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 PraetorianFury[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PraetorianFury (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

1. September 8 Indicating that including material regarding the biograph of the subject not directly related to the current events is somehow original research as per WP:OR, as stated on the talk page at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#Original research. It is worth noting that the individual's oft-repeated flawed assertion that she is notable for a single event seems to include the refusal to issue licenses, the legal review of her actions, her subsequent jailing, and release from jailing, all of which have been covered in the media as separate events, somehow still constitutes a single event, which seems to be a rather obvious flaw in thinking.
2. September 9 Disruptive and tendentious edit warring over an argument that inclusion of material not relevant to the ongoing legal matter is in some way OR as per WP:OR
3. September 8 Instituting a transparently biased and prejudicial RfC on the topic.
4. September 9, September 9 Numerous comments on the article talk page, including several not linked to here but clearly visible on the article talk page, disparaging of the actions, competence and motivations of others.

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 discretionary sanctions regarding the field of American politics on his user talk page here on September 8.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

First, my apologies for the possibly inadequate nature of this filing. I'm not sure how many, if any, I've every filed before and I'm obviously not very good at it. ;)

Given this individual's inability to demonstrably understand WP:OR, which he has repeatedly cited as his excuse for not including verifiable material about the previous activities or professional characteristics of the subject, and his repeated assertion that inclusion of information about her pay or private life somehow constitutes attacks making this article an "attack page," I believe that there is no good reason to believe he will ever be able to edit constructively on this topic, given his oft-stated opinion that only items relevant to the ongoing discussion of recent events can be included in this biography. On that basis, I would suggest that the AE admins at least strong consider a topic ban from this limited topic, or, perhaps, from the broader topic of same-sex marriage and the law in the United States.

And this individual's actions regarding this article can also be found at this time at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, in the section entitled "User:PraetorianFury reported by User:MrX". John Carter (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have in no way misunderstood PraetorianFury's point, it is simply that, despite his insistent demanding otherwise, his point is flatly wrong. This individual is at this point noted for several events, including, as of this writing, denying marriage licenses to gays, being jailed for that, being released from jail, with very likely more later. All that makes the insistent demand that the wrong guideline be followed both an rather obvious case of WP:CIR and, considering that there has been repeated discussion regarding this matter on the article talk page, rather tendentious and disruptive refusal to get to the point on his part. His inability to understand how his own deeply-held view is flawed makes his very competence in this matter open to very serious question. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that PF has added his responses to others in the sections of those others, here, and here, including, in clear violation of the rules of this page, as stated at the top of the section, that section reserved for uninvolved administrators, goes even further to demonstrate that there may be very real competency issues with this editor. On that basis, I think that some sort of topic ban is probably the best way to go. They can always be lifted later if the individual displays a greater degree of understanding of the standards of conduct than he has demonstrated on either that page or this one, but right now his inability to follow even the printed rules of the sections he edits demonstrates serious competency issues. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning PraetorianFury[edit]

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 PraetorianFury[edit]

User:John_Carter has consistently refused to understand the point I've explained to him multiple times, and in great detail. The relevant policy for Kim Davis is WP:BIO1E, and I am not the only one who thinks that an excess of information has been included in the article. Information about her salary is particularly offensive as it has nothing to do with the issue for which she is known, marriage licenses, but it is included in trashy political attack pieces now that she has achieved some infamy. Not surprisingly, no WP:RSs were provided for that information, only an article from 2011 that glancingly refers to Davis while actually covering her mother. This is not encyclopedic.

As for my behavior, it is well within guidelines. All questions have received explanations, and comments have been on content and actions, not editors. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(r to Mandruss) I'll let my statements speak for themselves. Especially considering posting editor actually did include the word "incompetent", while I've never said it to the contrary of the mischaracterizations of my comments above. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(r to Dennis Brown) "his POV is blinding him". The irony is that I am a liberal democrat. Check my user page, hasn't been touched in years. But even I can recognize attempts to delegitimize a person's arguments by including details from their personal life. Wikipedia has always had a liberal slant due to WP:Systemic_bias, but I had no idea it had gotten so bad that we write articles that look like a more professional version of /r/politics. Should we go through the yearbook of Michael Brown to look for something to portray him in a negative light? No, that would be completely inappropriate. We should only include information that was written about him in the context of the event for which he is known, and that is how that article is written. Why are we allowed to include anything that was ever written in any public record anywhere about Kim Davis when there are a number of policies that specifically say to not do that? PraetorianFury (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(r to MrX) Adding Wiki-stalking to the list of intimidatory tactics MrX has used. Just about anything other than actually contributing to the encyclopedia.

• The list of reverts is fallacious, most are umambiguously not reverts at all. Look for yourself.
• He calls creating an RFC and posting to multiple noticeboards "forum shopping". Seeking more collaborators is kind of one of the key tenets of collaboration, if I'm not mistaken.
• MrX templated me and I templated him right back. He seems far more interested in my editing history than I am in his, so I don't know what his excuse is for not knowing about my years of experience.
• I've commented on behavior as I've seen it. He calls that "failing to assume good faith". Says something about his edits.
• I was mistaken about Davis not being included in the first source, but not that it was from 2011, and not that it didn't mention the controversy. There is nothing wrong about the 3rd comment in his last bullet.

PraetorianFury (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? The source you are mentioning is from 2011 and unrelated to the current controversy. Kite, I just explained this to you a moment ago here. And I never said straight people's opinions don't matter, wtf? I figured as the people most impacted by her actions, they LGBTs would be the first to issue the complaints that Carter had elaborated, and thus reliable sources would be available, in the context of the event, to support the material's inclusion in the article. But yeah, go ahead and imply incompetence and infer I'm discriminating against straight people from an off-the-cuff, one sentence reply. Great. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: What exactly about my behavior crossed the line? Did I break 3RR? Did I fail to use the talk page? Did I ignore the questions of other editors? Did I use personal attacks against them? Why is it my comments are seen as uncivil when comments about "competence", even from administrators, seem to be directed at me? PraetorianFury (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss[edit]

I planned to be a spectator here until I saw this: As for my behavior, it is well within guidelines. All questions have received explanations, and comments have been on content and actions, not editors. I don't know, was any of the following about editors?

[1] - WP:AGF violations
[2] - Other editor(s) are "childish"
[3] - Other editors are incompetent and WP:OWN
[4] - (WP:NORN) AGF violation, other editors are incompetent
[5] - (WP:BLPN) AGF violations
[6] - Accusation of meat puppetry
[7] - "childish" again
[8] - AGF violations
[9] - Accusation of WP:OWN and canvassing - and my nomination for 2015 Understatement of the Year, "I'm not here to make friends"
[10] - AGF violation
―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck one after a second look. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

PraetorianFury, previously known as AzureFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to have a troubled history. It's the history of the past 24 or so hours that concerns me most. Kim Davis is a very visible article, having received 74,391 page views in less than a week. Yesterday, PraetorianFury started editing this controversial subject by deleting material with an edit summary that read "Textbook WP:OR. Find a source that mentions this or we can't.". But right there, in the very source that they removed, is the "mention" in clear, obvious detail. There was no original research at all. When pressed to show the original research, PraetorianFury's claimed that "The source is from 2011. It is unrelated to the current controversy in 2015. It is therefore WP:OR to include it."[11].

In no particular order, this was followed by:

• Edit warring: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] including reverts after being warned
• Forum shopping: [17] [18] [19] ← Note the very improper RfC wording in this last diff.
• Pointy editing: [20] ← Note: A level three warning posted after I placed an edit warring warning on PraetorianFury's talk page.
• Assumptions of bad faith: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] ← This last one is especially vile.
• False claims: [27] [28] [29] ← I'm not sure whether this due to not understanding our policies and guidelines, untruthfulness, or some other reason.

PraetorianFury insists that they know our policies and guidelines, but edits like someone who doesn't understand them very well. [30]

PraetorianFury seems uninterested in collaborative editing, which I believe is a toxic attitude when approaching a controversial subject. "Derp. I don't owe you anything except the minimum amount of cooperation required by the encyclopedia, and that is what you will receive."

99 editors have collaborated on this article and overwhelmingly most have contributed constructively. Exceptionally, PraetorianFury has disrupted this ongoing collaboration to such a extent that I believe, at minimum, a topic ban is needed. - MrX 21:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: I don't see how your suggestion would solve the issue of personal attacks, disruption, and fostering an unpleasant editing environment on the talk page. In other words, your solution would be great if this were only an edit warring issue. Editors shouldn't have to waste their time proving that something is actually in a source, or repeatedly refuting claims of original research. Editors shouldn't have to trudge through a non-neutrally worded five part RfC. We shouldn't have to be beat over the heads with policies that we correctly apply on a daily basis.

As I understand from the Arbcom case, "Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Is there a single principle here that PraetorianFury has not violated? Does their comment, "I don't owe you anything except the minimum amount of cooperation required by the encyclopedia, and that is what you will receive." suggest that shunting the problem to the talk page will achieve the desired result? - MrX 18:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42[edit]

Minimally involved in the article. BLP1E is an argument to delete this article all together, and perhaps replace it with an event article. However, if the BLP article itself exists, restricting coverage to the one incident is not within policy. Compare with James_Eagan_Holmes who certainly is only notable for one event, but his BLP does cover the rest of his life.

This dispute I just described is not an issue, such disputes are the way of life on wiki. The issue is the way the dispute is being conducted and it seems like there may be an issue therein. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning PraetorianFury[edit]

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

• Note that this issue is also ongoing at WP:AN3, where I've suggested that Praetorian Fury self-revert his most recent edit. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've closed that report given that this one is ongoing. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some logical arguments in some of the things he says, but I do see reason to think his POV is blinding him, and causing misery for good faith editors. I do wonder if the article should be named after the controversy rather than her, but that is beyond the scope of AE. As to the article, I see a lot of differing opinions on the talk page but I don't see any drama over the differences, except with PF. I'm trying to figure a solution that isn't banning him from that topic, but coming up short on ideas. Unquestionably, he is more of a hinderance than a help there and his behavior is unacceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little concerned by this, as well. A newspaper report mentioned that some local citizens complained about Davis's pay, amongst other things. PF's reply is to tell editors that they can only include that if they find evidence that some LGBT people complained about her pay. That's pushing the boundaries of WP:CIR, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that straight people's opinions don't matter, I find it hard to believe that even he believes that, and he is simply being obstructionist in his tactics. I think we are moving closer to a topic ban for Kim Davis (county clerk) and anything related to her or the controversy, broadly construed. I don't think kicking this can down the road is going to help. I hate it, but I don't see an alternative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• PraetorianFury not every source used must be related to the controversy. It is currently a biography, so sources are judged by the reliability of the source, and the information is judged on the relevance to the topic. The issue here isn't whether you are wrong or right, it is how you behaved, and the likelihood of future disruption. And please put your comments in your section only, this is a formal board. This section is for admins only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• PraetorianFury, I'm not going to give a blow by blow. Actually, several others have already done so for you, my interpretation is just that. The more I read, the more I'm convinced a topic ban is the solution, and I now fully support it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• PraetorianFury raises some excellent points in his comments about how to properly document BLPs. But there seem to be many more problematic comments, such as the list posted by Mandruss. Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As an alternative to TBAN, what about this restriction: that his edits to the area must be discussed on the talk page prior while removing all exceptions except the *extremely obvious vandalism* caveat? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk page behavior seems to be the problem here, though. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support an indefinite ban from the topic of same-sex marriage and the law in the United States. This is one of the options suggested by the author of this complaint, User:John Carter. I agree with User:Black Kite that WP:CIR is a concern, after seeing a comment like this one. He has added arguments to this AE which are rather far-fetched and suggest a problem with editing neutrally on topics where he has a personal POV. This would agree with the suggestion of Dennis Brown that 'his POV is blinding him.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like we're heading to a topic ban, and I concur with that. Can't think of another solution given that the problem is overheated interactions in this one topic area. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Per my previous comments, I agree. I don't think there is another solution that cleanly deals with the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 14 September 2015 (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

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from Climate change denial

Article ban from Anthony Watts (blogger)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[31]

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge[edit]

I'm appealing the first part of the sanction on the grounds that I have not edited this article for at least 5 years,[32][33], nor was a single diff presented in the original WP:AE request demonstrating any problematic conduct on this topic.

I'm appealing the second part of the sanction on the grounds I edit-warred to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content. As everyone knows, it takes at least two to edit war. Indeed, numerous editors had also edit-warred on this article yet, many of whom edit-warred to include contentious WP:BLP material, yet I was the only one sanctioned.

• Akhilleus[34][35]
• ArtifexMayhem[36][37][38]
• Capitalismojo[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]
• DHeyward[49][50][51]
• Gnncmac[52][53]
• Joel B. Lewis[54][55][56][57][58]
• JzG[59][60]
• Mann jess[61][62][63][64][65]
• Nomoskedasticity[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78]
• Peter Gulutzan[79][80][81][82][83][84]
• PeterTheFourth[85][86]
• Stephan Schulz[87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94]
• Tillman[95][96][97][98][99][100][101]
• Ubikwit[102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112]

My "crime" was to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content, not the other way around. Wikipedia policies and guidelines provide exemptions for those who remove contentious BLP content. There are no exemptions as far as I know for those who edit-war to include contentious BLP content into articles. Further, I'd also like to state that I'm not even a BLP Nazi. But when we start sanctioning editors for removing contentious BLP content while looking the other way at editors who edit-war the same content into an article, something is seriously wrong with the project.

@Zero0000: I interpreted the the topic ban to be on the topic in general, not the article specifically. But since I rarely, if ever, edit anything related to the article or the topic, I think the distinction is mute. There was no evidence presented in the original WP:AE request which demonstrated any problematic conduct on the article in specific or the topic in general. The actual dispute centered upon the issue about whether it was acceptable to edit-war contentious negative WP:BLP information into an article. I believe that the community supports my position that edit-warring contentious negative content into a BLP is not acceptable conduct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I'm not going to make any apologies for defending WP:BLP. If you can point to any specific problematic behavior, I'm more than willing to re-examine my conduct, and improve upon it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: If an editor raises a good faith concern regarding a WP:BLP violation, under no circumstance should editors edit-war to include WP:BLP violations back into the article. Discussion should continue on the article talk page, WP:BLPN or some other appropriate venue. I am not aware of any policy, guideline or even an essay which advocates edit-warring contentious BLP content into articles. EdJohnston, I think you're one of the more level headed AE admins, and I will continue to support you regardless of the outcome of my appeal, but what I am saying is that edit-warring to include contentious negative content on a BLP is not acceptable behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: I am (or at least was) a frequent patroller of WP:BLPN so I understand WP:BLP perfectly well. Even now, there's a glaring BLP violation in the very first sentence of Anthony Watts (blogger). Per WP:LABEL, we are not allowed to use value-laden labels such as denier unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Further, WP:BLP requires that the burden of proof lies on those restoring the BLP violations, not the ones removing the BLP violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero: This has nothing to do with climate change. The issue here is whether it is acceptable to edit-war WP:BLP violations into an article (or whether it is acceptable to edit-war contentious, negative BLP content into an article).

I state the following:

1. It is not acceptable conduct to edit-war WP:BLP violations into a Wikipedia article.
2. It is not acceptable conduct to edit-war contentious negative WP:BLP content into a Wikipedia article.
3. Either way, the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Does anyone here seriously disagree that edit-warring WP:BLP violations and/or contentious negative WP:BLP content isn't acceptable conduct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Ummm....no. WP:BLP doesn't say that BLP applies to all topic spaces except climate change. BLP applies to all of Wikipedia. We cannot simply throw out the rules just because of one's own personal opinions about a topic. In fact, your post helps illustrate the core of the problem. Wikipedia is a not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for editors to carry on ideological battles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale[edit]

@Zero0000: No, the sanction I applied was TBAN from both Anthony Watts (blogger) and Climate change denial; the latter was not intended to be for the page itself only. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]

AQFK appears to have a significant misunderstanding of BLP. What it actually says is not that someone may edit-war to remove "contentious BLP content" -- rather, it is "contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced" that must be removed. The difficulty for AQFK is that the material he was edit-warring over (and hey, at least he admits it) was properly sourced. It strikes me as important to know (in connection with this request) whether this misrepresentation of BLP policy is deliberate or simply incompetent. Either way, I get the sense that AQFK's main goal in making this request is to get a green light to resume edit-warring over this material; note also that he hasn't really done any editing on other topics since the topic ban was imposed. As for the list of other editors who restored the material AQFK deleted -- what that list really shows is the extent of consensus regarding the way the article should be edited. So let's hope my prediction proves to be wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This edit is quite revealing of AQFK's difficulty and indicates an on-going problem re working in a collaborative editing environment. I'm really quite curious to see what will happen now that the sanction has expired, i.e., will we soon see a resumption of the behavior that led to the sanction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Akhilleus[edit]

I don't edit much in the climate change area, but I see I'm listed first on AQFK's list of edit warriors on Anthony Watts (blogger). So I guess I'm "involved." Anyway, AQFK seems to find no fault with the behavior that led to his temporary ban from climate change articles; is there any change that the topic ban could be extended? Because otherwise I think that he will continue the problematic behavior, and we'll be back here soon. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

According to their statement User:Penwhale apparently meant "climate change denial" in a broad sense, but linked to the article Climate change denial when writing up the result. This apparently led to confusion. If this is correct it would obviate the first part of AQFK's appeal (and the record should be clarified accordingly). In any event both restrictions will expire a week from Wednesday and so the appeal seems almost-but-not-quite pointless given the usual pace at which requests here are decided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

It's time to start closing down the climate denial apologia on that article. The fiction that reality-based criticism is "negative material" has been used as a magic talisman for too long. We do not need warriors for truth whose truth runs counter to the scientific consensus, and since AQFK seems to think he never edits in this area I fail to see why the appeal was lodged in the first place.

We have reliable mainstream sources that describe Watts and especially his blog as part of the climate change denialist movement. I have yet to see a single reliable source that credibly identifies those who accept anthropogenic climate change as denialists of anything. The science is overwhelming: the climate is changing (virtually nobody qualified to venture an opinion disputes this at all any more), it's largely due to atmospheric CO₂ (ditto) and we are the dominant cause (wcih view has vanishingly few credentialled dissenters). Climate change "skepticism" became pseudoskepticism a while back and is, by now, simply denial. We need to get past the stupid attempts to deny the science - largely a US issue anyway, most countries are over this - and focus on the things where reasonable people can differ, such as what to do about it and how soon. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

As this is a BLP issue and we are supposedly an encyclopedia we don't have to reiterate exact words used about persons made by those person's scientific opponents. We should avoid such hotbutton terms especially if the subject of the BLP has claimed that that descriptive is not true or accurate. My take on Watts is he is not a denialist but is adversarial to the mainstream view on climate change in terms of its severity or future prospects for doom and that he disagrees that humans are the sole cause of this phenomenon. Watts has stated he believes climate change is fact...his disagreement is with the alarmist stance. The term "denialist" is a poor comparative analogy to Holocaust Denial....and is misused to silence any discussion inappropriately. Much like the suffix "gate" is misused to compare relatively minor issues to the notorious Watergate Scandal, it's simply not necessary to refute Watts in our encyclopedia in the same manner his detractors do. Would also appreciate if some of the condescending comments about the U.S. cease. With that said, edit warring is unacceptable and sadly if the concensus is that we should misuse this website to call someone something they themselves deny, then that's a shame, but that's the way it goes I suppose. For the record, the opening and title of the article Climate change denialism really is lousy. If you want science them all these scientists can help me with my slow update of the FA Retreat of glaciers since 1850...and stop fretting about labelling a skeptic as a denialist.--MONGO 09:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Gulutzan[edit]

MONGO is correct to refute JzG but there is no consensus to misuse the article. That being the case, A Quest For Knowledge was right to point out that the majority of known reliable sources say skeptic not denier, and to oppose those who insist on inserting denier in the lead and removing skeptic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

Topic ban is over, correct? That said, the pejorative "denier" is a political term, it's negative, not widely used and the source for it is not a political expert. JzG accurately states the scientific consensus. What he doesn't seem to understand is expressing the understanding as he did is a "denier" position. "Most" in IPCC terms means "more than half." (IPCC is 95% confident that of the 0.8C of observed warming, at least 0.4C is attributable to humans). However, Mann and others believe virtually all the observed warming is attributable to humans. They believe natural causes, such as volcanoes, have lessened the footprint. If, like Watts and JzG, a person doesn't attribute all the observed warming to human activity, instead of "most", they are "deniers" per Mann and others. The label is purely political and it is at odds with consensus when it can be applied so broadly that it would include IPCC's own statement. We should not be advocates for a political position and this sourcing for "denier" is not from science, it's from political advocacy by someone that is a political advocate. --DHeyward (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by A Quest For Knowledge[edit]

The original AE was here. I won't vote on the appeal since I participated in the original ban discussion. But the case for lifting appears weak. See the Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy. Over a period of two months, AQFK removed the same quotation from the article on Anthony Watts (blogger) 22 times. This is a pattern of long-term edit warring. In the domain of ARBCC there are few examples of good behavior, and the 'denier' terminology should raise our eyebrows. But AQFK's behavior was (in my opinion) disruptive. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by A Quest For Knowledge[edit]

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

• The original case: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive176#A_Quest_For_Knowledge. The admin consensus in the case discussion seems to have been for a TBAN on the topic of climate change denial, but the notice put on Quest's talk page by Penwale appears to refer to the particular article climate change denial. Can this be clarified please? Zero^talk 07:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure lots of other editors have engaged in problematic behavior in this topic area, that's why we have the sanctions in place. But your appeal should address your behavior, and does not appear to beyond the statement "My "crime" was to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content". It should also address the concerns raised in the initial request which resulted in the sanction. At that request (where I participated, for the record, though I don't remember it - it's been a long summer) other admins raised concerns about your "battleground approach" and stated that you have "engaged in long-term edit warring". Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have only one question here; since the TBAN expires in ten days' time (16 September), surely it would be far less of a waste of everyone's time to simply wait until then? Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reopened this discussion. AQFK has expressed a desire to clear his name, and he should have that opportunity. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to understand the BLP argument. In the "climate debate" world, the epithet "denier" is something of a dirty word. The mainstream and the fringe sides use it against each other to imply that the other is merely refusing to admit the truth, rather than being "skeptical" as good scientists are supposed to be. This essay now featured on Watts' site shows it used against the mainstream. In this climate (oops) I don't believe that Wikipedia should use the label in its own voice. However what is being debated is inclusion of an attributed opinion that appeared in a "reliable source". That is not a BLP violation. On the other hand, since it is a negative opinion that the target doesn't accept, it should continue with something like "though Watts contests that description". If Quest was fighting for that, rather than deleting the whole sentence multiple times as if it accuses Watts of murdering his mother, I'd have more sympathy. Zero^talk 01:01, 7 September 2015 (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

BenMcLean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – BenMcLean (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

User_talk:BenMcLean#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGamaliel&type=revision&diff=681818099&oldid=681817839

Statement by BenMcLean[edit]

• Gamaliel is not an uninvolved administrator. He is very, very involved with an agenda of maintaining the narrative on Gamergate controversy as it currently stands for political reasons.
• It is a case of the fox being set to guard the chicken coup, as Gamaliel engages in extreme rhetoric saying that dissenting editors want to behead people and parade their heads on spikes while being in charge of enforcing Wikipedia:Civility and censoring other people's much less extreme comments whenever he disagrees with them.
• GamerGate is not, in fact, a terrorist organization dedicated to threatening women, but the Gamergate controversy article currently says that it is. I am also basing my appeal on the factual grounds that this is untrue, that the administrators and editors involved in Gamergate controversy know that it is untrue, and that they are being not merely mistaken, but maliciously dishonest by persisting in this libel. Anyone who disagrees gets banned. I want it on record that I was among their number and pursued every reasonable avenue.
• He's read it. And that's not move requests plural, that's move request singular.
• "Maybe stop harassing any administrator who tries until most of them are unwilling or afraid to participate." -- I have never done this. I want to get the controversy covered as a two-sided controversy, with views and quotations from both sides of the controversy, instead of opening with a laundry list of terrorist accusations. The way the opening currently stands is absurd. I don't believe for one second that you haven't read it, but anyone who does read it and has actually paid any attention to the controversy knows it's absurd. The article, like your accusation here, is engaging in the association fallacy.
• I would like to reiterate that they are, in fact, dishonest. "Cretins" is harder to define. But what we're dealing with here is people who know that what they're saying is untrue, and are saying it anyway because politics.
• "BenMcLean is free to have his say on the talk page" -- I do not believe that this is the case. A hyper-sensitive rubric for civility is applies to dissenting heretics while "heads on spikes" is fine if you're orthodox. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brustopher: I am referring to the opening paragraphs. Maybe it was ill-advised for me to use the word "terrorist." Perhaps "harrassers and threateners who inspire terror for political ends" would have been better ... no wait, that is the definition of a terrorist isn't it. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The "heads on pikes" remark substantiates it. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly is battleground editing. A battleground implies two sides, as does a controversy. --BenMcLean (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find battleground editing from the far Left, because Wikipedia always leads with their views as facts, and sandwiches any dissenting views with thread mode.

And sure, I'm a racist. You're a racist. Under the sociological definition of racism, everybody's a racist. And when everybody's a racist, nobody really is. --BenMcLean (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel[edit]

• I have no interest in setting the agenda of an article I haven't even read.
• You want different administrators policing these pages? Maybe stop harassing any administrator who tries until most of them are unwilling or afraid to participate. Every single time other administrators participate, I let them take the lead until they flee in frustration. Until this stops, you are left with this stubborn admin and his banhammer.
• BenMcLean is free to have his say on the talk page regarding his own agenda provided he is able to refrain from addressing other editors as dishonest cretins, making pointy page move requests, and other deliberately provocative gestures. Since he is apparently unable to refrain from this behavior, I topic banned him. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Prove it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far BenMcLean has doubled down on calling other editors dishonest cretins and expands that to call me a liar. This clearly demonstrates that we should immediately lift the topic ban and let him insult editors with impunity. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Rhoark's statement is irrelevant and should be struck. There's maybe one sentence related to the matter at hand. Using AE as a sopabox is a common problem, on both sides, in this topic area, and AE should crack down on this. If Rhoark agrees with BenMcLean's point, the appropriate response is to make that point on the talk page, not here. I absolutely agree with Rhoark when he writes "there needs to be some clear communication about where the line is drawn on off-wiki statements", but I have no idea what this has to do with BenMacLean, it seems related to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard instead. Gamaliel (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brustopher[edit]

GamerGate is not, in fact, a terrorist organization dedicated to threatening women, but the Gamergate controversy article currently says that it is. Can you point me to the bit in the article where Gamergate is referred to as a terrorist organisation? If what you are saying is indeed true and I have somehow missed it due to poor reading comprehension please tell me and I'll remove it immediately. If not dial down the hyperbole. Brustopher (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

Going over Ben's recent additions to the talk page...

• Here and here he begins his involvement on the page with sweeping accusations against other users; while he later edited out parts of it when people objected, the gist of his assumption of bad faith, which he repeats above, is still there; he's clearly implying that, as he puts it above, "...this is untrue, that the administrators and editors involved in Gamergate controversy know that it is untrue, and that they are being not merely mistaken, but maliciously dishonest by persisting in this libel." Putting aside the WP:AGF violation, this is clearly unproductive; he doesn't discuss any serious changes, he doesn't talk about any of the sources or the wording, he just says that the article makes the subject look like ISIS and that it's because of a sinister agenda on the part of everyone else.
• He then immediately follows this up with a WP:POINTy move request, here and here; it's hard to accept that he actually thinks that that is a good name for the article. (This is immediately below a discussion about the numerous frivolous move requests the article received in the past.) When this is hatted, he revert wars to keep it open. Note the edit summary for that one, where he declares an intent to keep warring until he gets a response that satisfies him or he gets banned.

Given that his only contributions to the article's talk page seem to be these things, and especially given the WP:POINT violation and edit-warring to keep it on the talk page, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he's engaging in the disruptive editing that the standard sanctions on the article refer to, here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

Gamergate has avidly sought to remove Gamaliel since the original announcement of Project Five Horsemen (a project which is currently celebrating yet another site ban today). They’ve also engaged in a virulent and dangerous campaign of harassment off-site, which has included possible threats to his employment, and which he has borne with apparent equanimity.

Editors are regarding this appeal as merely an extension of the underlying bad behavior. I call your attention to two important facts:

• This is not an isolated case: assaults by editors with exactly this sort of contribution history, using precisely these tactics, and adopting very similar language, have occurred at frequent intervals.
• The charges leveled here against Gamaliel -- of misrepresenting innocent behavior as a threat of violence -- is in fact very serious. It is also preposterous. I repeated the same claim in alliterative verse on a formal ARBCOM page [113] .
• In reply to Agualion, BenMcLean wrote [114]

Look at the opening paragraphs of Gamergate controversy. Now look at the opening paragraphs of Black Lives Matter. Which one encouraged riots?

This extremist, right-wing charge is undeniably partisan and racist: I am astonished that it has not been redacted. However, this appeal now brings BenMcLean into the purview of AmericanPolitics as well as Gamergate.

I have certainly had differences -- very strong differences -- with Gamaliel, but his patience in this topic area is exemplary. I continue to believe that admins really must come up with some solution to Gamergate and that it must be solved effectively and soon, lest this plague spread throughout American Politics in the midst of a bitter presidential election. I see scant hope for half measures. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

Uncivil and POINTy. I see no reason to reverse Ben's ban. His point is still a good one, even if he made it in a bad way. If Gamergate is a controversy, it should not be described from the POV of one side of that controversy. This has all been discussed before, as the WP:STEAM faction will readily point out. Well, if you don't like having your noses rubbed in your own poop, develop some continence. Don't be evasive about what Gamergate is, and people can't be POINTy about your evasiveness.

Gamaliel has consistently defended and enabled this STEAM faction, but there's no reason to believe this has been improprietous. I think Gamaliel's been overindulgent, but even-handed. I suspect they have been affected by Vogon poetry. The off-wiki harassment of Gamaliel doesn't relate to Ben or indeed any registered editors that I can tell, but it needs to be discussed on this page. Since the about-face from the Lightbreather case to Tarc's ban there needs to be some clear communication about where the line is drawn on off-wiki statements. I don't care where it's drawn as long as its a fairly bright line. We could do without these canards on talk pages.

Oh and MB, though Gamergate has always been related to American politics, if that bothered you, you shouldn't have added Gamergate to the page of your congressional representative.[115] Rhoark (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BenMcLean[edit]

• Please tell me there will be something different besides the usual suspects going out to these enforcement requests. At the very least some administrators uninvolved with the subject matter looking into this. GamerPro64 19:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned a rather involved admin (that should take a break from GG pages) took AE action without an AE request especially in light of the recent AE Arbcom decision. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the two above comments ridiculous. We don't need fresh eyes on this straightfacedly disruptive editor to decide he still needs the ban. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• PeterTheFourth, you could learn some civility. I feel it important to mention that User:PeterTheFourth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 104.200.154.11 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This particular gamergater has decided to spend some time going around reverting my edits to other pages. Help would be appreciated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Twat" "piss off" "Gamergater" - you need to learn how to interact civilly. I believe the editor is referring to this page Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia where I noticed his first edit was to revert the filer of this appeal (towards whom he left disparaging comments) and his next, having been reverted by another editor, was to revert that editor as well. I reverted, as this appears to be a case of WP:HOUND. 104.200.154.11 (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Slakr. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I have made a few comments on how Wikipedia covers the Gamergate matter over the past year, I am not heavily involved except to defend BLP policy and do not believe that I have interacted with BenMcLean previously. I find the editor's conduct in this appeal to be combative and dedicated to righting perceived great wrongs instead of building an encyclopedia. We need far less battleground behavior, not more, so I oppose the appeal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• BenMcLean, you would make a better case if you actually provided evidence/diffs that supported your claims, especially regarding those regarding another editor's motivations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by BenMcLean[edit]

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

• This appears to be an attempt to double down on previous disruptive behavior. The sanction is appropriate and necessary, and BenMcLean's conduct here confirms the appropriateness of sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking through the archives (and the editing of archives) plus the battleground attitude shown around the topic by BenMcLean, I would say this was a rational and carefully measured application of Arb sanctions, and consistent with what we would do with any other editor displaying this behavior, so I don't see any abuse or misuse of authority here and in fact would agree with Gamaliel's actions. As an aside, Ben's claim that Gamaliel has an agenda while failing to substantiate it with a single diffs or example is at best, incivil. He would be wise to strike the comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As stated above by User:Acroterion, BenMcLean's conduct here in the appeal shows the appropriateness of sanctions. This isn't a subtle or borderline case; it's more like a 'please block me' case. In this edit summary BenMcLean stated "I am going to fight this until I get an actual response, outlining User:Gamaliel's reasoning or I get banned, whichever comes first." All this talk of fighting suggests we are in the presence of battleground editing. I recommend that BenMcLean's ban not be lifted. I am one of the admins who is grateful that User:Gamaliel is willing to stay active in this area of enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not even close to a borderline case. Textbook examples of battleground behaviour, which clearly justify the sanction. Accusations of involvement on the part of the sanctioning administrator have not been substantiated, so I see no procedural problems with this sanction, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting that uninvolved checkusers clean up the massive sockpuppet and meatpuppet problem in the Gamergate articles. The most obvious sockpuppet is PetertheFourth. If you look at his oldest contributions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth&dir=prev&target=PeterTheFourth ) he started editing the Gamergate arbitration page (as a new user) when it was clear Ryulong was going to get topic banned. Since then he has been a SPA who is clearly Ryulong's sockpuppet.

Second, there is Tarc, another topic banned user, who said on twitter he's been active in the Gamergate article all along ( https://archive.is/r3nK2 ). He has admitted to sockpuppetry.

Since yet another of the self-named "5 horsemen of wikipedia", The Red Pen of Doom, also sport a topic ban on the subject, then I recommend that the only one of their little group that hasn't, NorthbySouthBaronof, be subject to checkuser as well - especially since he has a long history of using multiple accounts.

Of course all this is obvious and a competent and uninvolved admin would've stopped this long ago. I recommend that Gamaliel be removed from the topic area for not only failing to deal with a serious sock and meatpuppet problem that continues to generate drama - but curiously enabling every single one of them.

I'm no administrator, but I would humbly suggest you might consider withdrawing the majority of this request and perhaps looking to WP:SPI for the gravamen of your complaint. Just a thought. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the scope, length, persistence and coordination of the involved parties puts this beyond normal measures. These editors are clearly quite obsessed with the topic and their socking will continue to be a serious problem until we get some decent administrates in their who aren't going to ignore their constant violations. 70.56.26.237 (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as a relatively new account who seems to edit Gamergate almost exclusively I can understand why you may be concerned about people checking for sockpuppets. 70.56.26.237 (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someday I'll have the Kussara article in shape! Dumuzid (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every good sock pretends to be useful on some obscure corner of wikipedia. 70.56.26.237 (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Soham321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Six months' topic ban from all pages related to India

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[116]

Statement by Soham321[edit]

I wish to continue participating in a debate with another editor in the talk page of Voltaire. In doing so i would like to make use of quotations about races and "racism" of Voltaire that have been given in secondary sources. Since these quote or quotes also make a reference to India and Indians i would like a free pass on the talk page of Voltaire and also on the main article of Voltaire about mentioning India and Indians with specific reference to Voltaire's views on races and his alleged "racism". My objective is to defend Voltaire from the racism claim; however i am not going to be dogmatic about it. I will lay out the evidence and i am prepared to listen to the evidence which says Voltaire was a "racist". This kind of a discussion on the talk page of Voltaire would also be useful for future editors of the WP page. For this purpose i am invoking a WP guideline, whose name i forget, which says that any action which leads to the betterment/improvement of Wikipedia trumps all other rules. Soham321 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, many things were said in that Arb discussion and there were editors supporting me also, claiming i had been provoked and claiming that i had been behaving like a "saint" when interacting with a senior editor who has a reputation of being cantankerous. Let us not cherry pick what one person said in that discussion. It is true though that i ought to have been more cool both before and during that Arb discussion. My defense in this connection is that i was (and still am) going through a divorce proceeding. But do please consider giving me some respect in view of the fact that i have been a content creator on WP; take a look at the new WP pages i have created in the recent past: Paradox of the Actor, On the interpretation of Nature, Letter on the Deaf and Dumb,Philosophical Thoughts, and Dialogues: Rousseau, Judge of Jean-Jacques Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reply to Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please see diff3 with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise's accusation that "in a rather stunning display of Wikilawyering, he seems to be first lambasting the author of a secondary source for not providing direct citations to primary sources for a statement he makes, and then accuses a fellow editor of OR because that editor showed, with his own citations on the talkpage, that the secondary author's statement actually did agree with the primary sources he talked about." I stand by the note i placed since i examined the source, the exact page of the book, and i did not see any reference to either Voltaire's writing or to any other authority (any secondary source) when Cohen made the following claim: ""More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites". I was stating something factual in my note; i was not drawing any inferences. Consequently in my opinion what i did does not constitute OR. Soham321 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Future Perfect's claim that my editing has been of poor quality (an allegation also made by Abecedare on the talk page of Voltaire) i would like to add a general comment about my editing by giving a link showing what some other editors think of it. link Ghatus writes that "I do not know about Soham's offence. But, I saw his edits in Maharana Pratap on 12th and 13th June,2015. It was of high class." Twobells writes "All his work has been of the highest class, albeit wordy". Mohanbhan writes "Most, if not all, of your disputes concerned the use of certain writers who were (and are) being systematically excluded from wikipedia. Since ArbCom was not engaging with the subject (they traditionally don't, and perhaps can't, since they have a lot of other responsibilities) and were only looking at whether your interactions were "friendly" nothing that we said about the real nature of the dispute mattered to them. Content disputes should be settled by subject-experts IMO, and content disputes should not be turned into conduct disputes." Soham321 (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of what i said in my original statement: "My objective is to defend Voltaire from the racism claim; however i am not going to be dogmatic about it. I will lay out the evidence and i am prepared to listen to the evidence which says Voltaire was a "racist". This kind of a discussion on the talk page of Voltaire would also be useful for future editors of the WP page." i am not sure why Gamaliel should think that i have some kind of agenda. I have reached certain conclusions based on my reading which i wish to share on the talk page. And i clearly state that i have an open mind and will not be dogmatic about my conclusions. I only wish to share my knowledge on the talk page but for some reason which i can't understand that is being perceived as being unacceptable. In my opinion if i am not permitted to share my knowledge of Voltaire vis a vis his alleged racism, it would be WP's loss and violative of the WP guideline which says that anything that improves wikipedia trumps all other rules. And i am only asking for the waiver on the Voltaire page, not on any other page. Soham321 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to Dennis Brown who apparently thinks i am guilty of ad hominem attacks on the talk page of Voltaire. Dennis, i went to dictionary.reference.com to obtain the meaning of "ad hominem". I got two results:

• appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
• attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I do not believe i am guilty of any of the two meanings of the term as defined by dictionary.reference.com. I did not make any personal attack or make any emotional appeal either when interacting with Abecedare or when interacting with Carlstak. Dennis, if you disagree please give me an instance of when i made any ad hominem attack on the Voltaire talk page (where the meaning of "ad hominem" is defined by dictionary.reference.com or any other dictionary.) Soham321 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JzG: Just so that we are clear i am not asking for a lifting of the topic ban. I am only asking for a waiver on the Voltaire page for reasons already stated. Voltaire was a contemporary of Diderot and Rousseau and i have made many contributions to pages about and related to the French Enlightenment thinkers. One can ascertain from my contributions that i have something to contribute to the discussion. I fail to see why i am not being permitted to freely discuss Voltaire's alleged "racism" on the Voltaire talk page. Is this not a violation of WP:NORULES? Recently i have been involved in an ongoing Requested Move discussion: here, here, and here. I would like an uninvolved Admin to decide whether i have been "rude" or cordial in this discussion. Finally, I am not a single purpose account; earlier, prior to my topic ban, i was primarily editing WP pages related to India. Soham321 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

Since Soham321 hasn't mentioned his appeal to me on my page today, with my replies declining that appeal, I'll link to our conversation: [117]. There are interesting comments by other people there too. I think I responded fully at that link, and won't repeat myself here on AE. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Soham321[edit]

• This is a very curious matter. I am not cognisant of the original cause of the topic ban. However it seems that this request, on its face, reasonable, is in danger of being turned down not on the basis that it will lead to issues based on the reasons for the original ban, but on a general dislike of Soham's modus operandi.

If it is contended that Soham, due to their manner of conducting themselves, is, or should be, persona non grata then that is a matter for blocking, AN/I or an arb case. To refuse an otherwise reasonable request, merely because one does not like the cut of the appellant's gib does not seem like due process.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Result of the appeal by Soham321[edit]

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

• After reading Bishonen's original ban notice as well as User:Soham321's talk page, my opinion is that the topic ban should remain in force. You were lucky to get off with only a six-month ban. You already took the original ban to Arbcom (July 2015), where one of the arbitrators said "Soham321's response to the topic ban (to fight it tooth and nail in any available venue, and to argue from the outset that the problem lies with other editors) is for me ample indication that this was a sensible call by Bishonen." If you were hoping to impress us with your good behavior, you have a long way to go. So I would decline this appeal, which gives no convincing reason why an exception is needed. Your statement above includes no evidence that your editing of Wikipedia has become more cooperative since the ban was imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• At first sight, and without knowing much about the backstory, I would have said that the topic of Voltaire is sufficiently far from the intended scope of the topic ban that a cursory connection between them made in the course of a talkpage discussion there wouldn't bother me too much. And seriously, just how relevant could a discussion related to India possibly be to the topic under discussion (Voltaire's apparently well-documented negative views on Africans)? So, my first gut reaction was, good for Soham for playing it safe and asking here for this limited exception, before doing something that could have been seen as "testing the boundaries" even though in itself it would likely have been harmless. On a closer look at the actual context of the Voltaire discussion, however, I am distinctly underwhelmed by the quality both of Soham's article editing there (see this [118] rather bad instance of tendentious OR) and his behaviour on the talkpage (where, in a rather stunning display of Wikilawyering, he seems to be first lambasting the author of a secondary source for not providing direct citations to primary sources for a statement he makes, and then accuses a fellow editor of OR because that editor showed, with his own citations on the talkpage, that the secondary author's statement actually did agree with the primary sources he talked about.) As I am left with the impression that Soham's editing in this field displays many of the same problems he was topic-banned for in the India topic area, I'd have to say now that the Voltaire page will probably be better off with less rather than more importing of India-related argument by Soha§m321. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not impressed with what I see of Soham321's behavior on Talk:Voltaire and this editor has a self-admitted agenda "to defend Voltaire from the racism claim". While I agree with FPaS that it was commendable that Soham321 seek an exception instead of going ahead and just doing it, I don't think their behavior thus far in this area is otherwise commendable. I also agree with FPaS that the article is probably best left alone by Soham321. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I see too much ad hominem and such on the talk page of Voltaire to be comfortable extending an exception here. The risk of problems outweigh the benefits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I fail to see why we should lift a topic ban in order to allow Soham321 to engage in arguments that so clearly lie outside policy. If anything this underscores the problem that led to the restriction. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: This request has been filed as a Arbitration Enforcement Appeal. Five admins have posted, all opposed to the request. Arbcom has determined that only admin opinions count when voting on an appeal, if AE is chosen as the venue. After six days it appears there will be no further admin comments, so the request for an exception is denied. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2015 (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 Lanlan lanwan[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lanlan lanwan (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:ARBPIA2

ARBPIA sanction: 1RR on all articles related to the Palestine-Israel conflict

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

1. 3:55 Sep 20 First revert
2. 12:49 Sep 20 Second revert
3. 10:45 Sep 21 Third revert

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13:37 Sep 20

Notified

[119]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are two 1RR violations here. After the first violation I put an alert on the editor's talk page plus the comment "Note that the sanctions include a 1RR restriction on all articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You just broke it at Hizma and I invite you to revert yourself to avoid being reported." The editor deleted the alert 21 hours later without comment, and then did the same revert a third time (the second one having been undone meanwhile by someone else). Editor clearly needs to learn that these sanctions are for real.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Lanlan lanwan[edit]

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 Lanlan lanwan[edit]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

Can someone please just block him/her? They are presently edit-warring against 3 other editors, latest reversal today at

• 12:38, 22 September 2015 , while they remove the warning about edit-warring on their user-page, and do not use the talk-page to discuss, at all. It does not get clearer than this, Huldra (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Lanlan lanwan[edit]

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

• This appears to be a clear cut violation. The user has been blocked for a 1RR violation in this topic area before, back in 2013. Gamaliel (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Unbiasedpov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Unbiasedpov (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

You are topic banned from 2002 Gujarat riots related articles, talk-pages and discussions anywhere on wikipedia. See [120].

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[121]

Statement by Unbiasedpov[edit]

Background:-

• 99% of my editorial time was spent on Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots talk-page. I have spent very little in article editing. Majority of co-editors have seen merit in my concerns on at-least 1 occasion. (Clarification added: I have been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years. I have edited many many articles. 99% mentioned here is not 99% of time on Wikipedia but 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Here are few sub-sections i started on talk-page:-

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Make_Godhra_train_burning_sub-section_accurate

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Tendency_to_revert_edit_without_using_the_talk-page

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Multiple-Issues

• Despite intimidation and bullying, I have been very civil and respectful on talk page. I was constantly seeking consensus and made updated proposal based on feedback received. In an attempt to seek common-ground. I also started Rfc and Mediation request:-

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2002_Gujarat_Riots_2

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#RfC:_-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F

Charges against me:-

• Charge#1 (Talk-Page):-

Repeatedly making,& updating, proposals on talk-page and failure to find consensus on Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2002_Gujarat_Riots_2 parallel fora example1 [122] and example2 [[123]]

Explanation of charge#1 example1:

I am updating proposals based on feedback received. For example:-

Original proposal:- Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Make_Godhra_train_burning_sub-section_accurate

Updated proposal:- Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Alternate_Wordings

Explanation of charge#2 example2:

As shown in example#2.I did edit,and add extra comments, but i always signed them.I have understood that this might cause confusion;Hence, I will refrain from such practice in future. My intention were to add clarity and accuracy. See the full impact of example#2 edit here Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Remove_quotes_from_Lead

• Charge#2 (Edit-Warring):-

edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections [124] [125]

Background:-

Edit-warring example, provided in charge#2, is about Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement and two other failed verification citation. I am show-casing Embree statement for sake of simplicity but please read entire subsection Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Alternate_Wordings for clarity.

I have spent 99% of time time on talk-page. What-ever edit i did were promptly reverted without use of talk page:-

See" Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Tendency_to_revert_edit_without_using_the_talk-page

Earlier, I was advised to use WP:BRD policy;Hence, I have tried to use WP:BRD in this edit-warring example provided in charge#2.

Explanation of charge#2:-

Current3 Article content:-

"Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated that the official version of the attack on the train, that it was organized and carried out by people under orders from Pakistan, was entirely baseless"

Problem with Current3:-

From the talk-page "I,Unbiasedpov, have read citation [43]. Current3 omitted half of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement. Here is complete sentence from citation [43] "A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire. Fifty-eight people died. The official account declares, without proof, that the attack it was organized and carried out under orders from Pakistan".

In the book,Embree states that there is no-proof of Pakistan involvement in Godhra train burning and Wikipedia:2008_Mumbai_attacks. Embree does not imply "entirely baseless". More-over, "no proof" is not same as "entirely baseless". "No proof" means "Absence of Evidence". "Entirely baseless" is more like "Evidence of Absence". "Absence of Evidence" <> "Evidence of Absence". Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit#1:-

In edit#1 i Replaced current3 half-statement with full-statement "Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire;However, The official account declares without proof that attack was carried out under direct orders from Pakistan."

My Edit#1 was reverted. So, I used WP:BRD and did Edit#2.

Edit#2:-

In edit#2 I left original current3 half-sentence intact and added "Failed verification" tag to it.

My Edit#2 was also reverted and I was banned from topic.

I know i am not supposed to comment here but this is the best place to clarify misunderstanding.

Clarification:- I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. 99% mentioned above is not 99% of time on Wikipedia. It is 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article.Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope un-involved admins @Gamaliel, Beyond My Ken, Dennis Brown, JzG, and Liz: will look at the merit of my edits and review at-least 3 edits or talk-page proposals. Most of my edits fall in two categories:-

correct misinterpretation of cited source.

point out dubious citations which violate WP:RS and WP:Thirdparty policy.

For example, My last edit, explained above, is about citation of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree. Please read the explanation above. Please check the citation here
https://books.google.com/books?id=u48rUnVEHbEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Routledge+Handbook+of+Religion+and+Security&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAGoVChMI38yA-ZOIyAIVy5eACh325ANP#v=onepage&q=godhra&f=false
.Ping me for questions.

Backgroud Information:-

This article "2002 Gujarat Riots" have 4859 edits[[126]]

The top two contributors to this article are both sock-puppet/abandoned accounts [[127]] [[128]]

In 07/2013, Top-Contributor & Sock-Puppet accountUser:Darkness_Shines re-wrote the entire article. Even today, Article is practically a Darkness_Shines's version[[129]]. This version contains many dubious citations violating several wikipedia policies. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to a typical proposal:-

My proposals resonates with majority of editors but there is always one,or two, editor opposing it.

For example,User:Kautilya3 agrees with me on proposal2 but if i make that change the disagreeing editor will revert it. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On CCT citation discussed by User:Kautilya3:-

CCT is a primary source published by Teetsa Setalvad's CJP Citizens for Justice&Peace(not a reputable publisher). Both,Setalval & CJP, are a party to the dispute. Supreme Court of India monitored Investigation report SIT carries adverse remark against both;Thus,CCT citation violates WP:RS, WP:Primary and WP:Thirdparty policy. See talk page of article for details. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, There are several errors in original article statement "The Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT), headed by Teetsa Setalvad concluded that ....the attack by a mob was part of a government conspiracy to trigger riots across the state".

Firstly, CCT was not headed by Teetsa.

Secondly,CCT never implied that godhra attack was a govt. conspiracy to trigger riots.Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare[edit]

Here is my complete explanation for the topic ban, which I had posted on the userpage when I imposed it:

You have been sanctioned because of continued disruptive and POV editing, slow but persistent edit-warring, and being unresponsive to feedback despite numerous warnings. In particular, despite earlier advice on how to discuss the issues constructively, you again repeatedly made multiple broad and overlapping proposals [130], [131] (which inevitably failed to find consensus) in parallel fora; changed the proposals even after others had responded; and edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections [132], [133]. Your conduct and repetitive arguments are disruptive, consuming an inordinate amount of other editors' time (on either side of the issues), and frankly preventing progress from being made (eg, this section) on a topic that requires more sober, neutral and collaborative editing.

For context, please see:

• This RFC and the previous and following sections on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. Pay particular attention to the date of the posts (you'll have to check the talk-page history to truly appreciate what a mess that RfC was). Also see this parallel request for mediation.
• This advice I posted at the userpage when I closed the RfC.
• The immediate next discussion started by user on article talkpage (again look at talkpage history for full picture). Also see this parallel request for mediation.

If there are any questions I can help answer, just ping me. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3[edit]

As one of the involved editors that tried to engage with Unbiasedpov, I can vouch for the fact that the editor's participation on this page has been incredibly disruptive and taxing, owing to the poorly thought-out and poorly explained proposals, inadequate understanding of the reliable sources on the subject as well as of Wikipedia policies, and just pure tendentiousness. Abecedare clearly told the editor to make one clearly thought-out proposal at a time (Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Multiple-Issues). But multiple overlapping proposals were again made Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Proposal: Make Godhra train burning sub-section accurate. Look closely at Proposal3 and see what you make of it! But, after people patiently looked at them and provided their comments, the editor once again altered the proposals [134]. At this point nobody knew what sources he was talking about. Then the editor seems to have added the sources here [135] (which somehow escaped my notice) and then proceeded to make changes to the article [136] without waiting for any further input.

The essence of the editor's push is that the Government's view should be represented. The CCT (the Concerned Citizen's Tribunal, headed by a highly respected former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India) is labelled as a "dubious primary source", even though it has been cited in pretty much every high quality reliable source on the planet. Ainslee T. Embree, who was again mentioned above to buttress the editor's own view point, states: "Accounts about how the violence began are contradictory. The official account of the Gujarat government provides a starting point..." and then goes on to narrate the official account. The editor wants to pick up the elements of this account and present them as Embree's view point. This is clearly a misrepresentation, and the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

Even if the editor's proposals had merit, this is clearly not the way to go about implementing them. If Abecedare's advice of one-proposal-at-a-time had been followed, perhaps some progress could have been made, and the editor might have learned something in the process as well. In the Multiple-Issues section of proposals, the editor listed 35 sources, with no mention of publisher or date, and no sense of whether they qualify as reliable sources. These are clearly efforts to overwhelm and intimidate rather than to convince. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Unbiasedpov[edit]

• An editor (any editor) who spends "99%" of their time on one article's talk page is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, they're most likely here to push a POV. (Civil POV-pushing is still POV-pushing.) When the editor has chosen a name such as "Unbiasedpov", it's a good bet that their POV is anything but unbiased. I put this in a class with those editors who choose usernames with "truth" in them - they're generally here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and generally end up getting topic banned from their preferred subject, indef blocked, or site banned. I don't see anything in the specifics here to make me think anything different about Unbiasedpov. Their appeal should be denied. BMK (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to note that Unbiasedpov's 85 edits to the article and talk page represent 20% of his overall edits (418). He's only made more edits to one other article (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom). (Also, a reminder to Liz that as a fairly newly-minted admin, she can now put her comments in the uninvolved admin section below, and doesn't need to hang out up here with the rank-and-file rabble any more!) BMK (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gamaliel That open bar could explain a lot! <g> BMK (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Unbiasedpov[edit]

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

• My thoughts are roughly the same as BMK's. I'm not inclined to consider lifting this unless this user is able to demonstrate productive editing outside this topic area. Gamaliel (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If I can speak in a very general way: The whole idea of a topic ban (versus an indef block) is that we assume good faith that an editor can in fact contribute in a positive fashion in areas not related to where they have had behavioral issues. If they don't choose to edit significantly in other areas, it really doesn't give us a measuring stick to gauge the likelihood that they can return to full editing without incident. For that matter, if someone is only interested in editing a single thing, that is sometimes a red flag anyway, as their interest may be more about advancing a cause or idea (read: POV) rather than to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. As a rule, I tend to object to lifting a topic ban on anyone that is only interested in editing a single page or a small group of pages, for the reasons stated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, those percentages are wildly incorrect, according to the the edit counter, Unbiasedpov has 36 edits to 2002 Gujarat riots and 49 edits to Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. The question is, were those 85 edits to the discussion and article disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Frankly, the username says it all. This is a Warrior For Truth. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• BMK is right, join us down here Liz. We've got an open bar and leather recliners. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just contributing an observation as an editor, rather than weighing in as an administrator. I see A/R/E admin decisions as an area for experienced administrators. But I'll accept the comment move as it seems like a neutral change. Thanks for the patience, I'll get my admin-training wheels off in a bit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his other contribs, or a sampling really, shows the numbers aren't that useful. He contributes is somewhat similar areas, and he will be able to do just that then appeal after a few months without incident. And welcome to below the "result" line editing, I'm confident you will do just as well as anyone here. You're always welcome to make observations rather than take a position in any case you are uninvolved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend declining this appeal, having read the statements by User:Abecedare and User:Kautilya3 and noticing that User:Unbiasedpov has not provided a convincing answer. His topic ban is only from the 2002 Gujarat riots, not from all of WP:ARBIPA. The discussion of these riots has been troublesome in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2015 (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 Gob Lofa[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gob Lofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case : for double violation of 1RR restriction on Troubles related articles within the past day.

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

At The Troubles:

1. 10:40, 20 September 2015 - changed Northern Ireland to "the Northern Ireland polity", a subjective term that they have been trying to put into articles mentioning Northern Ireland.
2. 21:58, 20 September 2015 - restores after I partially reverted their edit. They also use a misleading edit summary to justify it.

At Provisional Irish Republican Army:

1. 12:39, 20 September 2015 - likewise adds in subjective term "polities".
2. 22:09, 20 September 2015 - restores "polities" under the reasoning of "Adopting part" of my edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 02:38, 14 August 2015 - blocked for 24 hours for breaching 1RR at Protestantism in the Republic of Ireland.

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

1. 06:19, 13 August 2015 - notified of Discretionary Sanctions in regards to Troubles article.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has known for a good while that their intent to either change Northern Ireland's description to "polity" or add it in when it is not even needed is contentious and that it has previously been contested on various articles, yet they continue to do it. Examples being 31 August 2015 and at Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 (30 July 2015, 1 August 2015, 5 August 2015, 6 August 2015) - where they were reverted by three different editors and got no agreement for their edit on the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [143]

Discussion concerning Gob Lofa[edit]

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 Gob Lofa[edit]

Statement by User:Mabuska[edit]

Hi. From what I understand and have seen, articles to do with the Troubles are subject to a 1RR restriction regardless of article talk pages and what exactly is disputed, and the user in question knows of the restriction and breached it twice in one day. There was no talk page discussion on the revert that led to Gob Lofa's previous ban for violation of 1RR, and that was simply over a page move template. The talk pages on the last two articles I provided diffs on above have discussions on the matter prior to these edits meaning the editor knows the edit is contentious yet still make them. But I am not complaining here about the content but the double violation of 1RR in a 24 hour period.

The use of the term "polity"/"polities" has been flagged as contentious by the fact that three editor including myself, and all of us of different political viewpoints, at Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 reverted Gob Lofa. There is no consensus on what term to use, however the editor has been trying to push their own adjective, and one that demeans the status of Northern Ireland, which is commonly called many things (country, statelet, state, province etc.) but polity is not one of them, and when it does make an appearance it is usually in Irish nationalist circles as a degrading term. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, any breach of 1RR in the Troubles restriction area, regardless of the exact content or whoever is right or wrong, or even if it was well-intentioned, results in near immediate sanctions especially if an editor, such as myself and Gob Lofa, already know of the restriction. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, discussions have been held (Talk:Civil_Authorities_(Special_Powers)_Act_(Northern_Ireland)_1922#NI_description and Talk:Ulster_Volunteer_Force#Polity.2Fprovince), where Gob Lofa essentially provides nothing but personal opinion and misquoted sources. As other editors can attest to elsewhere, when Gob Lofa is involved dicussions they tend to go round and round in circles regardless until other editors either say enough or just stop responding, for example: [144], [145], Talk:Bobby_Sands#Community, Talk:History_of_Northern_Ireland#NI, Talk:Unionism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Unionism, Talk:Birmingham_pub_bombings#England.2FBritain. They also have a habit of demanding answers to their questions even when they have been answered and tend to go off topic and focus on editors instead. Discussions with Gob Lofa largely tend to result in a lack of anything productive, with other editors working things out/agreeing amongst themselves.

As discussions have been held it would have been proper for Gob Lofa to not decide to go elsewhere and make the same edits regardless. There is no good reason for them to be going about changing the status of Northern Ireland when they know it has been reverted elsewhere meaning it it contentious, and changing what has stood in articles undisputed for ages just because they don't like it. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HJ Mitchell:. It is usually only controversial when people don't fully understand what it is a province of, with most mistaking it to mean a province of Ireland, when it in fact means a province of the United Kingdom. Though quite a few of them would argue against the term so they can deny it is part of the UK. Though Gob Lofa has also replaced "states" in regards to NI and ROI with polities as one of the 1RR vio's above shows, so it's not just that term. Ironically Gob Lofa has no problem with using "state" in regards to Northern Ireland when making claims of "state power" in regards to the UDR.

To make an edit and then restore it after it has been reverted within 24 hours as far as I have seen over the years is classified as a breach of 1RR. If it is not then I feel aggrieved at the 24-hour ban I got in the past for restoring an essential Histmerge template to an article that Gob Lofa had removed, with my first edit classified as a "revert" for simply changing an incorrect merge template added by another editor in good faith to a histmerge. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, I can understand that reasoning on 1RR. However on that I am now more pressed to ask... was my own 24-hour 1RR block justified despite the fact I only made one revert? My first revert was claimed by the blocking admin as this, when it was simply a maintenance process correction. The "second" revert, or to me the only revert, was this. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking and smalling as it is not directly related to this discussion and it's in the past and the letter of the law was properly followed. I would also request that this Enforcement Request be closed as "no action to take" as I misinterpreted the 1RR rule. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gob Lofa[edit]

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

• Can someone briefly explain is contentious about the word "polities"? Where is the talk page discussion with this editor about this matter? I really don't want to sanction someone for violating a consensus when no one has tried to explain this consensus to this editor, outside of some edit summaries. That said, this editor does not have an impressive record in this area and has a long block log. Gamaliel (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody's questioning whether or not it is appropriate to violate this restriction. It obviously is not. But it is just as obviously not appropriate to refuse to engage in discussion during an editing dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing a 1RR violation. I see Gob Lofa making an edit, the edit being reverted, and Gob Lofa reverting back—which is a single revert, and not a violation of the 1RR. There could be a case to answer for the "polity" edits if this has been going on for a while and there has been significant discussion (I only see two or three editors participating in the discussions linked). Certainly it's not a common description of Northern Ireland, though "province" is not without its own controversy. Note: I do at times edit in this topic area, but my interests are mainly in the role of the British armed forces. I'm not well-acquainted with any of the editors involved here, and have no opinion on the content issue being debated. Nonetheless, I will move my comment if there is any good-faith objection to my commenting as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mabuska: There is also the general controversy over nomenclature of the nations of the United Kingdom (cf. the argument over whether Wales is a country or a principality). It's not directly relevant, I'm just pointing out that wherever there's more that one way of describing something, especially when politics is involved, there's an argument to be had.

    Actually, a 1RR violation does require two reverts. If, for example, I add a sentence and you remove it, then I re-add it, I haven't violated the 1RR; if you were to remove it for a second time, you would have violated the 1RR, as would I if I reinstated it a second time. This has always been the interpretation of 1RR that I've used and that I've seen at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska: This has been open for a while. Do you wish to present evidence of an ongoing pattern of disruption, or are you happy for this to be closed with no immediate action taken? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 27 September 2015 (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 DHeyward[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DHeyward (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_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions :

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions -- Sanctions as determined by administrators, below.

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

1. 20:50, 20 September 2015 = Violation of WP:BLP making statements about 14-year-old-boy about crimes not committed.
2. 03:28, 30 September 2015 = Violation of WP:BLP, making statements about sister of 14-year-old-boy
3. 04:04, 30 September 2015 = Edit-warring to add back in same WP:BLP violations as above.
4. 04:49, 30 September 2015 = Edit-warring, again, to add back in same WP:BLP violations, as above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 January 2015 = Block by admin HJ Mitchell for Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: block made in accordance with WP:GS/GG community sanctions
2. 13 March 2015 Topic ban by admin Gamaliel related to interaction with MarkBernstein

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see 30 November 2014, by Sonicyouth86.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 January 2015, to Binksternet.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 13 March 2015 by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• NOTE: Please note the egregious nature of this edit, combined with the edit summary chosen by the user in question: "Undid revision 683413422 by VQuakr (talk)DailyBeast is a secondary source. What Are you thinking? BLP doesn't apply at all.". Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, please take note of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified, at DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning DHeyward[edit]

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 DHeyward[edit]

Procedure question: What ArbCom case "topic area subject to discretionary sanctions" is this for? This article is not related to any GamerGate topics as far as I am aware of or any other ArbCom discretionary sanction. All the AE justification diffs appear to be GamerGate but don't mention GG. --DHeyward (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak diffs. All supported by reliable sources. I made an AfD comment that would make a biography relevant. It was upheld as the article was renamed. Quoting a reliable source is hardly a BLP violation. In fact, removing a sourced, direct quote is tendentious editing. The BLP block by Mitchel lwas overturned. MarkBernstein topic ban is irrelevant. BLPRESTORE does not apply as it was not an admin and was sourced as a direct quote to a reliable secondary source. The BLP claims were specious TRPoD. This isn't GG so all the so-called "areas" are nonsense. I edited before the GG crowd showed up. Maybe sanction them. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that am not the author for the language of what Ahmed's sister was suspended for. I restored it and added the blockquote as it was in the same reference as opposed to those simply omitting it. This editor added the Hoax language [146]. The source quotes her for being suspended and the block quote omits nothing. "I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right.” This sister is the one who created the twitter account. What exactly is wrong with that? --DHeyward (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix see above. I didn't add Hoax language. --DHeyward (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel, I reverted because the comment for removal was that it was directed at a minor. Whence, my edit summary "She's an adult." Please change the language but deleting the sisters statement when she had a large role in the publicity is not supported. --DHeyward (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz the source quoted her as being suspended due to another students complaint that she threatened to blow up the school. It's not speculation that it happened or that she likened the episode to Ahmed. The "Bomb Hoax" language was not mine, I only added the direct quote and reverted complete deletion when IDONTLIKEIT reasons were given. No one attempted to change the "bomb hoax" language but I support changing it.--DHeyward (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell As I've said, I agree the "hoax bomb" language should have been cleaned up and I apologize for not changing it (it wasn't my language, I reverted edits that were made for specious reasons specified in the summary). When specific reasons were cited I added the I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. The "bomb hoax" was not my language but was retained on revert. Regardless, her own quote was that she was suspended for threatening to blow up the school but she has denied she made the statements and she said the evidence was the word of another student. There is no dispute that she was suspended however and there is no dispute that the reason given was for threatening to blow up the school. My preference would be to simply use her words and paraphrase it or quote it. She identified with Ahmed's plight because of this and was a significant motivation for her to create his twitter account. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the full quote from [147] Eyman Mohamed: I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with. I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. So I’m not jealous, I’m kinda like—it’s like he’s standing for me. The parallels are striking from every aspect whether it's a perceived threat to the school, Islamophobia, 3-day suspension, same family, same district, etc, etc. All edits were to remove this even though Eyman is the adult sister that created the Twitter account that people responded and the quote provided her motivation. How that quote is paraphrased and put in the article was my intent. It's in her voice of why she was suspended. I wasn't the original author of "hoax bomb" language and isn't the way I would have phrased it but wholesale deletion on flimsy grounds (i.e. "she's a minor" when she is actually an adult) is what prompted reversion. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell Also, I have also argued on the talk page against using the word "arrested" for Ahmed's taken into custody because when his future employers google him, the first thing they will see is that he was "arrested for a hoax bomb" with an entire article written about him and an expunged juvenile record. He can truthfully say he wasn't arrested according to Texas law. It's also a reason I believe it should have been deleted. That issue doesn't seem to worry the editors that brought me here, though. --DHeyward (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((u|Cwobeel}} HJMitchell should note that the edit Cwobeel is highlighting [148] is in favor of BLP, unlike his position of portraying Ahmed's custody as an "arrest." Cwobeel was violting BLP by insisting that the police actions was an a "arrest" despite the police statements and Texas AG that clearly state that 14 y/o's are never arrested. Cwobeels BLP violations are not being discussed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

It is quite clear that the sole purpose of the content is to paint the whole family bunch of people running around making bomb threats. WP:SYN / WP:COATRACK. Clearly unacceptable option in relation to living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

DHeyward is using a source from The Daily Beast...it's an interview. The GamerGate issues are unrelated and DHeyward was on this article first before the person he is topic/interaction banned from showed up.--MONGO 06:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix...her denying she was involved in a bomb hoax doesn't refute the fact that she claims she was suspended three days for a bomb(ing) hoax. I assume as a juvenile that information is likely not going to be easy to come by aside from her claim...the veracity of it remains dubious. So all we can do is state that according to one interviewer, the sister claims (blank).--MONGO 12:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source states that according to the sister:“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.” So that can be taken as evidence the school district is biased, that is, if the source is reliable. The interviewer proceeds after that in his monologue to claim that that part of Texas is a "hotbed of Islamophobia".--MONGO 13:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see using a direct quote of what the sister claims. Even so, DHeyward isn't reaching far if the girl claimed she was suspended three days based on the claim that some other girl reported her as wanting to blow up a school. How else would you blow up a school? I would think with a bomb....hence...bomb hoax is not much of a reach. I like how the reporter of that piece put that information in there just before he editorialized that that region of Texas is a hotbed of Islamophobia.--MONGO 13:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If any kid takes a fake plastic gun to school these days, its hard to imagine (especially if he had previous suspensions in his school history as is the case here) that the kid would not be both questioned by the police and be suspended. If a kid brings a weird electronic device to school and after being told by one teacher to put it away decides to ignore that and instead plug it in during another class and have it buzz or alarm and gets a talking to by the police and a school suspension...well...what would anyone expect? The conspiracy theory here is by the left, that wants to present this as a clear case of Islamophobic overreacting...when the fact is that the school would have done this same thing to any child. Never mind the sisters claim that what happened to her was due to a lie perpetrated by another...the school still suspended her based on a bombing hoax...the U had reasonable cause to do so, but these suspensions are also sometimes done to protect the accused, because the time needed for this sort of things to defuse is roughly two to three days. Hoax bomb=device that could be construed as something that looks to the casual observer to be a suspicious package....Bomb hoax=comments or actions which could be construed as intent or desire to blow something up.--MONGO 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP[edit]

The problem isn't the source; it is the selective quotation of the source. As MONGO points out it is an interview, and the interviewee says she was falsely accused of something. Omitting the part about the accusation being false completely reverses what the source is saying, and may very well be a BLP violation. 166.170.47.132 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this edit from yesterday, which also claimed the girl made bomb threats. [149] 76.93.226.132 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix[edit]

Diffs # 2,3, and 4 are all a pretty serious BLP violation imo. If you look at the source cited, all of this is based on a quotation from Eyman Mohamed, in which she clearly states that "“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.” How you get from that explicit denial of having anything to do with a bomb hoax to saying that she was "suspended by the same School District for an earlier Bomb Hoax" is beyond me. This is a very clear and very obvious case of someone cherry picking/misrepresenting a quotation in order to imply the direct opposite of what the source actually says. And then edit warring to re-insert it after it's been challenged. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: Actually, the words "bomb hoax" don't appear in the article at all. What Eyman actually said, again, is "I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with." So if we can add anything based on this statement at all (which I question), we would have to say that she was suspended after having been falsely accused of wanting to "blow up the school." And it would have to be clearly attributed as her (Eyman's) statement. That is all that the source supports - saying that she was "suspended for an earlier bomb hoax" is completely unsupported by the source, and completely unacceptable. It uses her own statement to imply that she was actually involved in a "bomb hoax," when in reality her contention is the exact opposite. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cwobeel[edit]

This first interaction by DHeyward did not bode well, and from that point on there has been a continued effort by this editor to violate BLP (my highlight): Delete BLP1E NOTNEWS and there are tons of kids that draw pictures of guns that get detained and we don't need cruft like that. If he uses his clock to blow something up, we can add it later.[150] When asked, they don't even acknowledge their animosity against the subject and the obvious tone deafness.[151] - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix see above. I didn't add Hoax language. --DHeyward Really? And what is this exactly if not a revert adding that language?[152] Reverting to a BLP violation is the same as adding a BLP violation. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: After reading the comments in the Result section, are you still trying to defend your position? [153]. Adult sister or not, she is a private individual who deserves protection per WP:BLP. I am no longer sure a WP:WHACK! is what will make you getting clued. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: - DHeyward's started actively editing the article on September 20: Diff. A discretionary sanctions notice was added to that article's talk page on September 24 Diff - Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: - If you check the sources, each and every one of the sources refer to an "arrest", and thus there is no BLP violation. The NYT, WaPo, LA Times, CNN, and countless others report that he was arrested [154]. The fact that your argue that Mohamed was not specifically "arrested", is irrelevant to this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]

The first statement, from the AFD, is snarky and less than tasteful, but hardly a BLP violation. The second edit, however, regarding the subject's sister, is a clear BLP violation. The "bomb hoax" claim is simply unsupported by the claimed source, and the tortured justifications for it, here and elsewhere, are bereft of logical analysis. The 1950s junior high school kid who sang "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school" in the cafeteria was not perpetrating a hoax that the school was on fire. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arzel[edit]

None of these are BLP violations. 1. Is nothing. 2, 3, and 4 are all sourced to the sister's own statements. You might be able to argue about the presentation, but to claim BLP is weak. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

statement by Collect[edit]

The diff at an AfD is not remotely problematic as far as I can tell. I do find the bit about the sister being added to the BLP possibly troublesome as the source does not make the explicit claim as worded, although it is not that far off. "The sister had been suspended after a false accusation ...." would have been usable wording, I would think. Unfortunately, one or more of the commenters appear to be an "active disputant" at that BLP, and I think the catenation of all the most active editors at that article should be under precisely equal scrutiny. And on that basis, DHeyward is far from the worst offender, for sure. Collect (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, DHeyward is not culpable for the unfortunate wording which had been given by anther editor - the source can easily be interpreted to be read by an outside observer as supporting the claim, although I find the wording unfortunate. The editor who did insert "Bomb Hoax" should be told to be more careful, for sure. And anyone who objected to the exact wording should have modified the wording or suggested a change rather than try to remove the entire section (per WP:CONSENSUS) Collect (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, people object to an edit entirely, and end up saying only one or two words were the entire "violation" and that the other editor should have been prescient enough to know that the person really only objected to two words.

Common sense says - if you object to two words, then damn well say so - and don't accuse the other fellow of deliberately violating WP:BLP. Clearly if the problem is two words, be man enough to tell the other editor what your problem is with them, instead of shouting him down as though he were in the tumbril. Following WP:CONSENSUS makes a lot more sense than preparing the guillotine. Collect (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

Supposed violation #1 does not even make a claim about any specific person (or small group). It is a policy-based AfD argument about a hypothetical situation by which a subject might meet notability guidelines. At worst it could be called flippant. Inclusion of this diff establishes the purpose of the filing is to punish someone for not sharing the filer's ideology.

Diffs 2-4 refer to information sourced from direct quotation from the subject of the claim, as published in the Daily Beast. The most pertinent RSN discussions concerning the Daily Beast [155][156][157] express reservations on where it stands w.r.t. fact vs opinion, but has generally been found reliable as a source at least that opinions are held. If editors share concerns along these lines, they could insist that the article read that the Daily Beast believes the sister believes she was suspended, but that seems pedantic to me.

Where reliable sourcing is satisfied, there is no BLP violation. Full stop.

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has several clauses that must be unpacked. First there's the burden of proof and "must comply with Wikipedia content policies". This is satisfied, as described above. Consensus/discussion is not required if the material is revised to address concerns, as was done by including more specific quotation of the sister's statement. DHeyward's final restoration is the only possibly problematic diff, in that it restored the passage unaltered. The given objection from VQuakr (talk · contribs) however was that there was no reliable secondary source. It is not possible to revise to satisfy a counterfactual complaint. For failure to patiently explain VQuakr's misunderstanding, DHeyward should be trouted.

Restoring material means taking responsibility for it, so DHeyward is answerable for the "bomb hoax" phrasing. It seems like a reasonable paraphrase of the source, but also reasonable to challenge. The mature response would be to WP:PRESERVE the overall passage and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Likewise for those who believe more of the sister's statement should be quoted for context. You can just fix it rather than coming to AE to count coup. Ultimately, this dispute is motivated by a faction projecting their own biases and assumptions onto the material and other editors. Perhaps the incident with the sister connects the family with terrorism. Contrarily, perhaps it demonstrates the district has an ongoing pattern of Islamophobia. Neither of those is a reason for AE to take up the charge and right great wrongs. Grow up and let the reader decide. Rhoark (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]

I'm slightly surprised by a blithe response to BLP violations here. Fyddlestix has it exactly right: a source was being twisted to give an impression the opposite of what the quote supports. And this was reinserted three times. If this behaviour isn't prevented now, we'll surely see more of it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68[edit]

There are a couple of editors involved with that article who have some serious WP:OWNnership problems with it and at least one of them has commented above. If you admins want to help stop the edit warring that's going on with that article, I suggest you remove those editors. DHeyward, as far as I can see, is not one of them. Several of you admins commenting below appear to be, based on your comments, at least partially aware of what's going on with that article. Why haven't you stepped in to correct the poor behavior by those few editors who are getting in the way of congenial collaboration on the article? Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning DHeyward[edit]

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

• I personally think this is non-actionable. It's not really related to the restrictions, the AfD comment was defensible, the BLP edit not so much and should have gone through WP:BRD but this is not WP:AN/EW. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, MastCell is right. The quote that was used for the claim that the sister was suspended for a bomb hoax does not actually say that. It says: "“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.” - that is not at all the same thing, the complainant could have been just another Islamophobe. To be clear, this is not a violation of the topic ban. It is, however, pretty sneaky and it is also edit warring to add questionable material in violation of WP:BLP. I don't know what this board is supposed to do about that. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This editor has a history of edit warring on controversial articles and is not sufficiently able to resist the temptation to be obnoxious to editors he is in conflict with. That said, I'm not sure this rises to the level of enforcement. The AFD comment was crass but not actionable. The article edits are sufficiently sourced and though poorly worded initially, this editor is making changes which appear to be an attempt to take into account objections by others and is participating in talk page discussion. Should the edit warring continue, I would consider a 1RR restriction, but beyond that this appears to be a content dispute and not a BLP violation so far. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The first diff is not particularly problematic, but the other three show edit-warring to reintroduce a fairly serious BLP violation, in my view. DHeyward wrote that a living private figure was "suspended by the same School District for an earlier Bomb Hoax." The cited source clearly presents this incident as a false accusation of a bomb hoax against the living person. DHeyward's edit removes this essential context. I'm surprised more people don't see this as a problem.

  If this private figure (whose name DHeyward helpfully included in the edit) applies for a job and her prospective employer Googles her, one of the first things likely to come up is a Wikipedia page saying that she was "suspended for a bomb hoax"—devoid of the context present in the original source indicating that she was falsely accused. This is exactly why BLP exists: to protect living people (especially private figures) from the adverse consequences of careless editing on one of the most high-profile websites on Earth.

  Now, I have no idea whether the "GamerGate" sanctions apply to this article, or whether these edits fall under AE's purview. I'd be just as happy with an injunction to get a fucking clue and edit more responsibly (cleaned up and phrased WP:CIVILly, of course) rather than a block. But we need to be a little bit clearer about where the BLP line is. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Collect: When editors revert to restore material, they implicitly take responsibility for the material that they are re-inserting. This is a fundamental aspect of personal responsibility and editorial common sense. Arguing that DHeyward was simply edit-warring to restore someone else's BLP violation, rather than a BLP violation of his own creation, isn't the mitigating factor you seem to think it is. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DHeyward, you need to tone it down. Please bear in mind how public and permanent Wikipedia is, and that these are children you're discussing, not public figures with years of practice. You can make your point perfectly well with more considered remarks. Others, please don't import gamergate disputes into this (or any other) topic area; misconduct on one highly toxic topic area might be overlooked given the generally appalling level of discourse there, but if the same faces start showing up in the context of disruption in other topic areas it starts to look like the problem is with them and not with the topic area. Next, DHeyward's edit is a reasonable, but overly concise (to the extent that vital context is lost) interpretation of the source. This sort of thing would not normally merit an AE request or a noticeboard thread. DH should be more careful, in the same vein as with his remarks at the AfD, but it does not, in and of itself, rise to the level of sanctions. Finally, nobody has specified the arbitration remedy to be enforced. The only obvious one is the BLP discretionary sanctions, of which DH is not formally aware. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cwobeel: In order for discretionary sanctions to be imposed, the person on whom they're to be imposed (in this case DHeyward) must meet one of the criteria at WP:ACDS#Awareness. DH has only been alerted to the gamergate sanctions. You may be able to argue that he meets one of the other criteria, but I still wouldn't be considering any serious sanctions, at least at this point, for the reasons I outlined above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 1 October 2015 (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 EllenCT[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

VictorD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

EllenCT (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#Edit warring : 7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

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

EllenCT repeatedly, unilaterally reverted the same material against several different opposing editors over the span of a week and a half in two sections in the United States article, often with misleading edit summaries. Every diff below contains her preferred changes to the inequality segment ("X"), the tax segment ("Z"), or both.

Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21):

1.[158] "X"

2.[159] "Z"

3.[160] "Z"

4.[161] "Z"

5.[162] "Z"

6.[163] "X"

7.[164] "X"

8.[165] "Z"

9.[166] "X"

10.[167] "X", "Z"

11.[168] "X", "Z"

When advised to stop edit warring EllenCT stated her intention to continue reverting "[169]: "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with multiple reverts on the 21st.

EllenCT had already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article [170], and should be familiar with the rule.

For the record, I only edited the article twice in that entire span.

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 28, Sep. 22.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note - I originally filed this report on the edit warring board [171], but was advised to take the complaint here. I was away when that reply was posted, and EllenCT seized the opportunity to initiate the case here herself, except twisting it so that I was now somehow the one being reported, hijacking and distorting the process. [172] Her report was a malformed mess and she failed to provide a single diff of my edits even after being prodded to post evidence. Fortunately several editors were able to decipher what had happened but the resulting chaos confused admins who indicated they weren't sure how to proceed. Her report should be closed. Now it's my turn to try. I'm taking the bold liberty of filing this report against EllenCT as originally advised. Hopefully this fresh start will clarify things.

This is not a content dispute. This is a straightforward conduct violation. The diffs are fresh because I initially reported them on the edit warring board on the 21st, at which point EllenCT's edit warring began its current pause. Without action against her here it may resume. VictorD7 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[173]

Discussion concerning EllenCT[edit]

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 EllenCT[edit]

This is the same dispute as #VictorD7 above. Victor would of course prefer to focus on eleven days of WP:1RR on my part than on his and his WP:TAGTEAM's political advocacy source abuses giving rise to it. EllenCT (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (VictorD7)[edit]

This is how the case should have been brought originally, not the malformed mess initiated by EllenCT above that left admins confused. As for EllenCT's charges against me, she is partially right in that those were the focus of her request above. She had her chance to make a case against me and she failed. In fact her claim is the opposite of the truth. If anyone is interested in examining the content dispute they can visit the other request, where the posting, as Capeo helpfully put it, "completely dismantles" her sources and arguments, and shows that she's the POV pusher. There's no point in relitigating that here. Now it's time to focus on her edit warring.

3RR violation isn't required for one to edit war. Over those 11 diffs EllenCT repeatedly makes the same changes over and over again against strong opposition by numerous editors. Content is irrelevant to an edit warring case unless it's vandalism, a BLP violation, or something illegal (e,g, copyright infringement/child porn), none of which applies here. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning EllenCT[edit]

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