This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning D.Creish

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

D.Creish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

Edit warring and "crying BLP" on Jared Taylor. Repeated removing sourced material that has been present and relatively unaltered for over one year (compare diff from 15 July 2015 until 24 August 2016 regarding material in second paragraph of lead [1]). Repeated claims of BLP violation where none exist and insistence on gaining consensus, despite clearly editing against long-standing consensus (WP:STATUSQUO). User has reverted edits by Volunteer Marek and myself. All diff below related to this:

1. 03:32, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: rm BLP vio; NY Times was the only good secondary source and it doesn't support the txt. Do not restore w/o consensus
2. 04:33, 26 August 2016 edit summary: Sources included do not describe Taylor as supporting racist ideologies. Removed on good-faith BLP grounds. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. You must not restore without consensus
3. 04:40 26 August 2016 edit summary: Undid revision 736242559 by Volunteer Marek (talk) There can be no consensus to violate BLP; do not restore
4. 05:32, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: removed BLP violations; do not restore without talk page consensus
5. 05:43, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: editor restoring BLP violations without consensus; reverting

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 06:22, 9 August 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

User also promised to continue removing the content: [3]. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 06:06 26 August 2016

Discussion concerning D.Creish

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by D.Creish

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

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

The sources cited were (3) as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Two minor clarifications::

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

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

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

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

Final Comment

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

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

Question from Nomoskedasticity

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

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek

D.Creish has made six (!) reverts in less than 24 hrs. So there's that. There's no BLP grounds for edit warring here either, as others have pointed out simply because this is actually what the subject is known for. It's sort of like trying to remove the fact that David Duke is a former KKK Grand Wizard from that article on BLP grounds. Which is also why the info is actually well sourced. Now, I can see objecting to the mediamouse source, but there were two other, reliable sources (NY Times and SPLC, which is NOT "primary") there. And indeed, I removed the mediamouse source myself [4] and added additional reliable sources [5] [6]. That didn't stop D.Creish who continued to edit war, reverting other editors another four times. And yes, this content has been in the article a long time, it's been discussed on the talk page (though D.Creish did not bother participating in any of the discussions), etc. etc. As Evergreen and others point out, in addition to WP:TENDENTIOUS edit warring, this also appears to be a bad-faithed attempt to WP:GAME both the BLP policy and discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Statement by MrX

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Rhoark

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

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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

Statement by Masem

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

Statement by Capeo

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

Statement by Steve Quinn

On Talk:Murder of Seth Rich it was made clear by a group of productive editors that inclusion of Wikileaks related content is in contradiction to BLP, BDP, and AVOIDVICTIM. This was amplified by User:Mascell, an Admin [7]. I have sent a couple of emails to Lord Roem denoting with diffs, what appears to be (to me), D.Criesh's continual failure to get the point WP:IDHT. Below is information not contained in those emails:

Here, I summed up repeatedly having explained BLP violations, along with other productive editors [8]. After similar statement by User:Marek, D. Creish conflates issues (already noted in the emails) and then he raises three strawman arguments [9] - the RFC, WP:DRN, and impasse have nothing to do with the points Marek and I just made. And, it is not clear to whom he is speaking (maybe thin air). Then is the circular statement about "majority" and "numbers" and appears to also not be relevant. But note, within the entire response he twice defers to support by a number of other editors

Jytdog asks D. Criesh to say he understands Mastcell's announcement [10] Here D.Creish equivocates about that [11] and equivocates to me about conflating and understanding the issues (bttom of diff).

After discussion about PROFRINGE, DUE WIEGHT, and NOTNEWS with another editor (see above in next diff) D. Creish firmly disputes policies against insertion of Wikileaks material [12], and is discussing how WP policies might support insinuations (which they don't).

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning D.Creish

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

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 75.140.253.89

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014 :

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

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

1. 27 August 2016 Demanding that the article subject undergo "a geneaological study" to prove "that his father is actually black" — implicitly accusing him (without evidence) of lying about his race/ethnicity.
2. 24 August 2016 Claiming that the article subject "is phenotypically Caucasoid" and that we should thus remove the article subject's stated race/ethnicity which is supported by reliable sources.
3. 25 August 2016 Again claiming that the article subject "is phenotypically Caucasoid and exhibits no traits whatsoever of an African American" and that we should thus remove the article subject's stated race/ethnicity which is supported by reliable sources.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Notified of sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

The user's own statements are self-evidently reason to bar them from this article - they have demanded that reliably-sourced information about the biographical subject be removed based upon nothing more than their personal opinion that he "does not look like an African-American." We write biographies based upon sources, not upon stereotypes, personal prejudices and beliefs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has now demanded that "a geneaological study" be provided before describing the article subject, as multiple reliable sources do, as black and as the son of a Caucasian mother and African-American father — a demand completely and utterly out of line with what we do on Wikipedia. Their attitude is that of someone conducting a background investigation into the article subject, not of an encyclopedia editor writing a biography. We are not here to conduct investigative journalism, we are here to write articles based upon reliable sources. The editor quite obviously is not here to write a biography of Shaun King, but rather is here to grind an ax about Shaun King, and should not be permitted to do so. The entire point of BLP is to prevent political or personal opponents of a living person from using that person's biography as a weapon, as the anonymous IP editor is doing here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified here.

Discussion concerning 75.140.253.89

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 75.140.253.89

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

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

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

Comparable case: Elizabeth_Warren, who has consistently claimed to be Native American. Her case for claiming her heritage was that she and her maternal lineage have "high cheekbones...just like the Indians do". [14] [15] Like King's case, it is a murky claim not based on any genetic or genealogical investigation. Yet unlike King, her racial identity is not listed as fact on her article. I am interested in accuracy. I believe that it is better to lack a potentially true statement than to include a possibly untrue statement. Removing an extraordinary claim until better evidence surfaces is not an unreasonable request.75.140.253.89 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by SPACKlick

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

Statement by Stevietheman

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 75.140.253.89

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

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[16]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

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

@Zscarpia: Thank you for illustrating the chilling effect this sanction has had on editors' willingness to complain about certain types of harassment. I didn't connect the two until now.

Statement by Sandstein

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

Statement by Nishidani

I would have preferred not to comment, but Four Deuces below more or less espouses NMMGG's endlessly repeated thesis that I am a Jew baiter. That has been exhaustively reviewed, and dismissed, and protesting the decision is not material to NMMGG's request, which I have no problem in endorsing. Modern legal process, since Cesare Beccaria has rightly buried the religious idea that punishment is eternal, and even permabans, as in my case, can be revoked. I would appreciate however that The Four Deuces read my evidential reply to the nonsense jerry-rigged in the original complaint. This is no place to rehearse it, but it was so unfocused that, NMMGG could claim as evidence of my having symptoms of that pathology things like:

• Using the term "Chosen People" for Jews is part of an age old anti-Semitic canard,' when he knew, as everybody else knows, that many believe it to be

the cornerstone of Judaism: the idea of bechira. We believe that we are an am hanivchar, a chosen people, an am segula, a treasured people. I believe collectivist statements like this are incorrect, since it is obvious that there is no such thing as an ideologically inclusive definition of ethnicity, meaning 'Jews/Arabs/Eskimos/Americans/Russians/Chinese/Catholics/shamans all think or do this or that' are hot air, vapidly empty propositions, diagnosed as a category mistake with perduring inciveness by Gilbert Ryle in his masterpiece, The Concept of Mind. For several years, NMMGG has repeated his conviction that wiki arbitrators are tone-deaf to anti-Semitic utterances, most recently here and here, and is keen to rally back users disenchanted with the place, I don't know whether to that end or not. Precisely because sanctions, however harsh, should have a use-by expiry date if evidence exists of an ability to return and participate positively in constructing Wikipedia, and because refusal to repeal this would probably only confirm the, I believe, parlously flawed conviction arbs are intrinsically 'anti-Zionist' and complicit with anti-Semitic people (like, in his view, myself), the appeal should be accepted.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zscarpia

Speaking as an editor whom No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be currently lining up for accusations of antisemitism [17], perhaps this is what he means by his current ban serving no useful purpose. (Apologies for the slightly tongue-in-cheek nature of this comment)     ←   ZScarpia   13:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

• I guess? Never have I heard of someone desperate to get back into the fun of AE discussions. I suppose I'd be okay lifting this since it's been so long, but the filer hasn't indicated what they've learned/will do differently moving ahead. Filing AE requests vexatiously is affirmatively unhelpful. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further consideration, I don't see the need for this restriction to continue, at least at this time. I'll Endorse overturning the appealed sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentatively endorse. The weak justification for the initial sanction, coupled with a clean block log and no sign of troublemaking that I can see in the last 3 years, makes me lean heavily towards vacating the ban. Indefinite is not meant to mean permanent. However, before fully endorsing, I would like to hear what sort of participation, if any, No More Mr Nice Guy plans to engage in at AE if the sanction is lifted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Endorse after seeing further comments. Unless something changes, I think we can close this in the next day or two. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I do sympathize with concerns about the motivation for this request but I also think it's valid to say it's just a poor thing to have hanging over one's head. We have ways of dealing with poor behavior if it occurs going forward. --Laser brain (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AE request that led to this sanction could be deemed as valid by uninvolved editors and the ban seems like a disproportionate ruling. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Discretionary Sanctions
2. Also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
3. 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

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

Violation of 1RR restriction on GMO content:

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

Against a background of repeated slow edit warring:

August 31, August 31, August 31. The other editor was actually correct: [18].

And POV-pushing:

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

Continues WP:Battleground after this AE has opened, blames everyone except self:

1. Opposition research: September 2, September 2, September 2.
2. More edit warring: September 2, September 2.
3. Resumes same edit war the next day, making 2 reverts per day to avoid 3RR but maintaining continuous slow edit war: September 3, September 3.
4. Refactors other editors' talk page comments: September 3. Deflects blame: September 3.

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

August 27, August 30, (also September 1).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I leave it to the patrolling administrators to assess how much SashiRolls is self-aware about the issues here, how well TFD understands what was determined about DS for GMOs after such a very long struggle, and whether there is any truth to the silly claims that I have been disruptive at the Stein page. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding specifically to where TFD said: "While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe." The issue at the page was about saying in Wikipedia's voice that the opposite of the RfC language is true; there is no objection to quoting Stein as saying the opposite. The page quotes Stein as saying that the existing science says what the community rejected at the RfC, and SashiRolls has opposed citing critics of Stein's statements. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Please note that I just added diffs of continued edit warring today, and weigh that in whether a warning will prove effective. Also, although I accept that, in terms of possible sanctions, AP2 is more central that GMO, please consider that GMORFC was intended to put an end to arguments, and without a clear statement now at AE, some editors will continue to argue that anything goes on pages other than the pages listed at the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A warning will be fruitless, and ANI would be a drama-fest of arguing content. Either DS mean something, or let's shut AE down. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, NW! But before this closes, please someone clarify that the "Pesticides and GMOs" section of Jill Stein, but no other part of the page, does indeed fall under DS regarding "GMOs and agricultural chemicals, broadly defined". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by SashiRolls

Given Snoogannsnoogans' invective laden and patently false accusations, I will ask until Monday at 17:00 to respond completely, as Snoogannsnoogans hasn't really understood that Tryptofish may well be making a larger WP:Point, not entirely involving me, by bringing me here. Snooganssnoogans first censored me on the 13 Aug, here. Between the 11 Aug and 16 July he made 16 reverts (all of other people). His first revert on the page was the 29th of June. His reverts are of two types: to delete content that he feels support a positive image of Stein, or to do defend as the status quo content that he feels support a negative image of Stein. These are the facts concerning the user's interventions on the article.

Concerning Tryptofish's assertion that the 1RR applies in the GMO section, I solicited input from the closing admins of the GMO debate who declined to comment. The Four Deuces and I both looked into his assertion and do not find it credible. Tryptofish, who is apparently somewhat famous, is clearly a very experienced Wiki-warrior given his past interactions with the Arbitration Committee. Having learned this from a google search trying to find clues as to what the "trypto" could mean, I decided to proceed cautiously, including the entire "proposition 1" of that debate in the article (3-4 lines of texts with lengthy references), because Tryptofish seemed like he wanted to create trouble in that section. He reverted this commonsense peaceful solution here.

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

POV-pushing (ref-name change): Tryptofish's 2nd and 3rd diffs in this section do not refer to my edits (cf. the chaotic (& snarky) removal of material and vast operation of multiple reference renaming, which added confusion to the page (I was not involved in these decision to snark with significant chunks of content). In sum I changed one reference name in the first "diff", waiting for the "stray link fixed bot" to come and pick it up. I stayed on the page to see if it would. It didn't. I fixed what I had done by replacing all 16 references to the same article, introduced all in one edit by another editor here. I admit this was to make a point after having seen yet another bit of (what I consider to have been) trolling cluttering the head of a sub-section that has caused much grief and hard work in the last month with a gossipy quote that had nothing to do with anything: (diff). I figred if Tryptofish could troll with impunity I could draw attention to a serious problem: Snooganssnoogans's particularly lopsided edit here, in which introductions and conclusions of Jill Stein's arguments were cited, but the argument itself strangely disappeared from at least some of the 16 quotes s/he added from the WaPo. (cf. talk here).

Tryptofish does not mention this context of consistent disruptive editing, nor does he mention his own, somewhat more troubling, history of it: he came to the Jill Stein thread on the 20th of August, with very pointed stated goals (vaccines, GMOs and pesticides interventions in the article) and added lots of "menacing" warnings about AE in his/her participation in the talk thread. I will not comment on the POV that Tryptofish may or may not be pushing, as I don't understand his actions.

Regarding the diffs that are said to relate to "slow edit warring". In an environment of (occasionally) diametrically opposed viewpoints, and on a page where one editor has been going up to 3RR frequently on a regular basis in July and August (I came to the thread only in August myself), it is not surprising to find that I made 2 reverts on a section recently marked by another user as non-neutral precisely because of the text concerned. Repeated requests have been made to the editor to rework the paragraph he has added and reworked over time, to no avail. [20]. I have likewise had to remove an unreliable source that the user deliberately smuggled back into the article at [15:10 27 Aug 2016, after admitting the source had failed a basic fact-check talk 15:04 27 Aug 2016 and should not be included.

I do not anywhere say that the WaPo is an unreliable source generally, contrary to the claim made, and two of the four revert diffs have nothing to do with me. There was a great deal of intermediary sniping going on, while I tried to satisfy AndrewOne's concerns about the QE argument in the Education section (from [Talk] and [POV tag]). Cf. also these more worrying snark edits diff and diff

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

Response to additional comments from the accused party

I have responded at length on my talk page and at Talk:Jill_Stein#WP:DUE + cite Talk:Jill_Stein#from_WP:Edit_warring + diff of earlier menacing thousand-year comment from notifier, which I chose to remove from my talk page. SashiRolls (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by clpo13

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

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

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

Statement by The Four Deuces

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms applies to 11 named articles and "will be implemented, broadly construed, for other articles in the subject area." Furthermore, there is no template for GMO on the talk page, although there is one for "American politics 2." 1RR is not part of U.S. politics general sanctions[21] and would be too draconian for such a wide topic area.

Trypofish falsely claimed at Talk:Jill Stein, "I want to make it very clear to editors that the content that I reverted violates the [GMO] Discretionary Sanctions linked above, because it alters the language that was established in the community RfC about GMOs. Editors must not make up alternative language, and doing so will result in Arbitration Enforcement." [20:55, 27 August 2016[22]] While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe.

The articles in The Washington Post and others are cited in the article as the opinions of their authors, not as statements of fact. While SashiRolls unfortunately says the paper is not rs, he actually argues that it is biased, and provides an article originally published in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ("Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours") as a source.[23] [22:43, 31 August 2016[24]] The paper's editorial board has called Trump a "clear and present danger."[25] although it has not yet endorsed Clinton. It is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the opinions expressed in the paper have a partisan tinge.

The article by Steven T. Corneliussen, ""Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views", in Physics Today, does not "clearly agree[] with the criticism" of Stein, as Tryptofish says. [1 September 2016[26]] It says only, "An opinion piece at Slate dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy. If anything it draws into question the extensive concentration on science issues that Trypofish has shown.

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

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

Statement by Timothyjosephwood

I'm somewhat involved, though not deeply. Sashi's enthusiasm is admirable, but unfortunately their experience hasn't caught up with it yet, and disagreements stemming from that gap seem to have grown tensions to the point where assumptions of good faith have started to wane on all sides.

Mentoring could be an option here, given appropriate assurances by Sashi that they're willing to slow down a bit and take active steps toward being a bit more cool headed about things. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given their behavior over the past 24 hours, strike all above. TimothyJosephWood 11:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User is openly warring on the article, ([27], [28],[29], [30], [31]), being generally disruptive on the talk, mangling formatting and others comments to the point where I'm not even sure what diffs to provide. They've dropped any pretense that this is anything but a personal contest, and accused others on their talk of leading an "offensive" against Jill Stein, and apparently calling me a Nazi for suggesting that they take a break and edit something less controversial for a while.

Either sanction the user or close this because we would have easily already been at ANI or AN3 were it not for this open complaint. TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by snooganssnoogans

The user SashiRolls has for the last few weeks engaged in constant disruptive editing on the Jill Stein page. I'll try to limit this text to just recent examples of disruptive behavior. The user repeatedly:

• re-writes text into incoherent word salads full of weasel words. Yesterday, SashiRolls edited Stein's straight-forward position on student debt (she wants to cancel it using quantitative easing) into some incomprehensible mess that also features original research: "Stein has brought the idea of debt relief for student loans, much discussed after the Federal Reserve began quantitative easing,^[1][2][3] back into the political arena in 2016.^[4][5]"
• adds content of questionable reliability and relevance. The user repeatedly adds WP:OR which does not mention Jill Stein, the Green Party and usually comes from rubbish sources and does not relate to the subject at all. IIRC, the user has added 4-5 OR pieces to the article in just the last two days.
• cannot or will not tell the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable source. The user has, for instance, fought to include TeleSur, ShadowProof, Mint Press and Counterpunch as reliable sources while trying to get the Washington Post excluded from the page for being an unreliable source. Just today, SashiRolls restored ShadowProof and Counterpunch, which I removed for being unreliable. It's impossible to edit the page when the user cannot or will not tell the difference between a reliable source and unreliable one.
• acts in disingenuous ways to revert content. On the 31 August, I used up three reverts to revert SashiRolls' demonstrably false edits (the user claimed that a paragraph had nothing to do with Stein's education plan, despite containing the phrase "student loan" three times and being doubtlessly about Stein's plan to cancel student debt), at which point SashiRolls responded, "ok, you are at 3RR for today." The user repeatedly calls out users for approaching or being at the 3RR limit (or in the case of the GMO section the 1RR limit), usually always when reverting SashiRolls' ridiculous edits.
• casts aspersions on the intentions of other editors. The user has repeatedly over the last few weeks cast aspersions on at least three editors and Wikipedia as an institution. user:Neutrality has called SashiRolls out on this with little effect. The user has also repeatedly threatened to sanction me or have me banned, something I've never encountered before despite editing a lot on political pages. Despite being involved in contentious editing on a number of political pages, I have honestly never encountered an editor that has edited in such a disruptive manner as SashiRolls without being sanctioned for it.
• goes against consensus. SashiRolls created an RfC on 13 August 2016 where he/she proposed re-writing Jill Stein's position on Brexit. This was overwhelmingly rejected. Since having had the RfC rejected, SashiRolls has on three or four occasions re-written the Brexit section in ways that were rejected in the RfC.
• goes against the discretionary sanctions in the Stein article. SashiRolls has occasionally within 24 hours reverted the same content in the GMO section, which I believe is a violation. Other than that, SashiRolls continues to edit the GMO section in insincere and ridiculous ways.
• lies about the content of sources, the content of the Stein article and what happens on the talk page. In a particularly memorable talk, SashiRolls willfully misrepresents the user JayJasper's twice comment on the talk page[32] (once after having it pointed out to him/her) and also in the edit summary when SashiRolls proclaimed that he/she had consensus for a particular edit relating to that talk. Within the last few days, SashiRolls lied or pretended to be obtuse about the Stein's education plan, arguing that her proposal to cancel student loan debt through quantitative easing had nothing to do with education or student loans. SashiRolls repeatedly misrepresents the content of sources, there's no point running through the times.

• edit (one day later): I just want to note that SashiRolls just restored conspiracy and fringe websites twice this morning to the Stein (this is now the forth time in two days that he/she's restored them). Even though the user is on Arbcom, he/she shows no sign of taking the warnings and advice of other editors to heart.

- Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutrality

I agree completely with Snooganssnoogans and Timothyjosephwood others who have commented. On Stein and Stein-related articles, SashiRolls' sustained course of conduct has been completely unacceptable, and the array of problems is broad: everything from casting aspersions to personal attacks to POV-pushing.

I also agree with Timothyjosephwood that it would be wise to act on this report relatively rapidly. If this file weren't open, this matter might well be up at ANI for discussion of a possible topic ban of SashiRolls. Neutrality^talk 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SashiRolls

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

• I am concerned both about the behavior of SashiRolls enough to suggest a sanction. I would suggest that SashiRolls comment as soon as feasible. NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated to here mostly, but I am also concerned about the article being a battleground for people's opinions about politics writ large. Are we really using Counterpunch and Shadowproof (Firedoglake) within the Jill Stein article to criticize the coverage of The Washington Post on Wikipedia? NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still stuck on this issue, and it appears that SashiRolls simply just doesn't get it. Quoting from the first draft of their statement[33], "A brief response to NW, who is concerned about Shadowproof. The article has not been disputed on any grounds, though many people have seen it. Had that subject been opened, I would have responded or withdrawn, if consensus was reached concerning it. This is an article about a US eco-socialist politician, so no, the Washington Post, as wikipedia's own subject on the paper might suggest, is not likely to be a reliable source concerning her politics. Jacobin, Democracy Now!: these are among "her" fellow-traveling media outlets; Counterpunch has frequently published her running mate. They are knowledgeable sources about the Left. Her sources will look different than mainstream news outlets." This is a fundamental failure to understand Wikipedia's sourcing and neutral point of view policies, and I do not see how a warning will be sufficient. I am going to issue a six month topic ban relating to Jill Stein under the post-1932 American Politics discretionary sanction. Further requests for action can be brought to here without prejudice. NW (Talk) 19:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I favor a one-time warning. I'm unimpressed by SashiRolls' behavior here, which amounts to POV-pushing in my opinion. I consider this to fall mostly under DS for American Politics—the fact that the content is related to GMO is an aggravating factor but shouldn't be used as a red herring to distract from the poor behavior. I don't quite think we are dealing with behavior that rises to the level of sanctions, though. Further edit warring to push a POV should be met with an American Politics topic ban of some length. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had some experience with SashiRolls on my talk page (User_talk:NeilN/Archive_33#Enforcement_request_and_COI - starts about one-third of the way down) which left me unimpressed. Plus there are incomprehensible statements like this. Any warning should highlight WP:1RR and instruct the editor to stop casting aspersions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification as requested: the Pesticides and GMOs section of Jill Stein certainly falls under discretionary sanctions regarding "GMOs and agricultural chemicals, broadly defined". NW (Talk) 19:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]