Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:55, 25 April 2020

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

Wikieditor19920

User:Wikieditor19920 is reminded to focus on article content, not editor conduct, in content disputes. ~Awilley (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2020 (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 Wikieditor19920

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zloyvolsheb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Remedies : Standard discretionary sanctions

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

14:15, 10 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:08, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:12, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:25, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:28, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:42, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Muboshgu.
17:28, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb and Muboshgu.
19:15, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
19:28, 12 April 2020 Zloyvolsheb to Wikieditor19920: "You need to stop personalizing disagreements and focus on the content, not the contributor."
20:33, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
21:13, 12 April 2020 Zloyvolsheb to Wikieditor19920: "I am going to once again ask you to tone it down. Next time you attack me for 'pushing POV' when the majority of editors here are opposed to what you propose I will report you."
21:42, 12 April 2020 Wikieditor19920: "If you don't want to be accused of POV pushing, don't make the talk page a forum for your personal evaluations.... This is blatantly non-compliant with WP:NPOV."
23:57, 12 April 2020 Yet more accusations of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb and The Four Deuces – after two warnings at the same page, same day.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[1] Wikieditor19920 blocked for disruptive editing at Talk:Ilhan Omar by Doug Weller on March 18.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [2] Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't been very involved with the Bernie Sanders article: in fact I made just three edits there before April 10. (Now four.) Specifically, I made a minor copy-edit to Bernie Sanders on 27 Feb [3], changed the portrait on 9 March [4], and removed several sentences regarding Sanders' comments on Cuba on 13 March [5]. After the revert I received a thanks notification from one contributor and support at the talk page from another, TFD. I made no more edits over roughly the next month when, on April 10, Wikieditor19920 suddenly came to my talk page to accuse me of "selective POV" because of that ONE revert on March 13: "This strongly resembles POV pushing and attempted whitewashing. I suggest you stop." [6].

Despite three out of five editors so far involved in the discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Cuba disagreeing with him, he has continued to accuse us (mostly myself) of pushing a POV. I asked him to not personalize and focus on the content. He persists. Wikieditor19920 was previously warned by admin Bishonen, who wrote below the DS alert

"If you continue to attack those with different opinions than yourself as dishonest, utterly biased, and sneaky, you may be topic banned from American politics." [7]

Maybe that's the appropriate remedy. I've had much more luck working productively with other people, and have never before dealt with someone whose every talk page reply includes an accusation of "selective POV" or "POV pushing" or "whitewashing" against another editor (diffs show over 10 attacks or accusations in just two days, some are minutes apart). That does not facilitate a content-focused discussion, and indicates a battleground mentality. I previously told him that any concerns about others' conduct belong at an administrator noticeboard, and explicitly encouraged him to seek that review if he found it necessary. [8]

I don't want to eliminate Wikieditor19920 as some kind of content opponent - he has a right to his views. But I would suggest at least some kind of further warning to Wikieditor19920 to avoid making any more personal accusations of POV pushing or similar (as in his latest talk page edit [9]), with the understanding that he will be blocked or topic banned if he continues his attacks. I am not interested in seeing a WP:BATTLEGROUND or personal attacks over disputed content.

Comment in response to Wikieditor19920's statement: Wikieditor19920 paints me as accepting one standard for "critical sources" about Biden and another for Sanders. Nope. I accept reliable sources for any article. The difference I see is the issue of WP:BALASP: in fact I supported excluding another controversy from the Biden article per WP:BALASP, and I already explained that to Wikieditor19920: [10]. Now three other participants at Talk:Bernie Sanders share the same view on Sanders (so 4 out of 6 participants), but even if I were a biased editor with different standards the article talk page would not be the venue to launch barrages like this.

Further comment: At Talk:Joe Biden, my comments were made in the context of how many reliable sources are needed to include an allegation. In that context I argued multiple RS are enough as per WP:BLP, coverage in specific sources like The NY Times not necessary. Some argued about the due weight of the sources, but not the due weight of an allegation of assault. No one raised WP:BALASP except in the section concerning Biden's high-school sit in, where I argued for not including a different controversy per WP:BALASP concerns. If I correctly understood the arguments, no one considered Reade's allegation as too minor of an event to include in Joe Biden's biography - some (e.g., TFD) argued it was too minor in terms of reliable source coverage, and I replied accordingly. At Talk:Bernie Sanders the principal objection to inclusion has not been insufficient coverage in WP:RS but WP:BALASP - in that case editors feel the controversy itself was too minor of a controversy to include in the article, despite multiple sources covering it. I happen to consider an allegation of assault more biographically significant than Sanders' remark about Cuba; in the first case, I think an allegation of sexual assault in itself is so significant to someone's biography that its coverage in multiple reliable sources merits inclusion. In the case of a controversial remark on 60 Minutes, I do not think that is biographically significant despite ephemeral coverage. I don't think that's a hypocritical position to hold, and I don't think it indicates "POV pushing" or "whitewashing" as Wikieditor19920 believes. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on misused diffs: Wikieditor19920, this [11] is a very clear misuse of diffs that makes it look like I said the opposite of what I said. I am assuming you made an honest mistake. You're pointing to this diff: [12] ("not covering anything was reported in the news"); please use the corrected diff [13] ("we are not covering just anything that was reported in the news"). Obviously that changes the meaning, let's try to be fair. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Stricken: Wikieditor19220 corrected as asked [14].[reply]

Response to Buffs: Actually, contrary to your statement, I wasn't very involved on the Bernie Sanders talk page before April 10 either. I had made only a few comments there, one when I made the revert on March 13. Notably, Wikieditor19920 did not joint the discussion there until April 10, when I asked him to use the article talk page. Instead he first came to my user talk page with an aggressive accusation of POV pushing. By the way, Wikieditor19920 recently made a better talk page contribution in response to a comment by Gandydancer. I am starting to appreciate his perspective better now that he's made that substantive comment and I'm rethinking my own, but that would have been much easier to do without the barrage of bad-faith accusations he's launched at me (and a few others) in the last three days.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning Wikieditor19920

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 Wikieditor19920

Zloyvolsheb is a regular at Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and shows a clear double standard editing controversies at both pages.

Diff Defends inclusion of Joe Biden sexual assault allegations based on coverage in multiple reliable sources. (Analysis that I agree with, because it is grounded in reliable sources.)
Diff At Sanders article, regarding the controversy over his remarks on Cuba and Castro, he sets a new standard: only if it has an impact on the race, not whether it is covered in reliable sources. He argues it did not have an impact and engages in some irrelevant, hard-to-follow polling analysis (all of this is presented as an argument for exclusion).
Diff At Biden, says that the NYT article was not necessary for inclusion, and that Intercept and Fox (second tier sources) are perfectly sufficient for inclusion of sex. assault allegations Diff.
Diff At Sanders, argues that a full-page article on the controversy in the NYT is insufficient for inclusion, and claims (without reference to a secondary source) that "Obama said the same thing" and provides link to a YouTube video.
Diff Sarcastic comments about "corporate media" as a response to other editor providing reliable sources supporting their point at Biden.
Diff At Biden, appears to properly rely on sourcing policy, unlike at Sanders, where subjective/political points are argued and reliable sources are unaddressed. Diff.
Diff Here, suggests that an editor is ignoring multiple RS on sexual assault allegations because it doesn't "align with their perspective." See more below.
Here and Here, makes arguments totally inconsistent with those made at Bernie Sanders about coverage in reliable sources being sufficient for inclusion. See Diff.

Additional diffs

Diff Opens a discussion about reinserting controversy on Biden inappropriate touching based on limited sources.
Diff Cites BLP and PUBLICFIGURE as requiring inclusion of controversies published in reliable sources; at Sanders, argues for exclusion of controversial remarks published in RS as insignificant. Diff.
Diff Proposes including criticism of Biden for legislation, provides one source. Contrast w/ arguments at Sanders dismissing reliable source coverage Diff.
Diff Critical comments on Biden's past controversies, suggesting he is unreliable (implicit expression of disfavor of the subject.) Contrast w/ sympathetic comments at Sanders defending him as wrongfully labeled controversial by "Democratic elites." Diff.
Diff Argues at Biden that just a few reliable sources, dealing with highly BLP sensitive material are sufficient; exact opposite points made at Sanders, and regarding less BLP sensitive material.

Zloyvolsheb suggests I attacked other editors. That wasn't my intent; I was critical of arguments that I saw as reflecting a POV at that page, and I believe this is borne out by the diffs. Zloyvolsheb claims they are not looking for a warning, but brought an AE report on our first interaction and demanded I not post on his talk page when I raised the above concerns with him. I might attribute Zloyvolsheb's arguments at Sanders to a lack of familiarity with policy, but his strongly argued points at Biden tell me that they know better. (Shortened from original.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Objective3000, Black Kite, Guerillero The suggestion that I "attacked" other editors is false and disproven by the diffs; I was clearly critical of arguments giving inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate reasons for removing reliably sourced content. Objective3000's accusations suffer from a similar lack of evidence, but this is an editor with an axe to grind who I've warned for stalking after apparently following me to discussions I have been involved in across WP to disagree with/criticize me (as he's doing here). Guerillero, I'd urge you to reconsider striking your comment. Zloyvolsheb claims that they do not intend to "eliminate an opponent," but they brought an AE on our first interaction, for what everyone here so far has agreed had little basis. Now threatened with BOOMERANG, user suddenly says they "appreciate my perspective," but this, too, strikes me as disingenuous.

Look at the disparity in arguments between Biden and Sanders for this user. User lists a host of conditions at Sanders[16] for including a simple controversy over remarks, which user argues meeting would make it "too long" and then therefore unsuited for the article. This was for a two-sentence explanation. At Biden, user sets a far lower standard for the most sensitive BLP content.[17]

Zloyvolsheb is reacting, retributively, to the fact that I correctly noted a bias on their end and called out their political arguments as inappropriate. This is a misuse of AE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Do not accuse me of making assertions about behavior, which is any editor's right to do (and which you are doing here), lightly. It's a fact I presented evidence on your talk page and raised a concern about WP:STALK previously. However, I'm not going to debate it with you further here or get baited into a petty back-and-forth with you, since we've been here before.

@Buffs: Appreciate the careful consideration of the talk page; I agree that sometimes inappropriate arguments aren't worth responding to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued bludgeoning, civil POV pushing by Zloyvolsheb I'm just going to note that here, Zlovyolsheb wrote approximately three full-length paragraphs at Talk:Bernie Sanders continuing to object to exclusion of the material and posing a litany of demanding questions about policies that they deftly cited at JB, basically bludgeoning the discussion, and, yet again, applying a totally opposite standard between the two pages for covering controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User continues to make specious arguments at Talk:Bernie Sanders, posing endless hypotheticals, making abstract and rambling summaries about policy, and then going to the Talk:Joe Biden page and engaging in the exact opposite behavior: applying a clear standard of reliable source coverage and then arguing for inclusion based on that. This report deserves a WP:BOOMERANG, not just for misusing AE, but for the filer's clear POV editing at of controversies Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. If anyone can find their explanation about this discrepancy in how they edit controversies convincing or sincere, I'd be shocked. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: I just want to clarify that Zloyvolsheb and I do not disagree on how to handle the Biden sexual assault info. Our disagreement was at the Bernie Sanders page; I noted their contributions because I believe they illustrate that this user is applying a double standard. I also find their arguments at Sanders to be tendentious. But I will accept your feedback and try to reframe my arguments as you suggest. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request I'd politely request that anyone reviewing this report also consider what I have provided evidence of here: evidence that Zloyvolsheb is indeed engaged in editing to further a POV, as shown by efforts to remove reference to controversies at the BS page with tendentious arguments and fervently advocating for inclusion of controversies at Joe Biden with policy arguments that they do not follow at the former. I will no longer call attention to these at the Bernie Sanders talk page, since I've been encouraged to focus on content not editors. I do believe this is an issue with this user warranting AE review. I will not open a separate report because I've already made my case here. This is not because I agree or disagree with them at either page: Indeed, while I disagree with them at Sanders, I agree with them at Biden. This is because I believe it's obvious that this user chooses to apply wholly different standards at these two pages and makes political, not policy based, arguments.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Wikieditor19920 has been accusing other editors of POV pushing on multiple pages for some time. They have threatened to report multiple editors to admins -- five or six times for me alone. Their attempts at such have all failed. IMO, a warning might result in a more pleasant atmosphere. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: Repeatedly falsely accusing someone of stalking is a personal attack. This habit of focusing on editors (e.g. claims of POV-pushing, stalking, threats of admin action) instead of content does not help development of consensus or make for a comfortable editing environment. And frankly, doesn't look good to make an attack in a paragraph denying that you make attacks. O3000 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never stalked anyone and I object to these repeated false accusations. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone suggest to Wikieditor19920 that edit summaries are not the place to make accusations?[18] And, again remind the editor to FOC? O3000 (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Request that Wikieditor19920's be directed to shorten his reply to the required 500 words...he's way over. Buffs (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Boomerang on the Zloyvolsheb. I'm seeing appropriate warnings here and dialogue here. It's also misleading to say he's only made 4 edits on the Bernie Sanders page and ignores his talk page contributions. From what I see here, he's attempting to use WP:ARBAP as a club to silence dissent. He's well-aware of the implications of the WP:DS and should be censured accordingly. Buffs (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WikiEditor's edits, after re-reading Bernie's talk page, I'm not seeing personal attacks. I'm seeing. WE being flustered by Z & others' insistence on standards outside what we have for WP. I think his exasperation is reasonable, but I would remind him to maintain a cool head. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wikieditor19920

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

~~Seems like an easy BOOMERANG, to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't see a sanction here, but neither do I see a boomerang. If you look at Talk:Bernie Sanders, pretty much all of Wikieditor19920's last dozen edits to it (including one from less than two hours ago) have in some way attacked other editors that have opinions he doesn't agree with, mostly accusing them of POV-pushing. Note that this isn't just aimed at the OP here, but to at least three other established editors (Muboshgu, The Four Deuces and Gandydancer). I'd suggest that Wikieditor19920 be reminded to comment on the content, not the contributor. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Struck my comment --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing all of the diffs, I agree that Wikieditor19920 should be reminded to focus on article content, not editor conduct, in content disputes. The debate on how much article space Wikipedia should assign to the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation has sprawled across multiple discussions on several noticeboards, and there is much tension associated with this topic. To reduce the tension, I recommend minimizing the negative use of you and your in content disputes, and limiting discussion of content disputes to article talk pages and content-related noticeboards (rather than user talk pages). Allegations of "POV pushing" and characterizations like "lame" and "ridiculous" tend to be more inflammatory and less effective than arguments grounded solely in the policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 09:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikieditor19920, thank you for accepting my feedback. It might take more effort to phrase arguments as I-messages (e.g. "I think we should apply the same standard..." instead of "You are [...] applying standards totally inconsistent with..."), but the extra effort pays for itself when it prevents an arbitration enforcement filing. I don't think any further action needs to be taken on this report. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikieditor19920, I've examined the diffs you provided very closely, as well as the discussions on Talk:Joe Biden and Talk:Bernie Sanders, but I am not seeing anything actionable as a matter of arbitration enforcement. Zloyvolsheb argued that the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation should be mentioned in the Joe Biden article, and that Bernie Sanders's praise of the Cuban Literacy Campaign should be excluded from the Bernie Sanders article. I don't think the expression of these opinions is a violation of any policies or guidelines, especially since Zloyvolsheb supported the arguments with policies (e.g. WP:BALANCE in Special:Diff/950568345). If you disagree with Zloyvolsheb's arguments about the Bernie Sanders article, this would be a content dispute that should be resolved through discussion until consensus emerges. A request for comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders, which worked well for the Joe Biden article, may accelerate this process if the consensus is not clear. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above; nothing sanctionable, but focus on content. Also, a general reminder that brevity is a virtue and it's harder to evaluate claims when there's a massive wall of text to work through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4

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 Yae4

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

2020-03-28 Adding Forbes comment by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a climate change contrarian, for claims of "suppression" of a climate change contrarian - sourced, bizarrely, to a profile attacking Pielke in the "DeSmog blog".
2020-03-28 Forbes blog (non-RS, see WP:RSP) with extensive quote from Robert L. Bradley Jr. (a promoter of a free-market anti-interventionist position on climate change), promoting climate change denialist talking points.
2020-04-24T06:19:56 Reverts to include citations to primary material at climate change denialist group the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
2020-04-06T17:04 New article presenting climate change denialist talking points, e.g. extensive quote from musician Harold Ambler dismissing climate change as "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind".
2020-03-30 adding invalid tags to Skeptical Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted then again and again.
2020-04-02 Addition of synthesis serving to undermine the reputation of Climate Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by cherry-picking superficial criticisms from an assessment that was overwhelmingly entirely positive (see talk:Climate Feedback).
[19] (admin only(, adding references to https://principia-scientific.org/, a seriously fringe website, on now-deleted Mototaka Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[20], initial creation of Mototaka Nakamura, seriously cites Cooley, Richie (2019-09-22). Climate Change and Bible Prophecy. Richie Cooley. ISBN 978-0-463-55559-0. as a primary source.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months 2020-01-15 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In Yae4's view many articles have been "FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists". Climate change alarmist is a pejorative used to dismiss mainstream views on climate change (and "a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake" according to that linked article).

Holding a fringe POV is theoretically fine, Wikipedia does not require ideological groupthink, but his POV comes across in disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views in a contentious area at a time of heightened political tension, and that is not fine.

I believe that a restriction from at least mainspace editing related to climate change is justified. Explaining reality-based policies such as WP:FRINGE to editors who reject the mainstream view is a source of tension and burnout, and, bluntly, wasted time. Guy (help!) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Yae4

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 Yae4

I try to adhere to policies of verifiability through reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and no original research. And being civil. I focus on content, not editors. I've created a new climate-related article that remains, Climate Forecast Applications Network, and improved other articles.

More Detailed responses by Yae4

0. Just before this filing, I questioned using 3 Guardian "blogposts" in a new article by JzG aka Guy[21]. (See "The Guardian blogs" at WP:RSPS). I did not edit the page; I asked about it on the Talk page. Previously, I created Climate Forecast Applications Network, and it was speedily deleted by JzG aka Guy,[22] (Deletion review:[23]) but it remains in Wikipedia now. I note JzG/Guy removed two (reasonably well) sourced statements.[24]

1. Roger_A._Pielke_Jr. can also be called an expert on "policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change." Re: DeSmog Blog as a "bizarre" source, I previously sought Noticeboard guidance[25], and JzG aka Guy said, I don't know if it's reliable or not. At least it has the advantage of supporting the mainstream view. (Guy 2 February 2020). As I said there without naming the editor (JzG aka Guy): JzG Guy has left in, and updated, DeSmog sources in a couple articles.[26][27] Last, prior to the DeSmog source edit, I used a Forbes blog source for the same info', but it was reverted because "the author has strong personal POV."[28]

2. It can be difficult to know when blog sources are allowed, or when they need to be attributed, because the rules seem inconsistently applied, but I've followed observed practices (see #1), and sought guidance.[29] Note the source author Robert L. Bradley Jr. has a Phd "with distinction," decades of experience, and is "the author of several books on energy economics."

3. Primary sources are sometimes allowed in BLPs, and this report and source(s) have been extensively discussed at Judith Curry Talk. At one time there was consensus on it. [30][31][32][33] I note the PDF document, Climate Models for the Layman is almost identical to Climate Models for Lawyers, which is also on Curry's blog site,[34] and while self-published, certainly presents her views, which is fitting for a biography.

4. Harold_Ambler is, in my opinion, a notable author, musician, teacher (and rower and surfer), who got a lot of notice. He co-wrote and edited Ever True, a history of Brown Crew (cited therein). He wrote Don't Sell Your Coat. He was notably and controversially published on HuffPost, and the particular quote got attention in the US Senate,[35] and elsewhere.

5. Skeptical_Science still has a high number of self-published and blog sources, as detailed in the Talk. The bias in the article was previously noted in the Talk by others, long ago.[36][37] I added my detailed assessment,[38]

6. Is this saying I wrote 41% of Climate Feedback, even after numerous deletions?[39] If so, I'll say that's evidence of useful, lasting contributions. It still has issues with weak sources, like Axios, and missing attributions, however. The quote and source from "IFCN concludes its investigation into Science Feedback complaint"[40] has been removed from the article, but several other Poynter sources remain. Is it improper to say they were annually certified, but each of 3 annual reviews by IFCN/Poynter had some criticisms, and there was an investigation into a complaint, which concluded "the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback." ? (and the site owner edited Wikipedia)

7 & 8. Mototaka Nakamura, ScD [41] is a reputable scientist with impressive qualifications and ~2 decades experience in climate modeling. He was noticed, by numerous sources, some stronger, some weak. He has an h-index of ~2 higher than (widely cited blogger) Dana Nuccitelli, I recently learned, FWIW.

Re additional comment by JzG/Guy: The source link for Guy's quote from Climate change alarmist is now a 404 (and similar bad link in archive.org). It should be fixed. I look at details, and read things: Kerry_Emanuel also says, at the beginning of the same paragraph, Dividing the entire field of climate research into “believers,” “skeptics,” “deniers,” and so on is a particularly egregious tactic deployed by those who wish to discredit climate research. Science is not about belief, it is about evidence. Projections of climate change by the IPCC are deeply skeptical, and there is no attempt to hide the large uncertainty of climate forecasts. The possible outcomes, as far as we have been able to discern, range from benign to catastrophic.[42] So, calling people "deniers" is also a "particularly egregious tactic" and discredits climate research, according to Emanuel. It's a good article. I'd also suggest reading at least the following paragraph as well. Re my User page: It has been toned down articles not consistent with "reliable" source coverage.

Re PaleoNeonate, "huge anti-fans": See "huge fan" etc. used by the recruiting editor.[43]

-- Yae4 (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

I would also like to point at "Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here" at the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Ambler discussion. And to this related NPOVN thread: WP:NPOVN § Non-NPOV at Climate Feedback (and budding edit war, poor sources, and more). At the AfD, voters are disparate, as can be expected, especially that the discussion is actually about the subject's notability. As for "anti-fans", shouldn't Wikipedia simply reflect the scientific and academic consensus? The prevention of undue promotion in relation to climate-change denial is part of normal editor duties and not activism. I didn't have the time to dig for diffs yet, but have noticed slow edit wars on various articles. I might post some examples later. An eventual topic ban seems unevitable. —Paleo Neonate – 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jlevi

The user does not tend to follow core editing policies on climate-related pages, operating in a manner that make it difficult to engage constructively. I will highlight some WP:RS and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution problems that occurred over a long span of time. Note that these diffs occurred on WP:BLP pages.

- diff from 21 January 2020 Non-RS sources provided.

- diff from 23 January 2020 Unwillingess to discuss issues and focus on content.

- diff from 23 January 2020 More ref-bombing without consideration for source quality.

Similar behavior occurred in a recent AFD:

- diff from 20 April 2020 Ref-bombing with demonstrated lack of understanding of WP:RS and WP:N guidelines.

- diff from 20 April 2020 Unwillingness to 1) discuss further, or 2) to consolidate sources.

- diff from 23 April 2020 Collapsing another editor's comments outside the WP:COLLAPSENO talkpage behavioral guideline.

Please note that all the interactions above come from my personal interactions with the editor, so I am not an outside observer. However, I think I have provided a reasonable analysis of the diffs in questions, as well as of the lack of movement on these issues.

On quick inspection, it seems like the user's handling of policy outside of the climate domain appears more accurate. This suggests that this may be a domain-specific problem, though I have not engaged with the user extensively outside of the climate domain and hesitate to speak about quality of edits in technology- and company-related articles. 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Yae4

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

I could support a topic ban. I think the documentation establishes that as an appropriate remedy. At the very least, there needs to be a logged warning alongside a commitment to do better. But we may be past that point now. El_C 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was already following Yae4's tendentious editing with growing concern, and I find JzG's collection of diffs and links above convincing. The user only recently changed a fire-breathing section header on their userpage from "Hall of Shame (or Articles FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists)" (quoted by JzG above) to the blander "Hall of Shame (or articles not consistent with "reliable" source coverage)". Support a topic ban from climate change broadly construed. I do think we are past the point of warnings. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 25 April 2020 (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 244: / Line 244: @@
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
 *I could support a [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]]. I think the documentation establishes that as an appropriate remedy. At the very least, there needs to be a logged warning alongside a commitment to do better. But we may be past that point now. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
+*I was already following Yae4's tendentious editing with growing concern, and I find JzG's collection of diffs and links above convincing. The user only recently changed a fire-breathing section header on their userpage from "Hall of Shame (or Articles FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists)" (quoted by JzG above) to the blander "Hall of Shame (or articles not consistent with "reliable" source coverage)". Support a topic ban from climate change broadly construed. I do think we are past the point of warnings. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC).

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