect's. It should be a policy that an editor cannot file these requests unless he has taken meaningful part of the conversation. Settleman (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

An easy part is the purpose here is not to relitigate but rather to enforce. The arbitration discussion did raise the issue of Collect improperly invoking BLP to serve a POV, and a finding had Collect removing reliably sourced material from a BLP. The remedy was 1RR. The remedy was followed by "This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism." The problem is 1RR already has implied exceptions for both vandalism and BLP. I don't read the remedy as excluding the BLP exception. If it intended that, it should excluded the exceptions rather than confirm them. (Sorry for wikilawyering here.)

BLP is, of course, a riskier play; it is safer to post a notice than to revert.

The reverted content gives me trouble. Let me accept that the content is reliably sourced by the Guardian. The content does waffle about a pyramid scheme, but it does describe something that could be a pyramid or a clever way to avoid some legal definition of one. For example, the story does not say the first buyer must share his profits with the original seller. Our article reflects that doubt; the allegation is not in WP's voice. The Guardian does not say the cost is $497 claimed in our article (where did that price come from? why are the prices in dollars?); the Guardian does say it promised making $20,000 in 20 days. Consequently, even if the product avoids the pyramid scheme label, it smells of fraud. The Guardian ties the creation of the product directly to Shapps even though Shapps has now transferred his share of the company to his wife.

I'd like more sources, but the controversy also seems to be part of the Grant Shapps#Pseudonym and second job denials section due to the pen name "Michael Green" (who also authored the $20,000 in 20 days guide). We come back to the Guardian, but there's another source, Buzzfeed (I'm not impressed), and a third source has video of Shapps making a statement that was later retracted. There are some other twists and turns about threatened lawsuits, but I don't have the patience to go through them.

It's thinly sourced, but I think the content survives and should not have been reverted twice.

Given the thinness, I'm reluctant to advocate a block, but Collect should have been more circumspect. I'll second John Carter. Glrx (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Collect

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

This is, on the face of it, a straightforward 1RR violation, but the article in question is a WP:BLP and the material is contentious to say the least. I would recommend that Collect is given a shot across the bows and counselled to take it to Talk. I don't think a block will achieve much, this is not an incident where it is worth using the nuclear option. I am inclined to assume good faith, in the knowledge that I may be in a minority in doing so - I agree entirely that it would be legitimate to sanction based ont his edit, I just don't think it's a particularly good idea given the content in question. Just as long as Collect does not repeat the edit ever - this should now be left to someone else. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad and Floquenbeam both make excellent points. I guess the consensus will be no block (which I think is correct), but I guess also that we should clarify to Collect that the 1RR has no exceptions other than obvious vandalism, and that even there he should err on the side of caution and hand it off to WP:ANI or some other suitable venue. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear 1RR violation; the question is whether BLP violations are intended to be exempt the way clear vandalism is. Considering the wording of the ArbCom remedy, and the fact that Collect's interpretation of BLP was a key issue in the case, that's a clear "no". If Collect wants a BLP exemption to the 1RR restriction, he'll need to request it at WP:ARCA. The question then becomes, is it reasonable to expect Collect to know that BLP is not an exemption to his 1RR restriction? If it was solely up to me, I'd say yes, and block for two weeks (since there's already been a one-week block for a previous violation of his restrictions). But I'm willing to defer to Guy and issue a clear warning instead. If Collect violates 1RR for anything other than obvious vandalism in the future, he'll be blocked for two weeks. If it was boundary-seeking, he found it. If not, then now he knows. If a consensus of other admins develops that this is blockable now, I explicitly don't oppose a block, I'm just inclined to defer to an admin who's already commented. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Floquenbeam that the 1RR has no BLP exception (expressio unius est exclusio alterius). I'm inclined to block. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unimpressed with Collect's conduct in the past, as obviously have ArbCom, but in this instance I don't think there's a case to answer. I don't see a 1RR violation—I can't find an edit that the first diff was reverting, and AE has previously decided that simply removing content is not evidence of a revert in and of itself. Secondly, Collect seems to have behaved entirely reasonably, and above the minimum standard of conduct—his removal was reverted; he reverted the revert with a detailed edit summary and then immediately took the matter to the talk page. It also helps that Collect appears to have honest and well-founded BLP concerns rather than this being a trivial content dispute. I note that the disputed material has been restored but has been partially rewritten in a way that should largely assuage Collect's concerns. I'm not impressed with the filer's conduct in knee-jerk reverting and then filing an AE request instead of engaging on the talk page. I'd suggest this be closed with no action and a recommendation to all parties to move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the sequences, though the BLP violation nature was discussed back and forth, I have a hard time concluding it was anything but a good faith belief that it was a BLP problem, not any boundary testing. There was certainly something BLP-edge in the content, which ever side of policy it landed on. I am sympathetic to suspicions that there's boundary testing, but in this instance the one removal, one revert back to removal with good edit summary and simultaneous taking to the talk page is exactly what we want any editor to do on a BLP issue. If Arbcom wants us to be stricter they can ammend with motion or somesuch. If Collect starts doing more obvious boundary tests or abusive editing again that's a different story and we can clearly act upon those. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert and Newyorkbrad:, it sounds like you're saying that since he really thought it was a BLP violation, it therefore couldn't be boundary testing, and therefore no block should be imposed. I'm happy to defer on the no-block decision, but it's important to clarify this for next time. To be clear: Collect does not have an exemption on his 1RR restriction for BLP violations; ArbCom limited it to obvious vandalism, specifically (I'm fairly sure) because his judgement regarding BLP was one of the issues in the case. Whether he's doing what we would normally want another editor to do is immaterial; normal editors are not subject to ArbCom-imposed 1RR restrictions. I believe it's also immaterial whether he thought it was a BLP violation or not, but it sounds like you're disagreeing. Are you saying that we should overlook it this time, but similar edits in the future should be sanctioned? Or are you saying that if he does this same type of edit again - two reverts on a BLP-related issue - you would again say it isn't boundary-testing, and therefore not blockable again? Please clarify or expand; I don't think it's in anyone's interests that it is unclear what is going to happen if he violates 1RR on BLP grounds again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone puts "[BLP subject] kicks puppies" into an article, I'm not going to support blocking any editor for removing it. If it's a less obvious BLP violation, I can see why they might be different, and I'll defer to the consensus here. But we will all look like dummies if bad BLP content stays in an article for a long time, and someone is able to legitimately claim "I would have removed or fixed that but I wasn't allowed to." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam: Arbcom didn't say "1RR" it said "1RR except for obvious vandalism", which starts to resemble the usual "3RR except obvious vandalism" which is then separately accounted as "3RR except obvious vandalism (or, clarified elsewhere, BLP violations)". Which to me makes the sanction look a lot like it was intended to mean "take 2RR off 3RR and proceed normally, with all that entails".

Look, if you want "1RR no exceptions" we can do that. We can block editors who remove obvious vandalism, obvious BLP issues, horrid personal attacks a second time after they have been sanctioned etc. AE is entirely capable of being as hardass as Arbcom insists it be. But, I don't support that, except in extreme cases.

Collect is an ongoing PITA on some levels and got case'd and sanctioned over it. But, we've had three cases that EITHER are people trying to hold him to the strictest level of the Arbcom sanction and hitting AE apathy, or are people trying to catch him out using sanctions that were borderline too grey and strict to work, and hitting AE trying to be reasonable. We're getting sanction requests over good edits. Which may look slightly longingly towards testing boundaries, but were still good edits.

If you think he's boundary testing, you're an admin, boundarize him. I don't agree, and the three recent filings were all fundamentally about good edits, and I won't over this stuff. If you want the enforcement to be stricter then Arbcom can quickly whip up a motion to make the sanction clearer or stricter, we'll abide by it, as long as it's enforcable.

"1RR except obvious vandalism" can be "1RR except obvious vandalism or BLP issues", or the other way "1RR except obvious vandalism, no exception for BLP issues", or even "1RR with no exceptions". Or 0RR.

AE has been exceptionally hardass on people in the past and was ill-liked as a result, resulting in unfortunate outcomes. I don't want that. I also don't want people ignoring or cheating on legitimate needed Arbcom restrictions and getting away with it. They were behaving badly and the findings were needed. Even a good edit can cross a clearly established restriction line, and I would react then (and have, and do, and will).

I don't want Collect misbehaving any more than you do. Actual misbehavior that was short of the restrictions and I'd be looking a lot harder.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both responses are disappointing; NYB's because it has almost nothing to do with the case at hand, and GWH's because it's playing games with the English language. I suppose the result is that eventually Collect is going to get blocked for a long period by an admin who interprets the ArbCom remedy as it is written, and then he will indignantly refer to your comments to explain why it was OK. I've no problem not being a "hardass" now, but I think you're setting him up for failure in the future, by explicitly encouraging him to violate a pretty clear ArbCom restriction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:: My response admittedly was discussing a general case rather than just this specific edit. @Collect:: Floquenbeam's concern is something you need to think about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2015 (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 625: / Line 625: @@
 * Decline as stale, which is not to say it would have been a violation if it weren't stale, but Arthur Rubin could usefully be mindful of the concerns expressed going forward. I hear JzG's point about potentially sanctioning the filing part, but at this point I'm not inclined to pursue that either. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I take serious objection to one comment by HughD. There was no admin "recommended[ing] stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks," and HughD following good advice. I explicitly [[User_talk:HughD#Topic_ban_imposition|imposed a topic ban]] on HughD from the article for two weeks due to a large amount of disruption which resulted in more arguing by HughD at ANI about the ban itself and then a re-iterated comment that any argument about the topic ban would result in a block. I'm staying largely uninvolved but that's not encouraging. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 00:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
+** If you think that's not encouraging, take a look at the Americans for Prosperity since Hugh's topic ban has expired, where he has gone directly back to POV pushing on the page, now that other editors have grown tired of his wall of comments on numerous pages. Another editor has even removed the POV tag from the page, even though the POV is even more slanted now. [[User:onel5969|<b><font color="#536895">Onel</font><font color="#FFB300">5969</font></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 ==Collect==

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