Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:43, 20 July 2013

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

MarshalN20

No action, but MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions. Sandstein 21:42, 16 July 2013 (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 MarshalN20

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBARG#MarshalN20_topic_banned

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

These two barnstars came after a discussion on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas, where the editors opposed User:Lecen's viewpoint. The article is clearly in the realm of Latin American history, and was the principal point of contention in the Argentine history arbitration case (where Lecen was Marshal's principal opponent).

[1]
[2]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:MarshalN20 is attempting to creatively skirt the topic ban imposed in the Argentine history case and trying to get under Lecen's skin (again). As the ban is supposed to be "broadly construed", I think he's gone over the line—the barnstars are clearly related to the Rosas discussion. Additional context just prior to these incidents can be seen at User_talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive_38#MarshalN20, where Marshal intriguingly says that he "will focus on cleaning my honor as an editor".

I should also note, in reply to Marshal's comments, that I had privately emailed an arbitrator and an uninvolved administrator who agreed with my assessment but declined to get involved. That's why I'm here now. The barnstars are clearly in response to the Rosas discussion, which being in the realm of Latin American history (and, to make it worse, directly related to the arbitration case that was closed just days ago), is actionable here. The rest of your post has nothing to do with this request, though I should apologize for not noticing the previous AE request. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshal: they declined because (a) one didn't want to get the committee involved again and (b) they didn't want the accompanying drama, which is understandable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshal: You are putting words into my mouth that I am not saying. Both said that you deserved a block, or I wouldn't be here right now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshal: This is my last reply. My assessment was that you deserved to be blocked. The two people I emailed concurred but declined to actually do so, because they did not feel like dealing with the drama that can accompany an arbitration enforcement block. I will now happily wait for uninvolved administrators to comment here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Barrelproof: disagreeing with the arbitration committee's decision is not the same thing as enforcing it, I'm afraid. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I was in your boat until the second barnstar, when it became clear that it could not be related to anything else. I assumed that "broadly construed" meant that such skirting of the ban was actionable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@admins, thanks for the comments. I thought it would be actionable, but then again, I'm not exactly active in arb enforcement either. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning MarshalN20

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 MarshalN20

WikiLove messages are not part of any subject. Moreover, my messages at no point mention any specific topic or discussion, in accordance to WP:TBAN. Both editors have a long history of editing in Wikipedia, and I've had the pleasure to view their actions in various occasions.
Ed is clearly stretching the matter to the border of paranoia. For example, what exactly is "intriguing" about writing that I "plan to clean my honor as an editor"? As you can see in my edit history (see [4]), I have been arduously working on the GA/FA improvement for the Falkland Islands article (compare it with User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4) just as I promised User:NuclearWarfare.
I am also currently on the process of getting an article through the FA review (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive2), and would wholeheartedly appreciate any suggestions anyone here might like to provide for it.
On a final note, Ed is a close friend of Lecen, who some days ago also attempted to get me blocked through the enforcement board. Both editors need to take a chill pill and get on with their lives instead of focusing their attention on me. This wise (and simple) suggestion was also given by NuclearWarfare.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, if an arbitrator and uninvolved administrator declined to get involved...

There probably is a pretty good reason for it. (When was the last time someone was blocked for writing a simple WikiLove message?)

Please move on with your life. There is nothing either me or you need to discuss.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ed, my points still stand. There is nothing you have presented here that is worth a block or enforcement (much less the involvement of a committee). You should have followed the wise decision of the people you contacted (avoid creating drama over a trivial matter). Please move on.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ed, you progressively change your story in each of your statements. The people you contacted first stated that they agreed with your "assessment" (no explanation on it), next they decline to get involved to avoid drama, and now they said that I "deserved a block".

And all of this over a trivial WikiLove message?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, correlation does not imply causation. I do not intend to discuss the Rosas article (as that would be against the WP:TBAN), but it is important to note that RFC proposals were first made on the article by Iselilja (on July 6) and Langus (on July 9, eleven hours prior to Gaba's message). Thus, to assert that Gaba's motivation is due to my comment is a complete absurdity.

My message to Gaba is a true reflection of how matters always take place in the Falkland Islands article; and he knows it pretty well. In fact, any experienced administrator should know that the Falklands topics are always riddled with "uncomfortable situations".

One last time, I ask that Lecen and Ed please stop their grudge and quit stalking my edits.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BarrelProof

It seems silly to file a formal complaint about a user giving a couple of people barnstars on their userpages. If that's the best the petitioner can do to find something to complain about, it's rather sad. What would be the state of Wikipedia if you weren't even allowed to tell someone you like their editing? Moreover, I'm sad to see the prior decision of a topic ban against MarshalN20. Marshal's prior conduct in that incident doesn't look all that bad to me. In the heat of the moment, we all sometimes slip a little. Marshal is a valuable editor who has subject-matter expertise that can benefit Wikipedia. A warning to follow WP:FOC and try to keep cool and maintain more formal courtesy might have sufficed. I've had the privilege of encountering Marshal in some other editing (leading to a "today's featured article" upcoming on July 15, 2013, in fact), and would like to see that contribution continue. I've tried to study that prior dispute a little, and basically haven't been able to figure it out so far, but my rough impression is that the existing topic ban was excessive in this case. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Lecen)

On July 9 Gaba p mentioned the possibility of making a RfC on Juan Manuel de Rosas.[5] On the same day (and a couple of hour later), MarshalN20 told Galba p how easy it is to make a RfC and how it "helps avoid any uncomfortable situations".[6] There was no present conversation between them at that point. The last time they had talked to each other had been more than a week before.

This message to Galba p along with the two wikilove messages (sent on July 8) seem to suggest, at minimum, that MarshalN20 has been motivating other users who are taking part on discussions on Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page. MarshalN20 was banned from all articles related to the history of Latin America, especially Juan Manuel de Rosas' article. --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarshalN20

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

I don't think this is actionable. While Ed is quite possibly correct about MarshalN20's motivation for these barnstars, we shouldn't sanction topic-banned editors for making edits whose relationship to the prohibited topic area is only a matter of inference or supposition, or else the scope of a topic ban becomes unenforceably blurry. In my view, any relationship to the prohibited topic area must be apparent from the edit itself, or the page it is on. But, MarshalN20, a word of advice. If ArbCom bans you from a topic area, take it seriously and drop the subject. Skirting around the ban's edges will not help you get it lifted any time soon. Sandstein 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein. These barnstars are not significant enough to justify a sanction, but MarshalN20 should avoid this kind of thing in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm broadly in agreement here. But I can clearly see why Ed made this report. Pointy behaviour is not constructive. While I think we're in the no action territory I think a word of warning, not just that this will be unhelpful in any ban appeal but that if it continues it will be seen as indicative of a partisan or battleground mentality from MarshalN20 and such a pattern would lead to further sanction--Cailil ^talk 11:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. So closed. Sandstein 21:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo.

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 Neo.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Qwyrxian (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Neo. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBIP

Diffs and explanations of problem

User:Darkness Shines completely transformed the article 2002 Gujarat violence from one violating multiple policies (particularly, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP) into one that, while not perfect, was at least minimally compliant (see this sequence of edits). User:Neo. reverted, failing to even recognize DS's concerns, making an unfounded analogy. From that point forward (July 6), Neo and a few others began a series of "defenses" on the talk page, most of which failed to address policies, and in Neo.'s case, crossed over into tendentiousness.

The problem begins in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#POV pushing by User:Darkness Shines, where Neo attempted to argue that WP:PRIMARY (including WP:BLPPRIMARY) don't apply here, despite the fact that they apply everywhere in Wikipedia (see [7]. He goes further and says that academic sources are "academic crap" and "conspiracy theories" "written to make money". He continues to hold this position in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#Edit request on 6 July 2013, in which he asserts that such violations are "minor problems" that Darkness Shines is using to divert admins. Later, Neo erroneously states that verified information may not be removed from an article.

On July 8, Neo added what he claimed was an RfC...but the phrasing was so extremely biased that I removed the tag and indicated that such a leading question was unacceptable.

On July 9, Neo stated that my and User:The Rahul Jain's only reason for being involved in the article was because of "prior disputes on Jainism articles"; actually, TRJ had a dispute with Neo., which I stepped into because, as with this article, Neo was attempting to keep an older version of articles that violated policies in spite of TRJ's improvements. My reason for involvement in this article was originally as an uninvolved admin responding to an edit request that I became aware of because it was discussed on a user talk page I watch. I've since explicitly stated that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and am not taking admin actions on the article. Neo. repeated this claim on July 15.

On July 10, Neo. insinuated that RegentsPark, the previous protected admin who had protected a version resembling DS's preferred version to stop an edit war, and chose the current version as the WP:WRONGVERSION, would come back to the article again to intentionally choose DS's version to favor him.

On July 11, Neo. proposed a new change to the article, which quite obviously violated WP:NPOV, later, User:Maunus noticed (and I confirmed) that Neo was misrepresenting the sources, either through lack of comprehension or deliberate POV pushing (see Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#comments and Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#31 convicted, we know already).

During this whole shebang, Neo. filed two WP:ANI complaints. Both were dismissed as being at best a misrepresented content dispute and at worst "baseless" and WP:IDHT/WP:STICK. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Admin Qwyrxian and WP:ANI#GANG on 2002 Gujarat violence. He also made similar accusations at the Noticeboard for India-related topics (see WT:INB#Wikiproject India and GANG), which included an accusation of tag-teaming, and was closed as not appropriate for the noticeboard.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on July 9 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
User Talk:Neo.#Warning contains a series of edits by several admins about edit warring
Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) left the formal, templated warning on July 15

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein: The warning on July 9, left on the article's talk page, is sufficient to meet the warning requirements of sanctions; all that is requires is that editors be aware that sanctions are in place on an article, not that a personal, templated warning be left for that person specifically. There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article. While article space problems are more "obvious" than talk page one's, WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems on talk pages can drive away good faith editors and be equally destructive to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to accept Sandstein's argument wrt the the warnings, as I have no problem with requiring strict adherence to rules. However, I'm worried that Neo's second statement itself is evidence that the problem has not gone away--rather, that the disruptive behavior is merely on hold while this discussion is open. To me, that statement still clearly shows errors in understanding of preferred editing behaviors, as well as still attributes unwarranted motives to myself and regentspark. So...perhaps a stern warning will do (along with some administrative watching of the talk page to ensure future behavior is acceptable)...but my experience with this type of POV pushing--so strong that the POV-pusher doesn't even realize that they're warping everything, including our policies, to try to make things conform to "the truth"--doesn't get better with time, or even with warnings. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Neo.

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 Neo.

This whole ArbCom concept is new to me. I use mobile. Please give at least 24 hours to study this concept and write my side. Until decision is made, I will not edit any article related to Gujarat, politics or religion. Thanks. neo (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) It would take very long and very long post if I try to analyse every edit of all users. I may left out something but let me use Occam's razor and try to be short. I will talk about things happened before yesterday's edit by User:Utcursch.[reply]

The whole argument is about whether this 'Godhra train burning' section is presenting NPOV. And I don't see it. The section begins with "was reported to have been attacked and set alight by a crowd of Muslims". Then section goes on citing Banerjee report, Hazard center report, Citizen's tribunal report, independent observers and Ainslie Embree to tell reader that the fire was an accident and muslims got nothing to do with it. Shah-Nanavati report use 'conspiracy by locals' wording, not Muslims. But as it indicate Muslim involvement, DS has done WP:SYNTHESIS in next sentence to tell reader that Shah-Nanavati commission was partial and corrupt, attempt to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. So if a school child or new reader read this section, he/she would believe that the fire on train was an accident.

To present other side of the story, i.e 'direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob', I proposed this edit. I am dealing with 4 users single handendly. DS says out of 6 sources, 3 are primary and 1 blog but refuses to tell which. Then he goes on to say that the "locals" word cover 'muslim mob' theory. So my edit is unnecessary. I pointed out to Maunus that 2002 HRW report is already used by DS in the article and 2012 HRW article still quote 2002 report. Now Maunus is giving strange argument that as HRW report is critical of post-Godhra violence, hence I can't use that report for Godhra incident and he accuse me of "misrepresentation". Qwyrxian was silent. I forced him to comment in this section. I am attrbuting to sources with direct quotes, but he also accused me of "misrepresentation". The Rahul Jain just occasionaly drops in to 'vote' in favor of DS and goes away without any comment on my proposed edit.

The team shows extreme disliking for news or any web sources and insist on 'academic' sources. But in 'Godhra train burning' section, out of 10 sources DS has used 4 news sources to support Banerjee report, Shah-Nanavati report, Citizen's tribunal report. When it comes to supporting their POV, they do use news and web sources, but oppose by others. They discard pre-2010 sources as old and outdated, but goes on using 2002 HRW report and 2003 USCIRF report to support their POV in the article.

Initially I assumed good faith in DS and believed that the 'attack by a muslim mob' theory don't exist in his 'academic book' sources. Hence I called those books as 'crap' because I believed that those books are not telling whole story about Godhra. But now I strongly suspect that DS, Maunus and Qwyrxian are cherry picking POV contents from academic sources and as most users don't have access to his academic sources, he is getting away with it. Yesterday User:Utcursch got hold of two books and said here that DS has clearly misrepresented Ainslie Embree. I strongly suspect that 'attack by a muslim mob' theory is also discussed in his academic sources but he is making readers believe that it doesn't exist in his book sources or all books talk about only 'accident' theory as real cause.

Such tendentious behaviour, gaming the system frustrate users and severely harm quality of wikipedia. I request ArbCom to take appropriate decision to stop their disruptive behaviour. Thank you. neo (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Neo.

I am giving Human Rights Watch [8][9], United States Department of State [10], European Parliament [11], Amnesty International [12], Social Science Research Council [13], United Nations Human Rights Council [14], TIME magazine [15], Wall Street Journal [16] as sources. I am attributing quotes to sources. I am ready to bring more hundreds of sources. But the arguments like this by Maunus that "Sources talk about attacks against muslims after Godhra, hence I can not use those sources for Godhra incident to show attack by muslims on train" and on this argument attempt to reject all thousands of sources is outragious. Making a team, inserting non-neutral contents and then forbidding any user to include other side of the story, pulling down Rfc to gag my mouth, such things are very serious matter for the wikipedia. If Admins disagree, then better to block me. I can't stand this nonsense. neo (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was I supposed to comment on the statement of Qwyrxian or was I supposed to make statement on the issue? neo (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Neo. on Qwyrxian's statement

Much before User:Darkness Shines started replacing article, I had told him to propose his changes on article talkpage.[17] But DS ignored it and started replacing article. I objected and told him on article talkpage to self-revert. Div999 supported DS, while me, Solomon7968, Shii raised questions.[18] But as DS went on replacing article, I reverted all his edits except this one concerning BLPPRIMARY. It is never restored till date but Qwyrxian keep talking about it again and again. On that false assumption he reverted my edit[19]. Qw had no idea what DS is doing, when I pointed out he did second mass revert.[20] If there was ever BLPPRIMARY in my revert removed by DS, Qw should give diff, otherwise he should stop raising this issue again and again which potentially misguide users.

I stand by my argument that verified contents can not be removed without explaination.[21]

Qw should have pointed out which sources and contents in prev version of article violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Qw never did, he left that job for DS and DS also never did. In fact in his second comment on talkpage Qw suggested to DS to discuss changes section by section or take Rfc.[22] I agreed.[23] DS disagreed.[24] Then Qw did U turn, declared himself editor and started asking me to show what is wrong in the draft article of DS[25] I had no access to book sources of DS and was unable to comment on whole draft article of DS in short time. Qw had suggested Rfc to DS, but instead I went for Rfc. Qw removed Rfc tag accusing me of bad behaviour citing WP:AC/DS and saying that standards are extra high for this article.[26] But he didn't know existence of this article until a "week ago".[27] If he have no idea about subject of the article, why he allowed replacement of whole article? He claims standards are extra high but as he had no idea about existence of the article, he never checked whether contents of DS really exists in academic books. Qw says that he might have argued to block DS before. [28] Why suddenly blind faith in DS to allow him to replace whole article which is under WP:AC/DS? * Qw has himself said that he was not aware of existence of article. He has also said on my talkpage that he came on this article after seeing my edit request on RegentsPark talkpage.[29] Also it can be seen from article edit history that The Rahul Jain jumped in on this article only because of me and Qw.

My doubt about RegentsPark-DS was not unfounded.[30] Even after ANI discussion, he protected article which had disputed contents of DS.[31] I have no reason to believe that RegentsPark won't do it again.

Maunus has commented only about HRW and UN source. I asked in RSN whether HRW is reliable source and am I misrepresenting. I am not misrepresenting anything.[32]

It can be clearly established that Qw and Rahul Jain were not on '2002 Gujarat violence' and I had prior dispute with both related to Jainism articles. There are 4.4 million articles. Now how they suddenly jumped on '2002 Gujarat violence' to support another disputing pair of DS and Maunus is mystery. If this does not fit into definition of tag team, then I retract my accusation and apologize to all concerned. neo (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I concur largely with Qwyrxian's analysis above so I'm not going to repeat all the diffs here but do wish to make a couple of points. Neo needs to be aware that the way Wikipedia works we collaborate on content. What that means is that sometimes editors may agree with each other while at other times they may disagree. However, in each instance of agreement or disagreement, the way forward is always through specific content suggestions and specific sources to back up those suggestions. Wholesale reverts with broad accusations of POV violations and/or tag teaming are not only not helpful but are also disruptive (cf. [33], [34]). Neo needs to realize that pointy RfCs, assumptions of bad faith, and large scale reverts are not the way toward becoming a useful editor on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yogesh Khandke

(1) I agree with user:Sandstein that a content dispute has been brought to this venue, as evident from the arguments put forward by the nominator and the counter-arguments presented by Neo. (2) The revision history statistics of 2002 Gujarat violence indicate that there have been 3857 edits made by 1073 users, made over a period of almost 10 years.[35] What kind of evidence does the nominator have in support of his claim that DS has completely transformed the article from one that had multiple issues to one that is compliant? (3) In a subject so subjective and controversial, the article would reflect the views of the consensus. Do DS's 128 edits made in 45 days, the third highest to the article, reflect respect to wp:CONSENSUS, where is the evidence that Neo's edits overturn that consensus? (4) So the nominator's claim that "There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article." does not apply in Neo's case. Neo is prepared to discuss and act according to the rules as declared in his edit on "11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)" in which he informs that he would refer the matter to DRN or RFC/U.[36] (5) Neo is trying to discuss, he has less than 12 edits to 2002 Gujarat violence, DS has 128. RegentsParks needs to provide evidence why he considers Neo unwilling to collaborate. (6) I suggest to Neo that he ought not to use words/phrases like "nonsense" or "block me", he may consider looking at the path user:Mrt3366 had to take, he has to trust the system, there isn't anything personal against him. (7) I suggest that Neo shouldn't comment on the motivation of other editors in making edits, and not make personal comments about them. (8) There have been allegations by the nominator that edits made by Neo are actionable, evidence for the same simply indicates a content dispute, Neo has expressed willingness to set right any behavioural issues the community may find in his edits, he has demonstrated sound understanding of the principles of good editing by his statement that he would stay away from "sanction areas" pending his appeal. Administrative action on Wikipedia is "coercive and not punitive", I therefore do not see any reason to ban or block Neo, if any advice is necessary to be given to Neo, it may be given, Neo has demonstrated that he would take it to heart. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user:Sitush's observations generally. However my linking to wp:CONSENSUS implies that the consensus is amongst compliant editors and not vandals or the like. Also is there is allusion to a systemic bias on his part, he has to present evidence to prove his claim. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

@Yogesh, you say that In a subject so subjective and controversial, the article would reflect the views of the consensus, referring to the number of people who have edited. Not so: there is a world of difference between people who contribute to articles and people who do so in a policy-compliant manner. I suspect that there are far more Indian contributors to Wikipedia than there are Pakistani contributors but, regardless of that, WP:CONSENSUS favours those who comply with policy and it is the formal definition of "consensus" here. If your argument or contribution does not comply with policy then it should have no bearing on the outcome.

Articles such as the one referred to in this instance are prone to often-extreme Hindu-Islam, India-Pakistan POV-pushing and friction. That POV issue is in large part why the sanctions whose enforcement is being requested here were introduced. I have no opinion on the request itself, having deliberately tried to keep a low profile and having no desire to get sucked into yet another aspect of the increasingly disruptive "Indo-Pak", Hindu-Muslim palaver that has been getting a higher and higher profile in all the wrong places over the last few months. From my own experience of Neo. elsewhere, it does not surprise me that the behaviour has ended up here, but beyond that I really do not want to get involved. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Neo.

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

Neo., to clarify, this is not a hearing by the Arbitration Committee, but a request to administrators like me to take action under the Committee's delegated authority, see WP:AC/DS.

I don't readily see anything actionable in this submission, or to convince me that this is not mainly a content dispute. The warning allowing us to impose discretionary sanctions was issued on 15 July. Anything earlier is not actionable in the context of this forum in my view. And there is no later dated diff in the evidence submission. Additionally, writing poor-quality content (not that I say that this has necessarily happened here) or making mistaken arguments in discussions is not a violation of Wikipedia's conduct policies, and therefore not in and of itself sanctionable.

But writing non-neutral and unverifiable content is, as is engaging in personal attacks. Neo. should take care in the future to adhere to all important policies as outlined at WP:5P, and not make sweeping accusations of misconduct without adequate evidence. The countercomplaint by Neo. is too confused and insufficiently supported by evidence (in the form of explained diffs!) to be actionable at first glance. Sandstein 21:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, the July 9 warning is not sufficient, because WP:AC/DS#Warnings requires that the warning include "a link to the decision authorizing sanctions", which that warning did not. Sandstein 23:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sandstein, but this objection is really an extreme form of rules-lawyering formalism. The warning contained a link to WP:Discretionary sanctions, which in itself documents an arbcom decision "authorizing sanctions", describing the nature of discretionary sanctions and listing, with links, all the individual arb cases. That is at least as authoritative and as informative (if not more) than a direct link to the original case page, and is more than enough to fulfill both the letter and – more importantly – the spirit of the formal rule. I haven't yet looked at all the evidence presented above, but I'm certainly not going to look at it with an artifical cutoff date of 15 July in mind, unless there is positive evidence that he has significantly improved his conduct after that date (as opposed to just accidentally not producing new egregious cases of misconduct). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may do as you wish, but I prefer to err on the side of caution when determining whether enforcement authority exists. The problem is that WP:DS is not a decision authorizing sanctions; the individual case decisions do that. Sandstein 18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned that July 9th warning IS sufficient[37], so I agree with Future Perfect. Such a warning has been good enough historically. If there had been a talk page template that would have been enough (for me now and again has been historically). Given that the message on the talk page was directly to Neo, I see it serving the same purpose as a formalized warning.
On a first look at the evidence there is either a WP:COMPETENCE or tendentiousness issue here with Neo. There have been enough administrative warnings here from multiple uninvolved sysops. And Neo has been casting aspersions wildly. Some sort of restriction is in order here, at least to point Neo in the right direction or to let him learn elsewhere (in other topics) how to behave on WP. I'd be considering a 1 month page ban. But I'm open to suggestion either to be more or less harsh--Cailil ^talk 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle

handed off to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Delicious carbuncle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipediocracy is a forum for WP editors and others to attack WP editors and out them, seemingly without sanction on WP. In the latest example, an editor Delicious carbuncle has posted a substantial attack on another WP editor. I'm not linking to this (see below for why), but it's obvious from the site's main page and I'm sure that all Arbs will be aware of it by now.

After ArbCom actions a year ago, Delicious carbuncle is under specific sanctions to not use Wikipediocracy to attack WP editors by outing:

I believe this recent action to be a breach of that.

Some background, just to save obvious questions later:

My awareness of Wikipediocracy stems from a recently contested AfD (a Wikipediocracy issue in itself), as a result of which I suffered attacks and outing at Wikipediocracy myself [38], from WP editors, an admin and non-editors. Complaints about that though were rejected through WP (and I'm sure they're outside scope here). WP:ANI#Alexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester_and_canvassing_at_Wikipediocracy

Having been told that I can't raise personal complaints as that's self-interested and "just whining", I was repulsed last night to see that Wikipediocracy is now front-paging another of its "exposes" - two editors with whom I have no connection (I've seen both in passing, never memorably interacted with either). Accordingly I raised that at WP:AN#Wikipediocracy_and_outing, only to be threatened with blocking for having done so, and of course it being closed and hatted promptly.

However in this case, I have since been informed that there's an outstanding and specific sanction against Delicious carbuncle over doing this. Accordingly I raise it here.

Further clarifications:

I've not posted the direct links to the material concerned. This is because I'm under specific threat of blocking for doing so, per WP:SHOOTTHEMESSENGER. This no doubt gives Arbcom a ready-made excuse to close and ignore this, just because I've not filled the complaint forms in properly. One would hope for slightly better though.
A "public interest defence" has already been given that the user outed is so odious that our protective policies on outing don't apply to them. I know of no such loopholes. Perhaps ArbCom might clarify precisely when we regard editors as so odious that we no longer protect them in such a way. Also just what it is I've done that makes me also into such an outlaw scumbag

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning Delicious carbuncle

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 Delicious carbuncle

Statement by Dan Murphy

This statement has been removed because it is not related to the question of how and whether this is actionable as an AE matter, per my warning below. Sandstein 12:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Wikipediocracy is frequently sophomoric (heck - so are some things on Wikipedia, for that matter.) The question is not "attack" as that is such a broad claim that even saying "Editor Gnarph uses long words" falls into that category. So we must decide first if the incident alluded to here actually is "outing" else it clearly is outside the purview of ArbCom, and only then if the matter is of such import that it trquires action here. I did not think when I just read the post that it meets those criteria. Collect (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This matter does not fall under the ArbCom ruling cited. In that case, Delicious Carbuncle was admonished for posting "another editor's non-disclosed private information", which, it turned out, he had retrieved from an online database. In this matter, the editor in question disclosed their own name on Wikipedia, in connection with image uploads, and posted under that name (or online handles openly associated with that name) on external sites (self-identifying, inter alia, as an official in a well-known hate group with a track record of criminal activity.) Discussing that is not a violation of either the principle declared by ArbCom or the principal terms of WP:OUTING. Perhaps DC has approached the limits of what is allowed in tracing openly acknowledged associations of other editors, but given the nature of those associations I think he reasonably believed his actions were allowed by Wikipedia policies. If we do not wish to tolerate editors pointing out other editors' openly acknowledged associations with unsavory or criminal groups or activities, we should have a much clearer policy (and be ready to deal with substantial, well-justified, criticism from outside observers and commenters.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

I've really never cared for a editor advocating on behalf of another; we're not a court, and do not need stand-ins unless there is some extraordinarily unusual circumstance that necessitates it. Mr. Dingley has no standing to complain about a matter not concerning him, so as others have noted, if this Kintetsubuffalo person believes there is some policy-violating, on-Wikipedia transgression that DC has committed, then he is perfectly capable of filing the complaint in the venue of choice. I'd note though that per Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment off-wiki activities are not directly sanctionable though, and are usually only considered as potential aggravating factor within a larger case. DC vs. Fae was actionable because of the past on-wiki strife between the two, so that isn't really applicable here as to my knowledge there has been no on-wiki dispute between DC and Kintetsubuffalo.

DC is a journalist, writing exposés about newsworthy/problematic Wikipedia people and events, no different from Amanda Filipacchi or Phil Taylor other than the fact that he is also a long-time Wikipedia editor. Membership here should not give one extra ammo with which to try to silence one's critics. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRWolfie-

An editor has brought up credible evidence that another editor is a member of the Ku Klux Klan. This AE thread and the original AN thread, to my surprise are not about dealing with this extraordinary revelation and trying to set up some process to arrive at the truth, rather people seem most concerned about suppressing the information, despite no specific disagreement with the evidence presented.

Wikipedia policies aren't laws which we follow blindly. It should be obvious to everyone that the "loophole" is IAR. If WP:OUTING conflicts with removing a KKK member via IAR, IAR wins. I worry about anyone that would disagree. I can not understand why there exists a discussion in which editors are trying to have DC blocked for this, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@LiquidWater Wow. You are defending the rights of someone in the KKK (a designated hate group) to edit wikipedia. No, you are taking the "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" mantra to ridiculous heights. Do you want to start unbanning and unblocking everyone too? If someone is a racist bigot and a member of a group that has been involved in murdering people over race they should be shown the door for the scum they are. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

What's up with Wikipedia? Someone provides a report on how a Wikipedia editor may be an active member in a racist hate group and other activities that should be concerning to WP's administration and a WP editor with a grudge decides to try to get the person sanctioned. You really cannot make this stuff up. And yes, this does apply to why this is or is not sanctionable here at AE. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LiquidWater

(To above statements) A user's membership in organisations such as KKK or any other political group, should not determine whether or not (s)he shall be allowed to use and edit Wikipedia. We are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Liquid Water 07:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie: Who should decide what groups are acceptable (and not) to be a member of? WP is not the place for discussions with political undertones, and even though I despise the Klu Klux Klan, it would be political censorship to exclude their members (if it can be proved that they are members) from WP. I can imagine that if a radical extremist user posted something like "fuck all Jews" or "kill all Niggers" on a third-party website, the Wikipediocracy guys would be all over WP trying to get the guy blocked. Liquid Water 08:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Delicious carbuncle

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

Without wanting to express an opinion on the merits, I think this request is not actionable at the AE level for procedural reasons. Here's why: The first decision invoked, "Delicious carbuncle posted identifying information on Fæ", is a finding of fact, not a remedy. Only remedies are enforceable. The second decision invoked, "Delicious carbuncle severely admonished and warned", is a warning, not a restriction. But the decision's enforcement section only says "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction ...", in other words, it does not provide for the enforcement of warnings. This means that administrators are not authorized to take enforcement action in this case.

As I said at AN, this matter should be referred for private deliberation to ArbCom (if it hasn't already) by any person who believes themselves to be aggrieved by the offwiki actions at issue. Onwiki discussions are unhelpful in privacy-related matters. A warning to all participants to this thread: Any statements not directly related to the question of how and whether this is actionable as an AE matter may be removed, and this entire thread may be removed if it derails into a venue for pointless drama and privacy breaches. Sandstein 12:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fae case has no provision for discretionary sanctions. All it says is that admins may issue a block if anyone restricted in the case violates a restriction. DC is not formally restricted, but the committee used vigorous language in deploring his behavior: "Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Wikipedia.." This suggests that if DC releases private information again that Arbcom might throw the book at him. Not our call. Anyone who is sufficiently concerned should take this to Arbcom directly. I think that if anyone participating here wanted to file at WP:ARCA, it would not risk the revelation of anything not previously revealed, so long as the request itself contained no additional text beyond what was filed here, and contained no links to offwiki information. If they were presented with this complaint, Arbcom could then decide what level of confidentiality they prefer. In my opinion Sandstein's removal of the above comment by Dan Murphy was correct. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta and TROUBLES

Not actionable in this form. Please resubmit, if at all, in the form that includes all required information and avoids threaded discussion. Sandstein 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

SonofSetanta (talk · contribs) has violated 1R on Ulster Defence Regiment. They Created their own knockoff version of a copyrighted logo (which is factually incorrect) and proceeded to insert it across multiple articles. The user has repeatedly threatened to report me to AE for enforcing WP:NFCC on pages that they are involved with and I am getting sick of it. The users understanding of WP:NFCC is non-existent and they edit war to violate it. Werieth (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please click here to re-add your request with all the required information, notably diffs. Sandstein 17:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 1 Diff 2 Werieth (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No violation has taken place by me. The above user has turned a problem over copyright military badges into a WP:BATTLE. He is trying to use his position to violate Troubles sanctions (and has done) despite a warning from Calil. I have followed Calil's advice and waited several hours after the 24 hour deadline for 1 RR before posting the new image which does not breach any guidelines. Furthermore I have sought advice at MILHIST and elsewhere. I believe the issue is that Werieth doesn't understand the significance of using military insignia in military info boxes. Calil has said as much. I am also very firmly of the opinion that Weieth has opened this complaint frivolously because I threatened to open one about him if he carried on editwarring in breach of 1RR at Ulster Defence Regiment and related articles. (see his talk page Werieth (talk). SonofSetanta (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AgadaUrbanit

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

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

Appealing user: AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&diff=502419675&oldid=502419285

Administrator imposing the sanction: T. Canens.

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens&diff=prev&oldid=564830321

Statement by AgadaUrbanit

It has been a year since my AE ban. I did my best to contribute to Wikipedia and respect ban restriction. Considering the length of the ban and my contributions I am requesting a lifting of my ban. Thank you.

@Sandstein

(a) I've been sanctioned as a result of submitting an AE request. There was a discussion among uninvolved administrators who decided in good faith that the request I've submitted was frivolous. Bottom line I was wrong.

(b) I did not miss my editing privileges for this noticeboard.during last year. My contributions demonstrate, I think, the restriction did not stop me from improving this project. Honestly, it is much more interesting to edit other parts of Wikipedia. From other hand frankly I would like not to feel as an unprivileged editor. If I take part in this project, I'd like to be equal.

Thank you, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by T. Canens

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AgadaUrbanit

You are appealing a ban from participating in this noticeboard. Can you (a) explain why you incurred that ban in the first place, and (b) name a situation after your ban where it would have been to the benefit of Wikipedia if you had been allowed to edit this noticeboard? Sandstein 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by AgadaUrbanit

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jiujitsuguy

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

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

Appealing user: Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=503267313&oldid=503208820

Administrator imposing the sanction: T. Canens.

Notification of that administrator

[40]

Statement by Jiujitsuguy

It has been a year since my topic ban. I have scrupulously adhered to the ban’s provisions steering clear of anything remotely related to the topic area. I’ve edited constructively outside of the topic area. In light of the Ban’s length, the fact that I’ve respected it’s provisions and the fact that I’ve edited constructively outside of the topic area[41], I am requesting a lifting of the ban. Thank you.

Statement by T. Canens

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

This editor has made less than 100 edits since the topic ban. I do not believe this should be seen as a good indicator. Should Jiujitsuguy show unequivocal understanding of exactly why he was given such a lengthy topic ban then maybe it should be considered. Normally, I don't think an admission of guilt is important, but the problem here is that his indefinite topic ban was for repeated acts of blatant deceit in his content work and in his conduct on this noticeboard. Admins should be very circumspect about giving this appeal favorable consideration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SD

I think this request should be declined. Considering Jiujitsuguys long term problematic history and repeated problematic behavior, Jiujitsuguy is a user who has never been beneficial to the A-I topic area, quite the opposite. And it would be beneficial for A-I Wikipedia articles in regards to npov and factual accuracy that user Jiujitsuguy is not permitted to edit them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

Reading the case that lead to his ban I understand that JJG was topic-banned because he falsified sources and accused another to do so : [42]. I don't think an editor with such a behaviour is welcomeon the project. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jiujitsuguy

Result of the appeal by Jiujitsuguy

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

The appeal is denied for lack of evidence of reformation. I would be minded to consider a further appeal in no less than two months' time, supported by substantial evidence of productive and collegiate editing in another area of the encyclopedia as a demonstration of intent and willingness to edit in good faith. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indef bans can't be "waited out". Productive collegial editing in other topics showing not only good behaviour but an interest in other topics is the only way to lift such bans. Follow Stifle's advice. Recommend declining this appeal--Cailil ^talk 18:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlackHades

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 BlackHades

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BlackHades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Advocacy

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

Date Argues that a textbook on "HUman biological variation" should be discounted because it is written by three distinguished biological anthropologists, the obvious field of expertise on human biological variation - who also happen to be skeptical about the biological bases of race. Also argues that the source should be discounted because it does not review certain sources that make conclusions favorable to the hereditarian point. WP:CHERRYPICKING obviously does not apply to reliable secondary or tertiary sources - but in fact should be taken as indicative of a lack of standing of the excluded studies within the field. We establish which studies should be included within the mainstream of a field by how they are treated or ignored by high quality sources. Attempts to refute a reliable source with primary sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Date Repeatedly argues that a statement that Nisbett's claim (that evidence favors an entirely environmental explanation) is extreme can be interpreted to mean that Nisbett himself, a highly esteemed psychologist of eminent standing in the field, is fringe. A clear breach of the injunction against misrepresenting the status between mainstream and minority viewpoints. He is also using Hunt's claim about Nisbetts 2009 claim that the evidence favors an environmental explanation, to try to discard the validity of this source " Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric. American Psychologist, Vol 67(2), Feb-Mar 2012, 130-159" which is a review article coauthored by Nisbett and an all-star team of IQ researchers and published in the flagship journal of the field of psychology - basically the most reliable source thinkable for a dispute such as this.
Date [43] Citing outdated sources in support of claims about the current status in the field. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption study was concluded in 1972 and has been specifically criticized for failing to take into account environmentalist effects, and is considered inconclusive. The Rothman and Snyderman Survey claimed to show that there is wide syupport in Psychology today for the hereditarian explanation was published in 1987 7 years before the Bell Curve was even published and 25 years before the source that he is attempting to use it to refute.
Date Editwarring on Race and Genetics after having been previously blocked for editwarring within the same topic.
Date Here BlackHades is using a survey that observes that anthropologists in certain countries tend to accept race with a higher frequency than American anthropologists to argue that the concept of race has scientific validity in spite of the fact that the study itself concludes that the reason anthropologists in some countries, particularly Eastern Europe and China, continue to be more accepting of the concept is because they are not familiar with the literature and there is little tradition for that type of research in those countries - i.e. he uses the studies' results to undermine its own conclusions - a textbook case of WP:OR.
Date Here BlackHAdes is attempting to move a clear fringe argument into the mainstream by simpli arguing that it has been cited by two other hereditarian authors - whereas it is in fact entirely ignored in mainstream reviews of the field.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on [44] by Dougweller (talk · contribs)
Warned on Date by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
Blocked [45] for edit warring as an Arbitration enforcement block by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Several other editors have commented on the talkpage in support of my efforts to rewrite the article which now relies on many primary sources and with an idiosyncratic weighting that favors the minority view in accordance with mainstream secondary sources. When presented with clear and obvious mainstream sources such as general texbook introductions to the fields of psychology or human biological variation, or review articles from mainstream journals or handbooks, he works to undercut their authority through Original Research, by throwing their credentials into doubt, or by suggesting that they are fringe scientists in their fields o similarly - this can only be interpreted as deliberate attempts to misrepresent the mainstream in contravention of wikipedia policy and arbcom injunctions. User:BlackHades is for all intents an purposes an advocacy SPA all though he divides his wikipedia time between advocating at R&I and at GMO related articles. His editing practices are familiar to seasoned R&I editors because they rely on subtly misrepresenting sources and legthy repetitive argumentation on talkpages to hamper efforts to bring the article in line with policies and maintain a hereditarian bias. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make absolutely clear that this is not a content dispute. I have no problem discussing content and sources, if done in a collegial and rational manner. In fact I think that I agree with BlackHAdes to a much wider degree than he believes. He has however continuously worked to polarize the debate by marking mainstream sources as extreme, by misrepresenting my claims (I have for example at no point claimed that Nisbett's 100% claim (which in fact he doesn't make) has wide support in the mainstream literature), and for example contrary to what BlackHades claims I had at my own initiative already stated that I would use Hunt's "Human Intelligence" as one of the main sources for the new rewrite along with a group of other mainstream secondary sources. BlackHades approach to editing has a polarizing effect and is the same kind of disruption that made progress on the article impossible in the past - essentially a kind of filibustering technique, where every even the least controversial edits to the article will be followed by nine pages of tit for tat on the talkpage. When BlackHades calls my 41 edits to the article "highly controversial" that simply means he didn't like them - because they have received wide support from several other editors on the talkpage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: If you want to interpret "content dispute" that broadly then 90% of the cases handled by ArbCom are content disputes. R&I has from the outset been a dispute that involves both conduct and content - namely because some editors work to use influence content in favor of a particular view and quite consistently do so by contravening our policies. As I say my Problem with BlackHades is not about what goes into the article (and all of my recent edits have been backed by a talkpage consensus, so basically there is no question about what goes into the article at all), but with his way of arguing by misrepresenting sources and misrepresenting the scholarly consensus, his tendency to work to undermine our sourcing policies about how to determine source reliability. If one cannot trust another editor to work in good faith to improve the encyclopedia by following our policies and establishing weigting of material by using the most reliable sources, but instead to work with the personal aim of promoting a minority view by any means possible including misinterpreting our sourcing policies and spuriously rejecting high quality sources, then that is a conduct issue not a content issue. And yes my evidence supports the claim of filibustering because it is all examples of using repetitive and spurious argumentation in order to stall the process of editing. I direct anyone interested in seeing what I mean by Filibustering to look at the talkpage of the article and see how thread by thread is derailed using the same argumentation ad nauseam "Nisbett is Extreme", "you are biased", "Snyderman and Rothman says the hereditarian position is the majority (it is 25 years old)", "the transracial adoption studies provide support for the hereditarian view (mainstream sources conclude it doesn't)" etc. That IS filibustering, because it keeps discussions going in circles and prevents any work being done on the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [46][47]

Discussion concerning BlackHades

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 BlackHades

There's so much Maunus is misrepresenting here. Regarding the first diff, I was politely trying to explain to Maunus that there are far more admixture studies than what his source acknowledges and was trying to open his mind to other reliable sources and to take into account all studies in the field rather just ones that would just fit a specific viewpoint. For some reason Maunus took great offensive to this, and called me "pathetic" and said I was "wasting time" in his following post.[48] I followed this up by providing TWO very high quality secondary sources that considers a much wider range of studies that came to very difference conclusions in stark contrast to the source he provided. Which was Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence".[49] Maunus has made 41 edits in Race and Intelligence in the past week. Many of which are highly controversial and yet it's as though he feels there should be absolutely no objections to any changes he makes and that everyone should just accept what he does. My objections aren't alone either. User:The Devil's Advocate and User:Atethnekos have both raised concerns to the changes Maunus was making.[50][51]

Regarding the second diff by Maunus, I've made it abundantly clear to Maunus that both the 80% genetic hypothesis of Jensen/Rushton, as well as the 100% environmental hypothesis by Nisbett, are extreme positions in the scientific field. The fact is that they're both the extreme ends and reliable secondary sources makes this repeatedly clear. I've provided Maunus with several reliable secondary sources that have considered Nisbett's positions to be extreme.[52][53] Although I consider both Jensen/Rushton and Nisbett to be extremes of their respective positions, I do hold that both should have at least some weight in the article. I was just trying to get Maunus to open his mind just a little to more mainstream reliable secondary sources and not just ones that fit Nisbett's position. This is why I strongly suggested he consider Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence", both of which is critical of Nisbett's arguments (as well as Jensen/Rushton) which for some reason he seems to take great offense to.

Regarding the third diff, Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is an extremely highly regarded study and the most comprehensive of its kind and is heavily cited by both hereditarians and environmentalists in the field. It is explained in great detail by both Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence" as well as nearly every comprehensive overview of adoption and admixture studies. Which is what made Maunus's source all the more unusual and an anomaly. I'm not sure why Maunus is bringing up age of studies as the admixture studies in his source are much older. (Flynn 1980, Loehlin et al. 1975). The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study originally published in 1976, had a follow up study published in 1996.

As to edit warring in Race and genetics. Maunus completely misrepresents the situation. The 3RR warning was placed by Aprock, who was actually the one edit warring, and who repeatedly tried to insert a POV line into what is suppose to be a neutral RfC.[54][55][56][57][58] For which EdJohnston had to warn Aprock to stop or risk getting blocked.[59]

Regarding diff #5, this is further evidence that Maunus will only allow one specific position as far as sources. The topic of race is certainly very contentious, controversial, and disputed in the scientific field. The articles of wikipedia should be able to accurately represent this controversy, as it exists in the scientific field, and fairly show all significant views per WP:NPOV. However, Maunus and some other editors, will only allow one specific position into these articles and repeatedly reject any source that does not support this one position, which is that races doesn't exist and all differences are environmental. This one position is certainly significant, relevant, and deserve weight in the article. The problem is the constant attempt by some editors, like Maunus, to either try to make this the ONLY view in science or the overwhelming near consensus view in science. When in actuality, the issue is extremely controversial and contentious in the scientific field. These editors have been, and still remain, to be a significant problem in these articles. Their conduct extremely difficult to deal with as has been stated by User:The Devil's Advocate. Not only have there been a complete unwillingness to work with anybody that differs from this one position, they threaten anyone that differs from this one position with ArbCom. In the past, there have been problems with some editors trying to over-weigh the hereditarian position. This I completely understand and realize was a huge problem. However many editors interpret this to mean that sources that do not support the environmental position doesn't belong in the article and anyone that tries to cite otherwise should face ArbCom. The current problem in these articles appear to be the other extreme from the problem that was here previously. Which is that editors now support the extreme environmental positions of Nisbett and try to get all the race articles to match this position, and go on mass deleting sprees of quality reliable sources that would differ from this one position. Of which I recently had to start a RfC in order to stop at least some of this mass deletion. The results of the RfC came in overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion and against deletion.[60]

I completely reject the notion by Maunus that I am a SPA. I've been involved in an extremely wide range of science related wikipedia articles completely unrelated to race. Including Genetically modified food, Genetically modified food controversies, Wow! signal, Ultimate fate of the universe, Human genetic engineering, Multiverse, Intelligence quotient, IQ classification, Séralini affair, etc. In fact, of all my article edits, all race related article edits combined only make up 34% of my article edits. I'm not sure what Maunus feels is a SPA but I'm confident this is not it. BlackHades (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci. Please stop constantly making up stuff about me. Not only did I not edit this article in October 2012, I didn't edit wikipedia PERIOD in October 2012 as my history clearly shows which anyone is free to look at. So I have no idea who Mathsci is talking about when he says "editing in concert with Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate" but it certainly can't be me. Also when did I ever state I might report Aprock or ArtifexMayem? I challenge you to find this diff.

I've been extremely open and willing to work with other editors. Maunus has made 41 edits to the R&I article in the past week, whereas I have made 4. Maunus' complaint here doesn't even appear to be about any actual article edits I've made but just about me raising concerns and providing sources in Talk discussion. I was under the impression that the Talk section was meant for raising concerns, resolving disputes, and discussions for improvement. BlackHades (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I have been only tangentially involved in the most recent dispute, because I objected to Maunus slanting the lede by removing nearly all mention of hereditarian views. My observation has been that there is a lot of rhetoric about sourcing thrown about by some editors in the midst of disputes in this topic area to try and set the stage for removing editors who disagree with them through a process such as AE. "Misrepresenting sources", "misuse of sources", and "cherry-picking", are common buzz words that I find rarely being explained by those throwing them about. Here Maunus is misrepresenting the nature of the "edit-warring" on the Race and Genetics talk page. After a DRN where Aprock's primary involvement was to say there was no point in discussing because it was a "clear case of cherry-picking" the decision was made to have an RFC on wording in the article. Aprock repeatedly tried to add wording to the RfC that was blatantly geared towards cementing his position. Maunus subsequently joined in on the edit-warring to restore that slanted wording to the RfC. We managed to reach a satisfactory solution that had Aprock's statement clearly attributed and put in a prominent space where it was less objectionable, but it just shows the kind of conduct BH has to deal with in the R&I topic area. My opinion is that removing BH from the topic area will not be beneficial for the objectivity of the article's content. Maunus, Aprock, and other editors need to be more open to discussion and collaboration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, the previous AE block BlackHades received was for the SPI in question, not edit-warring as Maunus claimed. As I already explained in my previous comment the other edit-warring claim was due to Aprock trying to add biased information to the wording of an RfC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aprock

While not viewable to all, I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KillerChihuahua is another good illustration of BlackHades' disruption. aprock (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, The issue of content versus conduct is certainly relevant here. Editors resort to various conduct behaviors to promote their preferred content. The principles laid out in WP:ARBR&I enumerate aspects of conduct which are relevant here:

Similarly, the primary finding of fact characterizes the conduct/behavior of the disruptive editors:

The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources.

It may be that it is outside the scope of AE to determine whether or not the conduct of BlackHades is in opposition to the listed principles of WP:ARBR&I, and whether or not the findings of fact apply to his conduct. If that's the case, being clear on that fact would be very helpful. aprock (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

My understanding of Maunus' complaint is that BlackHades has been systematically misrepresenting or ignoring sources to push a minority point of view as mainstream. Maunus is trained as an academic anthropologist and is the first regular editor since August 2010 that has attempted to improve the problematic article Race and intelligence. While doing so, he has apparently encountered tendentious editing from BlackHades of the same kind that led to his request for a Nature & Nurture topic ban for Acadēmica Orientālis a year ago. His frustration presumably led to this report. It is unclear how this situation can be resolved.

A factor that has continued to complicate the editing environment in WP:ARBR&I has been the appearance of editors that appear to be socks of banned users. The most recent such account was Akuri, who interacted with BlackHades, lent support to his edits and has been supported by him. Akuri was blocked by arbitrators in May and his talk page access revoked in June. Since then there has been no on-wiki disruption traceable to banned users. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Johnuniq

Science can be used to prove all sorts of things, and now an analysis shows that R&I is at #9 in The 10 Most Controversial Wikipedia Topics Around the World (from Signpost).

I do not know if AE can help, but something is needed to assist editors known to value the encyclopedia, as they compete with those with a special interest. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning BlackHades

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

The arbitration process, and by extension its enforcement, only resolves conduct disputes, not content disputes. To the extent this case presents any conduct problems, they are not presented in such a way that would allow me to distinguish them from the content disagreement that appears to be underlying this dispute. Editors may legitimately disagree about which sources should be used, especially on talk pages, without engaging in forbidden advocacy. The measured response by Black Hades also does not give me the impression that they are here to push a particular point of view. To determine whether any advocacy has happened here, I would need to engage in a thorough review of the apparently complicated scientific literature on the subject, which is not feasible in the context of this process and would also require me in effect to take a position in the content dispute. The only indications of possible conduct problems are the edit-warring allegations (which however are undated and not supported by diffs of the alleged edit-warring) and the issue of the sockpuppet investigation request mentioned by Aprock that was deleted as frivolous (and rightly so, in my view), but that was in February 2013 and therefore does not appear actionable any more at this time, at least not on its own. I would therefore decline to take action here and advise both parties to engage more thoroughly in the WP:DR process, for instance by inviting third-party comments, to resolve their content disagreement. Sandstein 06:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I am still not convinced that AE can or should do something about your complaint. Broadly speaking, "content dispute" means "any disagreement about what should be in an article". This includes disagreements about which sources to use and why. Admittedly it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between some types of content disagreements and conduct problems. Certain policies and guidelines cover both content and conduct. For instance, WP:NPOV requires neutral content, but it also requires editors to behave in a manner conducive to producing a neutral reference work ("all editors and articles must follow it"). Determining the point at which a content disagreement also becomes a conduct problem can be very difficult, especially in specialized academic topics such as this one. This calls for restraint on the part of administrators. For example, writing stuff like "All white people are stupid and it is proven by science!!!" into this article might well be an obvious violation of WP:NPOV also in its aspect as a conduct policy (in addition to vandalism), and therefore sanctionable via this board. And if a person is continuously adding material that changes articles in favor of only one particular point of view, it may be possible (depending on circumstances) to infer from this behavior that their intent is not to make Wikipedia more neutral, without needing to examine the merits of their individual edits. But a disagreement that is broadly within the scope of good-faith discourse between educated persons, or academics specializing in the field (as this one seems to be) is often beyond the reach of AE. That's because for the purpose of determining whether one editor is (for example) inadmissibly adding non-neutral content to articles, I would need to read all the literature on this topic myself, for which I have neither the time nor the inclination. The Arbitration Committee may occasionally be able to examine a dispute in this depth, but individual admins will hardly ever be able to. We also need to take care that we do not inadvertently begin "resolving" good-faith content disputes with admin tools.

Now, your new allegation that BlackHades engages in disruptive talk page "filibustering" is at least potentially a conduct issue. But it is not at all supported by the evidence you submitted, which is all about other issues such as the scientific merits of what BlackHades says on talk pages. To substantiate this new allegation, you would need to supply proper evidence - dated diffs - of the alleged filibustering, and explain why these diffs mean that BlackHades has violated any particular talk page conduct policy or guideline. If you cannot prove your allegation, you should not make it at all, because making allegations of misconduct without evidence is generally in and of itself disruptive and may, if repeated, lead to sanctions against you. I still think that it is probably advisable for all of you to go back on the talk page and experiment with content dispute resolution methods such as WP:RfC or WP:3O.

Everybody else, please do not complicate this issue further by including allegations relating to other users or situations; this is not a general dispute resolution forum. Please limit your statements to what is helpful to determine whether any conduct reported here by Maunus or possibly BlackHades is sanctionable via AE. Sandstein 19:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

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

Appealing user: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Ban from participating in AE except to defend myself, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#Nishidani, logged at WP:ARBPIA#2013

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

Notification of that administrator: [61]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

I made a good faith AE complaint. I have never been warned (or even accused) of using AE improperly. I have a completely clean record. I think this sanction is disproportionate for a first offense (even when ignoring the lack of AGF). I would like the sanction lifted.

@Sandstein: The fact I made no mainspace edits since my ban doesn't allow you to "to ascertain whether the problems that caused the ban have since disappeared"? I haven't made any edits because I was somewhat upset that a good faith report I made at AE about something that has been bothering me and other Jewish editors for years, was dismissed out of hand by a single administrator over the weekend following the 4th of July. So I took a short wikibreak. Now you're trying to hold that against me as if it can be in any way relevant to this appeal? How exactly are mainspace edits relevant to a ban from AE?

As for understanding why I was sanctioned, I understand perfectly. You think I was not acting in good faith. The thing is, I was acting in good faith. If you had bothered to follow the diffs (which you admitted you only glanced at) you would have seen that except for the "chosen people" thing, in every case I told Nishidani that he was using offensive language and that if he continues I would eventually seek admin intervention. I apparently made a mistake regarding the willingness of the administration here to deal with this sort of thing (anyone remember the Jews and Money fiasco? Here's a little reminder. It took 4 threads at ANI to get this eventually taken care of. Imagine if the first complaint would have resulted in someone being banned. The chilling effect would have probably left that article in the encyclopedia). Anyway, I understand why I was sanctioned. Because an administrator did not assume good faith.

Statement by Sandstein

I disagree with the appellant that the ban from AE (with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic only) for making a frivolous AE request is disproportionate.

Discretionary sanctions in particular can be wide-ranging and severe, and requesting them for specious or abusive reasons (including, in this case, unfounded allegations or insinuations of antisemitism) has the effect of harassment or gaming the system. This is particularly so in the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, where there are entrenched groups of editors each associated with a particular point of view who have been sniping at each other through various processes for, in some cases, years on end. AE must not become another weapon with which to pursue factional conflicts, but it must only be used to address genuine cases (or risks) of misconduct.

In addition, the appellant does not indicate in their appeal that they understand why they were sanctioned, what they would now do differently if once again allowed to participate here, or in which situation it would have been beneficial for Wikipedia or the AE process if they had been allowed to participate at AE.

Finally, they have made no mainspace edits and hardly any other edits since having been banned from AE on 6 July. This is not a good sign also, because it does not allow us to ascertain whether the problems that caused the ban have since disappeared.

For these reasons, I recommend to decline the appeal. Sandstein 08:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I am "involved" in the sense that I edit in the Israel/Palestine area and have had numerous content disagreements with NMMNG. I also argued against the AE case that NMMNG brought against Nishidani, that led to his AE ban. So I am not speaking as an ally of NMMNG when I say that I do not believe he was acting in bad faith. Biased, yes, mistaken, yes, bad faith, no. NMMNG should set a much higher threshold before accusing someone of antisemitism. Meanwhile, I suggest to administrators that they ignore the slanging match between NMMNG and Sandstein and bring the following compromise judgement: adjust the indefinite AE ban into a one-month ban, starting at the original date (July 6). Zero^talk 05:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not accuse Nishidani of antisemitism. I accused him of Jew-baiting and trolling. That's not the same thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

(Nb: I am involved in the topic of the I-P articles and had some interactions with NMMNG that were not bad but long time ago...)

I tried to make NMMNG realize around 8 months ago that his involvment in contentious articles was not good for him : here.

He didn't follow the advice and recently expressed himself his "disgust" for wikipedia : [62]

He has become a problem and his request against Nishidani is just an example. I fear that he will soon be totally banned if he doesn't cool down. Assuming his Good Faith (WP:AGF) or not is not the question today. He is currently no more here for the project because of some bitterness and he doesn't Assume Good Faith at all on his side.

I would suggest he takes a few weeks/months wikibreak and comes back with a better mood. He should consider the proposal. I think the community could leave this ban immediately to show/prove him that we think he could be very usefull for the project but with another mind. And if he understands the advice properly, he will not edits AE pages any more and self-ban from these...

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above was prompted by this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My message 8 months ago was prompted by the fact I was convinced that you could be usefull to the encyclopedia as well as my suggestion to leave your ban. But I am still convinced you should take a long break or you will be definitely banned after creating big troubles. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

'I did not accuse Nishidani of antisemitism. I accused him of Jew-baiting and trolling'. I'd like for the record to know what the distinction is between antisemitism and Jew-baiting. To me, ~~they are identical.~~ the former is a subset of the latter. (b)I have no problems with accepting that NMMGG thought he was acting in good faith. The problem is, he has refused for some years to believe I edit in good faith, since his standard patter is that I am intellectually and morally dishonest. Protesting one is acting in good faith means that good faith has been challenged. NMMGG in the past constantly challenged my WP:AGF, while being convinced of his own. When NMMGG in his request persists in writing,'I apparently made a mistake regarding the willingness of the administration here to deal with this sort of thing (anyone remember the Jews and Money fiasco?)', he, in good faith, is persisting in saying arbitrators here turn a blind eye to my consistent offensiveness, which he defines as 'Jew-baiting' (antisemitism). He says he is still convinced he was punished for my fault, which AE is reluctant to see.
'Perhaps No More Mr Nice Guy was seeing something that didn't exist?' (A Quest For Knowledge).
There's no smoke without fire? I suppose I'd better make a statement on my 'attitude'. When not editing a lot of other articles, I work in the I/P area, which only thickskinned people not prone to shell-shock and ready to shovel tedious shit half the time should attempt to do. I see my function there as ensuring what I found was lacking several years ago, an adequate care that both sides of a conflicted narrative are duly represented. I see things, yes, from a Palestinian perspective, one informed however by a deep reading of nationalism, antisemitism, and the murderous rhetoric and hysteria of the first half of the 20th century. That means that whatever I read of one particular people's plight and victimization and smearing in the past makes me look at any contemporary ethnic plight with the same sympathetic focus. I edit on Australian aborigines, the Barasana, the Tibetans, and other groups with exactly the same principles. No one in those areas, if you check the record, calls me a sinophobe, or a white-baiter. I strive to apply exactly the same intellectual, and if you like, or even if you dislike, ethical criteria in reading that conflict's reportage and literature. I don't accept double standards, here, or in life, though no one manages coherence in either with 100% consistency. This works out as being identified as either a rabid anti-Zionist, or an antisemite, because, in my perhaps mistaken conviction the Palestinian side is poorly reported except in academic sources, I do tithe my daily work to see that what happens on that side is mentioned on wikipedia, and my sources are the mainstream Israeli press or reliably published academic literature. Numerous editors, from User:Zeq, User:Jaakobou, User:Jiujitsuguy, User:Amoruso, User:NoCal100 to several others, and a great many socks, have found my presence intolerable and, some of them argued, antisemitic. So, perhaps they have a point, perhaps they see something I can't in my own attitude. My reply is, they all fail, NMMGG included, though he is a different kettle of fish, to look with the detachment they are so insistant in asking I adopt.
Finally, I agree with Zero, with a caution. In this place, AE/AI/and using one's revert rights to help other editors, is not a healthy way to build an encyclopedia. One's bona fides here are not evinced in monitoring other editors primarily, but sitting down, over books, and culling information to craft articles, with informed neutrality. I'd like to see less hunting for what traces of my and other's bad faith he thinks he will find, and more evidence of actually working to expand articles significantly.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only intruding here because the argument that I have it in for 'Jewish people' comes up fairly constantly in my regard, even recently by innuendoes based on a total distortion of what I edit (i.e. my major source there happens to be Peter Golden, the most brilliant, illumined and illuminating scholar in his field). Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I recall the RfE filed by No More Mr Nice Guy. At the time, I did not post a comment because the evidence presented was too subtle to make an accurate assessment of the RfE. Perhaps No More Mr Nice Guy was seeing something that didn't exist? Honestly, I don't know. But I do know that sometimes there are conduct issues that are genuinely legitimate but are difficult to discern by someone without lengthy experience with the dispute. And so No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions. But perhaps AE saw something that didn't exist? Again, I honestly don't know. But I do know that Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia and it should not be discounted without good evidence. Unless someone can provide good evidence why No More Mr Nice Guy's good faith should be doubted, I recommend lifting the restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

I think that time-limiting the sanction would be more proportionate, as this would serve a more appropriate educational and preventative purpose for No More Mr Nice Guy. Bans are not generally intended as punitive. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit troubled by some of NMMNG's contentious responses in this appeal (e.g., attempting to distinguish Jew-baiting from antisemitism). That said, I think an indefinite ban is more than is necessary to prevent further disruption. I think one month is too short, though. I suggest reducing the ban to three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (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 352: / Line 352: @@
 <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 *The appeal is denied for lack of evidence of reformation. I would be minded to consider a further appeal in no less than two months' time, supported by substantial evidence of productive and collegiate editing in another area of the encyclopedia as a demonstration of intent and willingness to edit in good faith. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
+*Indef bans can't be "waited out". Productive collegial editing in other topics showing not only good behaviour but an interest in other topics is the only way to lift such bans. Follow Stifle's advice. Recommend declining this appeal--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 18:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 ==BlackHades==

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