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

Rusf10

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 Rusf10

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rusf10 (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 (1932 cutoff): Also BLP

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

1.June 26 Asserts, without evidence, that a living person (David Cutler) " hates Donald Trump". Also asserts that the subject (Cutler) is "fringe theorist" because "he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration". Apparently being a liberal academic automatically makes you "fringe".

The same comment (as well as some others, see below), also makes some concerning assertions concerning reliable sources:

"That's another fallacy, because something is published in a medical journal, it must be creditable."
"But because this guy is an academic (over 90% of which happen to be liberal), we're supposed to believe that is of high integrity and wouldn't just write a political piece"
" I wouldn't trust anything this guy says." - apparently because SOME OTHER academic did something at sometime (it's not exactly clear)

Generally Wikipedia considers academic, scholarly sources to be top-quality sources, better than newspaper articles, magazines, etc. Taken together with other comments, it's pretty clear that Rusf10 has the polar opposite view - according to him academic sources are the least ones we should trust. This is an explicit admission that the user is not willing to follow our policy on reliable sources when it comes to articles concerning American politics.

2.June 25 "Drmies, is under the false impression that everything published in an academic journal must be true which is really no more intelligent than saying "I read it on the internet, it must be true"" - appears to say that stuff published in academic journal is no better than "stuff found on the internet". Again, a pretty fundamental opposition to our policy on reliable sources.

3.June 26 " You don't have any intent to follow WP:NPOV, since its clear that you here to push a certain viewpoint, so don't lecture me on policies." - Attacks other editors and ascribes motivations to them rather than discussing content.

4.June 26 Doubles down on the "hates Trump" BLP violating claim because... he looked at the guys twitter which apparently has some criticism of Trump's policies. It should be obvious that being critical of some Trump policy is not the same thing as "hating" Trump.

More minor (at least IMO) but still problematic

June 25 "Daivd (sic) Cutler worked in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, so don't try to act like be is some highly-respected non-partisan scholar" - this is also border line BLP vio (Cutler is actually very very highly respected)
June 24 "You clearly don't like Trump and that's fine, but it doesn't mean you get to trash his article" - Unnecessarily ascribes motivations and beliefs to other editors
June 24 WP:NOTAFORUM violation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

Note: @Fish and karate: despite what User:Lionelt insinuates, I don't have a topic ban on Donald Trump. User:JFG is also incorrect that I am "restricted" from that article. The only thing here is that I told NeilN, after he asked, that I'd leave the article alone for a few days. Also I have not cast WP:ASPERSIONS against anyone. I presented diffs in an appropriate forum. If you don't find these convincing, that's fine. But it's not aspersions, it's dispute resolution. You should also look at the diffs provided by User:MrX below.

Note: In this diff I am pointing out that just because there is the "standard disclaimer" on the piece ("does not represent the views of blah blah blah"), that does not make it an opinion piece. Lots of peer reviewed publications have these, it's just legal ass covering. And while Newsweek may call it "an opinion piece" I was objecting and still object to the proposition that this academic source is in any way comparable to "opinion pieces" published as editorials in newspapers and magazines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

For BLP

For post 1932 American politics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Here is the broader discussion. Rusf10 appears to have a... strange, idea of how academia and academic publishing works. He also appears to be reflexively distrustful of academic and scholarly sources. Several users, including User:Drmies and User:Neutrality have tried reasoning with him and explaining to him how it works, but it fells on a bit of deaf ears.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Rusf10

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 Rusf10

This is a waste of everyone's time and should boomerang on Volunteer Marek just for bringing this here. Is he really trying to take me to AE because I said a professor "hates Trump"? Regardless of whether or not he truly hates him, its 100% he doesn't like him, so this request is really petty. What Volunteer Marek doesn't want you know is that I'm criticizing an opinion piece being used as a reliable source. I never said everything published in an academic journal is not reliable, but an opinion piece that has not been peer-reviewed with a disclaimer is probably not reliable. Any claim that 80,000 people are going to die should obviously be viewed with skepticism. And this edit came right after VM said "And again, your comment basically indicates that you have no intent of following Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (you dismiss academic and scholarly sources out of hand)." [2], so how is what I said any worse? The reset of the diffs VM provided are even more petty, so I'm not even going to respond to them. One thing is clear, VM doesn't like his views challenged.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I presented diffs in an appropriate forum. If you don't find these convincing, that's fine. But it's not aspersions, it's dispute resolution. That's a dishonest statement. This forum is not for dispute resolution, its for bringing sanctions. And you know that too because you been here many times before. If there wasn't a reason for a WP:BOOMERANG before, now there is. You should also look at the diffs provided by User:MrX below. Those are even worse than the one's you provided and several are taken out of context.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies:I thought you'd sit this one out, but since you're here, let me point out that your behavior here is troubling as well, especially for an admin. to start you just accused me of having a " complete lack of knowledge of how science, publishing, and peer review works" and being a "nihilist."

Threatening me "OK, so here we have another editor referring to an article in JAMA as "piece of garbage". You have disqualified yourself for this discussion, and from any future RS discussion you partake in." [3]
Personal attack on another editor (not me) "First stop gaslighting with your "don't like someone's expressed opinion". "It seems that you are expressing an opinion"--yes, I am, but it has nothing to do with politics. My opinion is that you are not capable of judging what is and what isn't a reliable source, given your comments here. "[4]
" I know Trumpers don't like science" [5]
"That the right would go post-truth, who could have thunk that two decades ago. " [6]

@NeilN: In that diff, I was trying to make the point that an opinion piece published anywhere (including a medical journal) is still an opinion piece. Perhaps I could have said it differently, but this came after Drmies attacked me. Here is his comment which I was referring to [7]. Being that he is an admin, I took that to be a threat. And now he has come here and piled on even more personal attacks. Look at the diffs I posted, Drmies behavior is clearly unacceptable for an admin.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate, NeilN, Masem, Vanamonde93, MastCell, and GoldenRing: :I appreciate that at least a few of you can see that the other side has behaved in a manner that is at least as bad. However, some of you seem to be giving the other side a pass (maybe because you agree with their viewpoint?). No one has commented yet on the diffs I provided of user:Drmies. Is there some unwritten code that admins can't criticized other admins? Again, I hate to keep repeating myself, but the "source" is an opinion piece that appears with a disclaimer and has not been peer-reviewed, something Drmies refuses to accept. Let me just say that getting something published as an opinion piece in JAMA means it's solid, it's peer-reviewed, it's been vetted more than most other pieces of writing, and that because it is an opinion piece a whole bunch of other editors besides the usual reviewers have looked it over. [8] and then again he insists that its peer-reviewed here And user:Volunteer Marek refused to accept that it was an opinion piece. That actually DOES NOT make this "an opinion piece". [9] Not an "opinion piece" [10] And I provided two sources that back up that this is an opinion piece and not peer-reviewed. [11] [12]. Of course user:MrX then tried to have Newsweek thrown out as not reliable. [13]. You cannot admonish me or topic ban me (since a couple of people have called for that) without doing the same to others. I'm glad that at least Fish and karate & Masem see both sides of this, but am troubled that some of you cannot.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Consider striking your response. First as reported by Bloomberg (last I checked, that's still a reliable source) "The essay, which was not a formal peer-reviewed study" [14]. Now either you're wrong or Bloomberg is wrong, which is it? It seems to me that you are the one who chooses to ignore reliable sources if they don't fit your POV.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:I also haven't seen any links in this request leading to sources that dispute the facts of the piece.With all due respect, there are no facts in the piece to begin with, that's why its an opinion piece. There is no detailed explanation of how they came up with the numbers, so that makes it very difficult to analyze. Part of the numbers came from a paper that the Obama administration released about how many lives were projected to be saved by new regulations on fuel economy standards [15]. For example, the number they pulled from that paper (5,500) is not a conservative estimate or even an average, it is the largest number found in the report based on a one particular "expert opinion".--Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: I admit I could have toned down my language a bit, but I had a point. And to call for an indefinite tban over one incident is absurd, especially coming from you. You recently got off with a warning for you behavior [16] and you've been to AE far more times than me. Also, what really irritates me here is that most of the admins are giving Drmies a pass and whatever warning (or ban) I get, he clearly deserves the same.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: It is not WP:ASPERSIONS when it is backuped up by evidence, the evidence being past AE requests against you for which you have received warnings. It is very hypocritical for you to call for extreme sanctions against me, when your questionable behavior has been treated very leniently.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lionelt

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Volunteer Marek banned from the Trump article? – Lionel^(talk) 08:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

Content dispute, RfC in progress, nothing to see here. — JFG ^talk 09:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionelt: VM is only restricted from editing the Donald Trump article. This thread is about Presidency of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 09:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To admins reviewing the case: it seemed to me that AE's goal is to discuss editor conduct, not litigate content disputes. But since the discussion has evolved into an analysis of the disputed source's validity, let's take a look. Most of the comments supporting the use of this source as a credible study lean on appeal to authority: "the authors are recognized experts", "Harvard is a serious university", "JAMA is a reputable journal". Yes, yes, and yes, that is not the issue. The fundamental problem that is still being debated at the ongoing RfC and at RS/N, is that some editors are conflating JAMA as a peer-reviewed journal and the JAMA Forum, which by their own disclaimer, is only a repository for opinion pieces.[17] Special congrats to the reporting editor here, Volunteer Marek, who first seemed blind to what JAMA stated,[18] then waved it away saying "it's just standard legal-ass-covering and nothing more",[19] and finally came here while the content dispute is still in full swing to get a dissenting editor sanctioned. OK, that's an opinion piece which should have some more weight than a random blog because of the reputation of the writers, however that is still not more than an opinion piece, a fact that should be taken into account according to our sourcing policies. Usage of this particular report is problematic due to the dire consequences predicted, pinned on speculation about long-term effects of the recent relaxing of various EPA regulations. On its face, the source sounds like political scaremongering, and this is probably why it has been so much disputed, both at Wikipedia and in secondary sources. In light of this controversy, I would find it particularly wrong-headed to heap sanctions on an editor who forcefully defends one view of this study, while excusing other editors who forcefully defend the other side. Civility is not great on either side of the debate, so that AE sanctions for this reason would also be unfair. Again, that is a content dispute, let it be resolved at the appropriate forums. — JFG ^talk 10:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

As documented in the diffs VM provided, Rusf10 has openly explicitly and repeatedly denied core WP sourcing policies and gratuitously defamed living persons whose professional work was under discussion on the article talk page. This user has failed to respond to the pleadings of numerous editors who have explained this problem and why such behavior is unacceptable. This editor has already drained way too much time and attention, and despite all these good faith attempts to redirect Rusf10's behavior, he has chosen to continue and to escalate his rhetoric. This user has rejected core WP policies and Guidelines and should be TBANed from BLP and American Politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10's insipid rebuke of Drmies is all the confirmation we need to know that he is unwilling to abide by WP norms in these articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: The proposed article content stated the authors' finding as such and with attribution, not in WP's voice. These are notable scholars writing in the field of their expertise. Several times on the talk page it was pointed out, this would be valid article content even if it appeared in their self-published blog. Attempts to disparage the authors as "fringe" and WP editors as dishonest POV-pushers have nothing to do with any "content dispute". BTW, I also see similar over the top interpersonal interactions in this user's history in entirely different contexts. But at any rate, with the explicit Civility Sanction on the current article, there's not much question about his violations. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why the only discussion among Admins now has narrowed to the detailed wording of a prospective warning when there were many Admins considering an indefinite TBAN. Even if the latter does not happen, there's a lot of daylight between that and a -- let's face it -- meaningless "warning". There's lots of disruptive behavior that might arguably be prevented by a warning. An explicit rejection of WP sourcing and content policy cannot be changed by a warning. (cannot be changed, that is, if we assume it was a good faith statement of Rusf10's understanding and belief and not a (blockable) bad faith gaming of the discussion thread. For the avoidance of doubt, I read it as the former. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: wrote, especially coming from you -- considering that the proposed wording of your lenient warning is already on the table, WP:ASPERSIONS in plain sight of the volunteer Admins here more or less proves the warning is a waste of their time. Bans of some duration are clearly required. Moreover I just commented above that Rusf10's incivility is the least of the issues here. Incivility might have been cured (notwithstanding the above), but denial of the 5 Pillars can't be cured when there's no indication that Rusf10 understands what a Reliable Source is, what an attributed opinion is, and our standards and practices for each. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

As evidenced by Volunteer Marek, Rusf10 is exhibiting consensus-inhibiting behaviors described in WP:GAMING, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP. Specifically, personal attacks, filibustering, ad hominems about academic sources and similar disparagement of living people, assumptions of bad faith.

Examples

Falsely claims that Al Gore predicted that the world would end in 2016 - False claim about a living person
"... its clear that you here to push a certain viewpoint, so don't lecture me on policies." - Assumption of bad faith
"This is being pushed into the article because it fits into the narrative that Donald Trump is evil." - Assumption of bad faith and politicizing disputes
"Sorry, I have to correct you, but one of the authors of this piece of garbage was a woman" - Incendiary rhetoric
"(any more stupid questions?)" - Assumption of bad faith
"And I now know that David Cutler worked in the Clinton and Obama administrations, so he clearly has a bias." - Ad hominem

A few of such comments could be dismissed as roughhousing, but the intensity and frequency have become disruptive. In fairness, I will say that Rusf10 has made a number of constructive comments at other article talk pages.

Also, there is no basis whatsoever for sanctioning Volunteer Marek.- Mr X 🖋 15:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me Fish and karate, but did you really just call my above examples "misrepresenting others contributions out of context" and "shockingly poor form", and suggest that I be warned for it? I'm not even sure how to react to that, but "shocking" is an adjective I might use. Please explain how any the above six diffs misrepresent what Rusf10 wrote.(Note: This is not a rhetorical request; I would like for you actually do it, as required by policy). Please also clarify, for future reference, what the expectations are for quoting a user's comments as evidence at AE. The widespread practice that I've observed is to quote the offending sentence or phrase, and link with a diff to the full comments (which, by the way, also shows the full context). In fact, there is a 500 word limit at AE, so how exactly would that work? Should entire conversations be copy pasted here? I can do that now if that would help you to gain clarity about where sanctions should be applied. Please advise. - Mr X 🖋 11:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Rusf10, I did not try to "have Newsweek thrown out as not reliable." I said "I wouldn't put too much stock in what Newsweek writes. It used to be a somewhat reputable publication, but not so much now", and I provided some evidence. I never dismissed it entirely. It's generally fine to use Newsweek (in fact I did yesterday), but if they are the only source reporting something, I would proceed cautiously. - Mr X 🖋 18:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Fish and karate, referring to a scholar's published work as garbage, when multiple editors are explaining why the work is valued, most definitely qualifies as incendiary rhetoric. If you plan to shoot the messenger by giving me a logged warning (which is an admin action), I would fully expect for you to explain your reasoning and you should expect a full appeal. - Mr X 🖋 21:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I'm just baffled by some editors' opinions which betray a complete lack of knowledge of how science, publishing, and peer review works. That someone could think that an opinion piece in JAMA wouldn't be vetted is amazing to me, and that this would be equivalent to "something on the internet" is ... well. So in that sense, given that kind of lack of understanding, it may well be a good idea to ban them from sensitive areas. I just looked at all the opposes in the discussion, and one or two make the argument that it's UNDUE right now (User:Markbassett argued along those lines)--that's valid. What is different for this editor is not just the empty argument (they're not the only one) but also sort of nihilism which in the end undercuts RS, for starters. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Rusf still maintains that something marked "opinion" in a peer-reviewed journal is not peer reviewed. As in the famous presidential "both sides" remark, there is no "both sides" here: false equivalency. Reasonable people can disagree on how to weight the particular article (written by two scientists and published in a scientific journal), of course, but it is not reasonable to disregard basic facts. Perhaps the editor could stop pinging me until they learned to sing a different song. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10, that the article didn't present the results of a peer-reviewed study does not mean the article itself was not a peer-reviewed article. Seriously, seriously, you are still proposing that JAMA publishes something without peer-reviewing it. Das crazy. The journals I work for don't even fart without an editorial meeting, and none of those rise to the stature of JAMA. For the audience who may not be familiar with academic peer-review--nothing gets published in one of those journals without being peer-reviewed. That includes everything: articles, studies, opinions, bibliographies, reports on academic activity, book reviews--nothing. I'm sure the president's address is peer-reviewed. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, yes. First of all this "within a few hours of the journal receiving it"--your link points at coverage of the 2012 Presidential Campaign. If you're suggesting that that editorial commentary on how JAMA was covering the 2012 campaign means that "all pieces in the JAMA forum are run within hours of reception" then I think you're seriously wrong. Second, you seem to reinforce what some parties here say too: if it's not a formal peer-reviewed study, if it's opinion, if it's on a forum (and I think you throw in "blog" as a loaded term), then it's a peer-reviewed article and there's no editorial oversight. Again--as if there is nothing in between some blog and "a gold-standard reliable secondary source" (I have never argued that this one meets a gold standard.) So, if you are giving me the option of being either incompetent or "glaringly deceptive", I'll choose to just ignore that, and I'll rather listen to and learn from editors with tons of article space edits, content editors who have written articles, who have experience with using and judging sources. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cheered by the fact that any warning for me will come from one individual administrator, as matters currently stand. I hope that editors who know me a bit know that I value only the BLP more than I value RS (and that I edit and administer in that way regardless of the article subject), that I don't make a habit of camping out on political articles, and that I certainly don't try to turn things into a battleground; it is true, of course, that I don't suffer fools (well, foolishness) gladly. If that one admin wants to admonish me for that, so be it. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Volunteer Marek says, 'I ... object to the proposition that this academic source is in any way comparable to "opinion pieces" published as editorials in newspapers and magazines.' I looked and it is not an academic work. It's an opinion piece by academics published in the section for those in a journal. Just go read it. It is absolutely, positively an op-ed, not a science paper. The fallacy "It's in JAMA ergo it's a high-quality piece of academic research" is the same fallacy as "It's in The New York Times so it must be high-quality, secondary journalism." Publications have more than one kind of material, and an op-ed is an op-ed, an ad is an ad, a book review is a book review, and an advice column is an advice column (hint: all primary, not secondary). That an opinion piece in JAMA was vetted is immaterial; it's still opinion. NYT op-eds are subject to editorial review, too. The problem is the nature and purpose of the work. It's the kind of thing we'd use as "According to an op-ed by [Whoever], ...", iff the quotee was eminent and quoting their view was relevant and WP:DUE. Unlike some well-researched NYT op-eds I've seen, this one does not provide citations for the potentially secondary factual claims it makes, so we can't really evaluate them. It may be high-quality, but it's still primary.

Both editors at the center of this are generally constructive. I'm inclined to stay out of the inter-editorial personality clash (the more recent-ish range of the WP:ARBAP2 topic area is a cesspool). I noticed at ARCA today that ArbCom is saying "Either have AE deal with this case-by-case, or open ARBAP3", and some parties lean toward the latter. I'm not sure there's much point in AE hearing mini-cases like this in the interim, but that's up to you all. This ultimately boiling down to treating an op-ed as if it were secondary science sourcing can be addressed head-on, however. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of our sourcing policies and guidelines. It's not constructive to try to bend our policies to say what they don't and fire up a huge pissing contest in the process. Just follow the damned policies.

I think this may relate to a blind spot among the WP:MEDRS crowd more than to ARPAP2. It's a guideline subject to near-total control by a handful of editors and never subjected to thorough examination by the community. There's a serious conflict with policy in it which I've tried to address several times, and it directly relates to this matter: a belief that primary sources (even press releases and position statements) by respected medical publishers transmogrify somehow into "ideal" secondary sourcing. In a post today [20] at WP:VPPOL in a thread largely about ARBAP2, I explicated this in some detail – starting at "Even MEDRS has an error in it in this regard ..."). Update: Moved to essay page: WP:FMSP#MEDRS. I think this is worth RfCing, because the problems it's causing are clearly spreading from medical articles to other topics like politics.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC); updated: 06:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

This is mostly a content dispute. I fail to see how this behaviour rises to the level of sanctions.

Rusf10 responded to an RfC and argued about the inclusion (or not) of an analysis by David Cutler. I mostly see good-faith arguments on the talk page by Rusf10. There is little or no disruption. The purpose of an RfC is to invite comments by a broad cross-section of people. This will necessarily include badly argued or incorrect comments.

Claiming that a person X "hates Trump" is not ideal and Rusf10 should refrain from saying that. However, it's rather a stretch to claim that this claim is a BLP violation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN's comments are extremely strange and very bad. There is nothing wrong with a Wikipedia editor describing a piece of analysis as "garbage". That is clearly a personal opinion, and people are allowed to have opinions. Denigrating some source is not a BLP violation; I have denigrated plenty of sources in my own editing on Wikipedia. One has to allow a certain bit of leeway to discuss the reliability and due weight of a source during discussions.

Here's the basic point. The piece is an informal analysis by an expert in the field, who also happened to serve in the administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Both things are true: he's an expert, and he is associated with past Democratic administrations. Thus, this should be seen as an intervention by a "public intellectual" on an important matter. That does not mean that the estimate is automatically wrong (indeed, I support inclusion of the material). But it is not illegitimate to discuss the provenance of the source during an RfC discussions, nor is it illegitimate to say that estimates of this kind are often rather dubious. Prediction is hard, see Expert Political Judgement for instance.

Personal opinions about all sorts of things are flying on the talk page. For instance, to take a very simple example: Drmies writes I know Trumpers don't like science, just below an "Oppose" vote. This is, to put it mildly, rather inflammatory, not to mention a snide personal attack. I know American politics is rather ugly nowadays, but come on.

Here's the main point: discussing the provenance and reliability of a source is fair game, and some leeway should be allowed on the talk page. The focus should be on disruption; is Rufus10 edit-warring or otherwise disrupting the process? I don't see any evidence of the latter. Rather, I see good-faith (though mistaken, in my view) arguments on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

@GoldenRing:"Peer review", like almost every other jargon term, has two distinct meanings. The first is a formal system of review by properly credentialed experts prior to publication as an article in a scientific or scholarly journal, which usually occurs in a well-defined system, with rules and procedures. The second is that someone who knows what they're talking about read it and was okay with publishing it. This piece certainly meets the second definition, and I'll eat my shoe if anyone can prove otherwise. JAMA forums and the associated blog is not a Forbes site, where any popular enough writer can write about whatever they want. Hell, their about us page explicitly states that "we have assembled a team of leading scholars" to write the articles that appear therein, and I've yet to see an article on that site that isn't on a subject the author has immaculate credentials in. While these articles are subject to the usual disclaimers ("the opinions herein are those of the authors...," the same disclaimers that cover a huge swathe of our sources), JAMA clearly directed an effort to produce these articles. They were subject to editorial oversight. Let me reiterate that last, with some relevant details pointed out: They were subject to the editorial oversight of one of the most well-respected publishers of scientific literature in the world. To refer to that as "peer-reviewed" in an offhand way is unusual, but hardly without precedent, and not even close to unjustifiable. Hell, with the phrase "Let me just say that..." Drmies was explicitly laying that out as a heuristic; he wasn't saying "this article was peer reviewed" (which is defensibly true, as I just pointed out) but "you can think of this article as peer-reviewed, for all intents and purposes."

In light of that, your comments about Drmies look like a failure to AGF at best, and a blatant personal attack at worst. I'm going to give you the same advice I frequently give to brand new editors, because it seems you need it: don't be afraid to ask for clarification if someone says something confusing or inexplicable. A strawman is a strawman, whether you built it on purpose or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

We can certainly discuss the provenance of the source, and Rusf10 makes a reasonable point regarding peer review, but this is not how we discuss sources. The author of this opinion piece fits all the requirements: he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration, he hates Donald Trump. And its was published in an academic journal. This argument is not policy-based, yet Rusf10 continues to bring up these points even after they are rejected by other editors. This type of activity obstructs the consensus-building process and is a tremendous time sink. Worse yet, it creates a toxic environment that drives good-faith editors away from the areas where they are most needed. I would also remind admins that when an editor disrupts a discussion by filibustering or framing it as a content dispute, they will often continue this behavior at AE. The success rate of this tactic is embarrassingly high. Rusf10's statement exceeds 1000 words, so it may be time to enforce the word count limit. Editors should be able to present their side of the argument but this does not necessarily mean that they may respond to others' comments. –dlthewave ☎ 05:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphim System

I don't think the JAMA article is the greatest source for the statement Based on the regulatory impact analysis done by the EPA when the rule was implemented (as well as otheranalyses), repealing the rule would lead to an estimated 36 000 deaths each decade and nearly 630 000 cases of respiratory infection in children alone. or cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people." - I think the two authors are qualified based on their backgrounds and field of expertise, but the statement itself is based on 3 sources and it lacks context—it doesn't help that the EDF study is even more problematic. On its face, this does not seem like it would be due for inclusion, but whether it is secondary or primary for the 80,000 figure could be argued either way. I wouldn't even say this is an "opinion" piece in the usual sense. We have particular standards for "isolated studies", even for peer-reviewed studies that explain their methodology and analysis in depth - which I think is non-optional for this type of content, and I can understand why someone would object as most of these underlying sources would benefit from a more detailed secondary analysis then just accepting at face value "based on the regulatory impact statement" ... there must be hundreds of studies out there. But is a sanction necessary here? It just seems like this whole thing has gotten blown out of proportion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

This concerns me:

The author of this opinion piece fits all the requirements: he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration, he hates Donald Trump

I'm old enough to have lived through several periods of strong partisan divisions in this country, and I recognize that we're living through one of them now, perhaps the deepest one in many decades, but is concerns me that a Wikipedia editor would believe that simply because someone worked in some capacity in a Presidential administration, that automatically makes that person a die-hard Democrat, or Republican, or a liberal, or a conservative, to the extent that it totally overwhelms the credentials that got them the position in the first place.

Yes, there are political hacks in all administrations, and some have more than others, but exceedingly few people in this country ever get called upon to work for the White House, and it's disheartening to think that any Wikipedia editor would believe that simply because someone answered that call to duty, they automatically chucked their learning, knowledge, good sense or morality out the window and became a blind automaton enslaved by Party dicta. Possibly that does happen to some who didn;t start out that way, but it can't (and shouldn't) be assumed that it happens to everyone, or even most of them. Just as we evaluate every source for reliability, each instance should be taken on an individual basis, determined by what is known about the person and their qualifications.

To reject the views of apparently well-qualified people simply because of the assumption of bad faith based on their service in a Presidential administration or the like is simply wrong and should have no part in any discussion here on Wikipedia, where we should be (but aren't, unfortunately) above that sort of thing.

So, in my opinion, if anything needs to come from this, a warning to Rusf10 that that kind of behavior is not acceptable here is that thing. Whether their other behavior is worthy of sanctioning, I have no opinion on, not having parsed the evidence sufficiently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I echo everything Kingsindian said. I was hesitant to post anything, but I do feel that what KI said is what I wanted to say, among other stuff. I especially echo his part about Drmies' comment regarding Trumpers and about the "garbage" opinion, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rusf10

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

Definitely no action to take here, this is a nonsense. I'm inclined to wonder whether VM's Donald Trump topic ban needs to be broadened a little bit to cover closely-related articles. I would note he has an arbitration sanction which states he is "strongly warned against casting general aspersions against editors who [he sees] as "pro-Trump"." Fish+Karate 11:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that MrX's suggesting this (read it in context with the post to which it's replying) is "incendiary rhetoric" is very, very unfair. @Vanamonde93: My thoughts are that this is a quibble over whether or not a source is reliable or not between two very stubborn people who have opposing views on the matter. What it is not is something that should result in a sanction. I can see Rusf10's point, in that the source in question, although it has been published in a journal, is an opinion piece on an environmental issue written by two social scientists which was not peer-reviewed (as per this) so what it contains ought not to be taken as a 100% stone cold fact and ought not to be granted the same level of credibility as a proper, peer-reviewed, scientific study. So I do think in this instance Rusf10 was not acting from an incorrect starting point. I can see Volunteer Marek's point, in that the approach Rusf10 is taking is rather bulldozery and argumentative. I would love for them both to be able to work out the issue and then leave each other alone. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of editors and you don't need to fight every battle. And more to the point, you don't need to see them as battles in the first place. Fish+Karate 08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: While I am not obliged to justify my statement as per the link you provided, as they are not an administrative action, I will do so anyway, but I’m on my phone so that’ll have to wait til Monday now as it’ll take forever this way. In short though if you honestly, truly think “incendiary rhetoric” is a reasonable summary of a mild and polite correction then I don’t think you’ll accept anything I say. Fish+Karate 19:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate: I'm actually not so bothered by the "not everything in journals is reliable" diff. Questioning a source based on the quality of the publication is necessary. Questioning a source based on partisanship isn't, because WP:NPOV and WP:RS make no allowance for supposed partisanship. I am more bothered by stuff like this, together with persistent assumptions of bad faith. That said, I'm not in favor of sanctions either. I would suggest a warning, which I'll try to put together below. Vanamonde (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I think a warning (possibly to both parties) around combative attitudes is reasonable. Fish+Karate 09:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I would agree with most of what Rusf10 said in that diff. It's not right to assume everything published in every journal is the gospel truth, particularly if the work in question is explicitly described as an opinion piece. I wouldn't agree with his first sentence, but I can see what he's trying to say overall, albeit not particularly collegiately. Fish+Karate 08:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution Rusf10 against expressing his personal views about the work of living people so forcefully (diff 1) and to take care when summarizing other editors' views (diff 2). Diff 2 is particularly concerning because if Rusf10 feels that's an accurate view of Drmies' position then I have to question if they are able to participate productively in this area which often requires the careful reading and summarizing of source material. No action against VM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, do you have any comment on this diff? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many cases have passed by AE /ArbCom where editors have expressed negative opinions of BLPs but these simply go as non-actions within these , as 1) its a problem through WP, there's no reason to single out any one person unless we're going to go full bore across all editors, which would hit a lot of established editors, and 2) most of the time, it's clear these are opinions and not factual claims, to any casual reader. I agree that all editors should be asked to tone down any personal feelings they have towards BLPs as per NeilN above, and to try to argue for inclusion or omission of BLP material without getting into their personal opinions of said BLP. It helps to avoid the BLP line and can reduce the battleground mentality editors seem to have in these areas. --Masem (t) 15:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Rusf10's commentary on talk pages is far from ideal (stuff like this being a case in point), I don't see a need to sanction them from a BLP perspective, though I would agree with NeilN that a caution is in order. I am far more concerned at their misunderstanding of NPOV. They seem to be under the impression that neutrality has something to do with finding an arbitrary midpoint between two arbitrarily divided political positions in one country; which has nothing to do with how Wikipedia defines neutrality. We define NPOV in terms of significant viewpoints in reliable secondary sources. Now Rusf10 is welcome to disagree with that definition, but they are still required to edit within it, and their commentary about academic publishing suggests that they may not be able to do so. This problem goes deep, and is not something that can be sorted out by a block or a restricted topic-ban; and I'm not keen on imposing a sweeping t-ban right off the bat. So, I would support a strongly worded warning, with the expectation that further evidence of misunderstanding NPOV and our concept of reliable sources may result in a wide topic-ban. There's also the issue of their continued assumptions of bad faith. Since this request has been open for a while: @Fish and karate, NeilN, and Masem: what are your thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without opening up that discussion here, that stance on NPOV is very much debatable and has been at the center of many many disputes for at least 4+ years, and remains an issue (see , for example, this recent VPP discussion. So no, we cannot fault them on how they view NPOV; where we can find fault if there is any here is in aspects of related to WP:TE or WP:IDHT behavior if the talk page consensus has come down one way or another that we can talk some type of action against. --Masem (t) 05:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Feel free to ignore my definition of what NPOV is not; but my statement of what it is is from the policy, nearly word for word, and if we're unwilling to enforce that we have a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restart: while that is what NPOV says, that wording is a point of contention for 4+ years, moreso in the last two (that link one example of considering what's wrong with NPOV that could be addressed) Rusf10's free to question the particular application of NPOV in a contentious area (keeping in mind that even policies are not absolute), but has to avoid the TE/IDHT in the same discussions if a consensus had previously been reached about how NPOV applies. --Masem (t) 05:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Masem, while I might agree with you that the wording of NPOV has been contentious and that Rusf10 is free to question it, they should not be free to question it in particular applications of the policy. Just for our own sanity, we can't have editors relitigating the meaning of the policy every time there is an RfC on the use of a particular source and to do so is nakedly disruptive. If Rusf10 wants to change the policy, then there are venues available to try to do so and they should use them. So, to the degree that this is a dispute about the meaning of NPOV, Rusf10 should have the policy explained to them and be warned that fighting over the text of policy on article talk pages is disruptive and could lead to sanctions.
For the rest of it, I read through the discussion a few days ago (a little after this complaint was filed) and haven't looked at it since; it struck me then as a simple dispute over whether a source should be regarded as a reliable. If that is still in dispute, it is a straightforward matter for RSN to decide. I don't see the BLP portion of this complaint as actionable; that same statement has me far more worried that Rusf10 is treating the dispute as a battleground - David Cutler "fits all the requirements," by which I think he means all the requirements for certain editors to want the material included. I'm not in favour of sanctions yet, but if Rusf10 continues down this path they will come. GoldenRing (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. You don't have to agree with the policy (I dislike parts of it myself), but if you want to change it, VPP is thataway. In all specific cases, you've to follow it as written. Vanamonde (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate, Masem, GoldenRing, and NeilN: Apologies for the many pings What do you think of the following: "Rusf10 is warned not to assume bad faith in other editors and not to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, and is reminded that disagreements with policy should be brought to the community rather than litigated on article talk pages." Vanamonde (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that in and of itself but would change "warned" to "reminded" (let's not assume bad faith ourselves). It is missing any reference to the other party, though, who should be trouted for bringing this bunkum to ARE in the first place, and I'd be inclined to warn MrX about misrepresenting others contributions out of context, which is shockingly poor form. Fish+Karate 10:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fish and karate: I'm unimpressed with Marek's language (as I've frequently told him) but I was involved in a content dispute with him over the 1973 Chilean coup some three years ago, and though it makes not the slightest difference to my judgement here I will stick to the letter of the law and not comment on sanctions with respect to him. I haven't reviewed Mr. X's conduct in detail yet, but I will do so, and if you wish to propose something in the meantime please go ahead. Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with the strongly worded warning to Rusf10, but I do think a caution to all editors involved to turn down the battleground mentality is needed. As I mentioned above, this seems to single out one bad actor among several simply because they have a certain ideological stance compared to the others. --Masem (t) 13:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost prepared to give Rusf10 a topic ban here over their JAMA comments. If you are calling something published in a very solid source (as determined by other Wikipedia editors - not me) "garbage" you'd better have other solid sources that detail why that piece is garbage, and not just your own personal opinion. That is blatant POV editing. I agree with Vanamonde93 and GoldenRing in saying that admins uphold written policy as it stands. I disagree with Fish and karate that VM deserves any warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with NeilN; the JAMA comments by Rusf are substandard enough that I'd consider sanctions on those grounds. This diff alone encapsulates an impressive volume of fallacies and misunderstandings of policy, aggravated by the aggressive ignorance he's displayed in the thread in question. Just in that one diff:

"Drmies, is under the false impression that everything published in an academic journal must be true..."... Drmies neither said nor implied any such thing; this is a bad-faith misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
"... which is really no more intelligent than saying "I read it on the internet, it must be true". Advocating for JAMA as a reliable source (which it is) is quite different from claiming anything on the Internet must be true. This is, again, a bad-faith misrepresentation. It also indicates a deep misunderstanding of policy; one fundamental determinant of reliability is the venue in which a claim is published. Rusf chooses to ignore this, and to pretend that it makes no difference with regard to reliability whether a source is published in JAMA or on a random website.
"BTW, I forgot to mention that I believe the guy who wrote this is an economist, not a environmental scientist, which gives him even less creditably" [sic]. The piece in question was written by two people, not one "guy". One of the two authors is a statistician who specializes in climate change and health policy. It's somewhat ignorant to suggest that an economist is unsuited to comment on the impact of policy changes on measurable outcomes (that is, after all, one key aspect of economics), but it's worse to misrepresent the article's authorship in an attempt to undermine it.

More generally, Rusf's tone in this entire thread is aggressively partisan and displays either ignorance of, or contempt for, basic site policy on sourcing. I don't doubt that there are other offenders in the topic area, and identifying and handling Rusf's editing doesn't give them a pass. But this is obviously someone whose input in the topic area is a massive net-negative in terms of both tone and content, and this is exactly the sort of behavior that we need less of. Discretionary sanctions exist to deal with this kind of thing. Like NeilN, I would favor a topic ban, although I recognize that I'm in the minority. At a minimum, it should be made clear to Rusf that his behavior isn't appropriate and that, if it continues, a topic ban will result. MastCell ^Talk 15:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The latest response by Rusf10 is not encouraging. Paraphrasing what I said on my talk page, Rusf10 is free to argue about the appropriateness of a source without stating a piece he personally disagrees with is garbage and a fringe theory and providing no evidence. That is POV editing (similar to when an Indian editor dismisses out of hand all works by Pakistani scholars) and that kind of editing will get you topic banned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read the "Survey" section at this revision. It's really not good. Basically, Rusf10 decides that a source which backs a position he doesn't like isn't reliable, despite a large number of people pointing out its provenance; then decides that one of the scientists involved is biased because of a poisition they previously held, calls the source (in the JAMA, no less) "a piece of garbage" - and then baldly states "I just proved the source is not creditable", despite having done absolutely nothing of the sort. I'm with MastCell and NeilN here. Topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for a topic ban also. A contentious ARCA was just closed,[21] where several people asked for a more forceful use of discretionary sanctions at AE for the "shit-show" that is the American Politics area — or, failing that, for a whole new arbitration case, American Polics 3, to clean it up. I quote Tryptofish, with italics seeming to express some despair: "I cannot emphasize strongly enough how the present situation has arisen through a failure of AE. ... DS do not mean take a minimalist approach. The entire point of ArbCom issuing DS in a topic area is to empower admins to act quickly and decisively in a topic area where all other forms of dispute resolution have failed. Admins: when DS exist, your hands are not tied...The one way we can avoid an AP3 case is for AE admins to continue to hand out topic bans in AP2." I agree, and the case of Rufs10 is a case in point, per the examples given by MastCell, Neil, and Black Kite. Warnings for editors who behave like this are pretty useless in my experience. Bishonen | talk 07:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: I find myself in the odd position of disagreeing with you, but hear me out, if you will. I agree completely that we need more forceful application of DS. That said, I don't think we should jump to levying sanctions without previous warning. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that a user should receive a warning about sanctionable behavior from neutral admins, and a sanction only if they fail to heed the warning. Particularly in situations like this, where we don't have bright-line policy violations, only indications that they may not take a policy seriously enough. Vanamonde (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My difficulty with all this is that I do think Rusf10 has at least a bit of a point about that source. Combatively stated and over-the-top, yes, but fundamentally he has a point, and I'm disappointed that respected names who really should know better are here arguing that JAMA forum should be treated as a gold-standard reliable secondary source, as though it was part of JAMA's print output, and to my mind this is equally a failure to understand our sourcing policies. The piece is published by a recognised expert and shouldn't be treated te same as anything you read on the internet. But according to JAMA, their forum is a blog that presents opinion articles, only published online separately to the journal content, that was founded to give opinions on political events in the run-up to the 2012 US presidential election. The articles are "lightly edited" and are expected to be published "within hours of receiving them." In that light, I take a particularly dim view of Drmies, who has said, it is now blatantly obvious you don't understand how this works ... it's hard for me to gauge the depths of your ignorance of the academic publication process ... Let me just say that getting something published as an opinion piece in JAMA means it's solid, it's peer-reviewed, it's been vetted more than most other pieces of writing, and that because it is an opinion piece a whole bunch of other editors besides the usual reviewers have looked it over. He has rather hammered this point home, too, describing other editors as being like watching a bunch of school kids discuss quantum mechanics. I just can't see how his claims about the nature of the article can possibly be true, given what JAMA themselves say about it. Are we to believe that "it's peer-reviewed, it's been vetted more than most other pieces of writing, and that because it is an opinion piece a whole bunch of other editors besides the usual reviewers have looked it over" ... within a few hours of the journal receiving it? Either Drmies is flat-out wrong and has put their foot in their mouth in no uncertain terms or, if we are to believe what they say about their own expertise in the field of academic publishing, they are being deliberately deceptive. User:Drmies, have I misunderstood something here? Can you explain the glaring discrepancy between what you say about this publication and what the publication itself says about it? GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Rusf10's implicit assertion is that JAMA would publish garbage and fringe theories in this venue. Do you think Bob from Baltimore's treatise on how putting fluoride in the water is a government conspiracy to control our brains would be published here? Or would JAMA's editorial board exercise discretion? I also haven't seen any links in this request leading to sources that dispute the facts of the piece. Looking at the RFC, I see the proposed wording did not present the numbers in Wikipedia's voice and explicitly attributed them to an analysis by two authors. The editors who supported inclusion of the text may have overstated their case, conflating editorial review and discretion with peer review, but that is not remotely equivalent to writing off the analysis as garbage and fringe theory based on no evidence. A logged warning to Rusf10 is the least we can do here. I know I will be topic banning Rusf10, logged warning or no, if similar behavior occurs in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an entirely mainstream view. Every other Western government accepts and uses exactly this kind of estimate, but in the GOP these days it's "scientific heresy".Which is of course an oxymoron. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: No, I don't think that Rusf10 has behaved well here and I'm still in two minds about the appropriate response; I've argued above that a strong warning is in order and realistically that is probably the minimum that should be levied. My problem is that Rusf10 (and others, notably PackMecEng) originally pointed out that the piece is an opinion piece and not subject to a peer review process; they were rather viciously belittled for being so "ignorant" about how the academic publishing process works when in fact they were exactly right. That doesn't excuse Rusf10 escalating the rhetoric further; but honestly I think telling an editor "it's hard for me to gauge the depths of your ignorance" and comparing them to an old lady who glues pictures to the wall thinking it's facebook is a pretty incendiary thing to say and I'm not surprised that Rusf10 responded in the way they did. If Drmies was right about the nature of the source, then he might have had a sliver of a point; when he was largely wrong about the nature of the source, from such an established editor such uncollegial snark is absolutely inexcusable. Or so I think, at any rate. GoldenRing (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: What??? The piece I linked was the article, published in JAMA by JAMA's editors, where they launched JAMA Forum and describe its purpose and how it works. Yes, it was launched in the context of the 2012 election; I'm not sure how you go from there to "it's irrelevant." What you said about the source in question was, "it's solid, it's peer-reviewed, it's been vetted more than most other pieces of writing, and that because it is an opinion piece a whole bunch of other editors besides the usual reviewers have looked it over" and made repeated personal attacks on other editors who disagreed with you (diffed above). I'll ask you again: how do you reconcile what you said about the source with how the editors of JAMA describe JAMA Forum as working? Could you, just possibly, be wrong, and owe a few editors an apology? GoldenRing (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time today reviewing the RfC thread where all this happened. I have a few thoughts on this. The proposed wording, in my opinion, did slightly overstate the case in that it was written as if there had been a peer-reviewed study. I didn't notice anybody overtly claiming the study was formally peer-reviewed, but I can see how Rusf would have thought that people were thinking that. So it was fair game for them to point out that it was was an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed study. Had they stopped at that we wouldn't be here. Unfortunately the rest of their contributions to the thread put them decidedly in "net-negative" territory and make me question whether someone who so casually equates scientists with cable news "pundits" or who suggests that academic journals are about as true as anything you happen to read on the internet, can be trusted to follow our sourcing policies. On top of that there was the bludgeoning and strawman arguments and the attacks on other editors. I think a logged warning is an absolute minimum, but I don't know what it should say, and I don't know that it will do any good anyway, because I don't think Rusf understands what the problem is. ~Awilley (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed wording of warning: "Rusf10 is warned against using purely personal opinion when assessing the quality of sources used in the area under discretionary sanctions. Specifically, when calling a source fringe theory or similar, and that source appears in a publication generally held reliable by Wikipedia editors, Rusf10 must provide links to other reliable sources that explicitly share the same assessment about the source. Rusf10 is also warned to make sure their summaries of other editors' views about sources are accurate." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Two points; I'm not too happy about the statement about fringe sources, because such sources are very rarely dealt with by mainstream sources (because they are fringe) and therefore trying to prove a source to be a fringe source is often an attempt to prove a negative. Second, I do think the warning should include assumptions of bad faith on Rusf10's part. Vanamonde (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: What wording would you suggest to warn Rusf10 against dismissing sources appearing in reliable publications as garbage with no evidence to back up their assessment? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I think the first part of what you proposed is just fine: I'd suggest phrasing it as "Rusf10 is warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources." Vanamonde (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: That sounds all right to me. The only little quibble I have is that not all valid reasons for objecting to a source are listed in policy but admins can use their judgment if the behavior occurs again. Any suggestions for the assuming bad faith warning? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to see something about not escalating disputes; is there anything wrong with "warned to assume good faith, work collegially and not to escalate disputes?" It's generic, but covers the bases. GoldenRing (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it would be covered by a warning to not engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. ~Awilley (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Rusf10 is warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior." GoldenRing, any warning for Drmies? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: That sounds good to me, though I would add "...and assuming bad faith in other editors." Vanamonde (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rusf10, that works at a pinch. I think what's wrong with their editing has been hashed out pretty thoroughly here and if they don't change it's going to escalate pretty quickly. And yes, I think Drmies should likewise be warned against battleground editing - in particular belittling other editors. GoldenRing (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will do the logged warning for Rusf10. GoldenRing, whether or not to log a warning for Drmies is up to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I would object to the warning for Drmies. Their tone near the end wasn't ideal but doesn't rise to needing a logged warning in my opinion. Also I don't see anything approaching a consensus for warning Drmies in this section. In fact I can only find one admin (GoldenRing) who who specifically took issue with Drmies. ~Awilley (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this on Drmies’ talk, so I came to see what the fuss was about. He’s not misrepresenting anything: he’s saying that peer-reviewed journals have a reputation to protect and that while an opinion piece may not rise to the level of an academic article, they aren’t going to simply allow some crazy person to publish absolute nonsense. There is a gradient between blogs from Randy in Boise and the opinions of academics who have published in peer-reviewed journals that are hosted by a very prestigious journal, even if not subject to formal peer-review (see WP:SPS, which this isn’t, but it makes the central point pretty clear.) Yes, these are opinions and they should be reported as such and not in Wikipedia’s voice, but a warning to Drmies here would be highly inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2018 (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