Open main menu

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AE)



Contents

WumboloEdit

Wumbolo is banned from Andy Ngo and its talk page, as well as topic banned from Andy Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia. Wumbolo is further warned that future disruption in the American Politics topic area will likely result in further sanctions, up to a topic ban from the entire WP:AP2 topic area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning WumboloEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS 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. 8th July First revert within 24 hours
  2. 9th July Second revert within 24 hours, no consensus on talk page for edit
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 11th May 1 week ban for edit warring at Stefan Molyneux, also within the American Politics 2 area
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Asks an admin whether or not an edit violates the 1RR/consensus required restrictions on the page here.
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Page placed under 1RR & consensus required by ST47 here. Wumbolo claimed a WP:BLPSPS exemption for his edit removing this. The removal had been contested in the past. The material removed does not relate to a living person and thus WP:BLPSPS does not apply. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[1]

Discussion concerning WumboloEdit

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 WumboloEdit

I have self-reverted the edit. wumbolo ^^^ 07:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof is misrepresenting sources; I will provide diffs shortly. wumbolo ^^^ 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: consider this edit, made today, attempting to recklessly revert an edit of mine without any regard to Wikipedia policies and the encyclopedia, plus calling the edit "POV edit by notorious POV editr [sic]" which is a pattern combined with previous reckless BLP-violating reverts [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] in which they call it "POV edit" without any actual rationale while I provided an explanation for all of them but one. And you accuse me of edit warring, while BMK has been blocked 11 times for EW and recently also edit warred which I reported at both AN3 and ANI but was closed as no action (I'm still thinking whether to go to AN or RFAR). wumbolo ^^^ 17:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
#diff Ref NorthBySouthBaranof claims the ref verifies... What the ref actually says. (& notes)
1 Guardian (ESUM) "backed up by nothing more than a tweet." not given
2 Ibid. (ESUM) "highly-dubious claim" ; "random tweet" ; "no evidence has been produced" not given ; not given (& police tweet not "random") ; "without offering evidence"
3 Independent, Fox (ESUM) "That is not the same as 'the police said it happened.'" “One subject was arrested for throwing a substance during the incident.”
4 Independent, Fox "No evidence for this claim has been found." not given
5 All above The entire added content see #3 plus not given
6 Guardian (ESUM) "entirely-unverified claim made without evidence, as the source notes" "police claimed without offering evidence"
7 Many (ESUM) "a hoax" [antifa's narrative] not given
8 Unreliable clickbait "and the claim has been generally treated as a hoax." "Social media reactions to the hoax ranged from amused to appalled." (& social media > police?)
Also #8 Willamette Week "This claim was labeled 'dubious' by media sources." (Headline) "Portland Police Made a Dubious Claim About Protesters’ Milkshakes on Twitter. What’s the Evidence?"
9 Snopes "and the claim has been generally treated as a hoax." & refname "snopesHoax" "False [...] Alex Zielinkski, news editor for the Portland Mercury, told us the claim that any of the milkshakes contained cement appeared to be nothing more than a likely hoax."
10 Snopes "though this was later described as a hoax and debunked as "false" by Snopes" see #9 (Zielinkski's "hoax" label not Snopes's) ; "debunked" not given
11 Several (ESUM) "no evidence that any milkshake thrown at Ngo contained concrete." "evidence [...] observation of a police lieutenant [...] a “recipe” sent anonymously to police after the tweet was published" (from Snopes)

The table contains misrepresentations of sources by NorthBySouthBaranof. (emphases in table are mine) wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I apologize for attacks. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pudeo: see #9 and #10 in table. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans was always the one misrepresenting sources. I have been consistent. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I can't respond fully because of the limit, but the table above should provide sufficient information. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: personally no, but you have the authority to impose "consensus required". wumbolo ^^^ 20:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GMGEdit

Using twitter as a third party source in an article about a living person is a BLP violation. This edit is not subject to reversion restrictions, and is fairly clearly marked as an edit made under BLP. GMGtalk 22:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: You would be wrong on both counts. GMGtalk 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: BLP covers 1) all content on articles where the subject is a living person (or recently deceased), and 2) all content which concerns living (or recently deceased) persons regardless of the subject of the article. Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMGtalk 00:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMGtalk 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @ST47: It's not entirely clear here what is ambiguous about unless written or published by the subject of the article. Is there some confusion about whether Robby Soave is the subject of the article? GMGtalk 10:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth (filer)Edit

@GreenMeansGo: I don't believe WP:BLPSPS applies, as I noted in the initial request, because the material removed does not relate to a living person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Feel free to explain, Mr. Intellectual Dark Web. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I'll explain in detail.
WP:BLPSPS states that "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person"
The removed material was "Robby Soave, who wrote about the incident for Reason, reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation."
To support this material, Robby Soave was cited.
We could conceivably say that we are using a self-published source as a source of material about a living person, but only if we were talking about using it a source of material about Robby Soave - and WP:BLPSPS has a specific exception for this in unless written or published by the subject of the article.
I would say the spirit of this would be that using a source published by Robby Soave is okay to use for material about Robby Soave.
We're not using it as a source of information about Andy Ngo, per reading the text I quoted.
Do you follow? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChemEdit

I have commented at talk:Andy Ngo. Following from those comments, I recommend trouting both Wumbolo and Pete, and possibly also GMG for the argument above, and then closing this AE report with no action. Added: Full thread is here, including my corrected comments as it was PTF not W who started this AE. EdChem (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofEdit

Relatedly, Wumbolo is repeatedly removing reliably-sourced descriptions of the "concrete milkshake" claim as a hoax, dubious and/or false, from the Milkshaking article. They have ludicrously claimed in edit summaries, without the slightest shred of evidence, that these are debunked "hoax" allegations spread by antifa members, rejected the clear conclusion of Snopes that the claim is "false" and removed DailyDot claiming that it is an "unreliable clickbait company" contrary to WP:RSN consensus. They are doing this because they apparently disagree with or reject the conclusions of these sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by DumuzidEdit

I ran in to some of this same behavior from Wumbbolo on the Antifa talk page, specifically with regard to Mr. Ngo and milkshakes. I think this person is a good editor, but needs to find a way to be a bit less WP:POINTY. Everything did seem to be framed as Wumbolo's edits vs. terrorism. They even managed to get under my skin, and I apologize for being a bit brusque in reply. That being said, if they are willing to honestly try to assume good faith and edit in a less overtly political way, I don't think a block is necessary. Then again, I'm an old softie, and often wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by cygnis insignisEdit

Both users, the reporter and reported edit aggressively and exhibit exceptional rudeness in heated to and fros. Both seem to be spoiling for a fight, not contribute positively in my experience of them, bringing it here is just part of a campaign. cygnis insignis 00:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My KenEdit

@TonyBallioni:: Consider this edit, made today, attempting to whitewash the article about Laura Loomer with the removal of sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by PudeoEdit

Certainly Wumbolo shouldn't be topic banned for following WP:MOS and removing those WP:CLAIMED and WP:ALLEGED the very least. I don't understand the insistence on WP:BLPCRIME or tip-toeing whether it sounds like an assault or not. It can't be BLPCRIME, for once, because no one has been appherended or even recognized from the masked, unknown protestors. And anyone can be a part of the "Antifa" network, so there's no need to tip-toe that for BLP reasons either. You don't need to secure a conviction when there are no suspects and reliable sources have reported the attack. Wumbolo was right in describing the attack accurately per sources and removing the ALLEGEDs, but he should have left the Snopes piece intact. But all these separate things were modified in the same edits. --Pudeo (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SnooganssnoogansEdit

I don't have to time to get into this particular dispute, but I'd just like to note that this editor is problematic on all Wikipedia pages that relate to right-wing YouTube and Twitter celebrities and fads (Andy Ngo is another example). He repeatedly and often grossly misconstrues what cited sources actually say, and then edit-wars his changes into articles. Most recently, he edit-warred content not supported by the source into Ben Shapiro's article[7][8]. He also removed text that a RfC concluded should be in the Shapiro article.[9] In an attempt to get the RS noticeboard to give Ben Shapiro's website 'Daily Wire' RS status, he blatantly misrepresented how the website was covered by other news outlets[10] (and recently did the same for LifeSiteNews[11]). He also misconstrued sources on the articles for Shadow banning[12], YouTube[13], and South African farm attacks[14](where the editor was falsely claiming that RS did not report that a "white genocide" in South Africa was false[15][16]). In my opinion, this is something that should be considered a cardinal sin on Wikipedia, because it forces other Wikipedia editors to waste their time sifting through his sources, engage in discussions with him and deal with the edit-warring in good faith. It's an enormous time sink. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEngEdit

@TonyBallioni: Wumbolo does make a good point about BMK's personal attacks here and in edit summaries. I am concerned with your dismissal of that given our communities lack of response to such things. A new AE filing is of course not needed for that given anyone that comments here can have their conduct examined as well. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning WumboloEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @ST47: this is your sanction, could you take a look? Sandstein 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure. Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. The statement was Robby Soave...reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation. Who is the living person on whose behalf BLP is being claimed? It can't be Andy Ngo, as this statement isn't "material about [him]". It might be Robby Soave, in that our article said that "Robby Soave reported...", but in this case BLPSPS would allow this sourcing. We're saying "Robby Soave reported X" and citing Robby Soave's self-published tweet in which he reports X. WP:BLPSELFPUB would seem to expressly allow that. It feels like a long walk to claim BLP on this.
    • There was a prior discussion on the talk page regarding whether this statement was relevant to Andy Ngo or not, but that's not in the scope of BLP and that discussion was still ongoing. ST47 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at this too deeply, and I'd like to wait for more comments, but edit summaries like this make me think we should be looking closer at Wumbolo's behaviour in this area and that a topic ban may be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, I've had more time to look at his conduct on this article right now, and honestly, it is pretty concerning. In addition to the diff above we have the following:
At the very least an article ban is required here with a warning that if the disruption exists in other parts of the AP2 topic area, an indefinite topic ban from AP2 will be next. The only reason I'm not fully on board a topic ban at this point is that he doesn't appear to have been sanctioned before in the topic area, but if he continues to act like this on other articles, a topic ban would be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Wumbolo, thanks for responding. I appreciate it. If there are concerns with the conduct of another editor, you should file a new AE. This is about your behaviour. I think you mean well on that article, but it looks to me like you're displaying WP:OWN type behaviour on it, which is understandable since you are it's primary author. At the same time, I don't really think the way you've acted is acceptable there. I'd be fine closing this as a logged warning if you agree to take disputes to the talk page, and come to consensus there rather than reverting over the same topic repeatedly. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
PackMecEng, bringing up the bad conduct of others is not a defense for one's own bad conduct. This thread is about Wumbolo's actions, not BMK's, which aren't particularly relevant to an AE thread that's examining conduct on an article that BMK has never edited, so I don't think looking at them here would do anything other than muddy the water. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Wumbolo, I'm not interested in the content dispute. Just a yes or no: are you willing to contain any disputes to the talk page and not the main space article? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: I'd be a bit worried about sanctions on the basis of the diffs you provide. While the argument over whether assault is a crime is a bit bizarre, I'm a lot more concerned about editors who insist on the "allegedly" weasel-word and on replacing "antifa" with "anti-facist" when RS seem pretty unanimous on describing the incident as "assault" and identify "antifa" as the perpetrators (a quick search turned up CNN, the Independent, Vox, WSJ, Fox, Slate, RT, Yahoo News, the Spectator, the Atlantic, NYT...). There appears to be a sustained campaign to downplay the role of antifa in this article and Wumbolo has been on the side of the sources. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    • GoldenRing, I disagree: you are essentially making a content argument, and it is not our job to do that. It is our job to look at the behaviour and determine if it is compatible with Wikipedia’s behavioural standards, which this certainty isn’t. It’s not a weasel word to insist that an article actually make clear that something is alleged when it is criminal and no court has ruled on it, nor is the edit warring okay, or the fairly blatant POV-pushing, misleading edit summaries, and multi-article disruption on this topic. The question is whether or not an indefinite AP2 ban is needed or if a ban from Ngo would be sufficient. I’m leaning Ngo at this time, but would be open to AP2. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelfEdit

JohnTopShelf is topic-banned indefinitely from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. This topic-ban may be appealed after a minimum of 90 days. Anyone seeking sanctions against any other editor is directed to file a separate enforcement request. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning JohnTopShelfEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
JohnTopShelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Persistent attempts to insert negative information into Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, through gaming the 1RR/24h rule (note the timings)

  1. 13:13, 10/07/19
  2. 13:24, 11/07/19
  3. 13:35, 12/07/19

However, forgetting they had already made another revert ...

  1. 16:44, 10/07/19 thus violating 1RR (they had also edit-warred over this statement, violating 1RR, on 2-3 July)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Block Log
  2. Blocked on 22 February 2019 for 48 hours as an Arbitration Enforcement action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  3. Blocked on 14 March 2019 for 72 hours as a normal admin action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  4. Blocked on 25 March 2019 for 1 week as an Arbitration Enforcement action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  5. Blocked on 1 April 2019 for 1 month as a normal admin action for immediately continuing to add the disputed material to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • As above. BLP DS warning was placed on 31 August 2018, and ARBAP2 DS warning was placed on 22 February.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning JohnTopShelfEdit

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 JohnTopShelfEdit

It was stated that I have "skirted" the 1RR rule. Stated another way - I complied with the rule. I am not trying to "skirt rules" - I am sincerely trying to comply with Wikipedia rules, which rival the U.S. tax code for complexity.

Snooganssnoogans (talk) has stated that I continue to "edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS." That is not true. The material I inserted into the Ocasio-Cortez article regarding Pastor Rodriguez' assessment of detention facilities was true and cited to a reliable source. The statement that the Democratic Socialists of America has a long-term goal of ending capitalism is from the organization's own web site, and is also included in the Wikipedia article on the group. Characterizing this edit as a unsubstantiated smear and blatant falsehood, as Snoog did on my talk page, is absurd. I am sincerely not trying to be a jerk about these recent edits; I have been simply trying to include factual, relevant information.

The real issue is that Snooganssnoogans simply reverts edits if he doesn't like the contents, even if the edits are factual and properly cited, and then accuses an editor of edit-warring if the editor attempts to re-insert the information that was reverted without a valid reason. I also don't appreciate Snooganssnoogans' abrasive statements on the article talk page, my personal talk page, or his talk page, accusing me of lying, fabricating, being illiterate, and not operating in good faith. I am not going to request any enforcement or whatever for that, even though it is warranted.

Further - what happened in the past is not relevant to this matter - I was already penalized for my past transgressions.

Finally, I sincerely appreciate Drmies (talk) pointing out how to state my case in this matter - Thanks!

I trust this matter will be handled fairly. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

One additional thing - I hesitated to mention it here before, but it is very clear that Wikipedia has a double standard when it comes to editing and enforcement. A left-leaning editor like Snooganssnoogans can revert edits simply because he doesn’t like the content, and is not sanctioned in any way. He can also say I am lying, fabricating, smearing, and more - all untrue - and do so without recourse. Somehow that is allowed, but editing the AOC article to include true, reliably sourced information is not allowed since Snoogy, the self-anointed ruler of this article, doesn’t like it. I have changed my mind, and request arbitration and enforcement against Snooganssnoogans.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by BellezzasoloEdit

Just to note that this page is also under enforced BRD, which seems to have been ignored by the user in question. A topic ban does seem to be in order given the history. Bellezzasolo Discuss 13:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SnooganssnoogansEdit

This editor has been repeatedly warned about (1) DS, (2) edit-warring and (3) BLP violations, yet he continues to edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS.[23] The editor was literally part of discussions where it was clearly pointed out how a group of pastors did not specifically say that AOC was misinforming the public[24], yet the editor edit-warred this falsehood back into the article.[25] The editor was also informed that a source did not substantiate that the Democratic Socialists of America "has a long-term goal of ending capitalism," yet repeatedly edit-warred that back into the article (see diffs provided by Black Kite). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, I explicitly said "blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears", and as you can see above I clearly describe the falsehood as being about the pastors and the unsubstantiated claim being about the DSA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I looked at some more edits by this user and found that in August 2018 he was edit-warring in WP:WEASEL and WP:FRINGE-violating language on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories [26][27][28] to leave it unclear to readers whether birther conspiracy theories were false, and changing RS language that states that a book publisher "misidentified" Obama as being born in Kenya to original research that says the publisher "identified" that he was born in Kenya. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFirEdit

Pointing out [29] ... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Does this user just not get it? They have CANVASSED on PackMecEng's user talk page regarding this AE filing. They also stated that "what happened in the past is not relevant to this matter - I was already penalized for my past transgressions", yet they have been repeatedly warned about various bad behavior on American Political pages for years (see user's talk page). Some examples of WP:TEND editing on American Politics pages include: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]
Moreover, the behavior (adding descriptors, commentary, or other language about AOC being a socialist and/or part of the DSA and the political positioning of the DSA) being reported has been occurring since at least February 2019: [40], [41], [42], . Other edits try to discredit AOC: [43], [44], [45], [46].
This behavior shows no sign of changing if they think that "the past is not relevant". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by PudeoEdit

Snooganssnoogans writes in his statement here that adding that DSA wants to abolish capitalism is a "falsehood". He also said that on JohnTopShelf's talkpage, and in an edit summary.

In fact, the DSA does want to abolish capitalism according to reliable sources. Vox [47]: Like most socialist organizations, DSA believes in the abolition of capitalism in favor of an economy run either by “the workers” or the state — though the exact specifics of “abolishing capitalism” are fiercely debated by socialists. Slate [48]: Economically, it entails the abolition of capitalism. The Week [49]: DSA's national platform calls for abolishing capitalism. NPR [50]: the DSA views capitalism as an oppressive system.

JohnTopShelf should have used a better source as it was only implicit from the one used by him, but stop accusing him of posting falsehoods. You are wrong. I suggest a warning for Snoog for calling facts supported by reliable sources "falsehoods" because he wants an editor sanctioned on AE. --Pudeo (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment by MONGOEdit

Unless there is further evidence of issues any ban that might be imposed should be limited to anything about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...the bio on her etc. Seems that each block and this complaint focuses solely on the situation there.--MONGO (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The first set of diffs provided by EvergreenFir above are, aside from one ([51]) not specifically harmful unless they were part of a pattern of edit warring. Aside from one definitely bad example linked, they appear to be merely slight changes in wording and in some cases backed by RS. Again, all of the problematic edits are directly related to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as far as I can see.--MONGO (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley:...the only one in the diff you have suggested is the changing of the wording on the section on the Breitbart piece from misidentified to identified. The rest look like mostly word choices and not alarming. If you look at that diff the first blue highlighted change is merely removing the word "falsely" after the linked word Conspiracy Theory...but a conspiracy theory is by it's very definition, considered to be based on falsehoods...so what's wrong with taking out a double negative?MONGO (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I also take issue with Snooganssnoogans misrepresentarion of the issues mentioned by Pudeo above. Maybe JohnTopShelf could have provided better references as Pudeo has done rather than a primary one as he did and maybe he did not have consensus for that addition, but the fact is that RS clearly demonstrate the objectives of that political entity and to state that this is not the case is incorrect.--MONGO (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

My concern is much more about protecting BLPs than the small potatoes other diffs that are relatively of small impact. It's a shame that AE has to always take the road of most destructive and draconian measures to silence people when it would be more Wikipedian to take warning a shot across the bow, topic ban him from the primary BLP in question and allow this to be the lesson for now. I will not hesitate here and now to say its immeasurably obvious that there is far more leniancy given to similar infractions by those who edit here from a left of center perspective. It pains me to say that and it's not intended as a insult but as a observation that can be easily demonstrated by a review of similar cases.--MONGO (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: those blocks all seem related to the editing issues this user has on Alexandria Ocasio-cortez. Eliminate their editing capacity on that BLP and maybe the problems will disappear.--MONGO (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000Edit

JohnTopShelf: I am sincerely trying to comply with Wikipedia rules, which rival the U.S. tax code for complexity. If the editor thinks that 1RR is that complex; perhaps AP2 is not an ideal arena for their contributions. (Hope that doesn't sound too snarky.) I also don’t like the concept that violating the spirit doesn’t violate the rule. All guidelines are written with an underlying rationale and Wikilawyering about the “letter” of the rule is bothersome and a sign of collaborative problems. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My KenEdit

Just to note the Vox article cited by Pudeo as "proof" that the DSA wants to abolish capitalism is an opinion piece representing the views of the author, a "former reporter". It is not a news piece. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Rusf10Edit

If JohnTopSelf has engaged in edit-warring, then so has Snooganssnoogans. [52] and [53] were done in less than a 48 hour period, so do they also violate the "spirit" of the 1RR? I think we probably could let both go, but the bigger issue here is Snooganssnoogans removal of content based on the fact he simply doesn't like the source. As per numerous discussion at WP:RSN, the community has decided that Fox News IS a reliable source. Yet, Snooganssnoogans frequently removes content simply because it has been sourced to Fox News. In the AOC article alone we have "remove rubbish source with misleading content" [54], "fox is not a rs for content related to this woman" [55]. In the talk page discussion he again asserts "This is a perfect example of why Fox News is not a RS, and how they're actively making shit up to smear AOC." [56] He then calls former ICE director Thomas Homan "not knowledgable about the issue in question" and "a partisan" without any source to back up the claim. While Fox News is his favorite target, it goes beyond this, he disparages any source that presents information that he does not like. He also called the New York Post "a bad faith actor" [57]. In other articles he called The Hill (also widely considered reliable) "non rs" [58], called Fox New a "non-rs" again [59]. It is clear to me that he goes against policy and consensus and evaluates reliability of sources simply based on whether he likes them or not.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Rusf10, I hope you don't mind if I place a note here, since it's not about JohnTopShelf: I am looking at your Snoogans-diffs, but this one, from The Hill (which is, as you say, generally accepted as a reliable source), I wonder if User:Snooganssnoogans removed it because it was an opinion piece (and just should have left a better edit summary). Personally I believe that facts cited in opinion pieces in reliable publications should generally be accepted, though it certainly is not the best practice to pull one's facts from opinion pieces. As for the Fox comment, that's again about the group of pastors--the source that JohnTopShelf added did clearly not say they thought AOC was lying, so whatever Fox source was used better have better direct evidence, and it may well be that they did not report the pastors' words accurately (and that Fox doesn't much care for AOC is clear: Fox is frequently at least somewhat reliable though biased, as are some of the publications on the "liberal" side). Either way, if you want to start a request about Snoogans, that's fine--but this is not the place to do it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning JohnTopShelfEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • So, pointing out that someone violated the spirit of a sanction means they complied with a sanction? This, which Snoogans pointed at, is indeed a misuse of the source (the pastors don't say AOC was misinforming the public). The slow edit warring is clear, and that the DSA edit was a type of smear seems to be confirmed by Bradv in this revert. So, regardless of whether we judge the timestamps to be evidence of manipulation or not, it seems to me what JohnTopShelf fully deserves a topic ban from at the very least this topic. I have not delved very deeply into their other edits, but this also is cause for concern: "the reader" doesn't need to be left in the dark about the fact that Deep State conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. So an AP topic ban wouldn't be a crazy idea. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    • After reading over my colleagues' comments, and particularly the diffs supplied by User:Hut 8.5 (some of which are just jaw-dropping), I am more than convinced that there's not just a vendetta against AOC here (I mean, seriously), but a political drive behind many of the edits in the AP-post 1932 field, which run the gamut from casting doubt on science, POV-editing the articles on news organizations, to smears on BLPs (and, I should add, an editor with this lengthy experience should know better). A topic ban of at least six months for the topic area is appropriate, I believe. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Vanamonde, I am fine with your proposal. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yikes, looking at this on the surface I was going to suggest going with something lighter, but after looking into the diffs and doing a little spot checking of my own I would definitely support a long topic ban. That kind of axe grinding is not helpful here, especially on high profile BLPs. ~Awilley (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@MONGO: Do the additional diffs like this one provided above by Snoog- convince you that the problem extends beyond AOC? ~Awilley (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have very little patience with users obviously too intelligent to genuinely believe the arguments they are advancing to justify their position. Taking the diffs presented above in toto, I think we need to give JohnTopShelf an extended break from the broader topic, and that they need to demonstrate their ability to edit without a battleground attitude before they return to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Drmies, Awilley, Hut 8.5, and Sandstein: We seem to be in agreement about the troublesome nature of the edits, but not so much with respect to the scope and length of a topic-ban. I am personally of the opinion that topic-bans for POV-editing should not have an expiry date, because an inability to set aside personal POV when editing isn't something that simply disappears with time. I also think that we have sufficient evidence of problematic editing on pages besides Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I think an indefinite AP2 topic-ban, appealable after three months, is the best outcome here, but I want to suggest it to you before implementing it, in case any of you believe it to be too harsh. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @MONGO: Two brief responses. First, I am a firm believer in "warning shots across the bow"; but we have an editor here with five escalating blocks, none of them overturned or lifted on appeal, in five months. That is more than sufficient warning that a more draconian sanction is on the horizon. Second; an editor's political affiliation doesn't matter in the least on Wikipedia; but their compliance with policy does. Wikipedia has an operational definition of a neutral point of view based what we have defined to be reliable sources. It makes no mention of liberal or conservative politics, certainly not in the narrow sense those terms are understood in the US. That definition results inevitably in a manner of presentation that is less palatable to people whose views don't align with the majority of reliable sources; but the place to argue that definition is not here, it is at the village pump or some similar venue. Here, we will enforce policy as currently written. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • At a bare minimum I think this needs a long-term topic ban from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I'd support something stronger. The edits made here gamed the sanction to include inappropriately sourced negative material into a BLP. 1RR is not an entitlement to revert once every 24 hours without consequence, it's a bright line rule to ensure that people discuss things on the talk page instead of reverting. This has to be combined with previous blocks for disruptive editing on that article, someone who gets blocked for something and then does the same thing again can expect a stronger sanction the second time. Just looking into JohnTopShelf's recent edits I can see plenty of tenacious editing, e.g. [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] and especially [66], which suggests the behaviour is more widespread. Hut 8.5 10:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93: no I don't think an indefinite topic ban is too harsh, I absolutely agree that the behaviour extends beyond the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article and that this type of problem will persist and that does suggest a broad indefinite sanction. JohnTopShelf has been blocked four times this year for either disruptive editing in violation of arbitration sanctions or edit warring, so I think the main alternative is a lengthy block. Hut 8.5 15:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hut 8.5's diffs show this editor is not here to write neutrally about US politics. I agree with a topic ban from this topic area. Sandstein 14:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vanamonde that an indefinite topic ban from American politics, appealable no sooner than after three (or maybe six) months, is the best outcome here. Time-limited topic bans always incur the risk of the user simply sitting them out and then returning to the topic without having learned anything new. I'd really like to see a convincing topic ban appeal from John Top Shelf in three or six months, where he explains what he would do differently going forward. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC).

BuffsEdit

Clear consensus that Order of the Arrow does not fall under the scope of ARBAP2. The ban is therefore overturned. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning BuffsEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

I think, but this is an appeal, so I'm asking for UNenforcement.

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

N/A; an appeal

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

N/A; an appeal

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Not me
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Nope
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Nope
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Nothing in my log, nothing in my talk page history ,Nothing in the Arbitration enforcement log at the time
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. I've never given an alert to anyone; didn’t know I could
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Nope
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Nope

Part of the problem is that none of these apply...I think...

On the Order of the Arrow talk page I saw and asked how it fell under these sanctions and was told "On the earth side of the United States and around that aforementioned timeline." This interpretation basically means anything that has existed in the US since 1932 or involves discussion since 1932. I don't think that was the intent of the original sanctions. Given that the locus of the primary dispute is regarding language used in 1915 (and earlier), I don't think it should apply. Even if it did, the length of ban is highly disproportionate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Admin El C put Order of the Arrow under discretionary sanctions without logging it. He put also put me under a TBAN as a discretionary sanction without logging it either. He then blocked me without checking to see if I'd had the required notification. I’m asking for the ban/block to be vacated. Details and diffs below as needed. Side note: I'm not familiar with this process, so if I missed something or I've filed it incorrectly, please...be gentle, but you are free to correct any problems

Details/links

An admin warned me not to use a collapse field on a talk page (It’s worth noting El C endorsed such actions just a few days prior, had been done to my remarks in the past with no complaint, and it was already undone/moved with no additional discussion/problems...i felt it'd been resolved). Another admin posted a warning to my talk page, but before I even saw the warning, under AE, El_C decided to increase that warning to a 6-month ban on the article for "underhanded conduct". And before I'd even had a chance to see the ban, El_C blocked me for a week for evading the ban (he later reverted it as he realized I hadn't seen it).

These sanctions were not logged until after I was banned and blocked, as required. As such, actions taken under them should be invalidated.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Well, it's about me...so, yes, as the filer, I'm aware. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion concerning BuffsEdit

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 BuffsEdit

See above. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: There's a lot of instructions and I guess I missed that one. It was not my intention to skip any required notifications. #Suggestion Update the requirements in this edit box to include "Ensure all sanctioning Admin(s) are notified"? Thanks to NewYorkBrad for notifying (sent message on talk page too)! Buffs (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sandstein: The fact that the AE block even occurred is a related matter, even if undone; the fact that it isn't logged is also an issue. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I am unaware of any ArbCom issues; not sure how that pertains to my ban. Buffs (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_CEdit

The matter is now before the Arbitration Committee (privately). Due to issues pertaining to privacy, I am unable to comment further at this time. Sorry.

But briefly, in regards to the discretionary sanctions encompassing the article: most of the dispute seem to revolve around modern claims of "cultural appropriation," which is why I felt AP2 applied. I continue to stand by that evaluation.

Again, sorry for taking up the board's time, but I was only pinged (which currently just happens to be not good enough). A notice on my user talk page was due. El_C 20:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I advise against lifting restrictions at this time. It's probably better for the Committee to be done with this first before that should happen. El_C 21:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning BuffsEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • At first glance, issues of awareness aside, the page ban of 10 July 2019 appears invalid because Order of the Arrow, the article at issue, has nothing to do with US politics. It's about scouting. Perhaps El_C can explain why they think it is in scope of the sanctions, in addition to how the awareness criteria were met. As to the (unlogged) AE block of 01:47, 10 July 2019, it's been lifted, so technically we can't review it. Sandstein 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would lift the ban as out of scope. Cultural appropriation is an issue of American culture and society, not politics. I have not examined whether the conduct at issue would even merit sanction if it were not out of scope. I encourage El_C to be more careful in taking account of the procedural requirements of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 06:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to say that "Order of the Arrow" is a step too far from American Politics to fall under AP2. (I don't think cultural appropriation is uniquely American either.) I would vacate the ban on those grounds as well as for failing to meet the awareness criteria. I don't think we can do anything about the block/unblock, though like El_C I can also take Buff's explanation at face value (starting a post before the ban, eating dinner, then finishing the post and hitting Publish before visiting their talk page). I looked at Buffs's user talk page and there seemed to be some "talking past each other" going on there. Hopefully resetting this won't interfere with whatever private Arbcom dealings El_C alluded to above. ~Awilley (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@El C: Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that was what you were saying earlier...it struck me as a bit cryptic. ~Awilley (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think the Order of the Arrow article falls under the post-1932 politics of the United States, the controversy surrounding the claims of cultural appropriation doesn't seem to be particularly political. I suggest lifting the ban on those grounds. Hut 8.5 10:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Awilley and Hut 8.5's take here. Don't think this falls under the post-1932 scope. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. Obviously out of scope. El_C's response to the user's inquiry as to how it could be construed as being in scope is extremely dismissive and disingenuous. His attempt to argue that the AP sanctions extend to the topic of cultural appropriation is seriously unconvincing. Additionally, that the awareness criteria were not satisfied, and the actions not logged, are all cause for serious concern. De-tag the page and lift the ban. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)