Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:44, 29 December 2019

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

Edit5001

Edit5001 is cautioned to project greater moderation, especially in such a contentious area as AP2. But as Ian.thomson correctly notes, this request does, indeed, lacks focus. See also my comments below for further details. El_C 02:50, 26 December 2019 (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 Edit5001

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS : Post-1932 American politics

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

19 December Argues that a source published in October 2018 supports Dobbs' claim that "many" undocumented immigrants committed voter fraud in November 2018 and then says that it is insulting to everyone's intelligence to note that a source published before the 2018 elections is not valid to support claims about the outcome of the elections.
19 December Edit-wars these changes, and others (removes well-sourced "falsely", etc.) after they're objected to on the talk page, declaring Consensus isn't necessary for every single edit. Stop lying.
19 December Uses weasel words to portray Lou Dobbs' false claim about voter fraud in 2018 as possibly true, claiming in the edit summary that it is "NPOV"
19 December Uses weasel words to weaken the clear factual description of Lou Dobbs' statements as relating to anti-Semitism.
19 December Weakens reliably-sourced description of Dobbs' use of conspiracy theories about George Soros.
19 December Describes Vox and USA Today as "obviously biased sources" in removing a description of a white supremacist rally as a "pathetic failure."
19 December Uses source which says nothing about the article subject to make a claim about the article subject.
13 December Removes statement that There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race in an attempt to portray the white genocide conspiracy theory as true.

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 by Doug Weller: [1].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user is making tendentious edits to a wide array of American politics-related articles, editing them to remove and/or weaken reliably-sourced statements about people, misuse sources, depict conspiracy theories as potentially true. When their edits are challenged and they are asked to discuss these contentious changes as per WP:BRD, they have made the statement that Consensus isn't necessary for every single edit, which flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS - indeed, by policy, contentious edits require consensus when challenged. In this case, I would ask for an enforced 0RR/BRD sanction - that if any of their edits are reverted by anyone, they are not allowed to reinstate them unless consensus is developed on the talk page (or the reverter refuses/fails to engage in discussion after a reasonable time). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the arbitrator on Wikipedia of whether a claim is fit to be labeled "false"? If sources contest something, it's a contested claim. indicates a failure to understand how Wikipedia works. In this case, reliable sources and fact-checkers essentially unanimously reject Dobbs' claim that voter fraud by undocumented immigrants was responsible for the outcome of the 2018 elections - it is a false statement. We do not give equal validity to unequal sources and uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. The statement that Dobbs' claims are false is uncontroversial and uncontested among reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Discussion concerning Edit5001

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 Edit5001

NorthbySouthBaronOf has essentially sat on several political related articles and turned them into partisan political hit pieces for or against subjects as meet his political ends. He refuses to consider any opinions other than this own and declares that each and every modification to articles he's involved with require consensus to the point of needing an RFC for most changes.

I'll respond to each and every case he cites;

1. None of my edits were contested on the Talk page. I also only reverted a single edit, which itself was a revert of several of my edits by NorthbySouthBaronOf with zero explanation other than "get consensus", so that's hardly an "edit war". NorthbySouthBaronOf is simply totally wrong about what he's claiming here.

2. Who is the arbitrator on Wikipedia of whether a claim is fit to be labeled "false"? If sources contest something, it's a contested claim. Outright calling people whose articles he's editing liars spreading falsehoods, as NorthBySouthBaronOf commonly does on politically charged pages of those he edits, isn't constructive or neutral.

3. It's extremely contested at best to say Dobbs was intending to be anti-Semitic with those remarks. Criticism of George Soros is extremely common and much of it has absolutely nothing to do with his ethnic background. To flatly label criticism of Soros as anti-Jewish is outrageous.

4. See above. Soros is well known as an international political activist. Further, the source itself calls him a "liberal" philanthropist - wording that NorthbySouthBaronOf completely left out.

5. Vox is described as a politically partisan source here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The USA Today article, meanwhile, is an opinion piece. That's why I refer to these two sources being cited in the example in question as biased.

6. As I wrote in the edit there - Horowitz stated "It doesn’t vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership,” This directly covers Strzok, as he was one of the leading FBI agents involved and "touched" the issue thoroughly.

7. I removed that sentence because I felt it wasn't adequately backed by the sources included. Not much beyond it than that. Edit5001 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

1. Team red
2. Team blue
3. Using AE to solve a content dispute

Yup, it's AP2!

Looking at those diffs, I agree with NSBF on some, with Edit5001 on others. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through dispute resolution, not AE enforcement. Having a difference of opinion is not disruptive. – Levivich 17:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

Content disputes; nothing actionable here. Go back to talk pages and seek consensus. — JFG ^talk 16:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson

If you look at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory, you'll see that Edit5001 is a civil POV pusher -- he wants us to "enforce the rules" so stringently on any source that correctly labels the CT as indisputably false but completely ignore multiple editors explaining that we can't just throw in tangentially related sources that supporters would view as evidence for the CT. When directly asked multiple times if he realizes that the CT is false, he dodges the question or refuses to answer. I did figure that if Edit5001 continued to edit in the same manner, they would end up either here or ANI sooner or later but that said, I think this filing was premature and lacks focus. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Edit5001

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

People really need to start using the talk page and discussing contentious changes. I don't see a strong reason to sanction anyone here. If we do, I would move to place both of you under the 1RR for American Politics to force you both to discuss things. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the parity here. Saying that citing Salon is "equivalent of citing The Daily Stormer on this issue" seems highly questionable, to say the least. [This is diff #8, but Edit5001 only gets to diff #7, so this remains un-addressed by them.] True, Salon might be opinionated according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (requiring attribution), but comparing it to a Nazi publication is not something I think most Wikipedia contributors (and readers) would be able to reconcile. That said, this request has been open for ~~five days~~ one week now, so I propose closing it with a warning to Edit5001 to project greater moderation, overall, and at AP2, especially. El_C 02:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Harmony Fanboy

Fifth Harmony Fanboy is indefinitely topic banned from post-1932 American politics and is also warned that they are likely to be indefinitely blocked if they repeat similar misuse of sources in other topic areas. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 25 December 2019 (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 Fifth Harmony Fanboy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

I am deeply concerned by this user's pattern of source manipulation on a BLP, including edit-warring to re-add unquestionably deceptive text undercut by the sources.

00:56, December 15, 2019 - adds claim that "Violent crime, however, has trended up during Pete Buttigieg's tenure, with 2018 as the most violent year in South Bend in at least 20 years" cited to the right-wing website Washington Free Beacon
21:40, December 17, 2019 - makes claim in edit summary that "Aggravated assaults also up in a significant way (230% of previous!)" and re-adds the deceptive claim that violent crime in South Bend went up from 2012 to 2018 (the implication being the city became more dangerous during Buttigieg's tenure).

This text is directly undercut by the New York Times article that FHF himself/herself added. That source—which is literally entitled "South Bend and St. Louis, Where Crime Statistics Can Mislead"—states:

[A] criticism of Mayor Pete Buttigieg doesn’t hold up...a deeper dig into South Bend’s crime statistics shows a change in reporting practices rather than a rise in violent crime. In fact, the F.B.I.’s U.C.R. report for 2016 (which USA Today used) includes a footnote for South Bend that says “figures are not comparable to previous years’ data” because of reporting practice changes....In other words, the evidence is telling us that South Bend didn’t become more violent; it simply changed how it counted assaults.

The deceptive use of this source was pointed out in my edit summary removing this content, an article talk page edit, and a detailed comment on FHF's user talk page. FHF did not respond either to this article talk page comment, or to this user talk page comment.

00:14, December 18, 2019 - Re-adds (with no edit summary) deceptive claim that "Aggravated assaults also increased 130% from 2015 to 2017," cited to the same NYT source that directly/extensively explains how that figure is misleading.
23:34, December 19, 2019 - Re-adds deceptive claim that "Violent crime has also trended upward during Buttigieg's tenure, with 2018 the most violent year in South Bend in at least 20 years." Cites to the same Washington Free Beacon article previously objected to. Incorrectly claims, in edit summary, that "it's false to say that's misleading/deceptive."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None known, but FHF has stated that he/she "started a new account because I couldn't remember my old account info." I do not know FHF's previous username, so cannot check that old account).

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

Given courtesy DS alerts for both AMPOL and BLP on 23:42, December 17, 2019‎
- Given detailed, polite explanation of "Consensus, edit warring, BLP and deceptive use of sources" on 10:28, December 18, 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm alarmed by FHF's behavior here, especially (1) the continuous use of an undeniably misleading or deceptive claim (in violation of our BLP principle); (2) attempting to strong-arm the material into a BLP (edit-warring); and (3) a disregard for WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. There is other problematic behavior by FHF on the same article, but the clear manipulation of sources bothers me the most. A topic ban from BLP/AMPOL, or at least from the Buttigieg article and related articles, would be appropriate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Fifth Harmony Fanboy

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 Fifth Harmony Fanboy

Statement by MrX

The evidence of POV pushing and edit warring by Fifth Harmony Fanboy is compelling. Notably, Fifth Harmony Fanboy is promoting the same type of material and with similar behavior as sock puppets DouggCousins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and GooodHousekeeping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did a few days before he created his account. {{Checkuser needed}} - Mr X 🖋 20:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a good case on behavioral evidence alone that these are the same user, but I'm not particularly interested in investing the time only to have the user spawn new socks. The contribution history alone makes it clear that this is a SPA set on denigrating a BLP subject. Hopefully that will be addressed soon.- Mr X 🖋 03:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement (Checkuser results) by Ivanvector

Per MrX's request, I checked the accounts and found them Unrelated. I clarified after their follow-up comment that they're editing from different continents. I realize these comments should be in my own section, so I'm self-clerking. In my opinion, the technical results show that Fifth Harmony Fanboy cannot be the same operator as the sockpuppeteer behind DouggCousins and GooodHousekeeping, but I cannot rule out some kind of off-wiki coordination between the two sets of accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Fifth Harmony Fanboy

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

I'll discuss Neutrality's diffs in the same (chronological) order as they listed them:

00:56, December 15, 2019 can possibly be taken as a good-faith edit (even though Washington Free Beacon is a pretty poor source), as FHF may not have been aware of other sources showing the upward trend in violent crime to be an artefact of a change in reporting practices.
FHF's abuse of a source here, 21:40, December 17, 2019 is scandalous, and defies all attempts to assume good faith.
Brute-force edit warring with no edit summary at 00:14, December 18, 2019 to keep the same text and the same source in the article is rampant bad faith.
And finally, restoring yet again the same text at 04:34, December 20, 2019 with Washington Free Beacon as the source, is a terrible idea, since now the user is undeniably aware the figures are misleading (though their edit summary suggests they're setting up their own acumen against NYT's).

FHF has been sufficiently warned, to apparently no effect. Unless another admin/respectable user objects and explains how I have misunderstood these edits, I plan to topic ban FHF from post-1932 American politics for egregious POV-pushing and edit warring, or, as MrX puts it, for being "an SPA set on denigrating a BLP subject" — a BLP subject running for high political office. Bishonen | talk 04:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Oh dear. This diff (#2 in Bishonen's list) is bad. Using a source that says in the headline that the raw statistic is misleading to support the insertion of the misleading statistic. I support a topic ban at minimum. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with topic ban, indeed at the very least, per Bishonen and Awilley. El_C 05:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, an AP2 indefinite topic ban is needed. More could follow later if a misuse of sources is repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The misconduct is egregious and shows an intent to deceive. An indefinite AP2 topic ban is definitely in order, with an indefinite block called for if similar bad behavior crops up in other topic areas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‎98.221.136.220

As the admin who protected the page for one week (on Dec 23), I'm a bit loath to block. But this request is becoming stale. So I think a warning to the IP that, if all other editors disagree with them, they should not be edit warring against consensus. Instead, they should use the article talk page or other forms of dispute resolution (and accompanying requests) in a manner that is sensible, without bludgeoning the discussion. El_C 02:59, 26 December 2019 (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 ‎98.221.136.220

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ‎98.221.136.220 (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:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case and/or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Amendment (February 2019):

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

20:24, 20 December 2019 "And I use the word objectionable because you have given no reason why, if it's in the second sentence, the "part of WW1" part can never ever be part of the infobox". Pure "I didn't hear that" on the talk page. As the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section below shows, before this post five editors had given a reason, the exact same reason no less, objecting to the change.
22:18, 20 December 2019 "You haven't offered a reason why it positively can't be included". As above, with the addition of it being after my talk page edit (diff also included below) pointing out everyone had offered a reason
19:40, 21 December 2019 "Well, with no actual reason given to deny inclusion". As above
00:07, 19 December 2019 First revert
00:17, 19 December 2019 Second revert
01:17, 19 December 2019 Third revert, made after receiving the 1RR and DS notification. As the editor seemed to have stopped edit warring in favour of discussion, I did not think it would be helpful to report at the time. However since they are now continuing to edit war, included for the sake of thoroughness.
20:08, 21 December 2019 Fourth revert, using a source that has been repeatedly pointed out doesn't support the claim to start with
20:13, 21 December 2019 Fifth revert, made five minutes after the fourth so clearly a 1RR breach
20:41, 21 December 2019 Sixth revert, made 33 minutes after the fourth so another 1RR breach

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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.

Notified at 00:21, 19 December 2019 of discretionary sanctions and 1RR rule.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Multiple editors have made the same objection to the change on the article's talk page, yet as the evidence shows the IP persistently claims nobody has provided a reason why and repeatedly tries to use references that, while certainly talking about the Easter Rising in the context of World War 1 (as every book written about the Rising will do) don't say it's part of World War 1 (as every book written about the Rising doesn't do).

Myself at 00:23, 19 December 2019 "It happened during the war, but was not part of it. Do any reliable references claim different?"
@The Banner: at 02:04, 19 December 2019 "That fact that the uprising happened during World War 1 does not make it part of World War 1"
@Scolaire: at 00:01, 20 December 2019 " I don't know of any other historian of all the many who have written about the war who has said that the Rising was part of WW1. And I have read just about every book on the Rising – including two by Fearghal McGarry, who wrote the article you linked to on the 1914–1918 website – and none of them say that the Rising was part of WW1, although they do place it in the context of the war, as well as in the context of the Home Rule Crisis, the Volunteer split, the formation of the coalition government, etc. etc. "Best understood within the wider context of" does not mean "was a part of". It just means that there was a war going on that had a bearing on the actions of the IRB, Volunteers and Citizen Army. The Easter Rising was part of the Irish revolutionary period, and that is what should go in the "part of" field of the infobox"
@Guliolopez: at 00:18, 20 December 2019 "I don't agree with the assertion/inclusion either. The Easter Rising was not "part of" World War I. None of the extensive sources (Coogan, Townshend, Foy and Barton, McNamara or others) support a claim that it was. While these works discuss the Rising in the context of WWI (including in an "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" context), none describe it as being "part" of the war. Multiple other editors have noted the lack of reliable, external or academic sources to support such a claim"
@R. fiend: at 17:53, 20 December 2019 "That the Rising has a connection to the First World War is clear, and is covered in the article (the second sentence mentions it, no less), but to call it part of the war is a bit of a stretch, and doesn't seem to be backed up by reliable sources"

I even summarised this for the editor at 21:06, 20 December 2019 "The same objection has been made by multiple editors, and contrary to the assertion it is not a case of people objecting without giving a reason. The reason stated to the inclusion of the phrase "Part of World War 1" has consistently been that the Rising is NOT "Part of World War 1""

The editor's refusal to listen has led to Scolaire, The Banner and Guliolopez to all say we should not even bother replying any more.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning ‎98.221.136.220

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 ‎98.221.136.220

I support the inclusion of the Easter Rising as part of the Great War for a variety of reasons. For starters, I believe that the fact that WW1 significantly influenced the timing, conduct, and outcome of the Rising, it should be naturally included as part of WW1, (meaning it cannot be adequately understood without WW1). This matches the Ireland and World War I page, which mentions the Rising in its text, ostensibly because the Easter Rising was part of the First World War. I have provided numerous sources (see the Easter Rising talk page at the bottom), which show that WW1 played a heavy hand in the rising, and that the rising would have developed differently if it were otherwise. These sources, the majority from RS sites, not only back up my claims, but show that my belief is in fact common and widespread among scholars of the conflict. User Keith-264, who is part of the Military History project, agreed with my position. If you check my contributions, I have notified other members of the MilHistory project to contribute to the discussion, because I believe their opinion was more relevant to the discussion (most haven't responded yet). The other editors who opposed my edits never really explained why significant influence over timing, conduct, and outcome don't warrant inclusion. Moreover, they alluded to "historians" who agree with them but never gave any sources at all that stated explicitly that the Rising wasn't part of WW1 (meaning they named names but gave no quotes justifying their name-dropping). I gave sources, they didn't. Perhaps my editing was bothersome, but at least it was factual. The Banner tried stalking my contributions on the Central Asian revolt of 1916 page and tried to edit war (without providing any reason, once again I provided a source in response) but ceased. In summary, the above editors adamantly disagreed with my position simply because they felt so, not because they provided any source or reason; I provided sources and reasons. Finally, the above editors reverted to attacking a straw man, saying that I was mistaking the uprising for a time coincidence, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I provided examples to prove that we were on the same page (another example, the First Caco War during the United States occupation of Haiti occurred in Haiti in 1915 while an influential German population was there, but I disagree with any assessment stating that the Caco War was part of WW1 because no sources have made any substantial connection of influence). That pretty much sums up my position. Why doesn't significant influence by the Great War, particularly to the point where it determined the Rising's timing, conduct, and outcome, make the Rising not part of WW1? I gave reasons, they did not.

Personally, for the record, I prefer some dispute resolution to mindless bickering. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keith-264

That the Germans had a policy of encouraging insurrection in British and French colonies and supported Irish nationalists indubitably makes the Rising part of the Great War and this should be reflected in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guliolopez

In terms of content, while it is clear, acknowledged and already covered that the Easter Rising occurred during (and at least partially within the context of) the Great War, that it was "part of" the war is not supported by the available references. (That the anon editor implies that these references do not exist because it is so obviously self-evident and therefore unnecessary for a historian to state as much, simply isn't the case. And isn't how references work anyway.) Five other editors have pointed this out on the relevant talk page.

In terms of editing patterns, while ‎98.221.136.220 has received several advisories against warring and contra-consensus editing (both on user talk page, article talk page and otherwise), the editor took it upon themselves to engage in a series of warring reverts to push a single POV. As here: [2][3][4]. (Justifying doing based on partial support from one other editor who was declared an expert by virtue of participating in a WikiProject and therefore more important "than the 'consensus'").

In terms of user behaviour, that the related talk-page thread is now approaching 6,000 words (in an argument with 5 other editors about adding TWO WORDS to the infobox) would seem, to me, to be evidence of a type of WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NOTLISTENING that is not helpful to the project. It is pretty clear to me that this anon is treating the project (and the article and its talk page) as a battleground, has little interest in collaborative editing, and is generally WP:NOTHERE for the purposes of expanding the project constructively and collaboratively or for the benefit of the reader.

I'm not sure what action to suggest. But the warring (and near trolling IMO) might warrant at least a temporary block. Guliolopez (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SN54129

I'm not sure I see the need to bring a dynamic IP AE. How will it be enforced? ——SN 54129 14:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ‎98.221.136.220

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

@Serial Number 54129:, that is a sticky IP and the editor has been on it since Feb. 12 so it may be treated as static. His previous IP was 98.221.128.208.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11

Request concerning Jweiss11

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:BLOCKEVADE

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

[5] has a tban that applies to this article
[6] has a tban that applies to this article
[7] has a tban that applies to this article
[8] xhas a tban that applies to this article
[9] has a tban that applies to this article
[10] has a tban that applies to this article
[11] has a tban that applies to this article
[12] has a tban that applies to this article
[13] has a tban that applies to this article
[14] has a tban that applies to this article
[15] xhas a tban that applies to this article

And this list could go on and on.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[16] Explanation

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

Jweiss was well aware that Ngo and Quillette are connected, he personally added Ngo's work at Quillette to the lede of Ngo's article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quillette&diff=prev&oldid=930921808

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jweiss11 has been editing the Quillette article,[17] edited by Andy Ngo in contravention of an indefinite topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo [18]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Jweiss11

Statement by Jweiss11

As I stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jweiss11, based on my discussion with with Bishonen on my talk page in the wake of the sanction, in particular her comment, "...Or maybe appeal the ban if you think it's worth it (it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject)" on September 11, it was my judgement that that ban would not apply to Quillette. None of my edits there or elsewhere since then have been related to the sanctioned topic. See also comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jweiss11 from Loksmythe, Springee, and Paulmcdonald to that effect. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone's comments here. I want to respond to a couple items. First, per Bishonen's comment about this edit, I understand the argument that the entirety of the Quillette article would fall under the ban because of the banned subject's connection to it. That's not an argument I agree with, and it certainly wasn't my working understanding going into this incident, but that argument seems coherent enough. However, if we are working under the assumption that my editing of the Quillette article is okay so long as it doesn't deal with content directly related to the banned topic, I'd say it's not legitimate to argue that the removal of a stray character following a sentence that has a citation that mentions the banned topic qualifies as a violation. I vaguely remember making that edit. I make many like it all time even when in more of read mode as a I surf around and notice a glaring typographical or layout issue, particularly in the lead of an article. The motivation for that edit was utterly unrelated to any specific meaningful content.

Second, @El C:, are you considered an involved admin here? That seems curious to me given your role as the first responder to Bacondrum's related edit war. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: here's the relevant link to your first-response to Bacondrum's edit war, which also admonished me based on a mistaken count of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quillette&diff=932171468&oldid=932171283. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

See this edit at Talk:Quillette, in which Bacondrum strikes several of Jweiss11's comments. In the edit summary, Bacondrum justifies their action by citing a policy that allows for the striking of comments made by sockpuppets. Unless Bacondrum wishes to suggest that Jweiss11 is a sockpuppet, there was no justification for striking those posts. In the ANI thread, Bacondrum has also come across as overeager to get Jweiss in trouble. It's time to back off and let cooler heads weigh in. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bacondrum has rage quit Wikipedia after being criticized for repeatedly posting his comments on this page in the wrong section. So much for cooler heads prevailing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Three points:

Regardinging Bacondrum's striking or reversion of Jweiss11's comments, assuming the topic ban does apply to that article, those would probably be justified under WP:BANREVERT (which applies to violations of topic-bans, not merely sockpuppetry); Bacondrum merely linked to the wrong policy.
Regarding the scope of the topic ban, the sanction itself is clearly worded as applying to all pages connected with Andy Ngo, not just the page Andy Ngo specifically.
Regarding whether Quillette is connected to Andy Ngo (or closely connected enough), Ngo was well-known and widely-reported on as a somewhat infamous editor at Quillette before he quit or was let go (under somewhat controversial circumstances, which have a paragraph devoted to them on Ngo's page); Jweiss11 is aware of this, here and here (it looks like Bacondrum got the wrong link above.) Whether that connection is enough to be a topic-ban violation is another question, but it seems at least worth clarifying.

Those seem to be the important points. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement SN54129

Here from ANEW, so will repeat myself—with a couple of tweaks for context—particularly regarding the matter of blocks n' bans.

It would seem as if Bacondrum was reverting in line with policy; after all, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. It may be that other parties were unintentionally enabling a breach of the topic ban—covered as it is by WP:BMB—and that is not something they deserve criticism for, just education. However, warning Bacondrum for edit warring over something explicitly covered by WP:3RRNO (#3) seems rather undeserved also.

Regarding doubts raised as to whether the page is within scope (It is your claim that the article Quillette is covered by the Andy Ngo topic ban. However, that has not been established), they are unfounded. As noted, Bishonen quite explicitly T-banned Jweiss11 from from all pages connected with Andy Ngo; I find it unlikely that, on consideration, anyone is really suggesting that the talk page of an article in which the subject is directly discussed multiple times (as on T:Quillette) is not a page connected to the article. If, of course, they believe that the Tban is unfair, then the usual routes of appeal are open to them. But I don't think anyone argues that ignoring a topic ban is an effective way to contest it. ——SN 54129 11:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised User:Aquillion has said much of this, with more brevity and much improvement, apologies. But I'd also add that Bacondrum has received an "official" warning for edit-warring, which should probably be expunged. ——SN 54129 11:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmacdonald: please post in your own section, not others', and that includes the "Uninvolved administrators" section also, as you are very much involved. Many thanks. ——SN 54129 10:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

As I said at the ANI discussion, I see this as a bad faith accusation by the filing editor. They recently went on a bit of a warpath removing Jweiss11's comments from the Quillette talk page [[20]]. As I've read topic bans enforced in the past, if an editor is banned from topic X then they cannot post to that article (or talk page) nor can they discuss that topic at other articles. So if you are Tbanned from Trump articles you can't edit Trump's personal BLP article, his presidential article, articles about his business etc. You also can't edit Trump Casino related materiel in say the Las Vegas strip article. It doesn't mean you can't edit an article about Las Vegas or the strip just because Trump has a casino on the strip. If you were editing the Las Vegas strip article to discuss the Caesars Palace you haven't violated the Tban. The claim that a Tban related to Andy Ngo is effectively a Tban from the Quillette article is laughable. It comes from the same type of common sense that thought it was reasonable to delete another editor's talk page comments... 5 times despite those edits being restored by two other editors. Would we also say the Wall Street Journal article is off limits because one of Ngo's early, controversies involved work for the WSJ?

Jweiss11's edits to the Quillette article were totally unrelated to the topic of Andy Ngo's employment by the site. They also were well within the scope of good editing practice and respectful disagreement. The behavior of Bacondrum is really that which needs review. Not just for the edit warring but for failing to understand basic concepts that help to prevent talk page animosity. Questioning if the Andy Ngo tban applied to the Quillette page was reasonable. The disruptive behavior before and after are not. I would suggest closing with a clear warning that Bacondrun needs to review policies related to CIVIL and CONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, please see @Bishonen:'s comments here [[21]]. you are not allowed to talk about Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia, except in the context of appealing this ban, or of asking for explanation and clarification, as you're doing now. That includes user talkpages.. At no point didn Jweiss11 talk about Ngo or his employment, even obliquely, at the Quillette article. Springee (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen:, do you consider the whole Quillette article and talk page to be part of the Tban or just the part with an Andy Ngo references? I would argue that this is a stretch to call the whole subject Ngo related and this will be used to justify ignoring/striking legitimate talk page comments and as a way to build steamroll a "new" consensus on some disputed content vs working towards a compromise. Springee (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kyohyi

A number of editors are hanging on the "all pages connected to" aspect of the topic ban. I think it's worth noting that Jweiss11 asked for clarification regarding the ban, and received two comments from the imposing administrator. [22] [23] These posts to me indicate that it was intended to be limited to Andy Ngo (or possibly Andy Ngo broadly construed), and not every thing that someone can posit as a link to Andy Ngo. Though it would probably be best for the imposing admin to clarify their intended scope. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I believe clarification was sought when the Tban was imposed, unfortunately admins commenting at the time merely pointed to [WP: TBAN], and didn't really go any further on what "connected to" meant. This leads me to believe that "all pages connected to" really means "broadly construed", and broadly construed is defined in TBAN. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Jweiss, you shouldn't have made the judgment[24] that the T-ban would not apply to Quillette; you should have asked. As for your attempt to use a comment by Paulmacdonald as a prop, that cuts no ice with me. If anybody is inclined to give weight to Paulmacdonald's opinion on the basis that he's an admin, I warmly recommend them to read this discusssion, with particular attention to Paul's contributions, especially this response to a question. Compare also Black Kite's comment below.

Your edits to Quillette as enumerated by Bacondrum are generally very minor and harmless. However, note this edit, where you copyedit a sentence with a very visible footnote about Ngo (indeed with the "ref name" Vox-Ngo, and the actual title being "The assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo, explained"). You didn't notice, I guess. But if you're going to make dodgy judgments such as that Quillette does not come under your T-ban, then you need to be very noticing altogether. Asking is safer.

That said, I would go by my usual principle here, which is to let a first T-ban vio go with a warning. (I see this as one vio, even though it's several edits.) Especially since, quoting Springee, "At no point did Jweiss11 talk about Ngo or his employment, even obliquely". Bishonen | talk 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I have no objection to anyone reviewing any comments I have made. I also would recommend that no one give extra credit to me or anyone else based on Wikipedia administrator status. Note the essay Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator! for any details. Each argument should stand on its own merits regardless of who made them. Why am I suddenly a topic of consideration in this discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question on this edit noted above, I'm not exactly understanding what was edited. It looks like it might have just been removal of a carriage return--if that's the case, it could have been easy to not notice the content of the paragraph. What am I missing there?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulmcdonald:, please create a section of your own and place all comments you wish to make there. The reason you're "suddenly" a topic of discussion here is that Jweiss11 referred to your ANI comment in their post above, so it's not really sudden on my part or Black Kite's. We do expect more of administrators, see WP:ADMINCOND: "Administrators are expected to lead by example". That, I presume, was the reason User:Black Kite found your ANI comment disturbing: a sysop is expected to be well-informed when making comments, or else refrain from making them. The "links and changes [you] looked at" before commenting at ANI were clearly insufficient. Looking at the article Andy Ngo, which was the basis of the topic ban, before commenting would have been a good idea. Ngo's work for Quillette is mentioned there. Or, as Black Kite suggests, taking a good look at Jweiss's contributions. (User:Serial Number 54129, your ping of Paul won't have worked, but nm, I'm pinging him now.) Bishonen | talk 16:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Springee:. Yes, I think the Quillette article is covered by the topic ban. But I don't think Jweiss's decision that it wasn't was made in any kind of bad faith — his edits were not tendentious AFAICS. He'd better have asked, that's all. But as I've already said, I'm against sanctioning him for this. Indeed, if he is sanctioned — which I presume would mean a block — I'm thinking of lifting the topic ban. Not retroactively, of course, but for the future. I don't want any editor to have to constantly worry whether they're violating a T-ban or not. Compare User:EdJohnston's comment here. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Jweiss11: As for your suggestion that El C is involved, no he isn't. (At least, for your question about it to make sense, I'm assuming that when you wrote "El C, are you considered an involved admin here? That seems curious to me", you meant to say "are you considered an uninvolved admin?") Per WP:INVOLVED, "An administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Italics in original. What you link to regarding El C is administrative action. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Paul McDonald, please move the comments you have made, here and below in the uninvolved admin section, to your own section (add names with pings so that it's clear who you're responding to, the way I'm doing here). The rule about it is to be found in the big pink box at the top of the page: "Statements must be made in separate sections." I agree it's not easy to find. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Paulmcdonald

I apologize. Apparently there is a rule or expectation that we only comment in sections based on our userid. I found no reference to that anywhere in this document, so I followed standard Wikipedia behavior and replied in-line.

If the links that I looked at were insufficient (again, that's possible) the fix is easy: post the link(s) that support your conclusion. In order to "prove someone didn't do something" we would need to examine every edit that the user made. Instead, we need to "prove someone did do something" which only requires posting the evidence. If I'm wrong, I'll change my position. Show me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

WP:INVOLVED says One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. – Levivich 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

@Paulmcdonald: AE follows the rules of arbitration cases so is a little different from many places, but yes, you are expect to only comment in named sections.

I don't think it's particularly plausible that Jweiss11 was not aware of Quillette's connection to Andy Ngo considering edits like this [25] [26] [27] which I found by looking through the histories. Note that I stopped after finding those examples.

But anyway, even if we didn't know of edits like this, or we think maybe he completely forgot about the connection, considering that the article Andy Ngo mentions Quillette in the lead and his leaving Quillette in the body I don't think it's unreasonable for us to assume that Jweiss11 was aware of the connection without needing evidence.

If Jweiss11 denies they were aware, perhaps we can AGF. But AFAICT, Jweiss11 has never said they weren't aware. Instead they've never answered when asked, and concentrated on the fact that they feel what they were told suggests it's not a violation despite any connection.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by User:Jweiss11's comment at ANI "the sanction only applied to that one article". They said they got this impression in part from the comment "(it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject)". But that comment has an important modifier "article subject".

In my opinion, Quillette is clearly part of that article subject. Maybe Andy Ngo is not a particularly big part of Quillette, although enough that his name is mentioned in one of the ref titles albeit not really in relation to what the reference is used for, and that he is mentioned in 2 of the refs currently supporting a while paragraph. But significantly, at the moment his work for Quillette seems to be a somewhat big part of his notability.

It's still a very narrow topic ban, other than Quillette, there aren't many articles likely affected. E.g. Daily Vanguard, Antifa (United States), Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, Rose City Antifa are some of the few where there may be concerns. (Articles like Portland, Oregon, Portland State University for example seem too disconnected.)

Editors may disagree whether it applies to the entire article of Quillette etc. But I don't see anyone can plausibly claim it doesn't apply where Andy Ngo is directly mention, or using something written by Andy Ngo as a ref. While this may not have happened here, it demonstrates the importance of the distinction between one article, and one article subject.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jweiss11

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

This request seems to be incomplete at this time. El_C 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: I'm not sure, but in any case, you need to inform Jweiss11 on their user talk page that this report exists. El_C 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Jweiss11's talk page, but there seems to be no notification there concerning this AE report. El_C 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: I'm beginning to question your level of competence here. Why do you continue to comment in this section (four times already!)?El_C 04:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: there seems to be a firm connection between Quillette and Andy Ngo, so to say you thought the ban does not encompass it is surprising. El_C 18:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: Topic ban's scope is clear: all pages connected with Andy Ngo. At the very least, some clarifications should have been sought. El_C 19:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are objections, I intend to close this with a warning per Bishonen. The spectrum dividing Black Kite and DGG isn't likely to be bridged —obviously, I lean more toward the former— but in terms of sanctions, I usually apply a warning for first-time topic ban violations, anyway. So, I suggest we just do that and move on. El_C 02:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I don't know what you're referring to. Please don't make me search for it and just provide the relevant links. El_C 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I don't see how that makes me involved. I also closed the AN3 report. But someone else can close this report as they see fit, sure. El_C 04:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: the way I see it, I was basically about to do Jweiss11 a favour by closing this report (earlier rather than later, that is) with only a warning. But they can have someone else close it now — it really makes no difference to me, either way. El_C 15:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little concerned that some editors seem to assume a level of stupidity on the behalf of administrators. Jweiss11 was quite aware that the Quilette article was related to Ngo - how could they not be when they'd already been topic-banned from Ngo and Quillette is mentioned in a significant part of Ngo's article? Phil Bridger at the ANI performed a remarkable feat of AGF by saying "The scope of the topic ban is clear from the user talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo." If Jweiss wasn't aware that Ngo was connected to Quillette before then he does now.". But they were quite aware of the link. Yes, Bacondrum's editing was sub-par here - being right (and he was) doesn't give you the right to edit-war. Incidentally, I am somewhat concerned by this comment from a sysop (User:Paulmcdonald) - "It's evident to me that Jweiss11 was not consciously aware of any connection (based on talk comments end editor history) and the connection to the banned topic is not obvious--in fact, it seems to be quite a stretch to say they are related." when there's a whole paragraph about Quillette in Ngo's article which Jweiss is very familiar with and topic-banned from. This is actually quite disturbing, to be honest. Other admin's comments welcome. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what's disturbing about it? It's possible I'm incorrect. If so, just point that out-mistakes happen. Was this one? Show me, no big deal. Based on the links and changes I looked at, I don't see it--and the one mentioned above looks like just a carriage return removal which could have been done without reading the content. But I haven't reviewed every edit he made. Make your case, just make it clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it is worrying. You said it was "evident" that Jweiss11 wasn't aware of any connection when even a cursory scan of their contributions would have made it clear that they were absolutely quite aware of it. I'm concerned that you didn't see that. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still haven't seen it. Rather than being accusatory toward me, perhaps you could just show your evidence. I'm asking.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article Andy Ngo has for many months in the lede paragraph pointed out that he works/had worked for Quillette. The idea that Jweiss11 did not know this is zero, especially as they have actually edited that sentence... Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of either the magazine or the person until today. Looking at the discussion here and at ANI, I definitely do not consider the editing here to be a violation of the topic ban if they do not concern any of the columns or other work by Ngo. As pointed out at ANI, and in the lede of the Ngo article, Ngo has worked at numerous other media outlets. A topic ban on Ngo does not rationally cover everything about articles about those other publications. Nor does it cover an article about Ngo's home town or any of other places he has lived, or everyone who has ever commented on any of Ngo's work. There is thus no violation by JWeiss11. A"firm connection" has to be also relevant to be the basis for a violation DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point that the connection is tenuous. The Quillette article proper does not mention Ngo at all, and while two references do, that's two of many, one in a title and one in a summary. I'm usually pretty liberal with "broadly construed", but I think the simple fact that a publication has published something by or written something about a person making the entire article about that publication off limits is a bridge too far. Normally, we would only consider topic bans in regards to tangentially related articles to ban the portions of those articles which mention the subject (in this case, for the Quillette article, that would be the two references which do name Ngo.) So, my thought would be to close this as not a violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although Ngo's article actually points out in the lede paragraph that he works/worked for Quillette, has done for many months, and Jweiss11 even actually edited it to point out when he left ... Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Quillette article isn't closely enough related to Andy Ngo to require Jweiss11 to be banned from that article. If there was some extra reason for concern about Jweiss11's behavior at Quillette a new ban on that article might be applied. But there isn't such a reason. I suggest the AE complaint be closed as No action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt very much that Jweiss11 was unaware that Ngo worked for Quillette. However, since the article on Quillette doesn't even mention Ngo, let alone is substantially about him, a topic ban on Ngo does not cover Quillette, even if Ngo works or has worked there and even if Jweiss11 is fully aware of that. (Now, of course, if Jweiss11 added material about Ngo to the Quillette article, or edited anything already there about Ngo, that's a very different matter, and the topic ban would of course prohibit that.) If one thinks Jweiss11 should in fact be topic banned from editing about Quillette as well, that can be discussed, but at least to my thinking, currently he is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are generally considered to be "broadly construed" in the sense that a topic ban from Andy Ngo should prevent a person from editing material about Andy Ngo anywhere on the project (not just the Andy Ngo article). But we have to draw a line somewhere. We can't say that the user is banned from editing United States because Andy Ngo lives in the United States. "Broadly construed" is intentionally obscure because it's impossible to draw a clear line that covers all possible edits. I see edits like this as pushing the boundary, though not quite crossing the line. I would support closing this with no action and a clarification/warning that the topic ban covers more than just the Ngo article and that Jweiss11 should ask for clarification before making edits that could be seen as borderline. ~Awilley (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BullRangifer (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/American politics 2 :

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

December 21, 2019 violation of WP:NPA. Stated that I was either acting in bad faith or had "a competency issue"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

July 20, 2018- "BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions"
March 13, 2019- "The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated."
April 24, 2019-"Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources. "

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months (see above)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not sure if this is even the right venue for this complaint since the personal attack occurred on my user talk page. However, filing this since my ANI complaint was closed by El C, who instructed me to bring it here. The issue began when I nominated FBI secret society for deletion, believing in did not meet our guidelines for inclusion. That article happened to have been created by user:MrX, who then came to my talk page to make a bad faith accusation against me [28] based on the fact we had a disagreement on another article talk page. He then doubled down on his assumption of bad faith and threatened me "My accusation of bad faith is exactly what was called for. Watch yourself". BullRangifer came to my user page to attack me completely unprovoked (I have not had any direct contact with him in months) to back up Mr. X. [29] The attack of my competence was the same WP:PERSONALATTACK that he made here which resulted in the March 13 warning issued by user:GoldenRing. Both Mr. X's and BullRangifer's behavior is unacceptable and I should not have to tolerate WP:HARASSMENT. BullRangifer's behavior is especially troubling though since I have made a voluntary effort to avoid interaction with him and the personal attack he made was exactly the same as what he was previously warned about.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer:To clear up any confusion about any sanction that I am under, here is confirmation from User:Awilley himself. Your comment was a clear personal attack as per WP:CIRNOT which appears on the page you linked to. To make matters worse, you had no business getting involved here since the discussion on my talk page had absolutely nothing to do with you. Also, I'd like to ask what you meant by "especially if one has a COI of the negative kind" [30] Are you saying I have a WP:COI, not sure? And now you just questioned my competency yet again in your response below.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:Can you provide any diffs to support my alleged WP:Hounding of you? The other very old issue you brought up has nothing to do with AP2 and has already been resolved (despite the objection of the other person involved), making it irrelevant here.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer:So after attacking me, now you want to make peace and be my friend? Why? because you're under scrutiny? I'm not holding a grudge, you're the one who came to attack me. I just want to be treated fairly, not have my competence called into question every time I say or do something you disagree with.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion:Here we go again, you love to take my comments out of context and I have never even once called another editor incompetent (so I suggest you strike that allegation):

#1I was making a valid point after Mr. X insisted that I inserted WP:OR, I said he was mistaken, not incompetence.
#2 I was calling out Mr. X for using WP:PRIMARY sources to justify his assertion that the word "found" should be used in relation to impeachment. [31] Of course he know better, he was just making a really weak argument.
#3 After another editor claimed However Trump was found GUILTY of abuse of power and obstruction of congress by a "jury" of 535 members" [32], I was making a point that Bill Clinton was impeached and then acquitted by the senate (thus the history lesson).
#4 A response to Mr. X who said McConnell created the bizarre situation by acting as Trump's surrogate. [33] The rest of my response which you conveniently omitted was We do not need to start a debate about who is to blame.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#5 My entire post needs to be read. I was attacked by Neutrality, who provided misleading diffs (basically the same thing you're doing now), I did nothing wrong in the two diffs Neutrality provided and my full response (which you can read) proves it. Yes, I was frustrated that someone who calls themselves Neutrality provides only one side of the story.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

Discussion concerning BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

Opening statement

Unless Awilley's one year sanction from April 13, 2019, on Rusf10 for their vexatious dramaboard filings against me has expired or has been lifted, this is a SECOND violation of the sanction in two days. This will be the FIFTH such frivolous filing, and the sanction was issued after the THIRD. Even if it's expired, this obsessive behavior should resurrect it, and with a vengeance.

MrX provided this link as evidence the sanction is still in effect, so this is indeed a SECOND violation within two days.

This is a repeat of this closed filing at AN/I two days ago, closed by El C as not a personal attack. That should have been enough for Rusf10 to cease and desist.

Why Rusf10 is so fixated on me is puzzling. I have a talk page. Why don't they just talk to me? Why is their first reflex a battleground one? Why escalate differences, when defusion is better? "Blessed are the peacemakers" because they do not take perceived offenses to dramaboards.

Lest there be any confusion, the sanction on me only applies to article talk pages. My criticism of Rusf10 was rare; it was very specific; it was explained; it was on their personal talk page and not an article talk page; and it was not gratuitous or uncivil. Lack of competency is an accusation that should not be made lightly. I will let others decide whether my judgment of Rusf10's starting of that AfD was wrong, especially since it seemed to be a revenge AfD directed at MrX.

I see this as a thin-skinned response by labeling my justified criticism as a personal attack. The appropriate response is a ban hammer, multiple flying slimy-trout boomerangs, and other sanctions for holding a grudge and now trotting it out as a continuation of Rusf10's previous battleground behaviors. There are a number of behavioral violations here.

A couple days ago SPECIFICO wrote this: "In my opinion this report is boomerang-worthy on its own 2 feet. This is the kind of documented behavior that led to Rusf10's sanction and it would have been better to dispense a TBAN at the outset."

At the very least, this is an abuse of the Arbitration Committee, and at worst a question of a double sanction violation, competency issues, and obsessive harassment behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Rusf10

Okay, Rusf10, so AFTER this started, Awilley let you know the sanction was deprecated. That's nice to know now.

Did you fail to notice his continued "warning about filling vexatious requests"?

Following up from several pings I got from AN/I the other day, yes the sanction is depricated, and sorry for not logging it. It slipped my mind at the time. In the absence of a formal sanction, you should still consider this a warning about filling vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban. ~ Awilley 23:45, 26 December 2019

I suggest you take that to heart and drop this renewal of your obsessive abuse of drama boards to settle minor slights which can be dealt with on talk pages. I have one. You're welcome to discuss things with me. I'd rather make friends than see someone gathering and saving small scraps of worthless paper for years so they can later make a huge bonfire. Don't hold grudges. Be a peacemaker. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MONGO

MONGO, thanks for the nice list of my participation on private talk pages and drama boards. The ONLY link which would, in the past, have any relevance here is the one to Spygate, and that one earned me a sanction which I have heeded. The context of my comment to User:Phmoreno was ignored, but so be it. They are now blocked. My comment was precise and accurate, but it was too sharp for an article talk page. Lesson learned. I don't do that anymore.

My sanction applies solely to article talk pages. I am not forbidden from expressing my opinions on private talk pages or participating in drama board discussions, and my comments are no worse than what is allowed for everyone else. What has been described falsely as "personal attacks" are criticisms. Drama boards are specifically designed for exactly that type of comment. I do not make them on article talk pages...anymore. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Aquillion

Aquillion, this is actually Rusf10's FIFTH filing against me, and the last two were after Awilley had sanctioned and warned them for doing this type of thing. Even the clarification today contained a warning. The filings usually come without any warning.

We have a whole dispute resolution process which is skipped right over. I have a talk page which can be used. Instead, the nuclear option is used immediately. There is warlike behavior and there is peacekeeping behavior. The latter is not chosen, and that's what I consider battleground behavior. It's disruptive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MrX

MrX, the "accusation of having autism (Asperger syndrome)" is a false statement. Yes, seen with hindsight, my wondering/inquisitive comment was awkward, and I regret it and have apologized for it. As I have already explained to Onetwothreeip, I was seeking, in good faith, to see if there was some extenuating circumstance which could somehow excuse their uncollaborative editing patterns. That's how I am. Too much compassion. Others have since explained to me that I should not allow extenuating circumstances to affect my judgments about whether editing is according to our policies or not. Just look at the behavior.

I will not repeat the attempt to seek information from Onetwothreeip, or any other editor, about such matters in the future. It's far too easy for misunderstandings to occur and feelings get hurt. I don't want that. I clearly erred. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Awilley

Awilley, when you suggest I could retract my comment, are you referring to this one on a private talk page, the comment deemed by El C to not be a personal attack? I want to be sure I understand you correctly. I could do that, but are you sure you want to set such a precedent for censorship of uncomfortable, yet civil, private talk page discussion?

The alternative would be for Rusf10 to civilly discuss the matter with me, rather than immediately activating this AE nuclear option. I'm certainly open to discussing this with you and/or Rusf10. I always have been.

They are already aware that more than one editor considers some of their AfDs to be personal revenge, rather than policy-based. I was referring to non-policy based AfDs, not proper ones. There can be disagreement on that matter, and proper discussion should be used to come to an understanding.

Regardless, I appreciate outside viewpoints and constructive criticism, because I certainly can't "see myself as others see me." Those who know me here also know that I'm easily amenable to third-party opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to RaiderAspect

RaiderAspect, you write: "Speculating that another user has Asperger syndrome and thus their opinions can be dismissed..." I totally admit my speculation was improper, I have apologized for it, and stricken it. The reason for my speculation was anything but for the reason you give. It was to seek the existence of an extenuating circumstance that would help me understand, and partially excuse, an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior, totally unrelated to content or opinions, that is not amenable to the explanations and appeals from myriad editors and admins.

Because my son is an Aspie, and several members of my wife's family are as well, I know the symptoms and some of the behavioral patterns well. It's been our life for decades. Unlike the word "autism", which has a universally negative connotation, we consider Aspies to be a special class of often very gifted people with special abilities and talents. The negative side relates to social interactions, communication difficulties, and frequent misunderstandings.

Regardless of all that, I should not have speculated about that matter and will not do it again. (You may not have read what I have written about that.) After I had written the offensive comment, it was explained to me by several involved editors that I should not seek to find extenuating circumstances to excuse that editor's disruptive behavior. I should just look at the behavior and judge accordingly. I expect they will be brought before this or another drama board soon by someone who will bother to gather a few diffs. A few days worth would be enough, but I'm not the person to do it. I do not like these places. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Rusf10 is incorrect in stating that I came to their talk page to make a bad faith accusation against them. In fact, I made a good faith accusation about their bad faith deletion nomination of an article that I wrote, because the nomination occurred 76 minutes after I reverted their edit on another article. Given the suspicious circumstances and my previous observations of Rusf10's conduct, my assertion that their AfD nomination was done for revenge was perfectly reasonable. - Mr X 🖋 23:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert: 18:48 ➜ AfD: 20:04. - Mr X 🖋 00:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm not the first victim of Rusf10's revenge AfDs. See User talk:Rusf10#AfD ←This was less than three months ago.

These can't all be coincidences. I request that an admin review this repeated WP:HOUNDING by Rusf10 and consider appropriate sanctions. - Mr X 🖋 00:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird that MONGO would bring up so many BullRangifer comments from March and April. If these were genuine concerns of MONGO's, why did he fail to raise them nine months ago?

The Asperger's comment was awkward, but I believe it was made in good faith. The recent comments made to Onetwothreeip were probably the result of considerable frustration about recurrent editing behavior that was causing concern among several editors. That frustration was shared by myself and a couple of of other editors, but I believe everyone involved in the discussion was trying to seek understanding and resolution. Onetwothreeip was obviously offended by the harsh tone and assumptions, but I doubt that was anyone's intent. - Mr X 🖋 04:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Bullrangifer has been warned in the past to not call into question others "competencies" or to question their "competenance" and for battleground behavior. Since that warning, they have continued to personalize disputes and to question others competencies. It needs to be noted that Rusf10 brought this complaint to AN/I at first where administrator El C stated it should be here at AE,[35] so this is not forum shopping. Amazingly, even though BullRangifer has been repeatedly cautioned to not question the competency of others he does so TWICE alone in his opening statement here. For BullRangifer, Wikipedia is a battleground where he has created numerous essays in his userspace denigrating Donald Trump, any and all of his allies, FoxNews, conservatives and those that edit from an opposing viewpoint to his. BullRangifer focus is almost entirely within the AP2 topic area. Questioning his opponents competencies, insulting them, POV pushing and violating UNDUE are not helping to alleviate the acrimonious nature of editing in these arena.

123IP seems to be seriously confused, and hold illogical expectations, about the article, its format, and its purpose
Not only are a number of newcomers NOTHERE, but several of the regulars who attack RS and push conspiracy theories need topic bans. Their lack of competence is quite evident because they show they are more interested in pushing fringe theories found in unreliable sources than in following policy
I really get tired of experienced editors who show a disregard for our RS policy. We follow that policy, and we only change our content when the RS change. We don't make changes, especially a total reversal of a whole article (in this case) based on weak information, poor sources, or the hem hawing utterances of believers in conspiracy theories, even when they are Barr and Trump
hate to mention the editor, and not just the content, but we're looking at a case of severe incompetence on display, or just plain POV deletionism. This is a frivolous AfD. We document what RS say here, and since they document (not just "allege) "that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history" (Rusf10), we are supposed to document what they say. If Rusf10 doesn't get that, they should be topic banned from American politics, because they consistently take the side opposite RS on all things Trump. That's disruptive and incompetent. Bullrangifer was warned about this incident and it was of particular note that when he first stated WP:Competence he piped it as incompetence.
I'm really beginning to wonder if you might have Asperger syndrome, like my son. That's not an insult, just a recognition that it would explain your untraditional way of dealing with this and with your uncollaborative, solo, editing patterns. I can AGF about that. Otherwise, you're just being uncollaborative and disruptive, and there's no AGF for that. It would also explain why you don't react normally to all the complaints about your behavior. Normal people try to mesh in and edit collaboratively, but you push on like a bull in a china shop Questions if editor has Aspergers, even though the editor has never stated they do anywhere, then insinuates they are not a "normal person".
You're still calling RS "fake news"? That should earn you a topic ban for working against our RS policy. That repeated claim is evidence you are NOTHERE to follow our policies, but to push your fringe beliefs based on unreliable sources. This lead to a NPA sanction for one year starting in April 2019 [36]
At Wikipedia one cannot support both RS and Trump at the same time WP:BATTLEGROUND
Or do Trump supporters find support for their delusional beliefs by reading content at the Western Journal In this edit, BullRangifer adds the word "delusional" to his previous comment, thereby labelling Trump supporters beliefs "delusional".
Here we have a tiny subset of editors who try to include views from unreliable sources, and even try to use those sources as references. They lack the competence to vet sources, which seriously impacts their editing and discussions here. Once again questions editors "competence". In same edit they also state "Because these editors are so at odds with RS, which are the basis of all editing here, they should be monitored carefully. They cannot be trusted. They often create problems and disruption because they imbibe these unreliable sources. Note that not all Trump voters are like this, but the hardcore supporters are, and a few of them edit here" WP:BATTLEGROUND
The president and his GOP sycophants are flailing about and saying all kinds of ridiculous things Is making a predetermination that there is a potential conspiracy theory brewing when no other RS have supported this notion.
I suspect you believe the "all mainstream news sources are fake news" mantra WP:NPA WP:BATTLEGROUND

--MONGO (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Onetwothreeip

I did not want to engage in this discussion but since I have been mentioned, and comments targeting me have been mentioned, I feel that I have to address this. I want to make it clear that I did not ask anybody to use me in this, but I have no objections to them doing so. I also want to state that I cannot see what this has to do with MrX, and the underlying dispute between them and Rusf10 seems too minor to need enforcement. I can't recall any negative encounters with MrX. I also do not want to be involved in back-and-forth where editors try to refute what I'm saying, so I will not bring up any new claims.

I have also been subject to incessant and ridiculous accusations of incompetency and confusion by BullRangifer, and now also an accusation of having autism (Asperger syndrome), as MONGO has shown. This chauvinistic attitude to others surely discourages new editors who do not agree that the best content is made by a process of two or more parties combating each other, and I worry for them. It's quite astounding that they now want to claim they support peacemaking.

I don't want to get involved in this particular dispute, but I feel that given I have been mentioned, I should attest that these have been certainly the most significant cases of a personal dispute that has been directed towards me on Wikipedia, and is really only a small amount that has been directed towards me by BullRangifer which has been going on for months. I wasn't aware that this sort of conduct was happening to other editors since I don't want to involve myself in other people's disputes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: How can accusing someone of having autism be in good faith? It's completely inappropriate, plain and simple. I was not personally offended at all by those remarks, I just think it shows rancorous immaturity unbecoming of this encyclopaedia. Disliking an editor is absolutely no excuse for that behaviour. The discussion in question only had two participants, them and myself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Rusf10's three diffs under "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions" provide ample evidence to support a TBAN or Indef for Rusf10. BR can have another warning for his collection, only because Rusf10's response was so predictable. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion (BullRangifer)

As with their previous AE requests against BullRangifer, Rusf10 continues to have unclean hands in the topic area - see my previous comment here. Rusf10 disagreed with my assessment, obviously, as I'm sure they will here, but I am simply not seeing how these recent diffs are substantially better than the conduct they're trying to get BullRangifer and MrX sanctioned for. First, on Donald Trump, they've repeatedly implied that other established editors with extensive history editing US politics are ignorant of basic facts about Wikipedia and the impeachment process:

Here, None of this is WP:OR, it is a process outlined in the United States Constitution, I suggest you read Impeachment in the United States to better understand how the process works. (directed at MrX)
Here, Wow! You don't even understand reliable sources. (directed at MrX)
Here, You need to not only read the constitution, but also a history lesson.

In another circumstance these might be minor, but I feel they're clearly comparable to the comments they're asking for sanctions over in this request - and note specifically that two of the implications of incompetence they level in these diffs are directed at MrX. It seems silly that he'd address established editors in a tone that is clearly questioning their WP:COMPETENCE, then mere days later be shocked when someone takes a similar tone with him. Likewise, he continues to take a general WP:BATTLEGROUND tone when discussing American politics:

Here, Can you please still to the factual points here rather than inserting your own biased interpretation of the situation? (directed at MrX again!)
Here, First, of all this thread isn't about me, so stop trying to deflect because you want to get your buddy Snoogans off the hot seat. ... And I have one suggestion: change your username, it is very misleading, you do not even have the slightest semblance of neutrality.

Finally, the context for the last one brings up another point: Rusf10 has repeatedly filed requests for sanctions against people who he has a history of disputes with on pages related to US politics - eg. [37], [38], and of course this is, as mentioned, something like his fourth filing against BullRangifer in particular. No one else, that I can see, has filed WP:AE requests against BullRangifier at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RaiderAspect

Speculating that another user has Asperger syndrome and thus their opinions can be dismissed should not be acceptable behaviour under any circumstances. That's seriously vicious. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BullRangifer

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

I have some things going on IRL at the moment that prevent me from looking into this thoroughly, but on the surface it feels very deja-vu...which is what I was trying to prevent with the sanctions I applied last year. Technically neither user is in breach of those sanctions. (BR did not make the comment on an article talk page where it would have been inappropriate, and I retired Rusf10's sanction a couple months ago at the suggestion of User:DGG, though I forgot to log it at that time. (Sorry for the confusion there.)
The ideal outcome here would be for BR to retract the comment and/or apologize and for Rusf10 to stop abusing administrative noticeboards to get retribution against ideological opponents for minor slights. It would also be helpful if BR stopped framing POV pushing as a WP:COMPETENCE issue (something I've asked them to do many times).
I'm not sure if further sanctions are appropriate, and I don't have the time to pursue it. Off the top of my head three options come to mind: a ban on BR speculating on the "competence" of other editors, a ban on Rusf10 making reports at administrative noticeboards, or a mutual interaction ban. (Not sure if the last one is warranted or whether I'd support it if it were...ibans usually end up being more trouble than they're worth.) ~Awilley (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Ibans often end up being more trouble than they're worth. OTOH I'm pretty tired of seeing Rusf10's use of admin noticeboards against ideological opponents, in particular against BullRangifer, for, as Awilley says, "minor slights". Aquillion makes several good points, with good examples: Rusf10's own behaviour is certainly no better than that of the opponents he is in the habit of taking to admin noticeboards to try to get them banned or otherwise removed from the area. I strongly support Awilley's "middle" suggestion: that Rusf10 be banned from making reports at administrative noticeboards. (I would not prevent him from joining in discussions on any noticeboards, only from filing reports.) Note Awilley's warning of Rusf10 about filing vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents. That warning was admittedly posted a quarter of an hour after Rusf10 filed this complaint, so it is not to be given huge weight, but still. If I had received such a warning, I would have removed my complaint; Rusf10, instead, continued to post further accusations and arguments here.[39][40][41][42] I do think it's vexatious. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Here come the Suns

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 Here come the Suns

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Here come the Suns (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/ARBPIA4 :

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

22:18, 28 December 2019 "you have just basically admitted to lying"
22:26, 28 December 2019 "Simply put: you lied"
22:59, 28 December 2019 "You lied."

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

Alerted, 13 September 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At Auja al-Hafir, Here come the Suns (=HctS) removes some stuff, I revert it, discussion then ensues on the talk page. HctS says stuff is unsourced, I quote the source in the article (Morris, Benny (1993) Israel's Border Wars, 1949 - 1956. Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War. Oxford University Press,p. 356). (NB: I do not have the book in front of me, but I have read it earlier). When I said that I don't have the book in front of me, HctS called me the above diffs, even after I said that I consider this a WP:PA (link) Huldra (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Here come the Suns

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 Here come the Suns

As Huldra notes, I challenged some of the statements in the article as unsourced. She reinstated them, still w/o a source, initially claiming (in an edit summary) that they were supported by a source (UNSCR 108). In the subsequent discussion on the talk page, I pointed out that 108 does not actually support the statement in question, and asked for a source. Huldra pointed me to a book by Morris. I responded that we need a specific source (e.g a page number). At that point she claimed the statement is supported by Morris, page 356 ([43]). Subsequently, she admitted she did not check the book to see if that is true, and in fact is not in possession of that book so could not have possibly checked it before claiming the statement is supported by that page. She basically just made it up. I don't know what to call those actions except a lie.

Statement by SharabSalam

Huldra said "but I read it when I was working on the Al-Hamma Incident and Al-Hamma, Tiberias" why did Here come the Suns misquote that?. Keep in mind that she quoted the source. Here come the Suns didn't see the source and yet removed it and repeatedly called Huldra a liar. There is no lying here. There is apparent POV-pushing and incompetence by Here come the Suns.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

There was a paragraph in the article which had a citation only in the middle of the paragraph, so one could only guess whether the source supported all of the paragraph or only the part before the citation. Nothing to get excited about.

First HctS changed some of the paragraph both before and after the citation, giving only a nationalistic assertion as an edit summary.

Then HctS changed "village" into "junction" without explanation or source. (Actually it had a Town Planning Scheme awarded in 1947, so it wasn't just a road junction.)

Finally, HctS removed a sentence. Since it followed the citation it can be called unsourced, but it is true and easy to source and the rest of HctS's edit summary is false.

Huldra proposed on the talk page that the source given in the middle of the article might support all of it. Neither Huldra nor HctS had the source available, so it came down to "Have you checked the source?" backwards and forwards. As a content dispute it is trivial, and tomorrow I will edit on the basis of the same source (which does in fact support most of the paragraph). The problem here is that HctS crossed the line by repeatedly calling Huldra a liar. This is an unacceptable way of conducting a dispute. Zero^talk 13:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Here come the Suns

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

@Here come the Suns:. "Lying" is casting aspersions. Please don't do that. Assume mistakes were made, instead. Otherwise, I have yet to review this request in detail, so I reserve my judgment, for now. El_C 13:18, 29 December 2019 (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 599: / Line 599: @@
 ====Statement by SharabSalam====
 Huldra said "but I read it when I was working on the [[Al-Hamma Incident]] and [[Al-Hamma, Tiberias]]" why did Here come the Suns misquote that?. Keep in mind that she quoted the source. Here come the Suns didn't see the source and yet removed it and repeatedly called Huldra a liar. There is no lying here. There is apparent POV-pushing and incompetence by Here come the Suns.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharabSalam]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 13:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
+====Statement by Zero0000====
+There was a paragraph in the article which had a citation only in the middle of the paragraph, so one could only guess whether the source supported all of the paragraph or only the part before the citation. Nothing to get excited about.
+First HctS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auja_al-Hafir&diff=932862809&oldid=929439546 changed] some of the paragraph both before and after the citation, giving only a nationalistic assertion as an edit summary.
+Then HctS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auja_al-Hafir&diff=prev&oldid=932862946 changed] "village" into "junction" without explanation or source. (Actually it had a Town Planning Scheme awarded in 1947, so it wasn't just a road junction.)
+Finally, HctS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auja_al-Hafir&diff=next&oldid=932862946 removed] a sentence. Since it followed the citation it can be called unsourced, but it is true and easy to source and the rest of HctS's edit summary is false.
+Huldra proposed on the talk page that the source given in the middle of the article might support all of it. Neither Huldra nor HctS had the source available, so it came down to "Have you checked the source?" backwards and forwards. As a content dispute it is trivial, and tomorrow I will edit on the basis of the same source (which does in fact support most of the paragraph). The problem here is that HctS crossed the line by repeatedly calling Huldra a liar. This is an unacceptable way of conducting a dispute. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 13:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Here come the Suns===

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