Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:06, 17 October 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

Coffeeandcrumbs 1RR violations at Andy Ngo

All are reminded that BLP exceptions to revision restrictions should be used with great caution and only in the clearest of circumstances. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 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 Coffeeandcrumbs

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Coffeeandcrumbs (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

Andy Ngo is subject to 1RR as a DS under AP2 [[1]] The notice is on the top of Talk:Andy_Ngo

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

23:01, 30 September 2020 The descriptor "journalist" was recently (last two days) edit warred by several IP addresses. The term has been part of the intro sentence since January and has been discussed in the talk archives [[2]]. It was prat of the long standing version of the lead.
13:01, 1 October 2020 Adding "provocateur" can be seen as continuing the IP edit war that was trying to add the similar "propagandist". I will grant this is not a clear cut revert.
15:12, 1 October 2020, 16:19, 1 October 2020 One edit to remove "journalist" a second time. An hour later, after additional user and talk page discussion, the disputed label "provocateur" was restored. In the interim the editor replied to comments on their own talk page and on the article talk page. They even opened a RfC related to the label "journalist" but felt it was OK to keep "provocateur" in the lead.

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

Editor is aware of both BLP and AP2 DSs [[3]]

Dorsetonian and myself asked CC to self revert before the second set of edits were made [[4]] A talk page discussion related to CC's edits was also made prior to the second pair of edits [[5]] While the first two diffs could be seen as a single revert and the addition of new content, the second two reverts are clear. The second two don't have any reverts in between but given the discussions between the two reverts this seems like a questionable action on the editor's part. Even if they claim good faith in removing "journalist" they can't make the same claim for pushing "provocateur". Springee (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors seem to be focused on the content dispute aspect. That is for the talk page. This is here because the editor violated 1RR. Springee (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who opened this discussion, I would be fine with an informal notice/warning that C&C was violating the 1RR rule. So long as they understand the violation and agree to be careful to avoid violations in the future, any additional sanction would be punitive rather than protective. Springee (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Coffeeandcrumbs

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 Coffeeandcrumbs

"provocateur" is significantly different than "propagandist". In these two edits, I tried to establish a neutral point from which editors can start a discussion to decide whether to include "journalist". As has been shown in previous discussions, the claim that he is a "journalist" is contentious and requires consensus for inclusion for WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Each edit I made was significantly different, and the last edit (after self-reverting on the bases of the claim of "provocateur" is not supported by RS) adds citations establishing that "provocateur" is based on reliable sources.
I have in good faith started a RfC on the question of "journalist", which the OP ignores and tries to game the system by coming here to complain. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claim below by Wikieditor1992 ("they are adding contentious labels to the opening sentence without sources") is a complete falsehood. When I added "provocateur" the first time, the sources for that already existed in the § Career section. I self-reverted only on the basis of the claim by OP that it required additional sources. I self-reverted the self-revert adding sources in the lead. If a self-revert of a self-revert is a violation of 1RR, we are living in a bazaar world.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another falsehood, I opened the RfC a full hour before this opened. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is a double-edged sword. Not only does it require secondary sources for negative contentious claims, it also requires secondary sources for positive contentious claims. "Journalist" has a positive connotation, implying expertise, fairness, and fact checking. Multiple RS have established that Ngo does not meet that standard. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I start the RfC about the "journalist" because that is the root cause of the POV issue. I added "provocateur" for WP:PARITY. I would have advocated for either removing both "journalist" and "provocateur" as I had done in my very first edit, or keeping both per NPOV. OP ignored the warning WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and restored the challenged claim, as if I am acting in bad-faith. I have also cited WP:3RRNO in my edit summaries. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, if I did violate the 1RR, I apologize and will stay away from the article. I simply wanted "long-standing" to not be a justification for keeping a claim that is no longer supported by more recent RS, or consensus. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The words "new consensus" appear nowhere in my statement. I have added a comma to the above. A good faith challenge to a claim from IP or experienced user, indicates that it is "no longer supported by ... consensus". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OP's edit was itself in violation of BLP and so were Dorsetonian edits yesterday to restore "journalist" based only on "long-standing" consensus not supported by an inline citation. At the time, the article did not include citations to support "journalist" and the body in fact challenged that assertion calling him a "right-wing provocateur". AFAIK, it is not edit warring to remove claims on a BLP not supported by sources or to try a different word like "provocateur" instead of "propagandist" (which I never wrote). Editing is not reverting. Unlike Dorsetonian's edits yesterday, there is not a single diff presented that shows me reverting to a version the same as before (except the self-revert, which I restored with sources). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikieditor19920

Not only is the reported user violating the DS at that page by breaking 1RR, they are adding contentious labels to the opening sentence without sources, and without even a nod to talk page discussion. I have spent some time at this article and this kind of disruptive editing gets in the way of positive changes and potential for consensus. CoffeeCrumbs suggests that it is "contentious" to call the subject a journalist, which is the language used by the New York Times, but defies common sense by stating that "provocateur" is not contentious label to which WP:LABEL applies, and which the highest quality sources on the subject, namely the WaPo and NYT, do not use. The editor clearly broke the DS at the relevant page and their reasoning here reverses the very meaning of BLP.

Update: It is baffling that C&C now opens an RfC "in good faith" and accuses Springee of "coming here to complain" only after they violated the pages discretionary sanctions. Springee was right to bring this report, and the RfC should've proceeded C&C's addition to the article, let alone edit-warring it back in over 1RR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious labels require citations, even in the lead. MOS:LEADCITE. And I will note that C&C's RfC does not address the most contentious of their changes, namely adding "provocateur" to the lead, and only asks about "journalist," a label that the NYT used to describe the subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go over my limit here, but I am continually astounded by the justifications offered here. C&C suggests that BLP is a "double edged sword" which also applies to "positive" characterizations. I guess we are assuming "journalist" to be a positive label, but first, this is nowhere reflected in policy. BLP requires that material be accurate and well sourced and is particularly stringent when it comes to contentious material. The New York Times (see above) calls the subject a "journalist," so that is an open-and-shut matter. "Provocateur" is more consistently attributed to opinion columns and other non-secondary sources, yet C&C seems to suggest the two are on the same level—or that somehow the latter is appropriate but the former is not? I do not see this at all reflected in the sources or policy. None of this makes much sense to me, and I don't see it as offering any hint of justification for violating the DS at this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the new sentiment by C&C that they will respect DS, but I have no idea what they are referring to by "new consensus" and "no longer supported by sources." The NYT piece supporting the label "journalist" was published in 2019. If there was such a "new consensus" for C&C's changes, then why are they just now opening an RfC? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion This was not acted on and is now basically a moot issue. However, I would encourage any reviewing admin to consider imposing a "consensus required" DS on the Andy Ngo page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

I guess I should state that I reverted what I judged to be a reversion of a legitimate edit. I am aware of the continued efforts over the past few days by new editors to label Ngo a "propagandist", which is negative not based on reliable sources, but I thought "provocateur" was an appropriate descriptor. I was unaware of any conflict between these specific editors on this or other articles or talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Like Liz, I also reverted propagandist. Like Liz, I also think provocateur is an appropriate descriptor. The two have very different meanings and provocateur and the like can be well sourced. Speaking of provocateur, I find some of the comments here and attempts to mess with the RfC provocative. I do see a technical 1RR vio. I say technical because it follows an IP edit war in the same wording and might be considered part of a cleanup. I suggest trout dinner all around (with social distancing) and using the RfC for agreement. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dorsetonian

Yesterday the article in question was suffering a sustained attack from vandals repeatedly changing "journalist" to "propagandist". As an obvious BLP violation, this had to be promptly reverted and doing so was exempt from 1RR/3RR restrictions.
Most of this vandalism came from IPs. Exceptions were Vautrinjr who twice restored "propagandist" ([6], [7]) - claiming on the second edit to have added a reference to support it (though did not) - and C&C who initially removed "journalist" and then subsequently added and re-added "provocateur" ([8], [9]).
IMO, C&C was being a bit WP:POINTy in demanding a reference for "journalist" when it is patently clear from the existing references (a dozen of so of which describe him as a journalist in their quoted titles), and from the referenced career section ("Ngo was a writer and sub-editor at Quillette") that he is a journalist. Nevertheless, the fact was validly challenged and there are references now in place. I am not quite sure why C&C is still pursuing a campaign to remove "journalist" from the article, but that is not the issue here.
I do not regard "provocateur" in anything like the same league as "propagandist". The latter is clearly intended to disparage the subject; the former merely describes someone who provokes controversy. Adding the term with references was not vandalism in the way that replacing "journalist" with "propagandist" was.
Technically, Vautrinjr and C&C did exceed 1RR which applies to this article. However, I AGF that neither editor saw that this sanction was in place and do not support the use of any sanctions against them. The ongoing content dispute can play out on the article talk page. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shinealittlelight

In the link provided by Springee, the matter of whether 'journalist' should be in the lead was off and on under debate from August 2019 to January 2020. Now C&C wades in and raises the tired issue yet again, and violates 1RR in the process. This is not complex. If C&C can't follow 1RR, Andy Ngo is not the right article for C&C to be editing. We don't need to continue the long discussion of the issue of the word 'journalist' at AE; 1RR is either a bright line to be enforced here or it isn't. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Coffeeandcrumbs

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

I'm not going to comment here as I've just protected the article and no doubt someone would inevitably accuse me of being involved, just posting to note that the article is currently locked. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed by the use of BLP as a club here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't this have just stayed at article talk? There's no one ill-intentioned here. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline case. Being that there has already been administrative action, ie: article protection by Black Kite, and since Coffeeandcrumbs hasn't edited since the protection has expired, I'm hesitant to take strong administrative action. It's a small flare up and it probably needs to go to the talk page. I would warn C&C that future edits that use BLP to bypass DS need better rationales and should be backed up by immediate discussion on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: I had to full protect the article again to keep it from spiraling into another edit war. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe it needs to stay locked down until they have an RFC, which is easier to enforce. The problem is obviously bigger than C&C, who hasn't participated in this latest edit fest. Not sure what other tools we have here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher

Proud Boys falls outside of the Race and Intelegence topic area --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:43, 11 October 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 Peregrine Fisher

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ItsPugle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Peregrine Fisher (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/Enforcement/Archive262#Peregrine Fisher: indefinite topic-ban from race and intelligence

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

Special:Diff/981587198: disputing the inclusion of white supremacy on Proud Boys despite reliable sources
Special:Diff/981579424, Special:Diff/981586873, Special:Diff/981584062, Special:Diff/981581234, Special:Diff/981580770: disputing the inclusion of far-right and on Proud Boys despite reliable sources

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Special:Diff/952615929: 72h block for talk page activity in a review for a race and intelligence page

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Special:Diff/952615929 by AmandaNP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#Statement by Peregrine Fisher

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While the talk discussion was not particularly malicious, Proud Boys is currently protected after the slew of vandalism and NPOV issues, primarily trying to remove the mention of white supremacy and neo-fascism. In their comments, Peregrine Fisher also exhibited general incivility, often making stark and blanket assertions that other editors are wrong.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/981911385

Discussion concerning Peregrine Fisher

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 Peregrine Fisher

Statement by MelbourneStar

I raised AE restrictions with the editor in question, here, after their query to the Proud Boys talk page with pertinence to white supremacy. Also, Proud Boys wiki-links to Race and Intelligence per this (although I'm not sure how, I can't find the link; if someone can find it that would be great). Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ItsPugle

@Guerillero: Proud Boys have been designated as a racist hate group by the SPLC, often marketing themselves as "western chauvinists", with an "anti-white guilt" and "western superiority" agenda. ADL has called them Islamophobic and anti-Semitic with significant members sharing "white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideologies and/or engage with white supremacist groups". They're commonly called a white supremacy group by reliable sources, too (see the 11 sources provided in response to Peregrine Fisher's dispute). By all regards, the Proud Boys are a racist, white supremacist, violent political militia. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nfitz

As Peregrine often doesn't edit for days (or sometimes weeks) at a time, probably best to leave this open for a week or so, in case they want to provide input. Nfitz (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Peregrine Fisher

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

What is the intersection between the Proud Boys and R&I --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsPugle: The DS are on "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" not White Supremacy. Unless someone can offer a compelling argument to link the Proud Boys to the exact topic under sanctions, I think there is nothing we can do here per Newslinger --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the Proud Boys are covered by the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions, I do not believe they are covered by the race and intelligence discretionary sanctions. The topic of race and intelligence (defined in the arbitration remedy as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed") is more of an academic subject than a political one. If a group is "far-right" or "affiliated with white supremacists" (as stated in the Proud Boys article), this by itself is not sufficient to link the group to the topic of race and intelligence.
Peregrine Fisher received a discretionary sanctions alert for post-1932 American politics on 4 October. Peregrine Fisher has not yet edited after receiving the alert, so I recommend this request be closed with no action. A future enforcement request can be filed under the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions, if needed. — Newslinger talk 10:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the list of pages that link to "Race and intelligence" includes the Proud Boys article because the article contains the {{White nationalism}} template, which lists both Race and intelligence and the Proud Boys. — Newslinger talk 10:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Proud Boys content does not inherently fall under R+I (though some elements may) and so there is no tban violation for those edits. I also agree that it does fall under AP2 but would need to see evidence of disruption after the template was placed. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl

Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Amendment request: Portals. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I write to request the removal or limitation of restrictions currently imposed on User:BrownHairedGirl.

Per the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Remedies issues on 29 January 2020, BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from "engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia", and from "interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia", both subject to appeal "in six months". BrownHairedGirl has studiously observed these restrictions for over eight months now, and has continued to contribute excellent work to the encyclopedia since then. Another editor and I are therefore preparing to renominate her for adminship. It is possible that either of the aforementioned issues will be raised by participants in the discussion, and I therefore request that the specified restrictions be lifted, either in their entirety, or at least to the extent needed for the purpose of fully engaging any issues that may arise during the course of the RfA.

I am also informing User:Northamerica1000 of this request. BD2412 T 17:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the incorrect venue for such an appeal. That restriction was placed by the Arbitration Committee, and it may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. Appeals at this noticeboard are only for restrictions imposed by administrators as arbitration enforcement actions, not for remedies imposed directly by the Committee. Additionally, appeals are generally only considered when filed by the user under sanction, not by a third party. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will file there. I believe that this presents a sufficient circumstance to allow an exception to the general practice. BD2412 T 18:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm

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 Jorm

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jorm (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions

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

8 August 2020: fuck off with your transphobia shit personal attack
27 September 2020 : Go fuck yourself, transphobe personal attack
1 October 2020: The Gamergate Controversy is a bullshit set of terms used to describe a misogynist harassment campaign without actually calling it a "harassment campaign" while also not trying to hurt the feelings of a bunch of assholes. It was started by a bunch of chucklefucks-- Battleground attitude, personal attacks etc.
8 October 2020: go fuck yourself personal attack
8 October 2020: Masem always argues that we put the propaganda first. They did it for Gamergate - so much so that those deplorable fucks refer to them as "Based Masem". Masem will always carry water like this. Keep that in mind while developing consensus. Battleground attitude, personal attack

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

Last alerted by SMcCandlish on 9 July 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diffs speak for themselves, and they are all related to the GamerGate/gender topics DS area. Especially the attack on Masem for his GamerGate editing had plenty of unneeded vitriol.

Someone opened a thread about "Attitude" on Jorm's talk page just last week. He responded with his usual "cool story, bro" shtick. --Pudeo (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

Discussion concerning Jorm

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 Jorm

Everyone is expressing fear and disappointment that I'm not engaging in this but I don't see much of a point. As I get older I find my desire to engage with bullshit gets smaller and smaller but let's be clear: choosing to disengage is not my go-to action. I don't lead with it.

I find that I am about to get a stern talking to because I do not choose to engage with folk who come to my talk page with rancor. If a person comes to me looking for a fight, how should I respond? Should I get in the fight, and then be dragged before AN/I? Should I just ignore the post, and then get dragged here and called "non-responsive"?

Should I use different language to indicate that I am not going to engage? Would "I am not going to engage with you" be any better? Probably not; I think the same thing would happen: "Jorm hurt my feefees by not letting me vent my spleen at him".

Perhaps someone can provide me with language they find more acceptable.

Statement by Jayron32

Other than some salty language, at least 3 of your diffs were reverts from throw away accounts used by abusive bigots. Being told to leave with emphasis is exactly what should be done. I don't see anything there that rises to the level of sanctioning. --Jayron 32 23:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside, because several people have brought it up, is that "Cool story, Bro" is the correct way to respond to obvious sealioning. These are not good faith disagreements, these are bigots hiding behind civility in an attempt to win a debate not on its merits but by baiting their opponents, and Jorm's refusal to engage with such bad faith false civility is a perfect way to handle it. --Jayron 32 11:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

Only noting that I know about the statement Jorm made in that discussion related to me and I just let it pass and still plan on letting it pass. Its disappointing that people want to dreg that up and assume bad faith when I try to argue on neutral stances on WP, but such is the case. --Masem (t) 00:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

In the words of GorillaWarfare: "We have picked a side, which is that LGBTQ Wikipedians are welcome here." For LGBTQ Wikipedians to be truly welcome here, we should be telling transphobes to fuck off. Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen 328

Personally, I do not use the "f-bomb" on Wikipedia (and very rarely in real life) but there is no consensus that the word is banned in these contexts. I encourage Jorm to select other words which are just as effective but less controversial. Trolls, haters and other purely disruptive jerks should be shown the door, quite promptly. As for Jorm's remarks about Masem, I do not see a personal attack but rather a harsh (but defensible) critique of Masem's unique philosophy of editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

This is the same sort of personally hostile battlegrounding and socio-political PoV-pushing that lead to me leaving the DS/Alert several months ago. But the editor appears to have simply doubled down. This is not about a specific word and whether it is "banned" (well know it is not). It's about intent and effects, in a long-term disruptive pattern. It's about WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT, WP:DE, and WP:CIR. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sceptre

I see nothing wrong with Jorm telling bigots to go do one; encyclopaedic neutrality does not, and has never, meant neutrality outside of article-space, and demanding civility in the face of bigotry is peak paradox of tolerance. Sceptre (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Masem always argues that we put the propaganda first. They did it for Gamergate - so much so that those deplorable fucks refer to them as "Based Masem". Masem will always carry water like this. Keep that in mind while developing consensus.

I can't believe the above statement is being described as a defensible critique of a philosophy of editing or a legitimate behavioral concern. Le v!v ich 18:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As to the other comments, while I'm not one to advocate for sanctioning people for using profanity, we'd do better to be more professional, especially in mainspace edit summaries, which are the "official logs" of our articles. Telling people to "f off", even if they deserve it, doesn't make anyone look tough or cool or righteous, it just makes us all look childish for being the kind of place where profanity is used in "official" records. Le v!v ich 21:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

That Jorm has been dealing with some rather unsavoury editors is in no doubt, but seriously, is it not possible to make vandals feel very unwelcome without resorting to a gutter language? That seems rather untalented, me thinks. Huldra (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents: GamerGate etc, is one of the most contentious areas on Wikipedia, for sure. But I edit in the I/P area (that's why I watch WP:AE!) - hardly any less contentious area, where trolls, death- and rape-threats are 13 to the dozen ...still, such gutter language (as linked to above) are not seen (in general!) among "the regulars" there.

Why is that?

Also, I suspect if anyone regularly used such language, they would very soon no longer be "a regular"; they would be topic-banned/blocked.

Why do we allow one set of behaviour in one area, but another set of behaviour in another area?

No, I don't want Jorm sanctioned, just a clear warning that such a language will not be accepted in the future (not even when dealing with vandals who are going to "rape your wife to death before they kill you" (just to mention a pretty common threat in the I/P area)) Huldra (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I'm extremely unimpressed with Jorm's reply here. If people come to you "looking for a fight", you should behave with cool. Simple as that. Huldra (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JzG

I think that changing an article to misgender someone should be an instant indef block. We should ask Jorm to dial back the rhetoric, and then go and block the trolls. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

Jorm has chosen to patrol some controversial articles which attract drive-by editors with extreme attitudes who he often effectively shooes away. I don't use the f-bomb and I don't think it is necessary to get your point across. But I can understand its use with some hostile newbies who seek to cause disruption or to radically shift articles that usually have volumes of talk page discussions that have occurred to arrive at a consensus in the article tone and wording.

What I would like to challenge him on though is his use of "Cool story, bro" to editors who are not fly-by-night but are regular editors who just are coming from a different, often opposing, perspective. It's an unnecessarily dismissive and condescending phrase that isn't an appropriate response to another editor's argument. We know that these pages can be polarizing but I think it's important to meet a serious critique from a regular editor with a counter-argument not a flippant reply.

The comment about Masem seems like old news (Gamergate was in 2014-2015!) and it is odd to be rehashing events years later, but if the comment doesn't offend Masem, I don't think we should be imposing any restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs)

I agree, by and large, with the admin comments below. But I'm disappointed that Jorm hasn't seen fit to at least respond to this complaint. That shows an unwillingness to engage with criticism that indicates that a stern warning might not have any effect at all. And, personally, I'd like to see Jorm continue to chase away trolls. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grayfell

All of these edits appear appropriate in context. Transphobia is itself a violation of Wikipedia's principles, so this seems more like a witch-hunt then an actionable complaint. Also, all this tone policing and pearl-clutching over "swear words" seems disproportionate and, ironically, very immature. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shinealittlelight

Admin Swarm once told me the following [11], which to me seems relevant to the remarks Jorm made about Masem:

Comment on content, not contributors. It really is as simple as that. For example, let's say someone's being a complete prick, and everyone agrees. Is it okay to call them out on being a prick? No, it's not okay to make an accusation, even if you're not wrong. You report them to WP:AN/I with evidence of relevant policy violations, and we will block them. Let's say a user is an obvious sockpuppet. Is it okay to accuse them of being a sockpuppet? No. Again, report to admins with evidence. Let's say someone obviously has a strong bias. Is it okay to imply that they are being motivated by their bias? No, as long as they're complying with policies, their obvious bias is irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of us have strong biases, and the overwhelming majority of us do not POV-push in articles. If someone is editing with an obvious WP:COI, such as a user deleting negative content from an article about their business, of course that's not tolerated. But, even then, you don't attack their character or argue with them, you simply report them to us so we can handle them accordingly. It's really pretty simple. Don't over think it. If you're going to make a negative comment about someone personally, don't.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yair rand

Some topic areas are difficult to work in, but if one can't maintain a proper level of decorum and civility while doing so, one should not edit there. Routine use of comments with such a level of hostility towards other editors, or such aggressive use of profanity in general, is never acceptable.

If it appears that the Jorm is expressing clear unwillingness to change their behaviour, I don't think a warning will even do anything. Users that can't cooperate in a civil and productive manner with those they disagree with should not be allowed to continue to participate here, unless we believe that their behaviour is going to change. --Yair rand (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jorm

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

Looking over the diffs, the only one that is actionable is this personal attack on Masem. At this time I think that we don't need to do more than to remind Jorm to focus on the content not the contributor. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that this makes me uncomfortable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is: Do our policies on civility apply to trolls? We have traditionally been very lenient when it comes to responding to throwaway accounts, but this pushes the limit a bit. The real problem is the Masem reply, as Guerillero noted above. I agree with Guerillero that harsh sanctions aren't needed, although I think more than a soft touch is warranted, and would instead recommend a strongly worded warning that civility isn't optional and the lack of it serves to make the editing environment more toxic. especially on the talk pages of controversial subjects where there is often more heat than light. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My hesitation about any type of warning here is basically what Cullen328 said: this is a legitimate, though strongly stated, critique of the behaviour of another editor. If this was said at ANI/here with diffs it’d be allowable. It didn’t have diffs, so it was an aspersion. That’s not good, but I’m also loathe to start sanctioning or warning people for pointing out what is a legitimate behavioural concern. It does need diffs, though, and that is my biggest concern. Jorm, if you encounter this issue again provide diffs and take it to AE or AN. We have a rule against aspersions for a reason. Note: I’ve disagreed with Masem twice in recent days on how our policies apply to white supremacism, but I don’t consider myself involved in regards to him or the topic area, but I think it worth noting. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that at minimum, a warning to focus on content instead of contributors is in order. And it's time we accept that labeling people as "deplorables" is always going to be counterproductive. ~Awilley (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much to be done here. However, TonyBallioni the fact that the comment didn't come in a conduct forum and was not supported with diffs is incredibly important. There is a reason we have conduct forums: so our article talk pages can stay focused on content. There is a reason we demand diffs: we don't want to support casting aspersions. If there were a pattern of some the behavior towards Masem being presented I'd feel differently. However, one such act by a longterm productive editor (like Jorm) needs a friendly nudge - and being brought to AE is already more than a friendly nudge - rather than a formal sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting even truly horrible edits with "go fuck yourself" edit summaries is unfortunate. Even apart from any concerns about decorum, it's just too much fun for the troll on the other end who will think he has successfully gotten a rise out of a perceived enemy. Don't make this a fun paintball game, just stick with boring "Undid revision 982224172 by 190.193.156.241". As for the Masem edit, it isn't some reasonable complaint that just needed a couple of diffs or another forum to be okay. It's a battleground attack which attempts to paint Masem as a member of some hated enemy team. I would support a warning. Haukur (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[12] If Jorm is absolutely determined to get sanctioned here, we will eventually have to oblige. Haukur (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a warning, not in the interests of decorum or because trolls deserve consideration, but because focusing on content rather than editors, and discussing behavior only with evidence and in appropriate fora, are pretty fundamental aspects of our behavioral expectations, and refusing to participate in a discussion about one's own behavior is not a good look, per Guerillero. Also, speaking purely tactically for a moment, swearing at trolls is typically going to make any trolling problem worse, not better. WP:RBI and WP:DFTT exist for a reason. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a pretty hard time caring too much if someone replies "Go fuck yourself" to a section entitled "Why don't you be factual and not libtarded?" followed by an obviously transphobic rant. Yes, ideally, we shouldn't sink to the troll's level, but such an individual is obviously not here in good faith. On the other hand, this [13], followed by the dismissive attitude here [14], are not acceptable at all. The first is a clear personal attack and, without evidence, a casting of aspersions against a longtime editor (with serious allegations at that), and the second shows that Jorm does not particularly care about this type of behavior (the "cool story" part appears to be a reference to the sarcastic and dismissive "Cool story, bro" expression, and that's not an acceptable way of engaging a good-faith request). I would support a final warning that one should revert, block, and ignore trolls and vandals, and that one is expected to treat fellow editors, including those with one whom disagrees, with a reasonable degree of respect and civility and not engaging in personal attacks, including evidence-free allegations of malicious intent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, let's ignore the parts where you told trolls to fuck off. (Though I'll reiterate that's not ideal; if nothing else, just revert them and if necessary report them. Getting a rise out of someone is a thrill for them; getting unceremoniously booted out the door is not). Aside from that, though, this [15] was not on your talk page, it was on Talk:Gamergate controversy. That's not appropriate. You've been around long enough to know that we would not use terms like "assholes" and "chucklefucks" in articles. Article talk pages are for discussion of what neutrally worded article text should be, not as a forum for you to express your personal opinions about a subject. But the most concerning remains this one [16], which was also not on your talk page. That was a direct attack against another editor, and a serious one. Indeed, an administrator was already desysopped and site banned for being in league with inappropriate external influences. That is a serious accusation. If you have sufficient evidence, bring it to ArbCom. If you don't, then don't accuse them of that again. So far as your own talk page, you have every right to refuse to engage with anyone who posts there, but if you do choose to, you are expected to do so civilly and respectfully. If you just want to revert, remove, or immediately archive the post without response, that's your choice, but civil and respectful discourse is expected if you do choose to respond. That does not mean at all that you are required to agree with anyone, but if you disagree, it is expected that you will do so civilly and without rancor, sarcasm, or casting aspersions about someone's motivations. Instead, just say "I disagree with you and here is why." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like Jorm. I appreciate Jorm, for their humanity and wit. To the best of my recollection, I have not had a negative encounter with them, contrasted with multiple positive ones. That having been said, Jorm has been skirting the line for a long time now. As Liz mentions, the flippant nature of the repeated "cool story, bro," for example — I think the usefulness of that as a rhetorical device has been long exhausted. I'm afraid that if Jorm proves unwilling or unable to will themselves to begin acting in a manner which is more reserved, sanctions are probably inevitable. Which would be a sad outcome. But I have confidence that Jorm has it in them to be able to adjust their conduct accordingly. And I don't think that adjustment needs to take away from the potency of their assertions about content. Therefore, I support escalating to a final warning and am very much hoping that that will do the trick. El_C 22:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find my thoughts generally align with El_C and Seraphimblade. I generally don't think we need to avoid the occasional use of less-than-pristine language and I certainly encourage robust debate, but we shouldn't condone aspersions and battleground behavior either, both of which Jorm is straying into. Hopefully he'll take a warning on board. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John2510

John2510 is warned to avoid using direct quotes or otherwise copying materials from outside sources without appropriate marking as a quote and attribution. No further action taken. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 16 October 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 John2510

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: John2510 (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:ARBBLP :

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

19:42, 12 October 2020 copyvio from this source, archive
12:27, 13 October 2020 reintroduced copyvio after being notified via user talk page that this ARE issue had been opened
19:26, 12 October 2020 deletes source and then separately at 19:42, 12 October 2020 deletes the wording that had been supported by the source (and introduced the copyvio, latter is the same diff as above)
19:30, 12 October 2020 deletes source with the edit comment Source does not mention Richards case and then after I pointed out in my own edit comment that the source linked to the full text of the (SCOTUS decision) case while discussing it, and said the same thing in the article talk page accompanied by a lengthy explanation indicating not only why I thought the source supported the sentence content, but why I thought it was not simply duplicative of the remaining source left as a reference for the sentence, they again earlier today at 12:27, 13 October 2020 removed the same source, along with a second source referred to in the preceding list item, with the edit comment See talk. Not what the source says. No source for later analysis. (as part of restoring the copyvio, latter diff same as above)
22:33, 12 October 2020 a third edit between the two diffs presented in the preceding list item also deletes the source after I restored it with an edit comment pointing out that it linked to the full text of the SCOTUS decision, with John2510's edit comment ignoring my own and again claiming The deleted source doesn't even mention the case, let alone say that it applies, but before I'd elaborated further on the article talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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 18:03, 2 June 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't know if there were any previous sanctions. I didn't submit this at CCI because I don't know if there are previous cases of copyvio.

I had not interacted with this editor before very recently on the article talk page where we had conflict. Things seemed to be getting more cordial but then I noticed that one of their first article edits subsequent to the talk page conflict introduced copyvio for apparent expediency in rewriting a sentence: note that lack of specificity, which allowed those executing it to target Taylor and her boyfriend — as part of an investigation in which their involvement was never firmly established and whose main suspect and accomplices were already in police custody — violated the is identical down to punctuation and spacing between the diff and the source and the rest of the sentence is similar besides.

So this would seem to fit somewhere in the AE talk page notice prohibition fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. I'm just realizing that unlike other AE notices I've encountered this one does not request immediate reporting but given that WP:COPYVIO isn't just a policy, but a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" I'll submit this and leave it to ARE's judgement.

For full disclosure, I wrote the original sentence that was modified and I restored it to my original wording to fix the copyvio.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13 October 2020

Discussion concerning John2510

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 John2510

In this bulk edit Struthious Bandersnatch included reference to the Richards case, as well as analysis that appears to be wholly OR. Reviewing his sources, I could find only one that even mentioned the case, and did so as a characterization from something out of a separate Washington Post opinion statement. The characterization from the source was entirely different from the editor's point. Rather than being accused of mischaracterizing the brief statement, I used the statement from the article making only minor structural changes. It appears to fall well within fair use, but I've invited the other editor to paraphrase it if he feels otherwise. He could have done that instead of coming here, of course. John2510 (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had restored the text and noted its fair use in talk prior to seeing this pending action. I've now deleted it pending the outcome of the arbitration. John2510 (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch

I guess I should also say that this would seem like a quickly-fixed minor incident to me, to under other circumstances handle one-on-one rather than with a reporting process, if it weren't a nearly-14-year editor who is a member of WikiProject Law and is Aware™ of Arbitration Enforcement and did it on an AE-marked article furthermore marked |topic=blp. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John2510 has now restored the copyvio without any paraphrasing or rewriting. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use is not an offhanded excuse for WP:PLAGIARISM to save yourself time; it involves marking the unlicensed copyrighted content and attributing it to its source~~, as I pointed out in our article talk page exchange earlier today, John2510~~. (edit: I note that based upon time stamps your comment here preceded my comment there by a couple of minutes.) The way you did it is even more misleading because you also added an intext reference to The Washington Post while the source you were plagiarizing was New York Magazine. How many times have you done this kind of thing during the last fourteen years?
  Also, as from your wording you may not be clear on the matter, this is not an arbitration specifically of a disagreement between you and I; "arbitration" refers to the fact that I have filled out this report about a violation of the 2008 / amended 2015 WP:ARBBLP decision which you were formally alerted to on your user talk page in June of this year by Objective3000 in the diff above, and which the article we have been editing, Shooting of Breonna Taylor, is marked as included under by the notice at the top of its talk page.
  Speaking of your user talk page, I alerted you to this discussion there in the diff linked to above, ten hours before you restored the copyvio.
  Since John2510 has expanded the scope here there are at least a couple of other aspects of their conduct in editing that article which seem relevant to fail[ure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process—
  1. they have deleted a source individually in one edit with one edit comment rationale, then in a subsequent edit deleted the content supported by the source with an edit comment claiming it was unsupported
  2. they have repeatedly deleted a source, by itself, with the edit comment rationale that it did not support the statement it was a reference for, despite me pointing out in both my own edit comments and the article talk page that the source did directly refer to the cited material.
  I have added diffs showing my preceding two points up above but if those sections were supposed to remain unmodified they can be moved down here to accompany my statement.
  I will concede, after closely examining the sources, that there may have been some mild SYNTH in the way that I wrote the original sentence which was overwritten with the copyvio. But of course that in no way justifies plagiarism via copyright infringement in an article both included under Arbitration Enforcement and WP:BLP policy, nor playing deceptive games with sources and edit comments. (Or, for that matter, reintroducing the copyvio after being notified that it was copyright infringement in the edit comment, in the article talk page, and by user talk page that this ARE issue discussed it.)
  @Seraphimblade: I did not intend the capitalization and trademark symbol on "aware" as uncivil snark, but rather as mildly humorous in passing; I have used that formulation to refer to myself. But if it was inappropriately harsh or seemed to make light of what ArbCom and ARE do, I accept the warning and apologize. My own conduct in this forum or on an AE-marked article is just as appropriate for scrutiny as is John2510's. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning John2510

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

I think warnings on both sides are in order here. For John2510, your edits were indeed a direct copy of the source, and were not marked as a direct quote and properly attributed to their source. There is no "fair use" for plagiarism, and using a direct quote without putting it in quote markings and attributing it is exactly that. Don't do that again. For Struthious Bandersnatch, one hopes that could have been resolved without coming to AE, and if you do in the future file at AE, snark like using "Aware™" is not at all appropriate here. State what you have to say civilly and plainly, and leave out the snark. Other than that, I don't see any need for any action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO

SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later. There doesn't seem to be an consensus or need to say more than that. On another note, using diffs that are more than a year old is seldom helpful. Keeping a report short and to the point is preferred. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:06, 17 October 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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SPECIFICO (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

Gender-related controversies

GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions
Enough is enough "When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community."
Recidivism
Battleground conduct
Decorum Incivility, harassment, gaming the system

American Politics

Discretionary Sanctions

Biographies of living persons

Discretionary Sanctions

Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia: WP:5P4 Seek consensus;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines: WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT;

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

All 5 diffs relate to content about sexual misconduct allegations in BLPs. (WP:ARBGG, WP:ARBBLP) Diffs 4 & 5 also fall under WP:ARBAPDS.

The evidence shows highlights of a larger pattern of manipulation and WP:CRUSHing against consensus, with some incidental personal attacks.

(SPECIFICO's words are in yellow.)

Diffs following AE case 13 September 2020

1) 07:47, 16 September 2020 WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT

Removed an entire paragraph against consensus after weeks of disputes about one of its sentences

After weeks of disputes over the sentence in Aziz Ansari's BLP about how/whether Ansari apologized in response to a sexual misconduct allegation, SPECIFICO wholesale removed the entire (small) paragraph about Ansari's Netflix stand-up comedy special where he addressed the allegation. No one at Talk:Aziz Ansari, including SPECIFICO, had raised objections to mentioning the stand-up special. SPECIFICO had previously removed the sentence with false or misleading edit summaries [17],[18],[19].Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) 07:53 - 20:38, 16 September 2020 WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT

Rewrote the section against consensus

SPECIFICO continued to rewrite the disputed "Allegation of sexual misconduct" section with subtle WP:POV and WP:V violations. In response, I commented on the talk page at 20:49, 16 September 2020: The entire subject of the standup special and statement has just been removed [59] without discussion, seemingly ignoring the weeks long contentious discussion over this material. It's hard to discuss which pieces of this to keep after the entire subject has been removed... SPECIFICO, these edits are disruptive.[61] None of these are minor, they all make subtle POV changes.

3) 12:58, 18 September 2020 WP:CIVILITY/ lying, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT

Forced false consensus by gaslighting

At Talk:Aziz Ansari SPECFICO inserts ?? Crickets... (including ellipses) under their comment from 21:31, 16 September 2020, without signature, to make it look like I did not answer their (feigning ignorance) question about what I found disruptive. On 19:46, 17 September 2020, I had replied, You know from our discussions over the past few weeks that I think your edits are POV and do not meet V, and that the onus is on you to discuss your edits before adding them, which you have not done. SPECIFICO conflated the text which was discussed (the "direct apology") with the rewrite they made in order to create a false consensus narrative.

Diffs following AE case 2 October 2020

4) 11:50, 7 October 2020 WP:CIVILITY/ lying, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT, WP:PERSONAL

Gaslights by lying about what they had said at Talk:Julian Assange. Personal attacks

Personal comment about Thucydides411: Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda. In this same diff at Awilley's talk page, SPECIFICO lied about what they really said at Talk:Julian Assange. At Talk:Julian Assange at 20:22, 3 October 2020 SPECIFICO said that because they and another editor challenged the text in the lead (about the Swedish sexual assault allegations being a pretext for extradition), Therefore we have no credible claim of WP:CONSENSUS for it, and per WP:ONUS, it falls on others to establish such consensus, which does not now exist, and per the Consensus Required DS, the pretext bit should not have been reinstated in the lead (emphasis mine). At the Talk:Awilley section, Thucydides411 accurately described SPECIFICO claiming that the "Consensus required" restriction prevents restoration of long-standing material after it is removed, and SPECIFICO responded by denying it that they said that, likely in order to cause confusion and interfere with policy enforcement. SPECIFICO now claimed to have only said that the "pretext" text never had consensus. (It's irrelevant to the first lie, but Darouet had told SPECIFICO that the text has been here for 18 months narrowly defined, or four years if we accept paraphrase![20])

5) 14:56, 7 October 2020 WP:CIVILITY/ lying, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT, WP:PERSONAL

Gaslights more by lying about what AE panel said. Personal attacks

Accuses Thucydides and others of Gaming and Bludgeoning, and makes more personal comments and lies: Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently. First off, in Thuc's failed AE complaint against me for removing his "Consensus Required" DS violation, the panel clearly did not see valid consensus for the longstanding unsourced and UNDUE lead text. Second, WP:CONSENSUS makes clear that there must be some evidence of consensus on the past article talk pages. WP:CONSENSUS does not say that; we have WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. The AE case panel, (Dennis Brown, Black Kite, Salvio giuliano, and DGG:, Awilley, and Drmies who bowed out), did not directly evaluate whether the text had consensus, but as Thucydides accurately stated, this was the assumption that all the admins appeared to be operating under. Thucydides411 responded: This level of gaslighting is really unacceptable,[21] and linked to the talk section for proof. (Also note that the AE case shows SPECIFICO mocked the subject of a BLP, behavior that led to their Austrian Economics sanction.)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions

22 April 2017 by NeilN for what User:JFG described as a pattern of disruptive behaviour which contributes to a poor editing climate.[22]
19 August 2018 by Awilley: SPECIFICO is placed under the Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions described at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions for a duration of 1 year.
22 April 2014 for behavior including instances where SPECIFICO's edits and talkpage comments on biographical articles have overtly mocked the article subjects.[23] (Austrian Economics).

Diffs of previous relevant AE warnings

20 May 2018 logged warning by TonyBallioni: SPECIFICO is reminded of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warned that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions per this thread at AE.
9 April 2020 logged warning by Seraphimblade: SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions. (SPECIFICO knows user talk pages are covered by this warning.[24])
15 November 2017 logged warning by GoldenRing: SPECIFICO is warned to edit collegially and assume good faith.

Diffs of previous relevant ANI warnings

14 September 2014 SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban; 3) User:SPECIFICO is also warned that although an IBAN is usually controlled by escalating blocks, the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion;...

Diffs of previous relevant blocks

1 December 2013 NuclearWarfare blocked SPECIFICO for 48 hours for "Creating an unappealing editing environment".

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

Brought a complaint at WP:AE for WP:ARBAPDS, WP:ARBBLP, and WP:ARBGG on 8 September 2020, see below.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SPECIFICO brought an AE request against me which was closed on 13 September 2020 by Vanamonde93 with the statement that if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so. (I do so now.) That case showed that SPECIFICO has used transphobic language as a weapon and lied about it by feigning ignorance[25] despite their extensive experience with the subject.[26] As seen above, after this case they started right back up continuing their manipulative behavior.

SPECIFICIO's behavior has been dishonest from the start; I believe the evidence shows that they began their editing career briefly sockpuppeteering as User:Kevin4762 over a trivial content dispute.[27] SPECIFICO has not become more honest with time; they have only become more insidious.

It's curious that the same ONUS/CONSENSUS dispute with SPECIFICO at Aziz Ansari has also been happening at Julian Assange, one of the only political articles still on my watch list, but I assume that (other than the tactics) it's a coincidence. Although I do note that they claim (in diff 5) that the Consensus Required DS is flawed. Let's not let it be sabotaged; admins have already interpreted this sanction.[28]

This all is the very tip of the iceberg; it takes a lot more than 5 diffs to summarize the long-term behavior of a WP:SEALION. (I just scratched the surface of what I observed in the Ansari dispute alone.) Now I may be accused of stalking or revenge-seeking for performing due diligence. What I would actually like is for a person to be able to make a few edits to a few articles in peace without having to be a litigator, a detective, and a Wikipolicy expert. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Is there such thing as a "net positive" dishonest editor?

Responses to editors and admins hatted for better organization

Guy, If you really believe that this isn't a good faith conduct complaint then boomerang me. You are very WP:INVOLVED in the Julian Assange dispute,[29] as ZScarpia described,[30] and you are misinterpreting the Consensus Required DS in that dispute,[31] which Awilley noted.[32] Looking at "ancient" history is what must be done to establish behavioral patterns. Please see WP:Civil POV pushing. Otherwise, if we provide too little evidence, a longstanding behavioral pattern cannot be established, but if we provide too much evidence we get accused of acting nefariously.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy moved his statement out of the uninvolved admins section.[33] Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, you didn't mention that the "8 year old diffs" are the SPI case which I mentioned above...what anyone would find by looking at the creation of SPECIFICO's account, or the evidence in their very first block.[34] Isn't it appropriate to document that behavior into an SPI case to prepare evidence as part of this case about long-term behavior? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, you are misrepresenting the SPI case. The SPI case was about connecting SPECIFICO to the sock User:Kevin4762; the connection cannot be made without SPECIFICO's (self-revealed) IP editing history. And as seen in the link above, User:Collect first asserted that SPECIFICO's IP editing was not of a new editor. I am not responsible for SPECIFICO's behavior, which includes transphobic attacks against me. When you say "it takes two to tango" that sounds like blaming the victim. Please focus on the very clear evidence which I presented. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added specific policy violations to each diff for clarification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, you haven't commented on any of the conduct I presented. SPECIFICO referred to people as "it" and claimed that that "is the preferred politically correct way to address our colleagues of unidentified gender", after having participated in discussions about the pronoun "xe", and after having chided another editor for misgendering a trans person, and after themself being referred to as "they" and observing others being referred to as "they" for years. That's what lying looks like. This evidence is all here. Diff #3 shows SPECIFICO inserting "??Crickets..." into one of their old comments as though I never responded to them in order to violate CONSENSUS. Do you think that's honest and nondisruptive behavior? El C, if you really think this case is formatted poorly, please help me reformat it before other admins make statements. Please post my first diff on my talk page in the correct format and I will correct the rest based on that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, the lying about intentional misgendering is evidence of a dishonest behavioral pattern. You have not commented on the "crickets" dishonesty or any of the other strong new conduct evidence I provided. (You singled out the weakest evidence.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, this really isn't that complicated. I underlined the policies which were violated at the end of each diff. These five diffs directly follow two AE cases, showing SPECIFICO's behavior is intractable. All five are about sexual misconduct allegations in BLPs. All five show disruptive conduct and disregard for consensus; three show lying. An IBAN is unnecessary because I have done nothing wrong, and I don't feel intimidated by SPECIFICO. I feel intimidated by the rest of the community who will not even discuss the evidence I have provided. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I need to make another point: if my case here is not good enough, then there is no hope for new editors on Wikipedia. If things are unclear, then admins should be asking me questions to try to understand what I am observing before making their judgments. Evaluating misconduct should be a community effort. Like I said, the evidence I've provided is the tip of the iceberg. Just consider the disruption when Talk:Aziz Ansari and Talk:Julian Assange are filled with comments as manipulative as the "crickets" comment. It's not trivial; the consequences are right in front of us; all dissenting editors at Talk:Aziz Ansari were scared away and SPECIFICO succeeded in installing a nonconensus version into the article. This isn't even about SPECIFICO. If the community can't address an editor as cavalierly disruptive as this one, there is no hope for this place. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, with this new formatting are you able to understand the case about this convoluted behavior? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, the "it" misgendering evidence is linked to from the first paragraph in this "additional comments" section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, the April AE you cite is just about personal comments. This case is primarily about insidious manipulation and WP:CRUSHing against consensus. Diffs aren't going to speak for themselves. If someone really wanted to help they could examine one diff at a time with me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I don't hear that you're actually acknowledging my arguments as I've presented them before refuting them. And it's not possible to evaluate insidious behavior in five minutes. If AE and ANI aren't the forum for this, then what is? It shouldn't take Arbcom. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich This thought of yours interests me the most.[35] I don't relate to that. I just try to be honest and do what I think is right regardless of what people think (reallly trying hard to be diplomatic these past five months tho). I think maybe it's just the culture here? I mean, the way I took your first comment here was that you wanted to protect SPECIFICO, protect me, and protect yourself. I've seen you taken to noticeboards before, so I know you're willing to take risks. The evidence I provided here should be enough to trigger a wider investigation starting with all edits to Aziz Ansari and its talk page (that's just where I observed the behavior). This isn't really about this one editor though. Wikipedia lacks a mechanism to address behavior like this. I don't know if that's for a Village Pump discussion about forming a committee or a new type of social admin. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I don't think the calculated behaviors you're describing are working out for us. What about just doing the right thing? We are all humans here relating with one another; it doesn't matter if we're volunteers or teammates or neighbors. A healthy community means being honest. We can't provide honest representations of human knowledge to the public if we can't even be honest with each other. The hours to investigate an editor pale in comparison to the painful hours and years of disruption caused by their behavior. Each person who chooses to take a risk makes it easier for the next. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, I don't understand how the first three diffs are not clear violations. In the middle of weeks of contentious discussions over one sentence, when every word of an article section is extremely contentious, it's not highly disruptive to just do a rewrite in the middle of that which obviosly violates NOCON, and then gaslight editors who point that out? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

Statement by Levivich

It's not a contentious claim that Assange has made this "pretext defense". The "Swedish-charges-are-a-pretext-for-extradition" argument is like Assange's #1 argument in his own defense. Widely reported in top RS for years. Examples are on the talk page, and were also discussed at the last AE. The text at issue has been in the lead of the article for 18 months at least [36]. Prior to that, a paraphrased version was in the lead for more than 4 years [37]. It's not a BLPVIO; it makes no sense to allow any one editor to remove any content from an article and force everyone else to form consensus to put it back in. Also, how can the defendant's defense be UNDUE? How can the BLP subject's POV not be a significant viewpoint? I have a hard time seeing the UNDUE objection as having any merit, frankly. It's frustrating to edit an article like this; Specifico should have just made a proposal on the talk page to remove the passage. Insisting that it be removed and the onus is on re-inclusion is disruptive, it's not cool, not for something that's been in the lead for years on such a heavily-edited page. Le v!v ich 22:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: FWIW, the April AE might be a good example of AE report formatting. It's 6 diffs from the preceding 2 weeks plus 2 diffs from the prior month with almost no commentary. (If the diffs don't speak for themselves, they won't speak to anyone; if they need to be explained, they can be explained away.) At the bottom of that section those 8 diffs were distilled by Awilley down to 5 comments, each of which is "worse" than any of the comments in this report, and those five comments amounted to a logged warning. Le v!v ich 05:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: Here's my take on the 5 since you asked: #1 & #2 are the removal-of-longstanding-content issue; everyone seems to agree that Specifico was wrong about that. It's not sanctionable; it's a mistake, but it's not "on the level". It's not intentional disruption, like vandalism, and it's not repeated disruption, that is, it's not like 3 instances in the last two weeks of Specifico removing longstanding content (three different passages). If it was that, it'd be sanctionable. If it happens again it might be sanctionable. But not this one time; the admin said he was wrong, and that's it for those two diffs. #3: you're inferring a lot about intent from a lack of signature. I agree with El C's take on this. #4 (specifically "Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda") and #5 ("Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently") are uncivil, but fewer and of a less severe nature than the 5 uncivil comments in the last AE. In my view, if this report was just #4 and #5 and you had just said, "He's still at it...", it'd probably have resulted in a quick sanction. But if the report isn't something an admin can read and digest in like five minutes, it's probably not going to end up in a sanction. That's not a knock against admin, it's just that if a person has to think about it, they're going to think other people should think about it before anyone unilaterally acts on it, and before you know it everyone is thinking and not acting, and then they start talking about it, and it's two weeks later and who gives a shit anymore, everyone's tired from all the thinking and talking. There are two kinds of group decisions in the world: (1) the kind that are so clear that anyone would implement it unilaterally, confident that no one could possibly disagree; and (2) the kind that don't get made. Le v!v ich 07:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: I think you're pursuing a type of justice that doesn't exist on Wikipedia: the absolute justice that governments try to provide, as opposed to the relative justice of volunteers. Suppose there's a problem editor named Editor A. And you want Editors B, C, and D (regular editors, admin, arb, whoever) to spend how much of their free time (X) to investigate Editor A and then you want them to do what afterwards (Y), and deal with potential backlash/consequences (Z)? And why should they do this? They're going to balance the cost X against the benefit of Y and the risk of Z. If X is five hours, Y better be damn necessary and Z better be 0. If X is five hours and Y is not going to make a dent and Z is gonna cost another five hours at least... nobody is gonna sign up for that. Including me, I've spent as much time on this particular issue as I care to. I generally agree with you, but I just don't think it's gonna change unless you can make the X/Y/Z ratios work. Best of luck :-) Le v!v ich 08:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes

I do not believe I am an uninvolved administrator (see my talk archives), so I'll comment here: please do something. I was tired of the SPECIFICO/Kolya drama six months ago when I tried to impose a unilateral solution, and I am tired of it now. In another forum a few days ago, Kolya brought up 8 year old diffs against SPECIFICO to try and get sanctions which was an incredibly transparent fishing trip. Here, the only two diffs that could possible justify sanctions are 4 and 5, and even those aren't exactly compelling. It takes two to tango, of course, and SPECIFICO has been "accidentally" using it to refer to Kolya along with the baiting of Kolya which I first noticed when I got involved in this months ago.

This is tiring and we need it to stop. Has our content been improved? Have these disputes encourage more editors to join? Is the time administrators spend handling these disputes time well used? I doubt it. Throw a boomerang, or cast a pox on both houses, or whatever, but quite obviously warnings are not doing anything. 01:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Bringing up 8 year old edits in order to link IP addresses to an account is deeply concerning because it gets into WP:OUTING territory. Simply reading the lead section at SPI should have discouraged what you did--emblazoned in bold letters on WP:SPI: CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances. So either you didn't read the instructions or you ignored them, neither of which makes me confident that you won't accidentally out the next editor you have a dispute with. I don't really care whether it was appropriate to bring up here because it should have never been brought up in the first place. It shows an escalation of your unhealthy obsession with each other and demonstrates why I believe administrators need to take action before this situation continues to escalate. 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: you are misrepresenting the SPI case You're joking right? The page is titled SPECIFICO and you literally named them 17 times in your report. Three people who were not me commented on how that report concerned them including one person who was part of the 8 year old dispute you brought up. In a comment there, SPECIFICO claimed it was part of a pattern of hounding which seems facially plausible. That you don't seem to understand why trying to connect another editor to geolocatable IP addresses is a problem is exactly why I do not think you should be interacting with SPECIFICO. Considering our interaction the last time I tried to explain a policy to you, I'm not interested in explaining this further. You and SPECIFICO have been at it for months, and your mutual antagonism has seriously escalated. I'm not here to help you; I'm here to ask the community to put a stop to the disruption that you have as much of a role in as SPECIFICO. 23:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

(This is a copy paste of my last AE statement regarding this SPECIFICO. Since nothing has changed and well here we go again, here is my post from this past April)

In a previous effort to rein in some of SPECIFICO's disruptive battlefield behavior, in August 2018 Administrator AWilley imposed several specialized American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions designed to allow SPECIFICO to continue contributing in the topic area but under a more strict set of behavioral standards as discussed here SPECIFICO was not pleased about these sanctions but they were at that time supported by admins Bishonen and Drmies. The sanctions were set to last one year, but perhaps somewhat angered SPECIFICO almost immediately ceased editing for 6 months, not returning until March 2019. Those sanctions were not applied just in the heat of the moment but after a long series of discussions and warnings that went unheeded, some of which can be seen in SPECIFICOs talkpage discussion just by scrolling up from that link I provided. Has there been any improvement since that self imposed 6 month sabbatical? None I can see:

[38] Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
[39] "Hi Ernie. I hope you are well and safely sheltered in a location that allows you to receive your favorite Fox News." IS a deliberate insult indicating that they think the person they are conversing with is a FoxNews watcher, which is rebuffed by the immediate response by MrErnie who claims the channel is not available where they reside.
[40] "It may well pass WEIGHT but that doesn't mean it won't bog us down in footlong talkpage threads from a few Fox News fans here." Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
[41] "Awilley, that response of yours reads very self-serving and convenient, without addressing the core issues of community and AE processes. Your words appear either disingenuous or so naive that you need to take an extended leave of absence from these American Politics articles. Similarly, your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA." That comment was responded to at SPECIFICO's talkpage here.--MONGO (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary is still directed at other editors, and is undermining good faith efforts to reach a consensus in numerous areas. Strongly recommend at least a 90 day AP2 topic ban, as well as a final warning to not comment on editors.--MONGO (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

(copy paste from SPECIFICO)note that SPECIFICO was recently brought to AE just last week.

SPECIFICO has repeatedly violated DS and is a generally disruptive editor at the American Politics articles and associated talk pages. I think Admins here should focus on enforcement at whatever level is needed to prevent future disruption. I see no basis to hope that further warnings from [everyone] would somehow change SPECIFICO's behavior. Dear Admins: There's not enough patrolling of these articles by our volunteer Admins. Then when non-Admin editors take the time to report an obvious violation, their report too often ends up in a long drama thread at AE and extensive appeals and recrimination and deflection. I think a better model is simply for AE to carry out the escalating sanctions Arbcom mandated in the AP2 decision. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

This is close to WP:BOOMERANG territory. We're not here to help you "win" your content dispute, and the mining of ancient warnings and disputes suggests that you know you don't have a proper case. I suggest voluntarily withdrawing this and seeking mediation or creating an RfC. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, as to how someone's denials might be undue, if all reliable sources say X and the subject says Y, with any commenting sources attributing Y to the subject but not endorsing it, then we say X in the lead and note Y in the body. That's how it has always been. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

Man, this report is so scattershot, and formatted in such a counterintuitive way... I had a real difficult time sifting through it. Bottom line: I found nothing recent that is egregious enough to be actionable. One item of note that I will briefly touch on is the Consensus required dispute, noting for the record that I disagree with Awilley about enforced BRD being superior to it. Anyway, in that instance, I believe SPECIFICO is very much in the wrong — WP:SILENCE applies to Consensus required. There does not need to be explicit consensus to render longstanding text subject to that restriction. Likewise, if longstanding text is removed or modified and nobody objects to that change, then it becomes the new consensus, per SILENCE. But if there are objections, then the restriction does come into effect, with explicit consensus becoming necessary for said removal or modification. To sum up: I see some editorial conflicts, which ought to be resolved in the usual way. And although the aforementioned Consensus required error on SPECIFICO's part is termed a "lie" by the OP, I see no basis to that accusation — how do you prove someone is lying as opposed to them making a mistake, anyway? While I don't think a BOOMERANG is in order, I would caution the OP to look at a few other AE reports as examples before filing another one, with an emphasis on both potency (egregious conduct that is recent) and presentation (formatting that doesn't hurt my eyes). Because this is a problematic report. El_C 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, it is my understanding that the "it" incident was already resolved with a warning to desist. As for the formatting, sorry, I am unable to directly assist you in this matter. But the learning curve should not be that steep for an editor of your experience — again, just look at a couple of random AE reports to get the sense of things. El_C 04:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, I did not single out the weakest evidence — on the contrary, I singled out the strongest evidence. "Crickets" has very little potency as far as egregious violations go. It's silly, it's petty, it's not to SPECIFICO's credit, but it's far from something that warrants sanctions. As for the "it" incident, while I'd rather not relitigate that, I will say this: speaking for myself, I also found SPECIFICO's explanation about that unconvincing. Had I seen it first, I would have blocked them, because I think that was an instance where WP:PACT applies. But a warning was issued before I learned about it, so I let it go. El_C 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often participate in this forum even though I regularly look over cases. But I will say that this would be a lot more clear cut, Kolya, if you had presented a case based on one arbitration cases rather than three (Gamergate, BLP and American Politics 2). Compiling a hodgepodge of evidence of edits you find unacceptable that covers different arbitration cases rather than presenting a strong, and deeper, set of diffs based on one case makes it a challenge to evaluate this. Given the frustration expressed here, maybe an interaction ban is called for although this would also be a challenge since you two seem drawn to editing the same articles.

But I agree that you can't keep bringing each other here hoping to get the other editor sanctioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above. If there are recent problems in the evidence, I can't see them, and SPECIFICO is wrong in their claims about consensus in their comments at User talk:Awilley#DS Guidance at Julian Assange (permalink). I'm saying that based on what is written at Awilley's talk as a five-minute search fails to show a concise statement of the underlying issue. I agree that some of SPECIFICO's edits are too pointy (e.g. diff "Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant") but that was a month ago and 130 edits have occurred at Julian Assange since SPECIFICO's last edit there on 29 September 2020. I'm sorry to be slow but I cannot easily find the issue behind 'SPECIFICO referred to people as "it"'. However, please let me know if something like that repeats and I will give a final warning followed by an ordinary admin block on any further similar poking. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to comment yesterday, but work kept getting in the way. Basically, I agree with the above. Half the diffs aren't really problematic, some obviously so. SPECIFICO can be a bit rude at times (the "fox news" comments need to stop), and yes they needs to pull back on that, but I don't see anything needing the ban hammer. For future reference, don't bother posting diffs that aren't clearly a violation of DS or an Arb finding, you just hurt your own case, and a giant list of diffs that are just a little snippy doesn't help your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, would people raising complaints here please consider that administrators don't make decisions based on who has the highest word count? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a suspicion but I would guess that the longer the editor statement, the more likely it is that readers will skim through it. Concise, precise and focused statements are always more influential than lengthy, overly detailed and convoluted ones. That's a general statement, like Blade's, not a comment specific to this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 17 October 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 376: / Line 376: @@
 ==SPECIFICO==
+{{hat|{{u|SPECIFICO}} is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later. There doesn't seem to be an consensus or need to say more than that.  On another note, using diffs that are more than a year old is seldom helpful.  Keeping a report short and to the point is preferred.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 12:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)}}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
@@ Line 549: / Line 550: @@
 *As a general comment, would people raising complaints here ''please'' consider that administrators don't make decisions based on who has the highest word count? [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 01:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::It's just a suspicion but I would guess that the longer the editor statement, the more likely it is that readers will skim through it. Concise, precise and focused statements are always more influential than lengthy, overly detailed and convoluted ones. That's a general statement, like Blade's, not a comment specific to this case. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
+{{hab}}

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