Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:37, 4 May 2020

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

Yae4

There is consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from climate change. Also noting that, as this is the user's first sanction, an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted. ~Awilley (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2020 (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 Yae4

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Yae4 (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/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

2020-03-28 Adding Forbes comment by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a climate change contrarian, for claims of "suppression" of a climate change contrarian - sourced, bizarrely, to a profile attacking Pielke in the "DeSmog blog".
2020-03-28 Forbes blog (non-RS, see WP:RSP) with extensive quote from Robert L. Bradley Jr. (a promoter of a free-market anti-interventionist position on climate change), promoting climate change denialist talking points.
2020-04-24T06:19:56 Reverts to include citations to primary material at climate change denialist group the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
2020-04-06T17:04 New article presenting climate change denialist talking points, e.g. extensive quote from musician Harold Ambler dismissing climate change as "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind".
2020-03-30 adding invalid tags to Skeptical Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted then again and again.
2020-04-02 Addition of synthesis serving to undermine the reputation of Climate Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by cherry-picking superficial criticisms from an assessment that was overwhelmingly entirely positive (see talk:Climate Feedback).
[1] (admin only(, adding references to https://principia-scientific.org/, a seriously fringe website, on now-deleted Mototaka Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[2], initial creation of Mototaka Nakamura, seriously cites Cooley, Richie (2019-09-22). Climate Change and Bible Prophecy. Richie Cooley. ISBN 978-0-463-55559-0. as a primary source.

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 2020-01-15 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In Yae4's view many articles have been "FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists". Climate change alarmist is a pejorative used to dismiss mainstream views on climate change (and "a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake" according to that linked article).

Holding a fringe POV is theoretically fine, Wikipedia does not require ideological groupthink, but his POV comes across in disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views in a contentious area at a time of heightened political tension, and that is not fine.

I believe that a restriction from at least mainspace editing related to climate change is justified. Explaining reality-based policies such as WP:FRINGE to editors who reject the mainstream view is a source of tension and burnout, and, bluntly, wasted time. Guy (help!) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Yae4

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 Yae4

Immediately before this, I questioned three JzG/Guy Guardian "blogposts" sources. (Reference "Guardian blogs"). Previously, I created Climate Forecast Applications Network, which remains after JzG/Guy's speedy, delete.

Roger_A._Pielke_Jr. is expert on "policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change." At Noticeboard JzG/Guy: I don't know if it's reliable or not. At least it has the advantage of supporting the mainstream view., and kept/updated DeSmogBlog sources in articles. Prior Forbes blog source was reverted because "author has strong personal POV."
Blog sources and attribution rules seem inconsistently applied. I've observed practices (#1), and sought guidance. Robert L. Bradley Jr., Phd "with distinction," and decades experience, is "author of several books on energy economics."
was discussed at Judith Curry, where, there, was consensus. Climate Models for the Layman is essentially identical to (self-published) Climate Models for Lawyers on Curry's blog site, and presents her views.
Harold_Ambler, author, musician, teacher (rower and surfer), got much notice, co-wrote/edited Ever True, history of Brown Crew (cited), wrote Don't Sell Your Coat, was controversially published on HuffPost, and got US Senate attention.
Skeptical_Science has many self-published and blog sources, bias, noted long ago; my assessment.
I wrote 41% of Climate Feedback, which demonstrates useful, lasting contributions. However, poor (Axios), non-attributed sources remain. "IFCN concludes its investigation into Science Feedback complaint" was removed, but several Poynter sources remain. NPOV should say they were certified, but all 3 annual IFCN/Poynter reviews had criticisms, and they were investigated; Conclusion: "the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."
/8. Mototaka Nakamura, ScD : impressive qualifications, decades climate modeling, noticed by numerous sources, some stronger, some weak; h-index 60% above widely cited blogger Dana Nuccitelli (13 versus 8).

JzG/Guy's Climate change alarmist quote source is a 404 (and bad archive link). Details matter. Kerry_Emanuel starts the paragraph: Dividing the entire field of climate research into “believers,” “skeptics,” “deniers,” and so on is a particularly egregious tactic deployed by those who wish to discredit climate research. Science is not about belief, it is about evidence. Projections of climate change by the IPCC are deeply skeptical, and there is no attempt to hide the large uncertainty of climate forecasts. The possible outcomes, as far as we have been able to discern, range from benign to catastrophic.

"huge anti-fans": See "huge fan" by recruiting editor.

Jlevi criticism contrasts previous: "Good going!", "Awesome work here." Bringing sources to Talk pages? Apologies for "collapse" if offended; noting 7 back/forth self-revert-indecision. When admin/editor JzG/Guy uses "bizarre" DeSmogBlog and Guardian blogposts, etc., I sometimes "step back" (disengage).

@Jlevi: You now have two articles deleted, same as I have two, except yours were in less contentious "tech" topic area. I don't think it's a wiki-crime to try and fail. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Hob Gadling may "turn over a new leaf" after civility issues, this enforcement seems out of proportion.
Definition unsure; however, Bishonen and El_C seem "involved." (history available)

@Bishonen: You closed a related article delete, which is no problem as "purely admin role." However, you said you were "already following Yae4's tendentious editing with growing concern," indicating "strong feelings" before this. (Aside: Why had you not communicated such concerns?) @El C: Closed a Noticeboard which is "purely admin," however, felt strongly enough to delete communication from talk page, during direct communication attempts with JzG/Guy. Earlier involved in Snooganssnoogans dispute; Snooganssnoogans created Climate_Feedback, #6 here. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate, My creating Dave Hakkens, Precious Plastic, Stephen_Yafa, or David J. Rose while banned from "climate change broadly construed" seems doubtful. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Not sure I can take space or time to discuss it here. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoNeonate:Thank you for at least previously attempting an explanation of general WP climate topic guidance. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death:First "climate" involvement was mid-January, non-neutral titled Noticeboard. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs, PackMecEng, JFG, Atsme, and Springee:, Thank you for your comments and suggestions. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: After Jzg/Guy complained, I toned the heading down. That didn't stop them from complaining again here. Conclusion: Toning it down didn't matter. Plus, having a POV is no wiki-crime. JzG has an extensive POV essay (TL;DR). -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Thank you for having a more balanced, flexible approach, as I also saw at Hob Gadling's civility dispute. Sorry in advance for what some may criticize as WP:SOAP. I don't know how to help except to say: (1) If my ability to pick and choose topics to edit is severely restricted, then my editing will be similarly reduced, for whatever time period. I volunteer to take a 1-3 month (warmth of summer) break from climate-related articles, and most of WP, to consider whatever specific suggestions for change I get here or on my Talk page.

Collapsed comments 2-10 by Yae4

(2) Editing productively in other less controversial topic areas of interest, as I have already done, is very different than editing in the climate area (except for several articles where JzG/Guy has followed) me. More during a topic ban would not demonstrate much, and feels like trying to extort more volunteer time as a penalty. The topic difference is not my understanding of wiki-rules, but may be not understanding why wiki-rules are applied so differently in the climate area, or why non-civil behavior is more tolerated from "non-fringe POV" editors there, or my lack of "belief" in "fringe" treatment of climate. (3) I am unimpressed and unconvinced by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli et al 2013 study of studies, or similar approaches by others. On climate science and model predictions, I value stated opinions of one MIT (or Georgia Tech) PhD climate scientist more than 10-100 opinions inferred by historians, sociologists, web developer cartoonists, cognitive psychologists, politicians, or a master's degree environmentalist blogger with some publications (who do those studies of studies). I'm aware there was a WP list of more scientists who disagree, about 35% of participant editors disagreed with deletion, and Bishonen closed it, seeing "consensus" over a significant minority objection (i.e. <<97% agreement), and siding with (feeling strongly?) a particular view of general scientists vs. climate scientists. I'm aware of the contrasting catch-all "denier" category. (4) I'm aware non-scientist Al Gore promoted the "science is in" approach, and got rich (partly from that, partly other things). There are 4 Huff Post sources in "Climate Reality Project". There are 2 in Al_Gore. "Al Gore’s Stupendous Wealth..." is not used in either article, although the source covers both. Nor is this, nor this. Why is that? Is it a "fringe" view that money may motivate Al Gore? Are those unreliable sources? (5) I'm happy to "step back" or slow down. I already have. I've tried to engage constructively on talk pages. Talk:Climate_Feedback or Talk:Tobacco_industry_playbook shows the (worst) kind of "collaboration" that sometimes results. (6) The fact that JzG/Guy is stressed or something "at a time of heightened political tension" is not my problem, but I'm not unsympathetic to their predicament or their pain when typing. (7) Re: "disruptive article edits and talk space activism": I ask, did anyone act with the spirit of WP:DDE and post any diffs of problematic edits or explain what I did "wrong" on my Talk page? Did JzG/Guy say anything on my Talk page other than "this is normal paranoia. The idea that I'm somehow stalking this editor is laughable and entirely unsupported by evidence, but when people advocate unorthodox views on Wikipedia and can't accept that they are not going to get their way, they often feel they are being persecuted." (~15 days after I first edited a climate article)? Note: El_C also said I was being too aggressive (defending JzG/Guy). (8) My FUBAR list is similar to User:JzG#Shitty_sources at a glance, so why is mine a problem? (9) My authorship remains high at four climate articles discussed here: #1 (no surprise), #1 (sort of a surprise) still top 10 top 5. I'm happy with that. (10) Of the long list at WP:NOTHERE, what have I done? (a) General disruptive behavior, battleground, Little or no interest in working collaboratively? Or is it (b) Expressing unpopular opinions – ~~even extremely unpopular opinions~~ – in a non-disruptive manner? WP:NOTNOTHERE. If the (impartial) feedback here is (a), then please give me specific suggestions of what I should do differently; something more significant than don't use "bizarre" sources like DeSmogBlog (or a self-published religious book), even though JzG/Guy is OK with similar if it supports their view.

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

I would also like to point at "Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here" at the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Ambler discussion. And to this related NPOVN thread: WP:NPOVN § Non-NPOV at Climate Feedback (and budding edit war, poor sources, and more). At the AfD, voters are disparate, as can be expected, especially that the discussion is actually about the subject's notability. As for "anti-fans", shouldn't Wikipedia simply reflect the scientific and academic consensus? The prevention of undue promotion in relation to climate-change denial is part of normal editor duties and not activism. I didn't have the time to dig for diffs yet, but have noticed slow edit wars on various articles. I might post some examples later. An eventual topic ban seems unevitable. —Paleo Neonate – 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This suggests that this may be a domain-specific problem That is also my impression and Yae4 demonstrated an interest in some Computer Science articles; I don't think that a site ban is necessary and it could prevent potentially useful contributions. —Paleo Neonate – 04:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JFG: You do not appear to realize that persistent civil POV pushing in relation to various articles, with the promotion of unreliable sources, is disruptive and wasting the community's precious time. The report is not about a content dispute. —Paleo Neonate – 08:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jlevi

The user does not tend to follow core editing policies on climate-related pages, operating in a manner that make it difficult to engage constructively. I will highlight some WP:RS and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution problems that occurred over a long span of time. Note that these diffs occurred on WP:BLP pages.

- diff from 21 January 2020 Non-RS sources restated on the talk page without any RS-related arguments after removal from a BLP entry (diff Jan 19).

- diff from 23 January 2020 Unwillingness to discuss issues and focus on content.

- diff from 23 January 2020 More ref-bombing without consideration for source quality.

Similar behavior occurred in a recent AFD:

- diff from 20 April 2020 Ref-bombing with demonstrated lack of understanding of WP:RS and WP:N guidelines. These sources were largely present in the article when Yae4 moved it into mainspace (article at that time).

- diff from 20 April 2020 Unwillingness to 1) discuss further, or 2) to consolidate sources.

- diff from 23 April 2020 Collapsing another editor's comments outside the WP:COLLAPSENO talkpage behavioral guideline. Edit: I reverted to Yae4's collapse under the good-faith assumption that they were correctly conducting their behavior, but a review of the relevant guideline makes clear that this wasn't the case. Thus, this provides one example of acting without knowledge or instinct for behavioral guidelines. Jlevi (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that all the interactions above come from my personal interactions with the editor, so I am not an outside observer. However, I think I have provided a reasonable analysis of the diffs in questions, as well as of the lack of movement on these issues.

On quick inspection, it seems like the user's handling of policy outside of the climate domain appears more accurate. This suggests that this may be a domain-specific problem, though I have not engaged with the user extensively outside of the climate domain and hesitate to speak about quality of edits in technology- and company-related articles. 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Added mainspace examples. Jlevi (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I to a large extent take Springee's points. Yae4 brings a lot of enthusiasm, and that's worth supporting. If it were tempered with some judiciousness in the future, then all the better. I'm somewhat more bearish than Springee on the probability of reform, given that article deletions would probably result in reappraisal of one's actions for most (and Yae4 will soon have a third deletion due to lack of awareness of policy), but a permanent topic ban would probably be excessive. Jlevi (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

If this person is such a problem, why have they not been blocked for any length of time? [3]. It seems that this should have been done prior to WP:AE. DS already gives that authority. Shouldn't we try something else first? Buffs (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PackMecEng

El_C & Bishonen How can we be past warning if they have never been warned or sanctioned? PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Correct it is not required. That is not what I was saying though. Why go straight to a sanction when no warnings, sanctions, or issues have occurred before this point? Generally they get a chance to correct problematic behavior before a restriction. If this is something that has been going on this long I would expect to see something, anything in fact before this. PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just feels wrong when an one side of a content dispute brings the other in to get sanctioned, especially given how weak the evidence is and general lack of disruption for the topic area. PackMecEng (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

I don't see much more than disagreement about content here, and the accused editor has replied cogently to accusations. The matter could be settled by a reminder to tread lightly in a DS subject matter, and strictly adhere to RS sourcing. Sanctions such as a TBAN would look punitive rather than preventive at this time. — JFG ^talk 06:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Appears to be a case of a new editor needing a mentor rather than a t-ban or a block right out of the box. Lighten up - let's not run-off all of our newbie editors. Remove your dentures and gum 'em first, especially those who just need a little guidance. It's a learning process. If your ban hammer trigger finger itches, go fight some vandals...j/s. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

Seems like a new editor who probably can contribute once they get the hang of things. A knock upside the head followed by some guidance, not removal from the island, is probably the correct remedy here.

I would start with telling Yae4 the fact that you are here and admins are discussing some form of possible sanctions is a good sign that you dune messed up. But that doesn't nessicarily mean you are a lost cause or can't be fixed. Here are some generally true things that many new editors miss. 1. Not everyone who disagrees with you or reverts your edits s a POV pusher. When you are new, much like a teen you know you are right and those who object are cleraly wrong. That is often not the case. Often it's because you aren't following accepted practices that often aren't obvious to new editors. Things like getting consensus before making changes when edits have been rejected, asking for help if you are certain you are right but, dang it, editors just arnen't hearing you. Sometimes it's good to look back at article histories and see how/why people were able to get consensus for changes. Sometimes it's understanding that you just aren't going to succeed if its you vs several editors. Anyway, when new and enthusiastic it's easy to cross invisible lines then end up here. 2. Pay attention to the diffs above. Try to understand why they are being used as evidence against you. At the same time, for anyone who posed a diff, please be willing to explain why it's wrong so Yae4 will have the knowledge needed to avoid similar mistakes in the future. As for the appropriate "knock", perhaps a warning or perhaps a short term tban (say 1 month). As this is the first official anything I would suggest something other than an indef. Give the editor some rope. Hopefully they will use it to build a bridge not a noose. Springee (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley, Bishonen, and RexxS:, could I offer an alternative suggestion. Several times I've suggested what I have called a soft-indef tban. The idea is that the editor is tbanned until they can show they understand the issue. The idea is that as soon as the editor understands what they did wrong and stops doing those things, the tban becomes punative rather than protection. So in a case like this where there is no prior warning history the tban is indef but also understood that the bar to lift it is light. So they can appeal almost right away (I would suggest waiting at least a week) and if they can explain what bad behaviors they will avoid in the future it gets lifted. The worst case scenario is the ban is put back in place. The best case is that we didn't needlessly tban an editor who was going to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

To those above saying 'Oh they are a new editor'. Check the editing history, despite only starting in August 2019, they are by no means anything close to what a new editor would be.

Quack Quack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Yae4

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

I could support a topic ban. I think the documentation establishes that as an appropriate remedy. At the very least, there needs to be a logged warning alongside a commitment to do better. But we may be past that point now. El_C 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, an (extra) formal warning isn't really necessary in order for sanctions to apply immediately. There is no such requirement. El_C 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, this is a volunteer project, sometimes things slip through the cracks. There is always the prospect of a successful appeal in a while, so that's where I'm still leaning. It doesn't appear likely that Yae4 is able to edit in this topic area without disruption. That is a fact. El_C 20:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am, I have been and will continue to be uninvolved with respect to Yae4. El_C 20:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, that action was taken as an uninvolved admin. Having done so does not make me involved. El_C 15:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was already following Yae4's tendentious editing with growing concern, and I find JzG's collection of diffs and links above convincing. The user only recently changed a fire-breathing section header on their userpage from "Hall of Shame (or Articles FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists)" (quoted by JzG above) to the blander "Hall of Shame (or articles not consistent with "reliable" source coverage)". Support a topic ban from climate change broadly construed. I do think we are past the point of warnings. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Yae4: re [4]: What makes you think I'm an involved admin, or El C either? Please take this opportunity to read WP:INVOLVED. What is the history you mention? Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Yae4: this is getting ridiculous. I won't respond to further sealioning from you. We'll just have to see if any other admins think my post that you mention, clearly visible right here, one inch higher up, suggests I'm "involved" with you. Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Yae4: without prejudice to your position, you appear to be at almost twice your allowed word limit. Would you be kind enough to trim back to no more than 500 words, please? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yae4: I don't see any problem with the four articles you mention, even if you were under a climate change topic ban. It would be climate change that is the defining issue, not the environment in any shape or form. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the request, I'm minded to issue a 12 month topic ban from making any edit on any page related to the climate change topic, broadly construed. Unless opinion here opposes that within the next 24 hours, I'll enact the ban. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I like that, RexxS, except for one thing: I don't favour a situation where a user can simply stop editing until the ban from the topic closest to their heart has expired, and then start on the same topic again, having in the meantime learned nothing about editing Wikipedia. What I like is indefinite T-bans, with encouragement to edit other topics as well as other Wikimedia projects, and then appeal the ban, perhaps after six months — having hopefully learned lots about our principles, policies, and customs. If they can point to constructive editing in those other areas, the appeal is very likely to be granted. Mind you, I won't exactly object to your proposal. I'm just very fond of the "learning while topic banned" principle. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  - You've convinced me, 'Shonen. An indefinite topic ban isn't necessarily forever, and an appeal after six months seems very reasonable. If you want to do the paperwork before I get around to it, please do. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: @Bishonen:, I spent some time looking at this today and I'm a bit uncomfortable with an indefinite topic ban as the first resort. I dug into the user's edit history a bit and I can see that Yae4 has a lot of energy but that energy doesn't always seem to be directed at building an encyclopedia. (There's certainly a battleground approach and I suspect some WP:RGW going on.) It would be nice if that energy could be redirected, which is why I do support a topic ban. What would you think about doing a 6-month topic ban with a warning that returning to pushing fringe narratives after the ban expires will result in the topic ban being reinstated as indefinite? ~Awilley (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Awilley: I could have some sympathy if I hadn't seen this morning's edit by Yae4. Did you see that? There's no appreciation of what the complaints against them are. I think I prefer putting the onus on Yae4 to demonstrate good editing and appeal a ban in six months, rather than someone else having to demonstrate further misconduct after Yae4 just sits it out. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I had seen the userpage, not the edit. (I just had to look up FUBAR.) That was part of what convinced me of the Battleground mentality. I don't typically expect a user to appreciate the complaints against them while they are in the process of being topic-banned. My hope is that they will come to appreciate them in time. If not, it will be less time-consuming for you, me, Bishonen, El_C, or any single admin to reinstate the topic ban than it would for us to go through an appeal here. ~Awilley (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also open to the suggestion by Springee. Maybe the easiest way to do that would be to stipulate that the ban can be lifted by any single admin (as opposed to going through the whole process here) when that admin is satisfied that Yae understands the problem and is willing to remedy it. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: I draw the opposite conclusion: someone editing in exactly the manner complained of, while facing the prospect of a topic ban, seems even less likely to me to come to appreciate what is required after the event.

The process for appeal is laid down at WP:ACDS #Appeals by sanctioned editors. The first port of call suggested is the admin who imposed the sanction, so that whenever the appeal is straightforward, it can be accepted without unnecessary fuss (this already is a "tban lite"). Therefore, if an appeal is heard at AE, or at AN, or at ARCA, it means that the enforcing administrator has either not been consulted or opposes it. In either case, you're not looking at a straightforward appeal and it is not obvious that the sanctioned editor has demonstrated the good editing expected for the topic ban to be lifted.

With all due respect to Springee, they don't have to make the difficult decisions, nor clean up the consequences of not getting them right. The idea of any admin being able to lift an AE sanction cuts across the setup of AE, where the judgement of the enforcing administrator is paramount. I would not be happy to see an AE action – especially one imposed after consultation and consensus at AE – simply being overturned by another admin without "the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator".

The result of allowing a topic-banned editor back to editing in the affected area without being reasonably certain that they will not cause problems again, will be more disruption to the encyclopedia and another debate here to re-impose sanctions. I prefer some means of being reasonably certain.

Nevertheless, as I don't see any prospect of consensus for my proposal made yesterday, I'll withdraw the offer and await other solutions. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I don't know of any administrator who would unilaterally overturn the sanction without looking deep enough to be "reasonably certain" that the problem is resolved. (Do you?) Another idea if you don't object: I'd be happy to place an indef topic ban myself and then handle the appeal (if it comes) on my own too. If that doesn't work then I won't stand in the way of the indef. ~Awilley (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: I don't know of any administrator who could unilaterally overturn any AE sanction placed by another admin without being de-sysopped – no matter how deeply they had looked. You can take any reasonable AE action you choose, of course; that's the whole point of how AE works. But you would do so in the knowledge that I had concerns over the lack of any indication of the time you expected Yae4 to observe the topic ban. I can't speak for Bishonen, but her comment to me above seems indicative of a similar position. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with RexxS. Usually people are on their best behaviour when their behaviour is being discussed on a noticeboard, as opposed to cocking a snook at the discussion, as here. Yae4 restored his belligerent header "FUBAR'd by climate alarmists" to his page just a couple of hours after RexxS's original topic ban proposal above. That's a poor look. I don't know what is in Yae4's head, but it certainly could be that they really want this attack on their opponents on their page and realise they won't be able to put it there once the topic ban is in force. "Unpromising" would be a weak word for that.

The difference between you, AW, placing an indefinite ban on your own + handling an appeal on your own, and RexxS doing it on behalf of AE, seems rather finespun, since Yae4 would in any case be encouraged to go to the "placing" admin first with an appeal. The differences would be a) it sounds from the way you put it like your verdict on that appeal would be final, whereas RexxS's could be appealed further to the admins or the community, at AE or AN. And b) an appeal to you could be made quickly, whereas one to RexxS + AN/AE would have little chance before six months had passed. Which of the differences is it that makes you prefer your own suggestion, or is it both? I'm not sure I believe in a), btw — surely if an admin declines to lift a sanction, it can always be appealed to the community? Bishonen | tålk 03:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bish, a) doesn't make sense to me at all, so closer to b) I think, but without any arbitrary timeframe. Could be a month, could be 6 months, could be a year, could be never. The idea was a simple way to implement Speingee's "lite" suggestion by allowing the unban to happen at a lower level (like a regular unblock) instead of going through the AE process. Nothing special about me; you or Rex or anybody could do it. I just volunteered because I had brought it up. Anyway it looks like the consensus here is for indef, and I won't stand in the way of that. ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Father

There is consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics and related people. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 3 May 2020 (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 Eternal Father

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Eternal Father (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) :

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

2020-04-28 cites a Fox News opinion piece in support of tendentious content on Michael Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof
2020-04-28 introduces negative BLP content to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by Wikieditor19920
2020-04-28 Editoriliaising at Mike Cernovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), rverted by Grayfell
2020-04-24 Unsourced promotion of Mike Cernovich, reverted by JzG
2020-04-20 WP:UNDUE promotin of Mike Cernovich at Jeffrey Epstein, reverted by Calton
2020-04-19 tendentious addiution of Mike Cernovichg at Investigative journalism, reverted by JzG (n.b: there is consensus at talk:Mike Cernovich that he is not a journalist, and he admits he only calls himself one to trigger people).
2020-04-18 Promotion of Mike Cernovich at Roger Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by Grayfell; reinserted and reverted by Calton; reinserted and reverted again by Calton; reinserted and reverted by Muboshgu

There are plenty more where those came from.

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above (diff).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Eternal Father came to my notice as a result of promtional editing of Mike Cernovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he argued (unsuccessfully) to classify Cernovich as a journalist, based on WP:SYN (see my analysis of the propoosed sources at permalink). He has since then received warnings and advice from many experienced Wikipedians including Calton, Doug Weller, Muboshgu and MelanieN. Bluntly, I don't think he's getting it.

It seems clear that Eternal Father is a fan of Mike Cernovich's work, which is a red flag in itself given that Cernovich is pretty much universally described as a right-wing provocateur or troll. He's also a fan of Project Veritas. This likely explains the recurrent problem of failure to understand what constitutes reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, as exemplified in the Hoaxed article, and what constitutes OR/SYN, per the Cernovich article.

In order to reduce drama, I think Eternal Father should have a 12 month topic ban from AP2, to give him time to learn Wikipedia's sourcing and content policies in areas less prone to strife. Guy (help!) 09:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG A narrower ban would be fine by me but should probably include O'Keefe / Project Veritas and Jack Posobiec as well, since those are also a focus. I agree that the principal problem as seen to date is centred on Cernovich but I read it as right-wing faux journalists (not disputing your underlying point that this is much narrower than the entirety of US politics and, implicitly, that excessively broad sanctions are to be avoided). Guy (help!) 16:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[ diff]

Discussion concerning Eternal Father

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 Wikieditor19920

I definitely had a big problem with this user's addition at the Joe Biden article. It strings together information to suggest guilt in a way that sources do not explicitly do, and some sources have taken active efforts to avoid, namely conflating the Biden inappropriate touching with the sexual assault allegation. Whether this on its own warrants a ban, I don't know. I've seen a lot of concerning behavior at Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and I doubt all of it will be sanctioned. I don't think that revert on its own warrants a ban rather than a warning. However, if it's part of an overall pattern of POV editing as JzG suggests, a ban might be appropriate. Will leave that for others to decide.

@Eternal Father: WP:SYNTH. The content you added is in a reliable source, but presented to imply a conclusion not stated by the source. And please place your replies in the appropriate section: yours. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit) I've moved EF's reply to his section, since he chose to reply directly under my statement. This is after I asked him to do so himself here and on his talk page. This user does not follow rules even when asked to do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eternal Father

Note: more information can be found on the talk pages of those articles Several users have consistently reverted edits, a pattern which may indicate political bias on their part, if not for assumed good faith. None of the edits have been found to be factually untrue and fall under subjective and matters of opinion, like how reliable sources, like Bloomberg and Fox News consider Cernovich to be a journalist, it seems multiple editors "oppose" this because they don't like his work. From my perspective, simply adding basic facts (backed by RS) is considered "promotion" by those that simply don't like Cernovich or other figures. As for BRD, I've seen plenty of B (bold), R (revisions), but not, however, much discussion on the talk pages by those that have make the revisions.

Why do the articles on Steve Bannon and Sean Spicer get to include an infobox module of their military record, but not Cernovich or Posobiec (whose article calls him an "internet troll" and has multiple instances of neutrality violations)? That doesn't make much sense to me.

The Mike Cernovich article, along with others, does not currently have a neutral point of view. He filed several motions, which are public record and have been substantially reported on. To deny this is to deny fact, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia.

1. The Michael Flynn source may include opinion, but the supplemental court filing is fact, and the statement from his attorney indicated that exculpatory evidence ("Brady Disclosure") was produced. Once those documents are made available to the public, this will be expounded upon further.

2. The same content is in the main Joe Biden article, and should be in the allegation article, as his other instances of confirmed inappropriate behaviour are relevant.

3. A simple analysis of the diff logs will show that JzG was the one who first "editorialized" the Seder section of the Cernovich article, under the deceptive guise of "removing unreliable sources".

Original: "On November 28, 2017, Cernovich published a post on [Medium] that resurfaced a deleted tweet progressive talk radio host Sam Seder wrote in 2009 joking about convicted statutory rapist and fugitive film director Roman Polanski.^[1]^[2] The tweet read,"

JzG: "Cernovich promted a conservative attack on Sam Seder"

4. Cernovich has been considered part of the IDW.,but again, that is a subjective matter of opinion, and it seems that Wikipedia is dependent upon the press to decide. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html

5. There were only 3 parties to the motion: Alan Dershowitz, and then Mike Cernovich filed along to that motion, and then the Miami Herald. So "other media" doesn't make sense in that context.

6. I believe the accuser is referring to the addition of investigative journalist and Project Veritas Chairman, James O'Keefe (not Cernovich), to the list of notable investigative reporters, to which I see no issue.

7. Allegations of jury bias in a Federal case are a serious matter, especially given the publicity that it received. Cernovich did, in fact, file a motion to unseal the jury questionnaires., which is a relevant and notable detail of the Roger Stone Trial.

Overall, this seems to be a matter of the accuser's narrative, not facts, as those have not been disputed. Eternal Father (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ O'Connor, Lydia (December 5, 2017). "MSNBC Gives In To Disingenuous Right-Wing Smear, Fires Sam Seder". Huffington Post. Oath Inc. Retrieved December 10, 2017.
^ "MSNBC to Cut Ties With Sam Seder After Roman Polanski Rape Joke (Exclusive)". TheWrap. 2017-12-04. Retrieved 2017-12-05.

user:wikieditor19920 See statement below. The content in the Joe Biden Allegation article is also in the main Joe Biden article. Why have you not challenged or removed it from there as well? Eternal Father (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Am I the only one seeing a pattern of issues being brought to WP:AE by JzG that a) are at least partly frivolous in nature b) should simply be handled by Admins via DS (if warranted) and c) seem to be targeting conservatives? The first piece of evidence seems to be that he added a sourced addition to an article. Buffs (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I get it. You don't like conservative opinions. He's hardly a conspiracist (certainly not a "noted" one). He certainly is pro-Trump. But regardless of that, it was a piece published by a reliable source of information. If you find something in it inaccurate, that's ok! Point it out and we can talk about it, but you cannot dismiss it just because he's conservative or has made some inaccurate statements in the past. Buffs (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling dissenting opinions of someone as a "conspiracy theorist" + looking at his previous contributions...I'm pretty confident my assessment is spot on. As for reviewing our core policies, perhaps you would be so kind as to reduce the vague and condescending remarks and specify what policy you're referring to; it seems rather pointless to guess. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...my opinion of your assessment definitely stands, NorthBySouthBaranof. Buffs (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Buffs, if you think that an opinion column written by a noted conspiracy theorist is ever a usable source for anything other than the columnist's attributed opinion, you may wish to review WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs I'm not sure what you want me to call someone who peddles false, misleading, and unsubstantiated claims about Hillary Clinton, "deep state collaborators," and the Russia investigation; describes Robert Mueller as "illegitimate and corrupt"; and literally changes his mind about whether grand juries are good or bad overnight depending on whether the grand jury is investigating Hillary or Trump. You are experienced enough to know that we have higher standards for sourcing than that. An opinion column written by a partisan columnist clearly and indisputably fails WP:V for any other purpose than sourcing the attributed opinion of the columnist. Never facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Buffs, once you finish reviewing those core policies, you might want to read NorthBySouthBaranof's comment again, since nowhere there does NbSB say anything even close to "I don't like conservative opinions," or even imply it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doug Weller than an AP ban seems like a better solution than a single-subject ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rusf10

Another frivolous filing by the biased administrator JZG. I don't see anything more than a content dispute here. If you want to know how out of mainstream JZG's views are, just read his essay User:JzG/Politics. He describes the Democratic Party as "a centre-right party". Sure, I've heard people describe it as center-left or even centrist, but center-right is ridiculous, and it must mean he views Republicans (or anyone that would usually be considered conservative in the United States) as far-right. But he doesn't stop there he goes a step further by accusing the Republican party of voter fraud (isn't that a conspiracy theory???) and it compares to the Conservative Party which is run by "white nationalists" and "people who want to go back to the 1950s, when it was fine to be racist". Someone with extremist views like this should at the very least not have any administrative duties in the area of politics.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Eternal Father

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

It would seem sufficient to block his editing the Cernowitz article, and from inserting his name elsewhere in Wikipedia . That's the principal complaint. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean a topic ban from anything regarding Mike Cernovich anywhere on the project. I'd certainly support that. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The only question is whether the topic ban should be broadened to include O'Keefe / Project Veritas and Jack Posobiec as Guy suggests. I only see diff 6 as mentioning O'Keefe, but it may be worth asking if there is further evidence available? --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although looking again at his edits and the above, I think if he's not banned from AP he'll be brought back here again. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object to an AP topic ban? Time to close this. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an indefinite AP topic ban. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Janj9088

Topic ban from EE for one year, broadly construed. Further misconduct, including but not limited to aspersions, will be met with more severe sanctions — probably an indefinite block. I'll note for the benefit of Janj9088, that WP:SPI is the only venue to make claims of socking, anywhere else it is a personal attack. El_C 20:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Indeffed as normal admin action. El_C 21:16, 29 April 2020 (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 Janj9088

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Janj9088 (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: [6] :

You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.
You are required to abide by a civility restriction
Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance

The above restrictions are clearly visible when you try to edit the article in question.

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

Revision as of 03:03, 28 April 2020 Uses bunch of non-scholarly sources such as Pch24.pl, and website www.wehrmacht-polacy.pl
Latest revision as of 11:29, 28 April 2020 reverts with statement Are you afraid of historical truth? What's wrong here? This violates both You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers.
Revision as of 08:52, 28 April 2020 quickly created sockpuppet account used to revert, with comment Undid revision 953621738 by Piotrus (talk) great sources!

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Anyone editing the page is alerted about discretionary sanctions, there is a huge wall of text that opens up stating You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. You are required to abide by a civility restriction Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm. Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision.

Also worrying is the fact that immediately another account was created to reinsert the edits[7]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning Janj9088

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 Janj9088

(user is blocked for 31h for sockpuppetry)

Statement by Piotrus

Setting aside the fact that the user reported here is in violation of discretionary sanctions visible on article's talk page and in the edit mode but also in violation of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations I also find it very suspicious that this account Fireslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created, first to revert at the affected article, then apparently to stalk my edits. I think some quick blocks are in order as I think it is apparent that Fireslow is a sock that is not here to build encyclopedia, but to create mischief. If there is a CU around they could check if there is an obvious connection to the other account, but it is also possible it is a different troll who has been infesting this topic area recently and is just playing around. Hopefully when I wake up tomorrow this will be dealt with with a semi on article and a block on the obvious troll sock accounts... here's hoping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Why are we even here? Cannot someone apply WP:DS? Likewise, I'm loathed to enact a block of someone while they are unable to respond. Buffs (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kyohyi

Procedural comment only: Awareness requirements as specified on WP: AC/DS were not met prior to this filing. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Janj9088

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

This seems unambiguous. POV-pushing, aggressive edits and edit summaries, and sock-puppetry. That sounds like time for a siteban. Guy (help!) 15:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pace RexxS, I formally propose a one year AE block which any uninvolved administrator is free to extend to a CBAN of whatever duration, after discussion at AN or ANI. Guy (help!) 22:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guy that it looks pretty unambiguous. However AE actions are limited to "revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year", and "enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans" (WP:ACDS #Sanctions). We need to use WP:AN for site bans. Any uninvolved admin could issue an indefinite block on the evidence, but it wouldn't be an AE action. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng

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 PackMecEng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAP2

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

1 May Makes defamatory claims about Peter Strzok, a living person, which are poorly sourced or entirely unsourced.
1 May ~~Abuses rollback to~~ Reverts my redaction of those statements and a warning that BLP applies to all spaces on the encyclopedia.
1 May Reinserts the unsupported, unsourced defamatory statement with a threat - "Yeah, don't touch my post again."
1 May Once again reinserts unsupported, unsourced defamatory statement after being warned.

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, here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

PackMecEng made a talkpage post on Talk:Peter Strzok which made several unsourced or poorly-sourced defamatory claims about the article subject. Their claims included misconduct, lying, or deception - sourced to opinion columns and NewsMax articles, or in some cases entirely unsourced whatsoever. In this edit, I redacted those claims and warned PackMecEng that BLP applies to all spaces in the encyclopedia. In response, PackMecEng abused rollback to undo my redaction and warning. They then repeated the unsourced statement again after I redacted it again. I request that ~~rollback be removed from PackMecEng and that~~ they be warned that BLP applies in all spaces. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, PackMecEng wrote The Hill reporting notes from director of counterintelligence on what Strzok said: What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" However, the cited source nowhere says the word Strzok and thus obviously does not say that Strzok said that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given this user's continuing inability to understand how BLP requires us to use quality sources and not make unsupported defamatory claims about people, I request that PackMecEng be topic-banned. They clearly are not able to edit in this topic space with the due consideration for facts and sensitivity required when dealing with living people.

The issue here is one common to political articles - we have an editor who races to the biography of a living person related to a controversy in order to stuff it full of dubious, unsupported, and outright false claims based upon poor partisan sources and misrepresentation of sources. A two-minute reading of The Hill article would have demonstrated to PackMecEng that the source did not, indeed, say what they claimed it said. However, instead of taking that time to investigate and make sure that what they said about a living person was correct - they simply hit the rollback button, because how dare anyone dispute their personal perception and pre-planned condemnation of Strzok which so preoccupied him as to claim that a source which never mentioned the words Peter Strzok supported a claim that Peter Strzok said something. They apparently aren't capable of taking their blinders off and editing with a fair mind and a sensitive eye in this topicspace, so they shouldn't be allowed to edit it anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Which Hill piece attributes the quote to Strzok? Not the one linked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: If you're referring to this opinion column in The Hill, it also does not say that Strzok said those words.All this led to a meeting at the highest levels of the FBI which included the director and the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, who took copious notes. It is in these notes that he reflected the discussion that took place about Flynn, writing: “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute or get him fired.” That, in fact, says that Strzok did not say those words. Strzok was not the FBI's head of counterintelligence. He was a high-ranking official in that division, but he was not the head of CI. That's besides the fact that opinion columns are obviously not acceptable reliable sources for claims of fact about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You're 100% right. Struck accordingly. Strzok was a Chief of Counterespionage and a Deputy Director of Counterintelligence, it seems I conflated the two. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the statement about rollback - I will take on good faith that it was inadvertent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: No one - certainly not me - has suggested that PackMecEng be blocked or banned from the encyclopedia. What I have suggested is that, at the very least, a strong logged warning is in order for misrepresenting sources to negatively portray a living person, and that given their evident disinterest in admitting that they have seriously violated policy in this case, a topic ban on Peter Strzok, broadly construed, may be in order if they can't demonstrate that they a) understand that they seriously violated policy and b) can be trusted to edit in that topic space responsibly in the future. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: You're absolutely, 100% wrong that It really isn't NorthBySouthBaranof's place to redact other people's comments. The Biographies of Living Persons policy is straightforward and clear: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The statements in question were and are false, defamatory, and not supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source, and therefore must not be on Wikipedia in any fashion. The end.

That it was on a talk page is immaterial: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. I don't have to file an ANI report or find an admin to enforce a policy, and the burden of evidence falls entirely on PackMecEng, not me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Again, I'm not sure how to make it any clearer: You are 100% wrong. The cited source never mentions Peter Strzok. Go ahead, do a word search, I dare you. The source does not say that the notes were about anything Peter Strzok said. The association of that line with Peter Strzok is entirely an invention of the mind of PackMecEng. And that is entirely the problem here - PackMecEng apparently came to Talk:Peter Strzok with the single-minded intent of depicting Strzok as a villain and was so hell-bent on doing it as to make unsupported claims, read nonexistent words in sources which don't support their statements, and then double down three times when challenged, rather than read the source, realize they were wrong, and acknowledge their error. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning PackMecEng

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 PackMecEng.

The rollback was actually a miss click, meant to hit undo but you reverted before I could. Also what threat? PackMecEng (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The altering interview notes is from here, specifically Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik reacted strongly on Thursday to the news FBI officials to altered a 302 report and reopened the case when the initial analysis indicated no crime had been committed. PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related to that this was a talk page discussion warning, ironically, that the article might get a bunch of POV pushers and bad sources and to keep an eye out for such things. I noted below that here, it was not a specific proposal for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per The Hill But then FBI agent Peter Strzok intervened with the idea that the never-used Logan Act could be invoked against Flynn; Strzok was cheered on by FBI attorney Lisa Page. All this led to a meeting at the highest levels of the FBI which included the director and the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, who took copious notes. It is in these notes that he reflected the discussion that took place about Flynn, writing: “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute or get him fired.” No constructional protections were afforded Flynn, who was even advised by the FBI not to bring a lawyer when he was questioned by agents. PackMecEng (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another Yahoo Dated January 24, 2017, the same day of the White House interview with Flynn that was conducted by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, the handwritten notes apparently reveal that at least one agent believed the purpose of the interview was to entrap Flynn — or he believed that was the goal of his fellow agents and was trying to push back on them in the name of institutional integrity. Though again, this was not purposed content for the article but listing sources and something to watch out if it gets more coverage. I appreciate NorthBySouthBaranof's wanting to protect BLP but I think they jumped the gun a little going straight to a only warning followed closely with AE was overkill. The reverts as I added more sources were not the best either. PackMecEng (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am not a fan of the extreme bad faith assumptions above by NBSB. Things like this & this are pretty unacceptable and demonstrate an aggressive battleground attitude. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind the Hill opinion piece I mention here and was the first source I linked on the talk page covered what I was saying, though not in the right place for where I said it. I had the two Hill sources, numbers 1 & 6, which I had backwards in my first post. The source [1] I list at the article and above here I thought covered the disputed text. You mention that because it is an opinion piece it is not a valid source is for a BLP, if I wanted to use it for info in the article it would have to be attributed to Penn and then would probably fail weight. But the post was not about purposed text or something to add to the article, but a cautionary note. Now if I am mistaken about what the source says I do apologize but that is where I was coming from. With the Hill opinion piece would you consider it a BLP violation what I wrote? At the same time I do not think that excuses NBSB's behavior here or at the article, their aggressive behavior and misrepresenting the situation are a problem. One that has been noted by others but largely ignored for a long time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean I did float it on talk first. PackMecEng (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

This is a developing story still CNN, WaPo. I think that as this is not being forced into an article itself but being discussed on the talkpage a reminder to be cautious will suffice. Remember to approach BLPs with a "do no harm" thought process.--MONGO (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Well, I was hoping to make this an early night - it is Friday after all - but I've been spending it on research instead. I typically try to steer clear of RECENTISM but when a credible author like Jonathan Turley publishes an article on his website regarding this same topic, it begs to be read, if for no other reason than to learn about what's going on with Strzok according to a legal analyst for NBC & CBS News as well as being a highly credible professor and Chair of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School. He discussed the release of the new FBI documents and he also mentions Strzok's role but I won't quote his analysis here. I'll just leave this link for the admins reviewing this case to read for themselves, if they haven't already seen it. I also recommend that prior to making any decisions in this case - including a potential boomerang - that those involved in this case become a bit more familiar with the information at the link I just provided, as well as the articles PackMecEng attempted to discuss before being drug over here. We don't have to like the contents, and as far as I know, we are still allowed to discuss it on an article TP with links to the articles we're discussing. If we intend to add controversial material to a BLP, we use in-text attribution, verify the information is published by a RS and cite it accordingly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, you brought up an incident about something PME said/did over 2 years ago? And now you are using that and a simple TP discussion that the OP should have handled differently as your reason to justify a strong warning? PME has not done anything that reaches such a level of scrutiny much less a logged warning, especially in light of the diffs used against them. I cannot imagine that the arbs who created AE intended for it to be used for content and source questions rather than egregious disruption. What you are suggesting now is clearly disproportionate and comes across as punishment for PME daring to mention breaking news editors may need to prepare for. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Point of order here. I see no warning that this would be taken to Arbitration Enforcement nor of discretionary sanctions. As such, this complaint belongs at WP:AN or WP:ANI for BLP violations. Likewise, this user has never once been blocked via normal means. Escalating to this venue seems preposterous. Many other avenues are available. This is the second such recent request of a conservative voice going straight from no blocks to a ban with no prior notice. It seems more than in bad faith to take this route. WP:IAR, maybe, but twice in a week? Without following our standards of warnings, blocks, bans progression?...unseemly, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your facts straight before you comment Keep it WP:CIVIL. My facts are straight. I never stated that there was a requirement to do so. I stated that we have standards of escalating discipline for disruptive behavior. This goes straight from a warning, past any block for disruptive behavior, past any block under discretionary sanctions (which have already been authorized by ArbCom), and brings it here; it's unnecessary. Furthermore, reasonable people can disagree about whether the information is accurate. Accordingly, no, it doesn't belong here. As for the AE notice and sanctions, the AE notification is listed as the history of their talk page; it doesn't specify the edit. The DS notification indeed was in February, but is within the realm of possibility that he didn't realize that this specific page was under DS. My point is that we're jumping straight to a ban when literally NO other actions (other than a single vague warning) have even been attempted. XavierItzm is spot on too. Lastly, you're pretty clearly advocating to Topic Ban him...that's a ban. I never said "ban from wikipedia"; it's a lot easier to win an argument when you intentionally misquote/bring in strawmen arguments... Buffs (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about a single disputed comment on a talk page. Whether it's accurate or not, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that it was a simple mistake. It really isn't NorthBySouthBaranof's place to redact other people's comments. I too would have taken offense at someone changing my remarks, especially in that manner. He should have reported it to WP:ANI and let the admins deal with it rather than argue and edit-war with him. WP:BOOMERANG should apply. Buffs (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The statement was "The Hill reporting notes from director of counterintelligence on what Strzok said...". I don't see this as quoting Strzok but the DCI's comment ON Strzok. Ergo, given the multiple sources, I don't see the issue here. I'm aware of BLP. You should have removed it and then, when re-added, report it to an an appropriate venue. Buffs (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get enforcement on the well-over-the-limit word count for NorthBySouthBaranof? Buffs (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Buffs: As noted above, PME received an AP DS notification in February. There is no requirement that another notification be given before filing an AE report, simply that the editor in question has been informed of the sanctions. Nor is a history of blocks required to file a report here. Please get your facts straight before you comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs: Just a note - You are approaching 500 words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XavierItzm

I was coming here to ARE to raise a formal complaint about an unrelated editor/incident, having already done my due diligence, collected diffs, etc. Then I see the big bold warning at the top about vexatious litigation, and look at this here complaint that is based on a TP suggestion for material to be considered, unrelated DS warnings from other users from months ago, and a single incident where one user asserts WP:BIO, and I wonder how far this case is distanced from the vexatious warning above; after all, consider the contributions above by MONGO, Atsme and Buffs regarding do no harm, fair progression, other media sources, etc.

Consider this: even Swarm got confused by reading the one of six sources for consideration PackMecEng added to which an objection was raised and at first Swarm thought PackMecEng was justified.

Note that NorthBySouthBaranof's objection was to the lack of the word "Strzok", not to the fact that Strzok was Chief of Counterespionage and a Deputy Director of Counterintelligence and not the FBI's head of counterintelligence (like Swarm misread at first). Is Pack not going to be afforded the same margin as Swarm?

I for one think that if warnings are going to be issued, perhaps both parties might be warned. Or perhaps this here ARE will be clarificatory enough for both. XavierItzm (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I agree this was handled poorly by the filer. The Hill piece (the first cite in PME's first edit) is written in a confusing way. On my first read, I too thought the statement was being attributed to Strzok. This could have been handled better with a calm explanation on the article talk page rather than over the top accusations about defaming a BLP, redacting, edit warring, and an AE report seeking a TBAN. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

PackMecEng, I suspect that part of the problem is your use of several dubious/unreliable sources to support your proposition, thus laying a treacherous foundation for any discussion/argument that follows. The sources are notorious for extreme spin, with the last four often getting into counterfactual territory as standard practice when it comes to Trump. This diff contains sources that are credibility killers for AmPol2, and that it involved BLP matters made it even more sensitive:

Just be more careful in the future to use much better sources. Otherwise, the idea of first floating the subject at Talk is proper. Better luck next time. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I commended you for. You did "first float the subject at Talk". Good for you. -- Valjean (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ConstantPlancks

This piece in National Review should clear up any issues here. [14]. Nothing sanctionable nor BLP violations. Most of public responses is that FBI processes were normal investigative techniques rather than defamation of anyone. No one has claimed such behavior was wrong or malicious. Indeed, for WP to conclude that it is would be a BLP violation in itself by insinuating what Strzok did was improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning PackMecEng

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

On the one hand, PME is literally discussing sources, and it may just be a good faith difference in interpretation of what the sources are saying. On the other hand, I can see where the redactions are coming from, because it's not obvious to me where the sources correspond with PME's statements. ~~I could probably give PME a pass on the quotation, because the Hill piece does attribute the quote to Strzok.~~ Sources either say that the note was written by the Director of Counterintelligence or that the author was unknown. I also don't see where the sources mention Strzok "Altering interview notes and trying to purposly get Flynn fired." Even assuming Strzok wrote the note, which no source claims, it would still not substantiate the claim in the slightest. PackMecEng, can you clarify how you believe that your statements are drawn from reliable sources, and not unsubstantiated accusation? As an aside, I wouldn't even broach the topic of revoking Rollback over a single misuse, intentional or not. As PME says it was unintentional, we can probably let that slide. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick googling of the phrase "What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" indicates that the words were probably written by a guy named Bill Priestap example source and that the context is unclear (whether it was personal musings or recording a conversation). I didn't find anything indicating that Peter Strzok said that. But I only clicked on 5 results or so, so maybe I missed something.
For what it's worth, this kind of thing (misrepresenting a source and then doubling down when challenged) is something I explicitly warned PackMecEng against in the past. [15] ~Awilley (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where to go with this. It's been 2 days and PME has not substantiated the claim about Strzok trying to entrap and get Flynn fired. (Nor has she retracted/disavowed it that I can see.) She did provide this source which comes closer than anything I've seen yet to substantiating it, but that's an opinion piece which we all know isn't good enough for BLP issues like this. The Yahoo/National Review source doesn't substantiate it either, nor does the (personal blog?) source that Atsme provided or the CNN and WaPo sources that MONGO provided, though to be fair Mongo was just trying to illustrate that it was a developing story.
XavierItzm made the point above that Swarm initially misread the Hill source. The important difference between Swarm and PME is what Swarm did after this was pointed out. Misrepresenting a source isn't good, but we all make mistakes. The real sin, in my mind, is doubling down on the misrepresentation when it's challenged. In what's supposed to be a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia I see that kind of behavior as more serious than, say, making too many reverts in a day or telling somebody to go eff themselves. Which is why I made a point of warning PME the last time I saw it happen. Maybe I'm in the minority, so I'd rather not impose my personal preferences. But if it were up to me I would at a minimum issue a logged warning, this time with teeth. Like "Doubling down on misrepresenting sources after a misrepresentation has been pointed out to you will result in a topic ban" type warning. Something to convince PME that this is important enough to police herself on and not force other editors into edit wars to remove clear BLP violations. ~Awilley (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venue9

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 Venue9

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Venue9 (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: ARBIPA

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

02:57, 3 May 2020 and 03:01 3 May 2020: Gives WP:FAKE sources, along with purported page numbers and quotations
09:15, 3 May 2020: (1) Changes the post with FAKE sources when countered (2) Also claims at the bottom that my comment of "I am relieved" amounts to support for his claims
13:22, 3 May 2020: Claims at WP:Redirects for discussion that I had agreed with him
13:34, 3 May 2020: When I deny that I had agreed with him, he doubles down saying that I did!
18:30, 3 May 2020: When another user challenges him, he triples down again. Supposedly, "this hoax" meant "not a hoax". This claim is then repeated further four times: [16], [17], [18], [19]

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. 15:02, 1 May 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This account is only a few days old, but the user has devoted the majority of his 70-odd edits to claiming that the Indian political leader Sonia Gandhi's "original name" is "Antonia Maino" (or something related). He is the third largest contributor to Talk:Sonia Gandhi! The majority of the discussion can be found at Talk:Sonia Gandhi#Birth name controversy and the subsection #Alleged sources. After investigating it for a day, I came to the conclusion that the claim is WP:HOAX generated by the political opponents of Sonia Gandhi to underscore her Italian origin, and then popularised by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia information seems to have been copied by a number of Indian news sources and now even appears on Encyclopedia Britannica. (So it hasn't been an easy issue to decide).

The user's contribution was to supply three citations that appeared before 2004, which he later admitted he just copied from the Catalan Wikipedia. When asked for page numbers and quotations, he produced random page numbers and made-up quotations. When challenged on these, he started revising his earlier statements. Meanwhile, having gotten convinced that this was a HOAX, Akhiljaxxn submitted the redirects for Antonia Maino etc. for discussion. The user showed up there and started claiming that I had agreed this was not a hoax. When quizzed by me as well as other users, he continues to persist with this ridiculous claim.

Essentially, the charges are source misrepresentation, gaslighting, obsession with FAKE information, and possibly a politically-driven agenda. Casting aspersions, which happened before he received the ARBIPA alert, is no less of a concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Venue9

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 Venue9

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Venue9

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

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE as a regular admin action, i. e. not per DS, which don't do indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Compare also this SPI. Bishonen | tålk 23:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the World War II history of Poland.[20] I was invited to appeal this sanction in six months (quote) - showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[21]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Dear colleagues.

In light of the recent AE case,[22] I wish to appeal my very old outstanding topic ban; based on evidence of good faith and a substantial period of positive behavior in other topic areas.

I was banned from editing Polish World War Two history articles on June 25th, 2018, almost two years ago.[23] I was originally falsely accused of disruptive editing [24] by now indef banned user Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Icewhiz misrepresented my edits, which involved a dispute about sourcing. If anyone wants more info specifically about that please let me know. (The source I was using was this [25] )

While Icewhiz grossly misrepresented my edits in order to get me sanctioned, I realize now that I made myself open to such an attack by not engaging in discussion more. If I had explained my edits on the talk page and engaged the user in discussion about the text quoted directly from the source (very reliable, as everyone would agree), then perhaps I could have avoided the topic ban all together. From now on, I promise to justify all my edits in the topic area on talk pages, before going forward.

I accepted the ban and proceeded to edit in other topic areas to my best abilities. Since that time, I edited hundreds of different articles including new page creations that received a DYK status. In the two years since the topic ban was imposed, I have learned a lot regarding the proper usage of sources and editing etiquette in general. I didn't run into any problems in other topic areas and I believe my editing there has been quite exemplary.

I would like to have my Topic Ban rescinded since I truly believe it does not serve a purpose anymore. I would like to emphasize that I did not strive to appeal my ban earlier because I was quite satisfied with editing in other topic areas, but I wish to have it lifted now to avoid potential stressful situations such as the one I experienced recently [26] when reverting disruptive editing (to be 100% honest, I also had one block in two years for accidentally violating the ban). According to admins who evaluated this case I unintentionally came very close to violating my topic and some judged that I crossed the line. Since then, I have taken every precaution. I trimmed my watch list to a minimum following suggestion of Awilley, I read twice every article I want to edit, I have also received guidance from RexxS during the case that I learned from and I'm very grateful for that. I’m even asking more experienced editors such as Piotrus [27] or El_C [28] for advice but I'm still worried about making unintentional errors, to the point that I almost stopped editing Wikipedia altogether at one point. I believe the best way to proceed for me as well as the community in general would be to simply have this very old ban lifted. I can promise to be extremely careful and to avoid controversy in any edits I might make in this topic area.

If it would help granting of this appeal I can commit to always discussing any potentially controversial edits on talk first, taking special care with sources, quoting the relevant text and generally making a conscientious effort to avoid controversy.

Thank you for your consideration.GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}

Result of the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}

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

[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.

[MSNBCdupedbysmearcampaignofSederbyDateRapistMikeCernovich-3] O'Connor, Lydia (December 5, 2017). "MSNBC Gives In To Disingenuous Right-Wing Smear, Fires Sam Seder". Huffington Post. Oath Inc. Retrieved December 10, 2017.

[TheWrapMSNBCCutTies-4] "MSNBC to Cut Ties With Sam Seder After Roman Polanski Rape Joke (Exclusive)". TheWrap. 2017-12-04. Retrieved 2017-12-05.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 555: / Line 555: @@
 *'''Blocked''' indefinitely per [[WP:NOTHERE]] as a regular admin action, i. e. not per DS, which don't do indefinite. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 20:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC).
 :*Compare also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Souniel_Yadav&oldid=954722936 this SPI]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 23:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC).
+== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella ==
+; Appealing user :
+{{userlinks|GizzyCatBella}}
+; Sanction being appealed
+Topic ban from the World War II history of Poland.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GizzyCatBella#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction] I was invited to appeal this sanction in six months (quote) - showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing.
+; Administrator imposing the sanction
+{{admin|Sandstein}}
+; Notification of that administrator
+[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#Topic_Ban_appeal]
+=== <span id="Statement_by_.7B.7B.7BAppealing_user.7D.7D.7D"></span>Statement by <nowiki>GizzyCatBella</nowiki> ===
+Dear colleagues.
+In light of the recent AE case,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=949469110#GizzyCatBella]  I wish to appeal my very old outstanding topic ban; based on evidence of good faith and a substantial period of positive behavior in other topic areas.
+I was banned from editing Polish World War Two history articles on June 25th, 2018, almost two years ago.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GizzyCatBella#AE]
+I was originally falsely accused of disruptive editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=847318769&diffmode=source#GizzyCatBella] by now indef banned user {{userlinks|Icewhiz}}.
+Icewhiz misrepresented my edits, which involved a dispute about sourcing. If anyone wants more info specifically about that please let me know. (The source I was using was this [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/polish-neighbors-and-german-invaders] )
+While Icewhiz grossly misrepresented my edits in order to get me sanctioned, I realize now that I made myself open to such an attack by not engaging in discussion more. If I had explained my edits on the talk page and engaged the user in discussion about the text quoted directly from the source (very reliable, as everyone would agree), then perhaps I could have avoided the topic ban all together.
+From now on, I promise to justify all my edits in the topic area on talk pages, before going forward.
+I accepted the ban and proceeded to edit in other topic areas to my best abilities. Since that time, I edited hundreds of different articles including new page creations that received a DYK status. In the two years since the topic ban was imposed, I have learned a lot regarding the proper usage of sources and editing etiquette in general.
+I didn't run into any problems in other topic areas and I believe my editing there has been quite exemplary.
+I would like to have my Topic Ban rescinded since I truly believe it does not serve a purpose anymore. I would like to emphasize that I did not strive to appeal my ban earlier because I was quite satisfied with editing in other topic areas, but I wish to have it lifted now to avoid potential stressful situations such as the one I experienced recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=949469110#GizzyCatBella] when reverting disruptive editing (to be 100% honest, I also had one block in two years for accidentally violating the ban). According to admins who evaluated this case I unintentionally came very close to violating my topic and some judged that I crossed the line. Since then, I have taken every precaution. I trimmed my watch list to a minimum following suggestion of [[User:Awilley|Awilley]], I read twice every article I want to edit, I have also received guidance from [[User:RexxS|RexxS]] during the case that I learned from and I'm very grateful for that.
+I’m even asking more experienced editors such as [[user:Piotrus|Piotrus]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=prev&oldid=948096531&diffmode=source ] or [[User:El_C|El_C]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#Topic_Ban_advice] for advice but I'm still worried about making unintentional errors, to the point that I almost stopped editing Wikipedia altogether at one point.
+I believe the best way to proceed for me as well as the community in general would be to simply have this very old ban lifted. I can promise to be extremely careful and to avoid controversy in any edits I might make in this topic area.
+If it would help granting of this appeal I can commit to always discussing any potentially controversial edits on talk first, taking special care with sources, quoting the relevant text and generally making a conscientious effort to avoid controversy.
+Thank you for your consideration.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 09:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
+=== <span id="Statement_by_.7B.7B.7BUser_imposing_the_sanction.7D.7D.7D"></span>Statement by <nowiki>{{{User imposing the sanction}}}</nowiki> ===
+=== <span id="Statement_by_.28involved_editor_1.29"></span>Statement by (involved editor 1) ===
+=== <span id="Statement_by_.28involved_editor_2.29"></span>Statement by (involved editor 2) ===
+=== <span id="Discussion_among_uninvolved_editors_about_the_appeal_by_.7B.7B.7BAppealing_user.7D.7D.7D"></span>Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <nowiki>{{{Appealing user}}}</nowiki> ===
+=== <span id="Result_of_the_appeal_by_.7B.7B.7BAppealing_user.7D.7D.7D"></span>Result of the appeal by <nowiki>{{{Appealing user}}}</nowiki> ===
+: ''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

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