Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

JGabbard

JGabbard (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for six months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2016 (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 JGabbard

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JGabbard (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#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

23 August 2016 Aspersions
23 August 2016 Aspersions
23 August 2016 Aspersions, accusations of being a shill, personal attacks.
17 August 2016 Aspersions, accusations of being a shill.
17 August 2016 Aspersions, "this talk page is full of shills". These comments were later redacted by the user after they were pressured on their Talk page. However, they show that this has been an ongoing issue that the DRN (itself cited above as an example of aspersions) is unlikely to solve.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18 August 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

One more recent diff to show aspersions, conspiracy theories about other editors, unwillingness to collaborate [1]. 23 August 2016.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification [2]

Discussion concerning JGabbard

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 JGabbard

I am not a politically-oriented person, as my editing history will attest [3]. It is rare for me to take interest in editing any articles on politics or current events, and when I do I seek to remain on the periphery of the fray when such exists. Consequently, I do my work quietly and seldom collaborate with other editors. That being said, is it not odd that such intense scrutiny and meticulous negative attention would be shown by a group of editors to an article which they allege to be "non-notable" and even wish to have deleted? What might one infer from the systematic deletion of so many well-referenced facts (as documented here [4])? I feel that my at times cheeky response to such bizarre editing activity is not beyond the pale, nor difficult to understand. I have no personal vendetta against any individual editor at all, only seek to criticize their argumentative modus operandi as a group. My fellow editors (the majority) are likewise perplexed by the brick wall they have collectively erected. We feel that this article should be allowed to be develop naturally, without interference from those who wish for it to disappear, either in part or entirely. A somewhat objectionable comment to one such user who accosted me on my talk page has been redacted, with apologies. - JGabbard (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D.Creish

Inappropriate behavior at the article and talk page led the editor to behave inappropriately.

I'd encourage admins to review the DRN request (particularly the comments from others) which give a largely accurate picture of the issue. Whether it's best to address the fundamental issue which resulted in poor behavior, the poor behavior, or both, I can't say.

I will say JGabbard seems to be passionate about this issue as do several other participants in the dispute but given the limited scope and the minimal likelihood of further developments, resolving the current DRN request will most likely end disruption. D.Creish (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: That appeared to be the most likely venue for lasting resolution. Even if JGabbard never edits the article again, the issues raised in the request persist and will likely result in further disciplinary requests. D.Creish (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

There has been a lot of controversy over the Murder of Seth Rich article, and is the only article where JGabbard's comments are cited in this complaint. It was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion, large amounts of sourced material have been removed, JGabbard has begun a discussion at DRN and the article is locked from editing. I believe that we should see if the current process in content dispute resolution works before issuing sanctions. TFD (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (SPECIFICO)

JGabbard launched the DRN content discussion thread with an unusually harsh, scattershot, and demonstrably false stream of misrepresentations and personal attacks. If any of it had been true, the proper venue would have been ANI or AE. This suggests, in addition to disruptive editing, that JGabbard is not competent to understand basic WP policy and conflict resolution. JGabbard should be banned from BLPs and American Politics. It's that bad, and it's clear that there's little hope this behavior will change. The diffs already cited are sufficient, but if Admins here want more, there are many more, and perhaps some editors are willing to supply them upon request. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also [5]. A long block is warranted. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

The DS notice posted to JGabbards talk page was for American Politics but what user:Mastcell posted on the article talk page was for BLP. Which DS applies to this case? Both sides in this dispute are passionate and emotional, but I believe the good faith collaborative approach can work here and we can close this with a warning. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

A. I think this diff has already been supplied [6] - here JGabbard attributes nefarious motives to other editors in his comment. But also notice removal of a newly opened section in the talk page and edit history comments as well [7].

B. User SPECIFICO was never engaged in any kind of edit warring, as was either implied or stated.

C. JGabbard's descriptions of the editing taking place, including talk page editing, appear to be inaccurate.

D. I cannot fathom why JGabbard unilaterally went to DRN, as the talk page discussion was unfolding as talk page discussions normally do. Nobody has been casting aspersions at one another (except for JGabbard I suppose). For my part, I ignored this person because his comments did not make sense and they were few. One comment sounded like a call for editors to band together and protest [8] - but we are all on a talk page and we wouldn't be able to see each other carrying signs and banners, nor is there a street where we can congregate.

But seriously, in retrospect, I have to say that all the talk page editors involved have been very respectful of one another while focusing on disagreements pertaining to content. Please, don't mind me saying so, but this is surprising, because I have been involved in and witnessed other heated discussions where casting aspersions did happen and always seem likely to happen in heated discussions - and this is a political page. So, hopefully the good luck continues for all of us. So, again there was no need to unilaterally rush over to DRN - everything is going well. A bunch of us happen to disagree is all - and there is nothing wrong with that. So, of course I disagree with the statement that there has been inappropriate behavior during talk page discussions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PinkAmpersand

I was the editor who gave the DS alert on the 18th. I did that after observing JGabbard's conduct in the Seth Rich AFD. Other editors have already covered the NPA portion of all this, but I'd like to draw the admins' attention to the substantial BLP issues with some of JGabbard's comments there. Wikipedia has no (explicit) rule against idly conspiracy-theorizing, but it is an entirely different matter if aspersions are being cast against living people. I refer the admins' attention to JGabbard's initial !vote at the AFD, in which he accuses two living public figures of conspiracy to commit murder. (See also subsequent tweak After being notified that his comments were in violation of BLP, JGabbard made a number of changes to his comments, but still kept the accusations in his comment, removing the subjects' names but still explicitly identifying them. He acknowledged that this was a conscious decision. I subsequently struck the accusations and left a note explaining my rationale and encouraging JGabbard to change course. This one incident alone may not be sanctionable, but it remains quite concerning. And regardless of any sanctions, I would encourage the adminstrators to delete all of the revisions in which the accusations appeared. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The WP:DRN request was closed because DRN does not accept a case that is also pending in another forum, namely this forum. If the conduct dispute is resolved or closed, moderated content dispute resolution can be requested again. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JGabbard

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

I would advise JGabbard to comment here as soon as possible. The diffs presented certainly do seem to show an unacceptable pattern of attacks on other editors rather than discussion regarding article content. From what I see here, I would support a six-month topic ban from the area, by which time the political season will hopefully have cooled off. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Seraphimblade that the attacks on other editors are unacceptable and that a ban is justified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with @Seraphimblade and EdJohnston:'s assessment, and JGabbard's statement here does nothing to dissuade me. I would recommend that the ban be issued; if one of the two of you could do the paperwork, I would much appreciate it. NW (Talk) 23:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiments above and will now close with the proposed 6-month topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.Creish

D.Creish (talk · contribs) is warned against edit warring. No other action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2016 (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 D.Creish

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: D.Creish (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#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

Edit warring and "crying BLP" on Jared Taylor. Repeated removing sourced material that has been present and relatively unaltered for over one year (compare diff from 15 July 2015 until 24 August 2016 regarding material in second paragraph of lead [9]). Repeated claims of BLP violation where none exist and insistence on gaining consensus, despite clearly editing against long-standing consensus (WP:STATUSQUO). User has reverted edits by Volunteer Marek and myself. All diff below related to this:

03:32, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: rm BLP vio; NY Times was the only good secondary source and it doesn't support the txt. Do not restore w/o consensus
04:33, 26 August 2016 edit summary: Sources included do not describe Taylor as supporting racist ideologies. Removed on good-faith BLP grounds. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. You must not restore without consensus
04:40 26 August 2016 edit summary: Undid revision 736242559 by Volunteer Marek (talk) There can be no consensus to violate BLP; do not restore
05:32, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: removed BLP violations; do not restore without talk page consensus
05:43, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: editor restoring BLP violations without consensus; reverting

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 06:22, 9 August 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Should mention I chose to come here instead of AN3 because of (1) the political nature of the article and its contents, (2) extended discussion of DS on the user's talk page earlier today related to another matter (User_talk:D.Creish#Note_on_DS), (3) participation in past AE filings related to the ARBAPDS, and (4) threats by user to file AE against Volunteer Marek ([10]). BLP DS also apply here, but APDS seem more directly related. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User also promised to continue removing the content: [11]. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: The issues is the user was gaming by claiming BLP. The wordpress source needed to go (and did). The NYTimes piece didn't support it well, so it was replaced. The other sources supported the statement well though, so there was no reason to remove the entire thing. Moreover, the user kept removing content despite replacing lower quality sources with better ones. They wanted the statement gone, not to improve it so they claimed BLP and edit warred over it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

06:06 26 August 2016

Discussion concerning D.Creish

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 D.Creish

This is the text I removed inititally and in subsequent reversions:

Taylor, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

The sources cited were (3) as follows:

An unusable weblog: http://mediamousearchive.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/student-group-h/
A NY Times article, which by the filer's own admission does not support the claim: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/18/us/conservatives-voices-enter-clinton-s-dialogue-on-race.html
An SPLC listing (primary source): http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-renaissance

When the filer refers to content that was "relatively unaltered for over one year" and WP:STATUSQUO these are the sources it was based upon, which I find (as I assume most will) insufficient.

To keep this short: my intent was to remove the content until suitable sourcing could be found. To that end I began a dialogue on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Taylor#BLP_violations_in_lede

Rather than participating in that dialogue both editors reverted my removal, at times providing additional sources - none of which I've examined so far support the initial text.

I was under the impression that to claim someone "promotes racist ideologies" required strong sourcing and that, if it was not present, additional sourcing and dialogue must precede restoration. If that is not the case, I apologize unequivocally; if it is, I'm owed an apology but I'll settle for a critical discussion of sources and claims on the article's talk page. D.Creish (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor clarifications::

The "extended discussion of DS" EverygreenFir refers to concerned a procedural question I had for Jytdog about who may place "DS" notices on article talk pages and under what circumstances.
To be accurate: I threatened to pursue sanctions against Volunteer Marek, not "to file AE against" him. Part of the reason I did not was because (a) I wasn't sure which venue was appropriate, (b) the filing processes appears overwhelming to a first-time filer and (c) I hoped the possibility of sanction would force him into discussion on the talk page. D.Creish (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have no idea why editors with whom I've never interacted are suddenly behaving so rudely towards me. Nomoskedasticity complains I left a discretionary sanctions alert on his talk page. What preceded that alert were two comments he left on the article talk page:

[1] The first source (Pittsburg Post Gazette) is not a dead link. Perhaps it's time for you to take a break? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC) - was incorrect. The link only worked because I later found the article reprinted elsewhere and corrected it.
[2] I see you're taking a more constructive approach now, finding sources yourself instead of blanking material. Congratulations! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC) - was needlessly condescending and inflammatory.

I feel like I've stirred a hornets' nest. I expected editors to observe a higher degree of civility in articles under Discretionary Sanctions but I'm finding just the opposite. D.Creish (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment

I'm not going to clutter this section with a tit-for-tat - I want to make position clear and then I likely won't respond except to address direct questions:

It is not that I believe Taylor is not a racist or does not (in my personal view) promote racist ideologies. But review the sources here, especially the high-quality ones - they all use precise language to describe his views. I want our article, especially the lede, to mirror that precise language. The existing sources did not support the reverted phrasing; despite this, several editors insisted on restoring the phrasing and sourcing when even a cursory examination would have shown one of the sources was a non-existent page and another didn't directly address the claim. Rather than participate in a search for improved sources, tangential sources were added scattershot and in questioning their relevance I was met with reversions rather than discussion. That's a violation of the process and intent of the BLP policy as I understand it. D.Creish (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nomoskedasticity

Is this sort of thing intended under the DS system? It looks an awful lot like silly games to me, given the context of the report under discussion here. (Just to be clear: What I'm asking about is the fact that D.Creish placed a DS notice on my talk-page, even though I've never done a single edit to the article in question here.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the report itself: D.Creish will have to learn to work with other editors more effectively. Crusader-style reverts under the flag of "BLP violation!!" usually end in tears. The question is whether we're likely to see more of this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

D.Creish has made six (!) reverts in less than 24 hrs. So there's that. There's no BLP grounds for edit warring here either, as others have pointed out simply because this is actually what the subject is known for. It's sort of like trying to remove the fact that David Duke is a former KKK Grand Wizard from that article on BLP grounds. Which is also why the info is actually well sourced. Now, I can see objecting to the mediamouse source, but there were two other, reliable sources (NY Times and SPLC, which is NOT "primary") there. And indeed, I removed the mediamouse source myself [12] and added additional reliable sources [13] [14]. That didn't stop D.Creish who continued to edit war, reverting other editors another four times. And yes, this content has been in the article a long time, it's been discussed on the talk page (though D.Creish did not bother participating in any of the discussions), etc. etc. As Evergreen and others point out, in addition to WP:TENDENTIOUS edit warring, this also appears to be a bad-faithed attempt to WP:GAME both the BLP policy and discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Jared Taylor is associated with or in charge of the New Century Foundation, a white supremacist group, National Policy Institute a "white nationalist" (whatever that is) "think tank", the The Occidental Quarterly a "a far-right racially obsessed US Magazine", and American Renaissance (magazine) a a white supremacist publication. So yeah, saying that some sources have said that this guy is associated with racist organizations and publications is NOT a BLP violation by any stretch. Again, it's pretty much THE reason he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this has been a recurring problem, mostly from anonymous IPs and drive by editors, for many years now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian. First, this isn't about "calling someone a racist" (although that can easily be sourced too). The actual text is that he is associated with organizations which promote racism. And for that the NY Times and the SPLC were fine, unless you really are trying to misread what the sources say. Also, this is a summary of the article present in lede. The actual sourcing needs to be in the body of the article itself. Which it is.

Anyway, I don't know if this is sufficient for a topic ban (from American Politics, or Race & Intelligence, because this article probably falls under both?). A "probation" for sure though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Reverts like this one with an edit summary "Sources included do not describe Taylor as supporting racist ideologies. Removed on good-faith BLP ground." are indeed WP:CRYBLP and WP:GAMING. Sources, including the SPLC, plainly verify the disputed sentence "Taylor, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US."

The New York Times says "Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, based in Louisville, who argues that blacks and other minorities are, because of genetics, less intelligent than whites and that non-whites are bent on destroying America culturally and politically.". The SPLC elaborates, for example saying "Founded by Jared Taylor in 1990, the New Century Foundation is a self-styled think tank that promotes pseudo-scientific studies and research that purport to show the inferiority of blacks to whites.". Salon (a weaker source) just says "Taylor has ties to a variety of domestic and international racists and extremists."

Three experienced editors support the content in question. D.Creish edit warred claiming WP:3RRBLP, which does not apply. I have no idea if this is a pattern of behavior from D.Creish, but in this case, it seems to be a sanctionable offense.- Mr X 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: Ideally a block would not be necessary if D.Creish would acknowledge the his particular interpretation of WP:BLP was wrong, and that WP:3RRBLP is an exception to the edit warring policy only in unambiguous cases. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. D.Creish could have reported the alleged violation to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the edit warring exemption.

One way to know if a potential BLP violation is unambiguous is the absence of several experienced editors reverting you. The longstanding presence of the material in the article would also suggest discussing before reverting. - Mr X 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

This filing is bad and everyone should feel bad. If a claim about a living person fails WP:V it's a BLP violation. One source was unreliable, NYTimes did not support the claim, and site-wide consensus about SPLC has not been reached. It should be no problem to say SPLC says this and that about him, but if there's a reasonable doubt its reliable for summarizing what third parties think about Taylor, people should try to establish that consensus rather than edit warring. On the technicalities, D.Criesh is entirely justified in reverting an unlimited number of times. On the content, though - what the fuck? In the New York Times it says he argues that blacks and other minorities are, because of genetics, less intelligent than whites and that non-whites are bent on destroying America culturally and politically. Could everyone not just WP:STICKTOSOURCE and be happy? Put that gem in there and Wikipedia:Let the reader decide. Who cares what SPLC says somebody's third cousin thinks. Trouts all around. Rhoark (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: About the additional sources added, Fox mentions in passing that unspecified critics have called him a white supremacist only as a segue to giving more attention to Taylor's denials. All ABC does is quote SPLC. If you wanted to break that off and buttress the use of SPLC as a source to say what SPLC says, that would be fine. As far as broadly characterizing third-part reactions to Taylor, it's still not good enough. D.Criesh has a long row to hoe if he doesn't want any mention Taylor's racism, but as far as this particular use it is not CRYBLP. Rhoark (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I am rather puzzled by Lord Roem's comment. Let me make a simple but fundamental point. Something can be true without there being adequate verification and proof of something being true. Please read the discussion here about the issue. There were three original sources: one a wordpress blog, one an NYT source which doesn't support the reference and one the SPLC. Only the last is a half-decent source and it should not have been presented in Wikipedia's voice in the beginning. This is as straightforward a BLP violation as I can find. Calling someone a racist requires much stronger sourcing than this. I'll note that several sources in the article still don't make claims about Taylor, but rather about the alt-right, of which Taylor is a part. In fact, the Fox news source is simply quoting "critics" who say that Taylor is a racist, with Taylor denying it.

There's enough sourcing about Taylor's views on race to write something correctly summarizing the situation, which will probably not be too far from the current phrasing but better phrased and sourced - this should be discussed on the talkpage and not edit-warred. I second Rhoark's point. Everyone should feel bad about their conduct here. D. Creish is playing the well-justified role of the Devil's Advocate here and whatever their motivations should be thanked for correcting a massive BLP violation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

Rhoark's comments sum up the situation, but this is reflective of what I've seen a lot of late based on AN/ANI posts or the like, in topics that are left-vs-right political aspects, with knowledge that the bulk of the press is generally left-learning, that editors will readily hang lots of negative statements about a right-leaning topic because the mainstream sources seem to give that impression. WP must be much more conservative (middle of the ground, not in the political sense) and not assign judgement or give that impression. Loading up a statement like that in the lede of a BLP, while technically supported by some sources and thus meeting V and NOR and avoids an outright BLP violation, is a failure of NPOV as it establishes a specific tone that immediately makes the article read negatively about this person. The first line even of the current article "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine often described as a white supremacist publication." is a huge COATRACK if the magazine or Taylor doesn't self-state being about white supremacy (which I don't immediately see evidence of). This is becoming way too common in any politically-charged topic and thus challenging coatrack statements in BLP should be a valid action. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I don't think we should get in the habit of sanctioning good faith edits by users in good standing. This filing seems premature and references one specific issue without any history of other issues. A warning reinforcing the correct collaborative approach would suffice. I'm curious why there was no attempt to solve this first on a user talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

Seeing this back and forth made me go check out this guys writings and his associated organizations and now I feel like I need a shower. Saying he pushes a racist ideology is putting it lightly. That said I don't think any of the editors involved at the page disagree but the sourcing was bad and it seems like it's improved a bit. It could still probably get better and rather than sanction anyone I'd think the involved parties could accomplish that. We have a bunch of decent editors that got heated. I see no benefit from blocking anybody. Capeo (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

On Talk:Murder of Seth Rich it was made clear by a group of productive editors that inclusion of Wikileaks related content is in contradiction to BLP, BDP, and AVOIDVICTIM. This was amplified by User:Mascell, an Admin [15]. I have sent a couple of emails to Lord Roem denoting with diffs, what appears to be (to me), D.Criesh's continual failure to get the point WP:IDHT. Below is information not contained in those emails:

Here, I summed up repeatedly having explained BLP violations, along with other productive editors [16]. After similar statement by User:Marek, D. Creish conflates issues (already noted in the emails) and then he raises three strawman arguments [17] - the RFC, WP:DRN, and impasse have nothing to do with the points Marek and I just made. And, it is not clear to whom he is speaking (maybe thin air). Then is the circular statement about "majority" and "numbers" and appears to also not be relevant. But note, within the entire response he twice defers to support by a number of other editors

Jytdog asks D. Criesh to say he understands Mastcell's announcement [18] Here D.Creish equivocates about that [19] and equivocates to me about conflating and understanding the issues (bttom of diff).

After discussion about PROFRINGE, DUE WIEGHT, and NOTNEWS with another editor (see above in next diff) D. Creish firmly disputes policies against insertion of Wikileaks material [20], and is discussing how WP policies might support insinuations (which they don't).

At the BLP Noticeboard [21] he claims "No one has offered a succinct, rational explanation" per BLP, of adding to the article "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction". Which at this point, appears to be both contentious and failure to get the point. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning D.Creish

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

The 5 or so reverts is clearly a problem that deserves a block, which I'll impose absent good reason not to. There's definitely a debate regarding the sources (even if the underlying claim is probably true, considering the subject matter, as VM says). Is there a reason to ban D.Creish from the area though? I'm not seeing that as of yet. Open to hearing feedback/thoughts either way. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very much of the same opinion with MrX-- there's a content dispute here regarding the sourcing, how to word the section at issue, and whether (as a few have raised) it'd be appropriate or not to include at all. But it's not unambiguous, and being reverted by others should've been a sign to stop the edit war. A warning would be sufficient here; I don't think there's evidence of any generalized conduct issue over the topic. Also, Kingsindian, the section isn't fiating that the subject "is a racist," but that he is "often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups." The sourcing definitely wasn't as good as it could be, but it was a far cry from something 'utterly libelous' or untrue. This is, by its nature, a controversial 3RR exception, something the 3RRBLP policy says itself. A better course would have been to talk it out on the talk page or the relevant noticeboard. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

75.140.253.89

User blocked 72 hours

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 75.140.253.89

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 75.140.253.89 (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/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014 :

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

The anonymous editor in question is using the talk page of the biography of Shaun King to repeat entirely-unsupported and virulently racist claims about the article subject - that he is lying about their racial heritage because they claim the subject is "phenotypically Caucasoid" (whatever that is supposed to mean.)

27 August 2016 Demanding that the article subject undergo "a geneaological study" to prove "that his father is actually black" — implicitly accusing him (without evidence) of lying about his race/ethnicity.
24 August 2016 Claiming that the article subject "is phenotypically Caucasoid" and that we should thus remove the article subject's stated race/ethnicity which is supported by reliable sources.
25 August 2016 Again claiming that the article subject "is phenotypically Caucasoid and exhibits no traits whatsoever of an African American" and that we should thus remove the article subject's stated race/ethnicity which is supported by reliable sources.

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)

Notified of sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is, quite simply, a racist conspiracy theorist, and should not be permitted to edit this person's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user's own statements are self-evidently reason to bar them from this article - they have demanded that reliably-sourced information about the biographical subject be removed based upon nothing more than their personal opinion that he "does not look like an African-American." We write biographies based upon sources, not upon stereotypes, personal prejudices and beliefs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]; The user in question has now demanded that "a geneaological study" be provided before describing the article subject, as multiple reliable sources do, as black and as the son of a Caucasian mother and African-American father — a demand completely and utterly out of line with what we do on Wikipedia. Their attitude is that of someone conducting a background investigation into the article subject, not of an encyclopedia editor writing a biography. We are not here to conduct investigative journalism, we are here to write articles based upon reliable sources. The editor quite obviously is not here to write a biography of Shaun King, but rather is here to grind an ax about Shaun King, and should not be permitted to do so. The entire point of BLP is to prevent political or personal opponents of a living person from using that person's biography as a weapon, as the anonymous IP editor is doing here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Discussion concerning 75.140.253.89

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 75.140.253.89

The complainant is accusing me of racism. I have never once made any claims that any race is superior to any other by any means at all. Nor do I hold such views. This accusation is unfounded.
The complainant is accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist. I have never once insinuated that any conspiracy has been going on. The complainant is the only one involved who has used the word "conspiracy". I have only suggested that a simple collection of errors has occurred. The accusation is unfounded.
The complainant has tried to close discussion before any discussion could take place. The complainant has invested much time editing this article, violating the invested-party clause of discussion closure procedure. The complainant has attempted to enact an early closure of discussion (prior to the minimum 7 days) without claiming WP:SNOWBALL, and on a discussion for a proposed change that does indeed have a snowball's chance in hell.

I have never once insinuated that Shaun King has willfully misrepresented his own racial identity. It is clear that his own very tangled family history is very confusing (as Shaun King has proclaimed in interviews), and his mother told him that his current father is not his real biological father. King has never met or even seen his father (as admitted in interviews). King, based on his own admission, cannot be sure of anything about his father without a paternity test. King cannot be certain about his heritage or racial identity, black or white, or even asian.

King exhibits no physical traits typical of an African American male. King exhibits physical traits solely that of a Caucasian male. The claim is that King is an African American male, despite his outward appearance. This is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The "reliable sources" are lifestyle and fashion magazines that cite mere hearsay. This does not satisfy the need for extraordinary evidence.

Comparable case: Elizabeth_Warren, who has consistently claimed to be Native American. Her case for claiming her heritage was that she and her maternal lineage have "high cheekbones...just like the Indians do". [22] [23] Like King's case, it is a murky claim not based on any genetic or genealogical investigation. Yet unlike King, her racial identity is not listed as fact on her article. I am interested in accuracy. I believe that it is better to lack a potentially true statement than to include a possibly untrue statement. Removing an extraordinary claim until better evidence surfaces is not an unreasonable request.75.140.253.89 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In short summary, complainant tried to preemptively block a change by misusing closure and even by filing this request before the WP:CONSENSUS process could even be properly attempted. This reflects poorly both on the complainants objectivity in this request and in maintaining of the associated article. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPACKlick

This filing was probably premature. u:NorthBySouthBaranof hadn't tried simple discussion in this case. That being said, anonymous user has shown reluctance to operate within WP Policies. They are not however being overly disruptive as their activity has been limited to talk page discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stevietheman

I fully concur with the complainant NorthBySouthBaranof. There was enough discussion to determine that 75.140.253.89 was attempting to use a Wikipedia article and/or its talk page for maligning the subject (insinuating the subject is a liar, requiring original research to prove something that we only rely upon reliable sources to back up, and therefore that discussion should have been closed (at least). There was no reasonable continuance of such discussion. If 75.140.253.89 had conducted a discussion based in Wikipedia policies/guidelines without seeming to malign the subject, that would have been a different ball of wax. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 75.140.253.89

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

I have blocked 75.140.253.89 for 72 hours as a standard (non-AE) administrative action for substantial violations of WP:BLP and strongly encourage them to disengage from the topic area. This request will be kept open for further action if anyone feels it warranted. NW (Talk) 20:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, don't think anything else is necessary at this time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

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

Appealing user: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#Nishidani, I can't find the log.

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

Notification of that administrator: [24]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

It has been 3 years and this sanction was imposed for a one time incident on my otherwise completely clean record. It is not serving any preventative purpose per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE at this point so can only be punitive.
I tried to appeal directly to Sandstein here per the instructions at the top of this page.

@The Wordsmith: I didn't have any particular participation in mind, to be honest. It's just that not only is this the only blot on my record, which I would like removed, I also got a little tired of people trying to use it against me, like here. It's been 3 years, this sanction can't possibly be serving a preventative purpose, if it even did to begin with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Please refer to my comments on my talk page linked to above. I haven't followed AE for some time now and leave it to more active admins to determine whether any grounds for granting this appeal exist. I haven't seen any so far. Sandstein 05:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Surely a sanction imposed three years ago ought to be removed without any requirement to grovel. Compare WP:SO. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Perhaps there's no need to grovel, but given the nature of the contribution(s) for which NMMNG's AE ban was imposed, it might help to know what sort of recent discussions NMMNG would have wanted to contribute to if he had been able. I'm not sure AE discussions are suffering from lack of input from highly-partisan editors, and it might well be worth looking for evidence that the nature of the proposed contributions would in fact be different from what we saw. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think this appeal should be granted. A 3 year ban from AE for a very weak reason is enough time served in my opinion. Looking at past AE actions, I can see many actions that should not have been brought and not sure why this one warranted a block. Regardless, even if it were 100% warranted and NMMNG was a horrible rotten person, it's been three years and it's time to give him a break. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original ban does not seem to make any sense. No More Mr Nice Guy had complained about an editor for "Jew-baiting, trolling and soapboxing." In their first example, the editor referred to Jews as the "Chosen People." It was an ironic reference, since s/he was mocking the Jewish claim to Israel. He called the Jewish holiday Purim a "a double story of attempted and successful genocide." S/he makes many other allusions references to Nazi Germany when discussing Israel, thereby implying that what Israel does today is the same thing. While a comparison could be made between racial policies of Israel and Nazi Germany, they are only relevant in a talk page if there is a proposal to add them to an article. Otherwise they are merely intended to provoke other editors.

I do not know if the edits were so objectionable they should have resulted in action by AE. But at least they were sufficiently inflammatory that a reasonable editor could complain about them.

TFD (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

I guess? Never have I heard of someone desperate to get back into the fun of AE discussions. I suppose I'd be okay lifting this since it's been so long, but the filer hasn't indicated what they've learned/will do differently moving ahead. Filing AE requests vexatiously is affirmatively unhelpful. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively endorse. The weak justification for the initial sanction, coupled with a clean block log and no sign of troublemaking that I can see in the last 3 years, makes me lean heavily towards vacating the ban. Indefinite is not meant to mean permanent. However, before fully endorsing, I would like to hear what sort of participation, if any, No More Mr Nice Guy plans to engage in at AE if the sanction is lifted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls

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 SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SashiRolls (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

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

These edits are all at Jill Stein (clearly in scope for American politics):

Violation of 1RR restriction on GMO content:

I make this edit: August 31. SashiRolls reverts addition of a source: September 1, falsely claiming that the source does not contain the cited information. This is because the source is Physics Today, and a scientifically based publication undercuts the POV that what the community decided in WP:GMORFC about the scientific consensus is incorrect. Please note that the specific content is directly about the scientific consensus on the safety of eating GM food, which is exactly the topic of the RfC and the resulting DS.
I restore the source: September 1. SashiRolls removes it a second time: September 1. In that same edit (lower down in the diff), he also reinserts a negative connotation about a journalist, that I had tried to correct as a WP:BLP issue: September 1.

Against a background of repeated slow edit warring:

August 31, August 31, August 31. The other editor was actually correct: [25].

And POV-pushing:

permalink Does not like a source, so claims that the Washington Post is not a WP:RS. Other editors near unanimous in rejecting the claim as patently false and WP:POINTy.
Then goes on to edit war, to insert a disparaging "ref name" about the source: August 31, August 31, August 31, August 31.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): August 27, August 30, (also September 1).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Noting: [26]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [27]

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

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 SashiRolls

I changed a reference name, waiting for the "stray link fixed bot" to come and pick it up. I stayed on the page to see if it would. It didn't. I fixed what I had done by replacing all 16 references to the same article, introduced all in one edit by another editor here. I admit this was to make a point after having seen yet another bit of (what I consider to have been) trolling cluttering the head of a sub-section that has caused much grief and hard work in the last month with a gossipy quote that had nothing to do with anything: (diff). I will respond at length with further diffs exposing the larger case this weekend.

For starters, though, I'd like to say this: Tryptofish's 2nd and 3rd diffs in POV pushing do not refer to my edits. Nor does Tryptofish mention his own, somewhat more troubling, history of disruptive editing: he came to the Jill Stein thread on the 20th of August, with very pointed goals (vaccines, GMOs and pesticides interventions in the article) and lots of warnings about AE in the talk thread.

A brief response to NW, who is concerned about Shadowproof. The article has not been disputed on any grounds, though many people have seen it. Had that subject been opened, I would have responded or withdrawn, if consensus was reached concerning it. This is an article about a US eco-socialist politician, so no, the Washington Post, as wikipedia's own subject on the paper might suggest, is not likely to be a reliable source concerning her politics. Jacobin, Democracy Now!: these are among "her" fellow-traveling media outlets; Counterpunch has frequently published her running mate. They are knowledgeable sources about the Left. Her sources will look different than mainstream news outlets. Finally, for my first draft, I would like to include a diff of the (in my view) very strange action that seems to have motivated him to file this complaint: [[28]]

Regarding Tryptofish's first claim, I'm not sure why s/he wanted to include this article ("Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views"), almost entirely about Clinton & Trump (with one sentence dismissing his own Weissmann reference) and pointing fingers at ScienceDebate.org to support his claim that many writers think Stein is kooky on science. This, in the context of a great deal of pushback concerning normal wikipedia spin-off procedures for political candidates pages (afd that he encouraged, but hasn't yet voted in (4 delete, 3 keep, currently)...

Regarding the claims against me, my edit, here, was made in response to the primary author of the Jill Stein article's Snooganssnoogans particularly lopsided edit here, in which introductions and conclusions of arguments were cited, but the argument itself strangely disappeared from at least some of the 16 quotes s/he added from the WaPo. (cf. talk here. I do not anywhere say that the WaPo is an unreliable source generally, contrary to the claim made, and two of the four revert diffs have nothing to do with me. There was a great deal of intermediary sniping going on, while I tried to satisfy AndrewOne's concerns about the QE argument in the Education section (from [Talk] and [POV tag]). Cf. also these more worrying snark edits diff and diff

I also think ludicrous (lud = fun), and ridiculous (rid = laugh) are odd word choices that I see a lot on the talk pages. diff1 diff2. SashiRolls (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by clpo13

I take full ownership of this edit. In my defense, SashiRolls felt that the interview was accorded undue weight, so I figured I'd see what all would have to go if the source wasn't used. Turns out there was a lot. Well, I put it all back and received a (rightful) admonishment about being WP:POINTy, which I've taken to heart.

Anyways, SashiRoll's original complaint was vague, and a follow-up response clarified that the real issue was WaPo's apparent bias against Sanders (and by extension Stein, I guess). But that still comes across as "WaPo doesn't like my candidate so we shouldn't use it as a reference". It took a fair bit of needling to get any further explanation. I can understand the sentiment that no Wikipedia article should rely so much on a single article, but this wasn't a good way to go about making an objection since it wasn't clear to many people what the issue actually was.

As a final note: relying on the bot to fix the reference names probably wasn't the best idea, since over an hour passed between the first change and my fix, during which time the source was inaccessible to readers. clpo13_(talk) 23:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

Jill Stein is not a "page[] relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." Earlier, it was determined in a request for clarification in which Tryptofish participated, that Bernie Sanders was not a page related to GMOs. (See: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms.) Both Stein and Sanders are or were 2016 presidential candidates who are critics of GMOs.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms applies to 11 named articles and "will be implemented, broadly construed, for other articles in the subject area." Furthermore, there is no template for GMO on the talk page, although there is one for "American politics 2." 1RR is not part of U.S. politics general sanctions[29] and would be too draconian for such a wide topic area.

Trypofish falsely claimed at Talk:Jill Stein, "I want to make it very clear to editors that the content that I reverted violates the [GMO] Discretionary Sanctions linked above, because it alters the language that was established in the community RfC about GMOs. Editors must not make up alternative language, and doing so will result in Arbitration Enforcement." [20:55, 27 August 2016[30]] While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe.

The articles in The Washington Post and others are cited in the article as the opinions of their authors, not as statements of fact. While SashiRolls unfortunately says the paper is not rs, he actually argues that it is biased, and provides an article originally published in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ("Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours") as a source.[31] [22:43, 31 August 2016[32]] The paper's editorial board has called Trump a "clear and present danger."[33] although it has not yet endorsed Clinton. It is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the opinions expressed in the paper have a partisan tinge.

The article by Steven T. Corneliussen, ""Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views", in Physics Today, does not "clearly agree[] with the criticism" of Stein, as Tryptofish says. [1 September 2016[34]] It says only, "An opinion piece at Slate dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy. If anything it draws into question the extensive concentration on science issues that Trypofish has shown.

Tryptofish was an involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. It appears that his interest in that topic has brought him to the Jill Stein article and blurs his neutrality. S/he has not provided edits on any Green-related articles except to add opinions that they are anti-science.

TFD (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SashiRolls

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

I am concerned both about the behavior of SashiRolls enough to suggest a sanction. I would suggest that SashiRolls comment as soon as feasible. NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unrelated to here mostly, but I am also concerned about the article being a battleground for people's opinions about politics writ large. Are we really using Counterpunch and Shadowproof (Firedoglake) within the Jill Stein article to criticize the coverage of The Washington Post on Wikipedia? NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (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]

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