<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Volunteer Marek====
====Statement by Volunteer Marek====
* Another user agreeing that Forbes is RS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breitbart_News&diff=prev&oldid=804339392 here]
* Added a second source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breitbart_News&diff=prev&oldid=804433252 here]
* Dr Fleischman himself using the second source and calling it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breitbart_News&diff=prev&oldid=804327487 reliable]
* [[User:Doug Weller]] affirming the use of Buzzfeed as a source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breitbart_News&diff=prev&oldid=804376744]
Additionally, inline citations are not required in the lede as long as the text is well sourced in the body of the article. Which it is. Hence, it's sort of hard to understand the objection and why Dr. Fleischman is bringing this here.
Dr Fleischman's own edits
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breitbart_News&diff=prev&oldid=804327285 Removing a source] claiming it does not support text. Not true.
Masem's claim below that "any (Forbes) "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not (reliable)" is also completely false. The two discussions at WP:RSN are a) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_207#Forbes_article_by_credible_contributor this one] and b) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_207#Forbes this one]. a) Most certainly DOES NOT say "definitely not reliable". What it says is "reliable if the contributor is reliable" which is the case here. Likewise b) again says "reliable if the contributor is reliable" and "no, it's not user generated content" (and in the particular case discussed there the commentators deemed Forbes reliable). Masem, please don't falsely misrepresent discussions like this, especially since this is something that is trivial to check. There's absolutely no "definitely not" in there by any stretch and I have no idea how you came up with that. Please retract or strike.
Regardless, like I said, 1) there are other sources in the article, 2) lede doesn't need citations if it has them in text, 3) additional citations could - and were - easily provided, all that Dr. Fleischman had to do was ask for them.
I'm also not quite sure what DS was suppose to be violated here. There was one revert by Dr. Fleischman and one by myself. I did start a discussion on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breitbart_News#Forbes talk]. Dr. Fleischman responded by making the claim about Forbes' reliability. So I added a second source just to appease him, although, one more time, this actually was not necessary since there were inline citations in main body already.
So this is sort of a strange request over ... not sure what exactly, but definitely something trivial that could've (and I think was) handled simply through good faithed discussion and clearing up of what appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Fleischman's part.
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
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
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;
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.
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
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;
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.
Not actionable because the alert has expired. New alert issued. Sandstein 17:52, 3 October 2017 (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 Stormwatch
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Cassie Jaye is the producer of The Red Pill, pretty unambiguously closely related to the Men's rights movement and I strongly believe, related to GamerGate for which sanctions apply. Note that I personally take no position here on whether or not Cassie Jaye deserves an article outside of the documentary. I do strongly take the position that notability has not yet been established, and that IMDB does not serve to establish notability. This position has been raised on the article's talk page.
Note; I am an admin, but may be considered involved here because on 2017-03-07, I nominated this article for speedy deletion. At that time, the article consisted of nine words. I currently take no particular position on whether the article should be a simple redirect or should be a separate article. --Yamla (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 Stormwatch
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Stormwatch
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Since Arbcom has decided that alerts expire after one year, the GamerGate notice that the editor received in 2015 is no longer in effect. This does not rule out taking normal admin action for edits such as this one at Mike Cernovich, where he describes some people who opposed GamerGate as 'dishonest journalists' in Wikipedia's voice. This seems to be an example of WP:Tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Jaye, I'm having a hard time finding anything that relates to Gamergate in the edits Stormwatch was doing there. Of course, falsely claiming an edit to be "vandalism" is still sanctionable behavior, as is edit warring. The Cernovich edit I'm quite unimpressed with (and that's unquestionably GG related), but it seems like AE sanctions aren't available for it due to the age of the notice. I'm still rather inclined to think we ought to do something here about the tendentious editing, but I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss it since we can't use AE remedies. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 17:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we can't issue sanctions because of the expired alert, and this isn't the place to discuss normal admin actions. Closing this with a renewed alert. Sandstein 17:52, 3 October 2017 (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 Angel defender
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Despite repeated notifications[1][2][3][4][5] of the 500/30 restriction, this editor continues to edit articles covered by the sanction. Today, they made a series of defamatory edits to a BLP covered by the sanctions. They have also made several POV edits to the article Olive production in Palestine[6][7][8][9][10], another article covered by the sanctions.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I've blocked indefinitely as a routine Admin block telling them that to be unblocked "You need to request an unblock using the instructions above, and show that you understand the concerns expressed by other editors and how you will avoid such problems in the future." The lack of communication on their or any talk pages after all the warnings is sufficient to block. Hopefully the block will get their attention and they will begin to communicate. If anyone wants to unblock with a topic ban go ahead, but it should include BLPs. Doug Wellertalk 07:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2.29.61.73
The IP is blocked two months for Troubles-related edit warring and vandalism as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning 2.29.61.73
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Repeated imposition of their clearly POV and contested edit violates 1, 2 and 3 of this section of the Arbitration decision.
6:00, 7 October Latest imposition of their edit and the first since their DS alert, once again replaces "Northern Irish" with "Irish" with no supporting evidence
I requested via my last edit summary and at the IPs talk page to provide evidence for their change however they provided none. This is now their 6th imposition of their edit and have now ignored my request for a source as well as the DS alert I gave them yesterday.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 2.29.61.73
Statement by Scolaire
These edits relate to Janet Devlin, a 22-year-old singer from Northern Ireland. I can't see any Troubles-related content in the article, and there is no notice on the talk page to say that it falls under the ArbCom case. Simply changing somebody's nationality from "Northern Irish" to "Irish" is not a Troubles ArbCom issue. Scolaire (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Mabuska
@Scolaire:, actually it does. Notwithstanding their edits to other articles, in this instance persistently removing Northern Irish for Irish especially calling it a spelling error can easily be construed as being Troubles related. Indeed see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions, which whilst stating pages, does state "broadly interpreted", and the issue here is clearly within the catchment of it. The talk page ArbCom message which doesn't have to be included does state in it edits related to British and Irish nationalism, not just the Troubles.Mabuska(talk) 16:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning 2.29.61.73
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I suggest that this IP be blocked two months for Troubles-related edit warring as a normal admin action. If you check the pattern going back to August you'll notice lots of similar edits. They are so eager to defend their cause they even relocatedGregory Campbell (politician) from Londonderry to London to get rid of the word 'Londonderry' that they must have found offensive. The UK Parliament constituency that Campbell represents is known as East Londonderry. The IP made other changes to Campbell's article that were pure vandalism, such as calling him a 'twat'. The two-month run of bad changes from an apparently static IP suggests that a long block would have value. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP blocked two months for Troubles-related edit warring and vandalism, as a normal admin action. Closing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek
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 Volunteer Marek
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
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.
Additionally, inline citations are not required in the lede as long as the text is well sourced in the body of the article. Which it is. Hence, it's sort of hard to understand the objection and why Dr. Fleischman is bringing this here.
Masem's claim below that "any (Forbes) "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not (reliable)" is also completely false. The two discussions at WP:RSN are a) this one and b) this one. a) Most certainly DOES NOT say "definitely not reliable". What it says is "reliable if the contributor is reliable" which is the case here. Likewise b) again says "reliable if the contributor is reliable" and "no, it's not user generated content" (and in the particular case discussed there the commentators deemed Forbes reliable). Masem, please don't falsely misrepresent discussions like this, especially since this is something that is trivial to check. There's absolutely no "definitely not" in there by any stretch and I have no idea how you came up with that. Please retract or strike.
Regardless, like I said, 1) there are other sources in the article, 2) lede doesn't need citations if it has them in text, 3) additional citations could - and were - easily provided, all that Dr. Fleischman had to do was ask for them.
I'm also not quite sure what DS was suppose to be violated here. There was one revert by Dr. Fleischman and one by myself. I did start a discussion on talk. Dr. Fleischman responded by making the claim about Forbes' reliability. So I added a second source just to appease him, although, one more time, this actually was not necessary since there were inline citations in main body already.
So this is sort of a strange request over ... not sure what exactly, but definitely something trivial that could've (and I think was) handled simply through good faithed discussion and clearing up of what appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Fleischman's part.
Volunteer Marek 05:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Volunteer Marek
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Only to comment that is long-standing that while Forbes articles written by staff are RS, any "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not. ([14] in July 2017 has two sections dealing with Forbes contributors). So they should not be used as a source for factual claim, much less any controversial one. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
