Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:28, 28 January 2014

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	332

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad

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: HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, imposed at [here].

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by HouseOfArtaxiad

I would like to appeal a six month ban I was given three months ago. The requester cites a dispute on the Shushi article. He says I was ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but I was very active in it. He also claims I was edit warring, but I had only undone two edits, the same amount as he himself, and did not violate the three per day rule or anything that directly merited punishment. I feel the request to ban me was more like a ban for having a different opinion and EdJohnson rushed to place a ban. I think this was a relatively small incident that was reacted to too harshly. Considering almost all of my edits are focused around Armenian topics, most of which aren't controversial, I think half a year is too long of a sanction and that three months is plenty. Having already spent half the time banned, I want to request it be removed now. I promise I will not do any undoing during my next talk regardless of if the other editor does it or not. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

HouseOfArtaxiad has done very little editing since the closure of the original AE in November 2013 that led to his ban. So this should be viewed as though it was an immediate appeal in which he challenges the grounds presented at AE for the sanction.

For reference, the original AE discussion was here.
The prior ANI discussion was here. The bottom line of that ANI was summarized by User:Drmies as: "HouseOfArtaxiad, you are hereby warned that your behavior is unacceptable and blockable".

In my opinion, the appeal should be judged on whether HouseOfArtaxiad effectively refutes the points raised in the above two discussions. To save following a lot of links, here was the original argument I presented:

My statement in the November 2013 AE

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

HouseOfArtaxiad has now edit warred at two articles: List of massacres in Turkey and Nazim Bey. Look at the massacres article first because it's easier to check, even though HOA only reverted twice there:

List of massacres in Turkey: First check the talk page and notice that HouseOfArtaxiad hasn't posted there at all. Then note these two reverts:

No edit summary, 1 November 2013
"Undoing vandalism. Most of these don't have sources, and the rest are sourced to people such as Justin McCarthy, whom was declared unreliable in the talk.", 4 November 2013

One of the massacres that he removes is called 'Massacres in the Çoruh River valley', which has an academic source in a book by Robert Gewarth et al. published by Oxford University Press, “War in peace: Paramilitary violence in Europe after the Great War”. This was a massacre where Armenians are said to have participated. Another is Yıldız assassination attempt, which describes an attack carried out by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. It's reasonable to have low tolerance for edit warring on obvious ethnic hot-button articles like this one. The other article where HOA engaged in warring is Nazim Bey.

Nazim Bey: HouseOfArtaxiad made nine reverts here that occurred between Sept 18 and Nov 4. See the summary by User:Drmies Here:

"What a fine mess. HouseOfArtaxiad is (besides the personal attacks and false claims of vandalism) very clearly edit warring here; I just slapped a warning on their talk page. Their suggestion that the Ungor book is unreliable is based on nothing at all, and at any rate such a discussion ought to take place on the article talk page or on WP:RSN, not with some sneers in edit summaries.."

I didn't look into the claims of edit warring at Shusha, a dispute which has now led to full protection of the article by User:Ymblanter. My recommendation for a sanction is given in the admin section below. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding HoA's claim that 'EdJohnston rushed to place a ban', please note that User:Sandstein and User:Drmies also supported this action. In terms of 'rushing', the complaint was opened on 8 November and closed on 15 November. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad

Result of the appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad

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

This appeal isn't going anywhere, and may be archived, if the sanctioning administrator is not notified of the appeal by the appellant, as instructed in the template. Then we normally wait for the sanctioning admin to make a statement. Sandstein 09:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that I voiced support for the ban in the discussion about the enforcement request that led up to the ban. But this appeal does not require us to examine whether the ban was appropriate to begin with. That's because HouseOfArtaxiad does not contest this. They only want the ban to end now rather than in three months.
In my view, this appeal should be declined. First, on procedural grounds: such a request should have been made to the sanctioning admin first. Second, because HouseOfArtaxiad's assumptions about how sanctions work are mistaken. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. They should end as soon as they are no longer needed to prevent problematic behavior, not sooner and not later. This means that one can't argue that a less serious infraction (which HouseOfArtaxiad believes this was) must automatically result in a sanction of a shorter duration.
In order for us to be able to determine whether the ban is no longer needed at this time, HouseOfArtaxiad would need to address their misconduct that caused the ban, and explain why it will not reoccur (see, by analogy, WP:GAB). Because HouseOfArtaxiad doesn't do that here (instead, they attempt to play down the significance of their misconduct), and because their lack of an editing record since the imposition of the ban doesn't allow us to infer that they will edit non-disruptively if unbanned, I don't see an argument for why the ban should be lifted now rather than later. Sandstein 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein on this one. Given that HouseOfArtaxiad has been mostly inactive there is no evidence that they would be able to edit constructively in this topic so the appeal is, in effect, that there was no evidence to ban and hence that the administrators acted outside the DS policy. I find both of these to be groundless so recommend declining the appeal until HouseOfArtaxiad can present evidence that the ban is no longer needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen

No actionable evidence submitted. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:39, 27 January 2014 (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 Lecen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cambalachero (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Cambalachero-Lecen interaction ban and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban

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

January 23, 2014 Lecen mentions both MarshalN20 and me by name, and requests some unclear action against us. He does not report any actual and tangible violation of any ban.

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

Warned on November 29, 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) (actually, it was a previous block for this very same reason)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is an interaction ban of Lecen with both MarshalN20 and me. He mentions both of us, by name, and requests some unclear action against us (he's not reporting any violation of the bans, nor anything that may affect him somehow). Besides, he is a reincident, he has already been blocked for violation the interaction bans. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Lecen, for the enforcement discussion that led to his block, and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Request for amendment (December 2013) for the discussion where the first violation took place. I will point as well some info that may be relevant here.

Lecen's description of the case is completely inaccurate. As it can be seen in the enforcement discussion, he was not blocked immediately: he did receive explanations of the meaning and extent of his interaction ban, and was blocked only after his refusal to remove the text that was violating it.
The discussion that led Lecen to complain that the case is "still alive" is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations. It is a discussion between MarshalN20 and Astynax. Lecen is not involved in it, and has no interests at stake to justify ignoring the interaction ban.
During the previous discussion Lecen mentioned his retirement, and some users blamed me for it. Let me clarify that detail. As I have been checking in histories and archives, Lecen weared the "retired" tag on November 24. MarshalN20's clarification request was opened on November 27, and Lecen made the edit that led to his block on November 28. Thus, his alleged retirement was not caused by the enforcement. He was blocked for one month on November 29, and the block expired on December 29. He began to edit again on January 8 (just mere 10 days afterwards), and removed the "retired" tag on January 15.
Newyorkbrad says that if Lecen had appealed his block, he may have supported an unblock. Still, the outcome of such appeal belongs in the realm of the speculation, as other arbitrators may have rejected it. With things as they are, Lecen was blocked and the block was not contested, so it must be considered as a precedent for this new violation of the interaction ban.
As far as I know, a one-month block is the standard block for first violations of bans.

As in the previous case, I'm talking about Lecen here because I consider that the interaction ban has been violated, which is a standard exception to the ban. Cambalachero (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Penwhale: I noticed the edt because the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is in my watchlist since the original case was proposed in it. Cambalachero (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Lecen

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 Lecen

Statement by MarshalN20

What bothers me about this is not that Lecen indirectly mentions Cambalachero & myself (which breaches the WP:IBAN point: "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly"), but rather that WP:ASPERSIONS continues to be broken.

In fact, assuming good faith, Lecen's indirect mentions show no clear intention of breaking his IBAN. For this reason, perhaps only a warning is necessary that any further indirect breaches will result in blocks. Nonetheless, this being stated, Cambalachero's request is justifiable and formal sanctions would be justifiable as well (especially when considering the aspersion casting).

Indeed, the true serious problem here is the aspersion casting (one of the principles of the Argentine history case [1]). Not only is this taking place against Cambalachero and myself, but also against Sandstein (who is accused of "arbitrary use of powers"). Moreover, Lecen mildly insults the Arbitration Committee as well ("Will there be a moment when anyone among the arbitrators will wake up and do something?").

The aspersion casting against Cambalachero and me is already under study (and sanction proposals) at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations) for another user. It surprises me that Lecen takes this time to also carry on the torch and continue with the insults. Then again, perhaps it should not be surprising.

However, the unwarranted attacks against Sandstein are not under study at AN/I. To be fair, Lecen is not the only user who has commented negatively on Sandstein. Nevertheless, Lecen's insults have no real justification when considering that Sandstein simply followed protocol and even Lecen's own suggestion to block him (see [2], "I fully agree with Sandstein"). I know that Sandstein has a tough skin, but surely there is a limit to the amount of insults anyone can take from others.

Should Lecen be taken to AN/I for all the aforementioned aspersion casting, or can the enforcement board do something about it?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that I filed (and later withdrew) a clarification request at the Arbitration Committee page (which is now archived [3]). Cambalachero was notified of the request. Since I tagged the page on my watchlist, I became aware of Lecen's talk page statement on 24 January. My request was archived 20 hours later (see [4]). Since this is how I became aware of Lecen's statement, it seems logical that Cambalachero became aware of it in the same manner. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lecen

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

It seems to me that Lecen's comments at Arbitration/Requests#Message_for_the_Arbitrators fall under exceptions to limited bans, reasonably interpreted, which include when "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the original block based on this edit has merit because I quote, Now let's take a look at what Marshal has done in the last month - this portion breaks the IBAN as the request didn't directly deal with Lecen (Lecen is not under TBAN in this area and thus the request normally doesn't affect him). That being said: I believe this request is without merit as the only text in this that refers to MarshalN and Cambalachero were exactly what Lecen wrote on ARCA in the first place - and Lecen is raising concerns on the block due to that. Therefore, from my point of view, this is not a violation of the TBAN. On the flip side, I do not understand how under the IBAN would Cambalachero notice Lecen's edit. @Cambalachero:, can you answer this? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not a violation of the IBAN and so is not actionable in this forum. Cambalachero would have been well advised to ignore Lecen's post as it did not deal directly with him. In fact this seems to have been used as a chance to get the other side blocked rather than to try and stop the behaviour which lead to the sanction. Due to that I recommend that this request be declined. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blippy

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 Blippy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Standard discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience and fringe science topics, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2#Discretionary sanctions

Blacklight Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a company that claims (and has claimed for a couple of decades, now) to have developed remarkable new technology to extract energy from hydrogen atoms using a non-standard theory of physics. The topic falls squarely within the bounds of fringe science and arguably falls under 'cold fusion' as well.

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

In a long series of edits around 15 and 16 January, Blippy edit warred extensively to include favorable content and claims from a Blacklight Power press release. This edit warring resulted in 72 hours of full protection of the article. While the article was protected, it was discovered that Blippy's additions included a substantial copyvio. As a result of the ensuing AN/I discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Breach of copyright in a locked article) several revisions of the article were deleted, and Blippy's edits were removed by an independent admin while the article remained fully protected.

Over a period of just under four days, Blippy engaged in slow edit warring by making daily reverts to re-add certain claims to the article. These scientific claims were sourced, rather dubiously, to The Village Voice (a tabloid newspaper). This edit warring began less than a day after the previous full protection of the article had expired.

Four separate editors disagreed with the use of the source and independently removed the claim from the article: Bhny, Noformation, Alexbrn, and AndyTheGrump. Several editors tried, and failed, to explain their concerns to Blippy at Talk:Blacklight Power#Village Voice addition.

When Blippy was cautioned (by me, TenOfAllTrades; see diff below) about edit warring on the content, he decided instead to start edit warring to add a {{POV}} template to the article. So far, we're up to three attempts – in less than 24 hours – to 'spite tag' the article since he couldn't get his way.

On the talk page, he justifies his action by claiming that "many of the editors [t]here seem to be justifying their removal of such material based on personal animosity toward BLP [Blacklight Power]": Talk:Blacklight Power#NPOV. Once again, on the matter of the tag he is a lone holdout against the consensus of several different editors, including Alexbrn, Roxy the dog, and Jim1138.

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

On 18 November 2013 Blippy was notified of the discretionary sanctions applying to pseudoscience topics by Bbb23 (talk · contribs).
On 23 January (yesterday) Blippy was explicitly cautioned by me – TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) – that edit warring could lead to a block or topic ban; he then immediately began edit warring to add a {POV} tag to the article.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At this point, it doesn't seem likely that this editor will be able to contribute positively on this topic, as he has been edit warring continuously and making baseless insinuations of bad faith ever since the article's full protection expired—protection which was the result of Blippy's own earlier edit warring. While Blippy's only recent edits have been to Blacklight Power and its talk page, I very much doubt that encouraging him to bring his approach to any other articles in this topic area would be helpful. I would therefore recommend a topic ban on cold fusion and fringe energy topics, broadly construed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Fair enough; his recent edits have essentially all be related to his editing (and edit warring) at Blacklight Power. Looking a bit deeper into Blippy's contribution history – something that I hadn't really taken the time to do until now – is interesting-bordering-on-informative: Blippy's last 500 edits. Blippy was a relatively prolific editor back in August 2009, but received a 24-hour 3RR block for edit warring over a {POV} tag (sound familiar?) during some heated editing at Sense About Science, and then disappeared from the project – at least as a logged-in editor under this account name – for four years. In November 2013 Blippy made dozens of contentious edits at Rupert Sheldrake and its talk page (and on a few noticeboards related to that dispute), apparently edit warring just as vigorously then as he is now (per Vzaak's evidence below). His editing on Sheldrake virtually stopped when he was warned about discretionary sanctions, leading to another hiatus—this time for just two months. From mid-January to the present we have the extant edit warring and IDHT behavior at Blacklight Power, only briefly interrupted by a page protection.

All of the pages involved relate to fringe and pseudoscience in some way, with Blippy attempting, against consensus and using the same disruptive tactics, to weaken Wikipedia's reporting of the mainstream scientific position. Based on his pattern, a page ban will solve the problem at Blacklight Power, there will be a reprieve for a few weeks or months, and then Blippy will find another fringe-science article that he feels is unfairly skeptical and resume his disruptive editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified.

Discussion concerning Blippy

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 Blippy

This disagreement revolves around the second & final lede para which reads (with my proposed addition in italics):

The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and critics have ruled it out on those grounds, with some labelling it "fraud", "extremely unlikely", lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and a relic of cold fusion. In 2009 IEEE Spectrum magazine characterised it as a "loser" technology because "most experts don’t believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don’t present convincing evidence", however other scientists have expressed interest in exploring his work further.

My proposed edit attempted to provide a summary of relevant material that appears further down in the article (that some scientists consider BLP's claims worthy of investigation) which is not otherwise represented in the lede viz.:

By 2000, Mills raised $25 million in funding for the company, recruiting several researchers to sit on the board, which subsequently included representatives of venture capital firms, a former CEO of Westinghouse and turnaround expert Michael H. Jordan...

In 2013 BLP was one of 54 applicants to receive ~$1.1M grant from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and was awarded a Trailblazer award by the New Jersey Technology Council.

Around 2002 the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) granted a Phase I grant to Anthony Marchese, a mechanical engineer at Rowan University, to study a possible rocket propulsion that would use hydrinos.

In a 2007 review of cold fusion research, researcher Edmund Storms put forward the hydrino model as a possible explanation for cold fusion.

In 2012 after investigating the BLP process, both Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary of Rowan University and Professor of Chemical Engineering at University of California, Santa Barbara, W. Henry Weinberg claimed that the BLP process is legitimate.

I believed that adding something along the lines of however other scientists have expressed interest in exploring [BLP's] work further was a reasonable summary of this content. The fact that BLP have had independent investigators supportive of their claims, and they (and others) have published many articles in peer reviewed journals, are some of the most notable things about BLP (as compared to other 'free energy' types), and this information is an important part of the BLP story which I believe should be reflected in the lede of any fair WP article on them.

I have engaged with other editors on the Talk page, but often they would revert and/or make broadly dismissive comments - often ad hominem in nature - but then not respond to the responses I made to their criticism (the editor lodging this complaint being a case in point). I accepted that the consensus was not to include my (or a similar) edit in the lede, but I believed this consensus to be in violation of NPOV, so introduced the POV tag in the hope of attracting the attention of more editors beyond those who - in their comments - had been expressing hostility toward BLP in a way which seemed to colour their perspective on my proposed edit. However, the tag was also deemed inappropriate. I was half way through seeking some different views via the dispute resolution form when I received notification of this process, which I believe means that avenue can no longer be pursued. Hopefully this process will generate sufficient interest from disinterested editors to resolve the matter one way or another - I'm always open to learning from mistakes I make (the copyvio business for instance), and readily acknowledge that being in the midst of a disagreement can skew one's perspective and judgement beyond what is reasonable, so I am very open to the advice of those who have no strong views either way on BLP. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by Alfonzo Green

TenOfAllTrades not only fails to demonstrate edit warring in the diffs provided but doesn't seem to be understand WP:Consensus. "After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it." Simply reverting the edit at this stage is not an option. "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Before reverting, editors are to discuss the added material. Yet Bhny reverted the edit in question without prior discussion. In his comment he justified the revert with the claim, "(need better source than Mills...)" indicating that he didn't know Blippy's source was a major US urban weekly, The Village Voice, which is cited in countless articles throughout Wikipedia and undeniably a reliable source (and no, WP:RS doesn't set a different standard of reliability for science articles). Yet TenOfAllTrades carries on the charade, claiming in his request that the material is "rather dubiously" sourced, though he knows it's the Voice, not a press release from Mills, as Bhny apparently believed.

Bhny additionally claimed in his revert that he "removed weasely 'some scientists.'" Again, WP:Consensus: "An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording." One way to fix the problem would simply be to quote from the cited article, which reads: "More quietly, however, some scientists are taking notice." This way the reader knows the "weasel word" is in the source itself and not a poor characterization on Blippy's part (and yes, "some" is a useful word, meaning neither "none" nor "all"). Instead of leaving the added sentence alone or changing it into a direct quote, Bhny chose to edit war. Not content to see Bhny have all the fun, Noformation jumped in and reverted with the same (weaselly) non-justification. 91.221.58.5 later supplied the third revert with no comment whatsoever. Seems that once a couple of reverts have occurred, the fact that they're not based on policy is no barrier to adding more. The final member of the tag team was AndyTheGrump, who justified his revert by noting a failure of consensus on the talk page.

Yet the talk page discussion reveals no willingness on the part of the dissenting editors to base their objections on actual policy. Aside from declaring himself "a little uncomfortable with using the Village Voice" as a source, Noformation claims we need to know why "any particular scientist is interested in this technology," implying that the editor, Noformation, is more of an expert on this sort of thing than the scientists in question. It goes without saying that no Wikipedia policy justifies Noformation's demand for extra information. According to Jim1138, "one can almost always find 'other scientists' who support a dubious claim." The point, however, is that a reliable source reports that some scientists, even if Jim1138 knows better, aren't convinced that Mills' claim is dubious. TenOfAllTrades steps into the breach with the following zinger: "The problem with 'some scientists believe' and variations on the theme is that it is true for virtually any assertion you might wish to make." Guess what, Ten, the claim is legitimized by the presence of a reliable source. By contrast, "virtually any assertion" doesn't have sources backing it up, so we don't have to worry about "virtually any assertion" worming its way into Wikipedia. Alexbrn chimes in to claim the edit is "not neutral," as if accurately paraphrasing a reliable source could somehow be construed as POV. It's POV when it's not sourced, when it's the editor's opinion. Again, what we have here is a complete failure to comprehend policy.

According to Andy, the "viewpoint isn't 'significant' if it is held by a tiny minority, by definition." And this takes us right to the heart of the problem. The defining characteristic of science is that no final answers are ever given (and no deity exists to ladle them out). The assumption is always that some of what we think we know will turn out to be false. It's because scientists can sometimes get it wrong that we don't call them priests. Scientists are all too aware of how easily orthodoxy crumbles in the fact of continued questioning and investigation, and it appears that in this case at least a small number of them think they may have found a crack in the wall. Thanks to Blippy, Wikipedia is now in possession of a source making this claim. The other editors' job was to make sure the sourced material was accurately conveyed in the article. Instead they engaged in pointless chatter while brazenly triggering an edit war and, worse, blaming it on the injured party. "Edit warring," according to WP:EW, "is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus," or in this case impossible since the dissenting editors plainly refuse to rationally engage Blippy's edit. At the very least, they should receive a warning that that blocking consensus is unacceptable.

No rational observer would grant this request. To rule in favor of the dissenting editors is to demonstrate contempt not only for Wikipedia policy but the scientific project. Appeals to WP:ARB/PS only serve to distract from the real issue. This isn't about pseudoscience; it's about a clique of clueless editors misrepresenting science. Discretionary sanctions, intended to "tackle misconduct" are instead applied by administrators at the behest of science-confused editors so as to preempt usual Wikipedia policy and remove editors who don't share their ignorance or tolerate their misconduct. Alfonzo Green (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by vzaak

Blippy warred extensively at Rupert Sheldrake.

Warring to remove reference to the Sokal hoax: [5][6][7][8][9][10]
Warring to give Sheldrake the title of "biologist": [11][12][13][14]
Warring to add a hearsay Dawkins quote: [15][16][17][18][19]
Warring to add the POV tag: [20][21][22][23]

I had implored everyone to read the instructions for the POV tag[24][25], but despite the instructions saying Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article, Blippy added the tag with comment, "we should warn readers".[26]

There was a competency issue as well: syntax problems in wikitext, adding a quote that appeared in the very next section, and basically warring without understanding what is being warred.[27] Blippy had also jumbled up the timeline, introducing errors, which was very time-consuming to fix.[28]

Please consider extending this request to cover pseudoscience and fringe science. vzaak 02:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent comment by TenOfAllTrades reminded me of my other run-in with Blippy at Mars effect, where he made a short push against the scientific consensus,[29][30] claiming "the statistical correlation exists".[31][32]

Looking back further, there is some wild warring at Arthur C. Clarke; relevant phrase is "about 50 cases that are hard to explain": [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]

And warring at Scientific skepticism: [41][42][43]

And apparent warring at Ian Stevenson too, though I haven't looked into the details.

In all cases I've seen, Blippy's warring is a push against policies such as WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL. Blippy is a time sink on editors who could be doing something more productive than fixing Blippy's policy-violating edits. As TenOfAllTrades describes, there is a long term pattern of behavior here which is unlikely to change. I might call it "push and run": cause just enough disruption to fall short of serious administrative action, then leave. Sandstein is looking for recent edits, but we should also learn from history. vzaak 17:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Vzaak (talk · contribs) summarises the issues at Rupert Sheldrake above, but there appears to be a wider problem. Looking at special:contributions/Blippy it is apparent that Blippy (talk · contribs) is either unwilling or unable to understand and implement WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:MAINSTREAM, and therefore anti-Wikipedia per WP:NOTHERE, and I think a ban on all fringe and pseudoscience-related articles broadly construed is unfortunately necessary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

in BlackLight Power

Blippy edit-warred to keep his changes to the article. Later he edit-warred again to put a POV tag (diffs were already provided by TenOfAllTrades). If you look at his changes, he is removing negative material and introduceing promotional material. One of his removals of negative material[44] was not noticed by other editors, and the material was absent from the article during 14 days.

Note the snarky and unhelpful replies [45][46]. The assumption that editors who oppose his edits are "hostile"[47]. He broadly dismisses all arguments, saying the editors are not being intellectually honest: "(...) yet so far the responses to my NPOV concerns have included personal attacks ("POV-pusher", "credulous"), broadbrush dismissal (WP not a platform for nonsense), whimsy, and unilateral declarations of truth ("there is no neutrality problem"). How about some intellectually honest engagement with the issue?"[48]. This is a battleground mentality. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in Rupert Sheldrake

See Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_12#Snowstorm_of_drive_by_edits_by_Blippy. Blippy provides 3 sources, and other people tell him that there are problems with his suggestion. Blippy displays WP:ICANTHEARYOU the whole section, and uses snarky and unhelpful replies near the end. Other editors give up on reasoning with him. He gets told to go to WP:RS/N, but he never does it. When challenged about it, he plays the victim [49]. Soon, the thread died down without any improvement to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in Arthur_C._Clarke

Looks like a long-term problem. Back in August 2009, he gets told that his last edit has a lot of issues, and he plays the victim "I shall endeavour to ignore your hostility and provide a civil response. "[50]. When he gets told of a lot more issues, he dismisses all of them and tells the other editor that he is assuming bad faith, then makes a condescending comment that he will take the suggestions into account [51]. Later, his proposed edit keeps being rejected and he makes unconstructive comments on the other editor [52]. In the end, the other editors re-wrote the discussed paragraph.

My impression in general

Always attempts to give undue weight to quotes and sources that are positive towards fringe subjects. Maybe he feels they are treated unfairly in wikipedia, or something.

When told about weight and POV, he reacts badly (see diffs above). When he can't counter the other editor's arguments, he seems to resort to civil accusations of bad faith and non-neutrality. The ones I have seen were enveloped in exquisite civility, and they were baseless. They feel like a technique to avoid discussion and get his edits introduced despite the objections. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Blippy is unable to discuss issues in the terms required at Wikipedia, as shown in my recent interaction at Talk:BlackLight Power#NPOV. At "00:18, 25 January 2014" (diff) my brief comment focuses on a single policy link (WP:SYNTH). After a reply by Blippy, I asked for a response to the substance of my comment. Blippy then replied "It's hard to know which of your claims you think is substantive" (diff) in a comment that again deflects from the point, namely that an article should not be padded with text that suggests there may be scientific support for the claim that the company has a new energy source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 76.107.171.90

As of the moment I am writing this Blippy has made 150 edits to articles since he returned to Wikipedia in early November. Of those edits:

88 (58.6%) are POV pushes

23 (15.3%) are arbitrarily rearranging articles and rephrasing sentences

19 (12.6%) have been redacted

11 (7.3%) were actual edits

8 (5.3%) fixed errors (many of which were his own errors)

1 (0.6%) tried to fix an error, but failed.

I would also like to point out that some of his edits have rather dishonest edit summaries.

[[53]] Changed scientists to some scientists. Marked it as a copy edit.

[[54]] Changed journal to journals (implying more than one). Marked it as a copy edit.

[[55]] Called Sheldrake a “Research Fellow of the Royal Society”. Marked it as a copy edit.

[[56]] Called morphic resonance a theory. Marked it as a copy edit.

[[57]]. Changes “advocacy” into “research”. Marked it as a copy edit.

In determining Blippy’s future on Wikipedia please consider the fact that he has done more harm than good. Though he certainly doesn’t approach User:Abd in terms of magnitude or length of disruption, Bilppy’s combination of POV-pushing, incompetence, and a generally foul attitude make him a textbook WP:RANDY. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

As context for why IP 76.107.171.90 would classify some the edit summaries as "rather dishonest",

Whether or not to call "morphic resonance" a theory had been the subject of several protracted discussions on the talk page such as Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_concept and so swapping back in that controversial language under the edit summary merely indicating "copy edit" is misleading at best.
likewise, the appropriateness of the Research Fellow was/had recently been a topic of editorial concern and disagreement Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_4#Sheldrake_is_not_a_Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society

the others are pretty clear in their effect to create the impression that Sheldrake's work is more highly regarded than it actually is and are not merely copyedits for grammar or clarity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Result concerning Blippy

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

In arbitration enforcement, we cannot resolve content issues, such as whether the article should be modified the way Blippy wants it to be. What we can address is editor conduct, and the complaint demonstrates that Blippy has engaged in edit-warring, in violation of WP:EW. On these grounds, I believe a ban from the article Blacklight Power and its talk page is appropriate. A broader topic ban, such as the sanctions TenOfAllTrades and Vzaak suggest, might be considered if there is evidence of recent disruptive conduct with respect to other articles. Vzaak's evidence concerning Rupert Sheldrake is from November 2013 and therefore probably too old to be actionable now. Sandstein 09:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads through Blippy's list of contributions, one does get the impression Vzaak describes: Blippy seemingly only edits a variety of fringe- or pseudoscience topics, and almost always does so by edit-warring with others over matters such as "POV" tags. It seems he is only here to make Wikipedia portray an array of fringe- or pseudoscience topics in a more positive (or less negative) light. Agenda-driven editing of any sort is not welcome on Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV, which also applies as a conduct rule). I'd welcome other admins' opinions about whether this is a basis for a ban from the whole field of fringe- and pseudoscience. Sandstein 19:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklight Power is proposing to generate power through a mechanism that contradicts well-accepted physics. If this really happened, it would be epochal. The fact that no mainstream publications give their hypothesis credence is what should matter for Wikipedia. It's well within the domain of WP:ARBPS to issue sanctions to an editor who insists on wanting our articles to recognize a scientific hypothesis that hasn't received mainstream notice. If people working for Blacklight Power get an article accepted in the Physical Review then we should start paying attention. I support Sandstein's proposal for a ban of this editor from fringe and pseudoscience-related topics on all pages of Wikipeda, including Blacklight Power. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the request to be quite convincing, in that action is needed to prevent the disruption. Whilst I agree with Sandstein that edits from Nov 2013 aren't actionable, in this case they do from a pretty convincing pattern of behaviour. Given the long running history of disruptive edits I agree that a topic ban from fringe and pseudoscience-related topics would be appropriate, however I'd prefer it had a 6 month expiry date. After the initial 6 months, if Blippy begins disruptive editing again it won't be difficult to make a case for a longer or indefinite TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NinaGreen

NinaGreen is blocked for 48 hours. Sandstein 09:01, 25 January 2014 (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 NinaGreen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Edward321 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[58]]

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

By the terms of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, NinaGreen is specifically "topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed." NinaGreen has made several recent edits to Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit which the article states "The pamphlet is most famous for a passage which appears to allude to William Shakespeare, who was then starting out on his career as an actor and playwright."

[59] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.
[60] Ninagreen re-adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.
[61] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the third time.
[62] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the fourth time.
[63] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the fifth time.
[64] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the sixth time.
[65] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the seventh time.
[66] Ninagreen mentions that a source is primarily about Shakespeare's Sonnets.
[67] Ninagreen does so a second time.

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

Warned on [68] by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
Warned on [69] by Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
Warned on [70] by Technical 13 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

NinaGreen admits the article Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit refers to Shakespeare, but claims that does not violate her topic ban since that text was already in the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=592260786}

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[71]

Discussion concerning NinaGreen

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 NinaGreen

Before noticing the material in this section, I added a section below requesting that the topic ban be lifted. It's been in place for three years now, and I've observed it as best I can, but it's impossible for me to know what it actually covers, and consequently I'm in a Catch-22 situation every day on which I edit on Wikipedia. I've made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia over the past year, and have never edited on the Shakespeare authorship issue during that time (which was what the arbitration was about). However the ban is being interpreted erroneously by administrators as covering every Wikipedia article which even touches in the most remote and tangential way on Shakespeare, which is unreasonable and eminently unfair. I look forward to having the topic ban lifted, as it is impossible for me to know which Wikipedia articles it applies to. My editing record speaks for itself. I think any unbiased observer would agree that I'm an asset to Wikipedia, and that an editor who contributes as I do should not be subjected to a indefinite topic ban (after three years have passed!) which is impossible for me to observe because of its huge and indefinite scope. I've not violated the intent of the topic ban in any way, as the arbitration concerned the Shakespeare authorship issue, and I've not edited on the authorship issue in any way. If further clarification is required, just ask. I'll be happy to provide it. NinaGreen

Statement by Roscelese

I was uninvolved in this until I happened to see the noticeboard thread, but it looks like an open and shut case. She is topic banned from Shakespeare. She has been warned in the past (August 2013) that editing articles related to Shakespeare was a violation of her topic ban, so a warning here isn't likely to be any more effective than the last one. The edits she made are clearly a violation of the topic ban both in the general (the Groats-Worth is a Shakespeare-related topic "broadly construed" per the wording of the ban) and in the specific (she specifically edited text related to Shakespeare and his works). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NinaGreen

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

I must support block of some duration because (1) the original TBAN was for editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed - and edits such as this flat out falls foul of that TBAN; and (2) the TBAN currently in-place is indefinite, which means the only action appropriate is a block. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The remedy is quite clear - topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed. The only question is the length of the block. Potentially this should be a week but NinaGreen's steadfast refusal to accept the validity of the topic ban makes me think we should just remove her from the project until she agrees to abide by it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of or involvement in any conflicts with User:NinaGreen or articles involving the Shakespeare authorship question prior to today's ANI thread. I am, however, reasonably well-informed regarding the relevant scholarship. It seems disingenuous for someone as obviously well-informed about these issues as NinaGreen to claim that Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit, a key piece of evidence for both Shakespearean historiography and the Shakespeare authorship question, is only "peripherally related to Shakespeare" and that Robert Greene (dramatist) is such a "significant author of the period" aside from his connection to Shakespeare. Shakespeare is mentioned in the very first sentence of our article on Greene, and that accurately reflects Greene's significance from the perspective of contemporary scholarship. Also, it is my understanding that The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York actually is Henry VI, Part 3, so I'm not sure what to make of this edit of hers. I can only speculate (and please note that this is my speculation, while my previous discussion was based on my understanding of the scholarship) that this is some way of casting doubt that Greene is identifying Shakespeare and thus buttressing the anti-Shakespearean viewpoint in the Shakespearean authorship debate. I am sympathetic to NinaGreen's concerns regarding the scope of the topic ban and her worry that it may discourage positive contributions from her or editors like her. Perhaps the Committee could clarify the topic ban to allow and encourage contributions from her regarding figures who truly are peripheral to Shakespeare, such as Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) and William Leveson. But her comments today and apparent lack of awareness regarding her problematic behavior convince me that the topic ban should stay in place. Gamaliel (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The request is actionable. Per Wikipedia:ARBSAQ#NinaGreen banned, NinaGreen is "topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed". By editing the article Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit, she has violated this restriction because, as the lead of the article tells us, "the pamphlet is most famous for a passage which appears to allude to William Shakespeare", and the content NinaGreen edited refers to Shakespeare also. Per the enforcement provision, "the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week" for the first three blocks. In consideration of this, and because it is the first infraction, a block of 48 hours appears appropriate. I am blocking NinaGreen accordingly. Sandstein 09:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Application to have topic ban lifted

This request has been made in the wrong forum. Please use WP:ARCA.

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

This matter [72] has now been referred here, and I'm applying to have the topic ban lifted as it's impossible for me to know what it actually covers, and consequently I'm in a Catch-22 situation every day on which I edit on Wikipedia. I've made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia over the past year, and have never edited on the Shakespeare authorship issue during that time (which was what the arbitration was about). However the ban is being interpreted erroneously by administrators as covering every Wikipedia article which even touches in the most remote and tangential way on Shakespeare, which is unreasonable and eminently unfair. I look forward to having the topic ban lifted, as it is impossible for me to know which Wikipedia articles it applies to. My editing record speaks for itself. I think any unbiased observer would agree that I'm an asset to Wikipedia, and that an editor who contributes as I do should not be subjected to a topic ban which is impossible to observe because of its huge and indefinite scope. NinaGreen 173.197.107.10 (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am procedurally closing this section, because requests to amend Committee decisions must be submitted at WP:ARCA. This noticeboard is only for the enforcement of sanctions. Sandstein 08:46, 25 January 2014 (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 203: / Line 203: @@
 I have engaged with other editors on the Talk page, but often they would revert and/or make broadly dismissive comments - often ad hominem in nature - but then not respond to the responses I made to their criticism (the editor lodging this complaint being a case in point).  I accepted that the consensus was not to include my (or a similar) edit in the lede, but I believed this consensus to be in violation of NPOV, so introduced the POV tag in the hope of attracting the attention of more editors beyond those who - in their comments - had been expressing hostility toward BLP in a way which seemed to colour their perspective on my proposed edit.  However, the tag was also deemed inappropriate.  I was half way through seeking some different views via the dispute resolution form when I received notification of this process, which I believe means that avenue can no longer be pursued.  Hopefully this process will generate sufficient interest from disinterested editors to resolve the matter one way or another - I'm always open to learning from mistakes I make (the copyvio business for instance), and readily acknowledge that being in the midst of a disagreement can skew one's perspective and judgement beyond what is reasonable, so I am very open to the advice of those who have no strong views either way on BLP. Cheers, [[User:Blippy|Blippy]] ([[User talk:Blippy|talk]]) 01:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
+====Statement by (username)====
 <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
 ====Statement by Alfonzo Green====

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