Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

SPECIFICO

No action taken. SPECIFICO's recent edits don't violate his topic ban from the Mises Institute. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning SPECIFICO User who is submitting this request for enforcement Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics#SPECIFICO_topic-banned : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it May 12 Stephan Molyneux is a person broadly associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. A quote from the editor of Mises.org is in the lead paragraph, the subjects books have been discussed on the site many times, and he appears on the Mises Wiki. May 9[1][2][3] SPECIFICO made several edits to the same article a couple days ago, and was informed on May 9 that the subject of this article falls within his topic ban. May 10 Edited Bryan Caplan, a person who is broadly associated with LvMI as noted in this message to SPECIFICO warning him of the subjects connection by User:Srich32977. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [http://Difflink1 Date] Explanation [http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Based on a quick look at other aspects of his editing activity and talk page conversations, I feel like this editor might be becoming hostile with regards to articles right on the fringe of his topic ban, almost as if he is testing to see where the electric fence is rather than making an effort to broaden his editing activities to other areas. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I guess I need to add some additional clarification onto the initial request, since it sounds like we have very different understandings of what "associated with" means. Molyneux has interacted quite frequently with members of the Mises Institute staff, and so I would qualify that as "associated with" the Mises Institute. SPECIFIC was topic-banned in order to prevent him from editing about the LvMI and its staff because he's shown a significant bias *against* them, and so now what he's doing is editing articles of people who are connected with the staff, in order to try and show them a negative light. Some prominent interactions between Molyneux and Mises staff: interviewed by Redmond Weisenberger of Mises Canada, interview with Senior Fellow Walter block, several interviews with Jeffrey Tucker, recently left as editor of mises.org[4][5], interviews with Senior Fellow Tom Woods[6], interaction with Senior Fellow David Gordon, and much more which I can provide if needed. So what does " topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it" mean if it doesn't apply to a person that associates with senior leadership of the Institute? -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested User was notified. --Netoholic @ 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning SPECIFICO Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by SPECIFICO I really have nothing to add concerning the Molyneux allegation. I'm puzzled however. Here we are at an Arbcom page and in her section below, @Carolmooredc: issues yet another of the unsupported and false personal attacks that got her banned -- "So he can continue the biased editing of bios..." Is that OK? At the very least it seems wildly disrespectful of Arbcom and wasteful of its time and attention. If this were a court of law, Carolmooredc would be cited for contempt. Why is this behavior tolerated on WP. How many editors just get sick and tired of it and leave the Project? SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by S.Rich I will let Specifico post the diffs regarding an earlier notification and its' resolution. IMO the article on Molyneux is not a Mises.org-related topic. What others may have posted about Molyneux on the Mises.org website is their business, but having done so does not make Molyneuz a Mises.org related person. (Please note that I have absolutely no affection or alliance with Specifico. I posted evidence against him during the Arbcom. And I posted the notice to him about Caplan as a Mises.org related person) -– S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)05:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: It is not a big deal, but Caplan is associated with Mises.org. See: [7]. He published in the Mises.org journal Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. (This is the opposite of them posting some of his stuff, he submitted it for publication.) I don't disagree with the edit that Specifico did (following my lead in removing "influenced" names from the infobox), but TBANs include the good edits, the bad edits, and the ugly edits. So, bottom line, the Molyneux edits do not violate the TBAN and Specifico has been properly notified re Caplan. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Given the two admin comments below, it's water under the dam or over the bridge by now. But I do see where Caplan did an original posting at Writing on the Wall. This is more than a passive involvement with Mises.org. Again, no big deal. I posted the notice re Caplan and I certainly did not want it to become part of a very weak case for arbcom enforcement. I seriously doubt that Specifico's name will show up here again. – S. Rich (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Regarding the comment a few days ago, I can agree that many people who have had their works published by Mises.org would not come within the TBAN. After all, they number in the hundreds, if not thousands. But part of the overall and broader Austrian Economics/Mises.org problem arose because editors sought to conflate "associations" with Mises.org to criticisms of Mises.org via other sources that were critical of the persons. (Paraphrasing no one in particular (and w/o cites/diffs) we saw "scholars who have published with or are associated with Mises.org did these bad things....") For this reason, I think the TBAN should be broadly construed. I'm all for closing this action (and I defended Specifico from the get-go), but I worry that the distinction you raise allows "the camel to put the nose under the tent". – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC) PS: In followup to my last comment, Mises.org List has 6,314 articles. Here is a list of their authors: [8]. Picking one at random, I see [9] one author who is quite enthusiastic about Mises.org. I don't think this forum is appropriate to re-litigate the problems associated with Mises.org (many of which dealt with a now-indef'd editor), nor do I want it to become the basis for narrowing the scope of the TBAN. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek I'm pretty sure that at least Bryan Caplan is NOT associated with the von Mises Institute (in a way this sort of clinches it). They just put up some of his writings on their website. The only link of the Bryan Caplan article to vMI is a single External Link. The edit by SPECIFICO in question [10] also falls under WP:BLP and was a good edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I'm not as familiar with this Stephan Molyneux fellah but the link there to vMI also appears pretty weak. So they wrote about him in their Wiki. So what? More generally, it should be kept in mind that the topic ban is in regard to the von Mises Institute and not from Economics in general, or even Liberterianism or even Austrian economics in general. Of course by a sort of six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon any economist can be "linked" to vMI through a few steps. But I note that the topic ban remedy explicitly *excludes* Austrian economics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @S.Rich - I don't think publishing in QJAE is sufficient to consider somebody as "associated" with vMI. Note also that the Caplan article you link to, as well as his other QJAE article "Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Hülsmann and Block" were replies to other articles. The original article which seemed to start this intellectual conversation was "The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations" which was published in the Southern Economic Journal which has no affiliation with vMI. What happened here (I'm pretty, though not 100% sure) is that Caplan published an article on Austrian economics somewhere else, a couple vMI folks wrote about it in QJAE and then QJAE gave Caplan a chance to respond, as is often done in such cases. Basically, no association with vMI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC) And this: but Caplan is associated with Mises.org. See: [31] - that just shows that they wrote him up on their Wiki, same as Molyneux.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Ummm... isn't Carolmooredc's statement below a violation of their topic ban [11] (the and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased part)? Does it need a separate AE report? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I think Ed's suggestion below, which makes the topic ban more precise is a very good one. If SPECIFICO violates the precise version of the topic ban, there'll be little wiggle room for Wikilawyering or controversy and sanctions can be imposed with little drama. At the same time, additional information as to what the topic ban actually covers can help the editor avoid violating the topic ban on accident or in some trivial manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Carolmooredc I've already been counseled privately that I should not play games with my topic ban by quoting Murray Rothbard or other Austrian economists on purely political topics in overwhelming political articles. Therefore I have to wonder about SPECIFICO's topic ban being narrowly construed to what he continues to assert it is: "official members" of the Mises.org/faculty as listed there. So he can continue the biased editing of bios of those who aren't on that list? Biased editing got him the topic ban, remember. For example, at this edit SPECIFICO removed info about Peter Schiff who is not a faculty member but a search of Mises.org shows he does events for them, writes for them and is promoted by some of their other writers. SPECIFICO worked a lot on the Schiff article in the past so he should know that. Moreover, his edits already are starting conflicts over BLPs, which is why this Austrian Economics Arbitration happened in the first place. If I am to be broadly construed because I lost my temper with biased editing that Admins refused to deal with despite numerous complaints from several editors, I'd like to see others' topic bans also broadly construed so they do not continue biased editing which causes conflicts. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Gaijin42) Carols block seems awfully harsh and inappropriate. She was discussing the topic ban and how it was applied, not the topic directly. This seems to clearly fall under the "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" bit of the banning policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning SPECIFICO This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The persons at issue have, according to the complaint, all been mentioned or covered by this institute repeatedly, and one of them has published in a journal published by the institute. I don't quite see, yet, how this adds up to them being associated with the institute, even broadly construed. As such, I don't yet see how these edits are wirhin the scope of the topic ban.  Sandstein  05:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I agree with Sandstein on this one, I don't see that any of the diffs presented breach the topic ban and I don't see misconduct which would warrant extending the sanction as mentioned in the final decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Considering the additional statements above, it's still not clear to me that these persons should be considered "associated with" the institute in the sense of the remedy at issue. That would certainly be the case for an institutional or permanent relationship of some sort, such as employment or regular contract work. But I know too little about the intricacies of the relationships among these academics to be able to say with the certainty required for sanctions that this constitutes a violation of the topic ban, even though we may well have a fringe case here. If editors believe that we are construing the topic ban too narrowly, they may ask the Committee to clarify its scope via WP:ARCA.  Sandstein  08:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC) As Volunteer Marek correctly points out, the statement by Carolmooredc above violates Carolmooredc's topic ban from "pages relating to the Austrian school of economics ... or persons associated with them", because the people mentioned in this request are described in their articles as economists from the Austrian school of economics. The statement by Carolmooredc is also not a necessary participation in a dispute resolution proceeding because the conduct of Carolmooredc was not previously at issue here. I note also that, as SPECIFICO points out, Carolmooredc's statement contains unsupported allegations of misconduct against others, which is disruptive. In enforcement of the topic ban, I am blocking Carolmooredc for two weeks.  Sandstein  15:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Specifico's ban phrasing is "topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased..." (plus other words that allow editing on Austrian economics generally). It would be silly to ban Specifico from writing about anyone that a Mises publication ever wrote an article on. I agree that Carolmooredc's post in this AE violated her ban. Bryan Caplan used the Mises Daily once in 2010 as a publication venue for one of his articles. This does not make him their associate. Still less does a publication in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics create that association. To create a usable boundary for the sanction, it might be better to let 'a person associated with the Mises Institute' be defined as 'a person listed on the Mises website as one of the senior fellows, faculty members, or staff.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC) It looks as though no admin who commented thinks Specifico should be sanctioned for his edits to Bryan Kaplan or Stefan Molyneux. Unless there are further comments I suggest this be closed in the next 24 hours with no action. Whether Carol's behavior needs a sanction is being considered in her appeal below. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Appeal by User:Carolmooredc

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

User:Carolmooredc 14:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

• Sandstein has been notified here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carolmooredc

• On April 15 at the Arbitration Proposed Decision talk page I asked at this diff about other editors subject to the ban: "will we topic banned editors be allowed to warn them on talk pages and/or complain at Arbitration enforcement about such violations?" I got no response.
• On April 22 at the same page I tried again, and I asked at this diff "And can I complain about SPECIFICO's edits at Arbitration enforcement?" referring to edits during the last day or so of the Arbitration.
• @Beeblebrox: replied: "There is no merit to complaining at AE as the case is not quite closed yet, although if your accusations are true it certainly doesn't reflect well on that user." He did not say topic banned editors have no right to complain about another sanctioned editor at Arbitration enforcement or that I could not complain about future edits once the Arbitration went into effect. I believe other Arbitrators also may believe topic banned editors can complain there. @Floquenbeam:
• In that context, I don't believe my comments related to the reasons SPECIFICO was banned or to his editing on specific articles of individuals who may or may not be within the parameters of the ban should be considered a violation of the Arbitration. I certainly tried to find out what the policy was, thought I had found out what it was, and had no intention of violating it.

Statement by User:Sandstein

I recommend that this appeal is declined for the reasons explained by EdJohnston below. Topic-banned editors are given individual notice about the specifics of their ban, any further warning is therefore not necessary.  Sandstein  20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Following discussion on my talk page indicating that Carolmooredc may have been given misleading advice about what she could do, I have unblocked her and warned her that participating in discussions regarding the conduct of others in the topic area is a violation of the topic ban.  Sandstein  21:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor S. Rich

Carol's statement "I've already been counseled privately that I should not play games with my topic ban by quoting ...." is telling. In making the statement, she wikilinks Rothbard and externalinks Mises.org who/which come within her topic ban. She added these links to a discussion which was trending to an exoneration of Specifico. So, speaking up was dumb and linking the topics was even dumber. Still, a two week block is harsh. I would give her a one-week reprieve. If she violates the ban with other edits (dumb or not), then the next sanction gets to be all the harsher. (I was involved in the Specifico discussion above, arguing that his edits to Molyneux did not violate his TBAN.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

Unsubstantiated personal attacks such as Carolmooredc's cited in this block are corrosive and damaging to WP. Such behavior damages Wikipedia. Other editors end up abandoning individual articles, topics, or the entire Project. There is nothing legitimate about such behavior anywhere on WP and every editor deserves to participate with confidence in the knowledge that Arbcom will not tolerate it. Blocked editors routinely file appeals and this one, like many, appears to be based on denial of the behavior which led to the block. A two week block is hardly a death sentence. It's simply a firm demonstration that this behavior will not be tolerated -- a form of warning for the future. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Please have a close look at Carolmooredc's text in this appeal and see whether you think she's accurately and fully representing what occurred. In my opinion she is continuing a long-established pattern of misrepresentation and unsubstantiated allegation. That's not mere sniping. It's going to consume an significant and undue amount of Arbcom time and attention to verify and sort out the claims and rationalizations on which she bases this appeal. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Carolmooredc

Strongly agree with Future's comment below. "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" - her concern seems legitimate (alleged disparate enforcement of bans), and if that isn't the correct forum I don't know what would be. It certainly isn't a blatant or egregious violation. If it crossed the line she should have been told so, via a warning. An instant block is significant overkill. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Olive

• There is an assumption among those more experienced that everybody knows how AE and arbitration works. This isn't true. I've asked arbs for help who weren't sure about aspects of arbitration. An editor who doesn't know she is in violation and acts in good faith should not be sanctioned; a sanction under those conditions is punitive. What is to be gained by punitive actions in a supposedly collaborative community? Giving her information first, and then a warning is more helpful to her and to the rest of the community seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

• There is a distinct difference between, the editor has been warned, and the editor did not understand. The editor has been warned and understands but still violates the ban is not the same as the editor has been warned but failed to understand. Wikipedia is not punitive. Punishment is not particularly enlightened or productive, and no editor should see themselves in a position to punish, in my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

Result of the appeal by Carolmooredc

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

• Personally, I find this block to be an over-reaction. While Sandstein is right that the edit was, strictly speaking, a breach of the letter of the rule, it was also still in the gray area where Carolmooredc could well have thought, in good faith, that she was asking a legitimate process-related question. In such cases, a simple, appropriate and non-drama-producing solution would have been to simply remove her posting with a brief warning. An instant block like this, while arguably formally covered by the rules, is unproductive and punitive. This is not how arb sanctions ought to be enforced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure where "not really involved but maybe some might consider it a tiny bit involved Arb comments" go.

  Two things:

1. Confirming what she implies above: I told Carolmooredc via email that she could report violations at AE; it's not unreasonable for her to have assumed she could comment here too. Indeed, I'm not convinced that her post was a breach of the letter or spirit of the topic ban. It was, however, a continuation of the sniping that has been epidemic in this topic area, of which I assume we have all had more than enough.
2. I think an unblock is called for. However, I also suggest someone truly uninvolved decide whether a final warning about continuing disputes well past their expiration date is in order.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:BANEX, if a person is under a topic ban they should not be commenting on complaints about others working in the same topic area. This applies to both the original edits by Carolmooredc that are being discussed here, and the new comments by Specifico during this appeal. Arbcom could perhaps use more precise language when issuing topic bans so people are not confused. The only time a banned person should be here at AE is if they are making a good-faith appeal of their own sanction, or asking for it to be clarified. They could also validly complain about the other person if they are under an IBAN. That does not apply here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear on what you mean, exactly. Are you saying that 1) the block is justified for Carolmooredc's comments, and 2) SPECIFICO's comments just above have now earned them the same block?--v/r - TP 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Carolmooredc should not have been posting at AE about another editor's possible violation of the same ban, though I'm not sure if a two-week block was needed. Mere understanding might be sufficient. The phrase 'other pages' in the ban wording covers AE, in fact, it covers every page on Wikipedia where something related to the Mises Institute might be discussed. People newly-banned are often unclear on the terms. Specifico should not have been posting here about Carolmooredc's ban appeal and has put themselves in the same pickle. Both violations might be closed with no action if we are sure the person understands the terms. Take it to WP:ARCA if you don't think Arbcom intended that. An endless series of AE complaints by banned people about each other is not desirable. This fails to achieve the desired tranquility in the topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Because what earned Carolmooredc the block was due to the request above, I consider this appeal an extension of the request and thus do not think SPECIFICO should be blocked based on it (since it's clear that SPECIFICO was already involved in this situation). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ready to close? Per his comment above, and per discussions at User talk:Sandstein and User talk:Carolmooredc, Sandstein has lifted his block. Are people OK with closing this now, with the block lifted but with Sandstein's warning to Carol kept as it is? The ultimate authority for the meaning of the committee's bans is the committee itself, though AE has in the past been quite narrow in interpreting them. Until we are told otherwise, I believe that the narrow interpretation is the best use of time. The topic area will benefit from the absence of the people who are now restricted. They are still free to contribute to other topics but should not be commenting about one another at admin boards. The only exception should be for valid requests for clarifying your own ban or for valid appeals. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod

Not actionable. A block or other administrative action is explicitly not requested. This is framed as a content dispute, but AE can address only conduct issues. Please see WP:DR for how to proceed.  Sandstein  11:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
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 Scalhotrod User who is submitting this request for enforcement Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Scalhotrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1 May 2014 Scalhotrod removed link to Assault weapons ban (AWB) article from See also section of Gun politics in the United States (GPUS) article, claiming it was already linked in the article (it was not) 2 May 2014 Scal removed link again, giving no reason for removal (the removal was among other edits - scroll down) 5 May 2014 Scal removed link a third time, claiming again that it was already in the article (it was not; this is also when Gaijin42 gave Scal advice about "See also" material) 5 May 2014 Scal moved/renamed Assault weapons ban article to Assault weapons legislation (and he declared his problem resolved [12]) Together, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 1 and 4. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. 6 May 2014 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Actually, I do not want to block Scal. I just want to reverse that final (fourth) edit he made that moved "Assault weapons ban" to "Assault weapons legislation." I will admit right up front that I botched my responses to his edits. I have never participated in an ArbCom before. If I had, and knew how discretionary sanctions worked, I would have alerted him about them (DS). Instead, I started an RfC.[13] However, after starting the RfC, I discovered the requested move process, which seemed like a much more appropriate process under the circumstances. So I started an RM [14] and asked to have the RfC closed [15] - and it was.[16] Then I waited for the RM to be processed. After 7 days, it rolled into the backlog, and I asked uninvolved admin Drmies to close it. His detailed response is here, [17] and I truly appreciate the time he put into it, although I am disappointed in his decision. After discussing it on his page,[18] from his advice and that of another editor who commented there, Dralwik, I decided that a move review was probably not the way to go. But one thing kept jumping out at me from that discussion. Drmies wrote, "what you're really trying to get done is the reversal of that original move." And that's true. Again, I don't want Scal blocked. He and I have kinda made peace. But I do want the article title restored to its original, WP:TITLE. There was no clear consensus to move/rename it (one vote, if you simply count votes), and its current title is WP:POVNAMING. The last message I got on my talk page was from Robert McClenon, saying I should use this forum for complaints about gun-related articles (rather than AN or ANI).[19] Scal has received his DS warning, as have I.[20] (Callanec warned us both at the same time... over this very dust-up.) Is there a way we can agree here to restore the original article title, shake hands, and both of us move forward humbled, as we should be? Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Scalhotrod notified 16 May 2014 here: [21] NOTE: For the discussion about edits re the move/rename in Scal's "NOTE" below, see [22] Discussion concerning Scalhotrod 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 Scalhotrod NOTE: Quite literally while I was in the middle of drafting this the OP, Lightbreather, moved the article to Assault weapons bans in the United States from Assault weapons legislation. I discovered this when I trying to reference the Talk page. I followed on by moving it to Assault weapons legislation in the United States which was reverted and I moved again. Statement I'd like to start by mentioning that there was considerable confusion over the use of the phrase "Assault Weapon(s) Ban" (both singular and plural). I spent a fair amount of time locating many of the instances of this phrase and found that it was being to used to refer to a variety of things, but was Wikilinked incorrectly. The most common error being the intention of a link to the 1994 U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban and it linked back to the article title Assault Weapons Ban which is a collection (defacto List article) of legislation (multiple laws, not just one). In several related articles where I have seen the term "ban" used, sometimes more than once in sentence and in consecutive sentences, I have changed it to "prohibit" (or some other synonym) or explained it better detail such as "prohibited from owning or purchasing assault weapons" versus "bans assault weapons". The latter being a phrase that left me more confused than informed. In my opinion, the article title "Assault Weapon Legislation" is correct: The word "ban" is not universally understood, its meaning is contextually based, and is somewhat vague. For example, in California pet stores are legally "banned" from selling live turtles that are under 4 inches in size, but its not illegal to possess one like it is with an unregistered "assault weapon". Even when alcohol was "banned" in the U.S. by the 8th Amendment, it's still referred to as Prohibition, not "The Banning". "Legislation" in the title indicates fairly succinctly that the article is about "laws concerning assault weapons" regardless of where which state/city, how they are defined, or whether the bill was successful in becoming a law. I considered myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject and even I am confused by the use of the term "ban" here on WP with regard to this subject. More often than not when I see it used I ask how or why, but fail to find that information. It's been mentioned that the preponderance of Google and search engine results use the phrase "assault weapons ban" and those searches will still bring a Reader to this article, the redirect alone accomplishes that. But isn't the purpose of the article to explain and/or clarify the term, not just repeat it ad nauseam? Furthermore, the phrase "Assault Weapons Legislation" is Neutral and non-POV. I would also like to offer the following observations made by other editors in the RfC and the Move Request: It's likely more appropriate to change the title to Assault Weapons Legislation in the United States, since... (moot, already done) "Assault weapon" is primarily an American term The topic (and content) is plural, Assault Weapons Ban is singular. we must strive for accuracy and neutrality. The closing Admin, Drmies mentions this in their summary citing User Celestra as the key element, "The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading..." and then declares the attempts to rename the article as Reductio ad absurdum. Policy states: WP:TITLE The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Drmies My close of that RM is here--for the record, my reference to reductio ad absurdum applies not to the request as a whole or even the nominator's rationale, but to one specific argument brought up by one single editor. More importantly, Sandstein is correct, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I stand corrected, my apologies for the misinterpretation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC) No problem at all, cowboy; thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Arthur Rubin (By the way, is gun control under 1RR, or just discretionary sanctions. If the former, both the subject of this request and I are in violation.) I do see an (indirect) request for ArbCom action; a specific finding that Scalhotrod's actions are in violation of the Gun control decision, even if no block is requested. He/she restored the following clear WP:SYNTHESIS violation, with no indication that many agree that it is relevant or that any agree that it is not synthesis, at Gun politics in the United States; namely [23]. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Scalhotrod This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The complaint is framed explicitly not as a request for administrative action, but as a proposal for the resolution of the underlying content dispute. You're in the wrong forum for that, sorry. Arbitration enforcement is not part of the dispute resolution process (WP:DR). You should follow that process in order to arrive at a resolution of the content dispute, but you can't do that here. Without objection, I'll close this as not actionable.  Sandstein  14:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Arthur Rubin: To answer your question, gun control as a whole is not under 1RR automatically. An uninvolved administrator could apply a 1RR restriction to an article or editor if needed as a discretionary sanction, but it's not that way by default. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

goethean

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 goethean

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

[24]

1. [25] editing topic banned article related to the tea party broadly construed.
2. [26] editing topic banned article related to the tea party broadly construed.

[27] indef topic ban, widely construed relating to the tea party.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[28]

Perhaps the user is sincerely unaware that the 2013 IRS Scandal could be consider to be related to the tea party movement, if this is the case, a warning would suffice maybe. there is a possibility of the old edit warring behavior reappearing as the user appears to be involved in a article naming dispute submited barely a month after the previous move attempt failed. the user might also be engaging in battleground short off topic comments like, amusing as usual.

Discussion concerning goethean

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.

Result concerning goethean

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