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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

John2510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBBLP :

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

1. 19:42, 12 October 2020 copyvio from this source, archive
2. 12:27, 13 October 2020 reintroduced copyvio after being notified via user talk page that this ARE issue had been opened
3. 19:26, 12 October 2020 deletes source and then separately at 19:42, 12 October 2020 deletes the wording that had been supported by the source (and introduced the copyvio, latter is the same diff as above)
4. 19:30, 12 October 2020 deletes source with the edit comment Source does not mention Richards case and then after I pointed out in my own edit comment that the source linked to the full text of the (SCOTUS decision) case while discussing it, and said the same thing in the article talk page accompanied by a lengthy explanation indicating not only why I thought the source supported the sentence content, but why I thought it was not simply duplicative of the remaining source left as a reference for the sentence, they again earlier today at 12:27, 13 October 2020 removed the same source, along with a second source referred to in the preceding list item, with the edit comment See talk. Not what the source says. No source for later analysis. (as part of restoring the copyvio, latter diff same as above)
5. 22:33, 12 October 2020 a third edit between the two diffs presented in the preceding list item also deletes the source after I restored it with an edit comment pointing out that it linked to the full text of the SCOTUS decision, with John2510's edit comment ignoring my own and again claiming The deleted source doesn't even mention the case, let alone say that it applies, but before I'd elaborated further on the article talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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 18:03, 2 June 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't know if there were any previous sanctions. I didn't submit this at CCI because I don't know if there are previous cases of copyvio.

I had not interacted with this editor before very recently on the article talk page where we had conflict. Things seemed to be getting more cordial but then I noticed that one of their first article edits subsequent to the talk page conflict introduced copyvio for apparent expediency in rewriting a sentence: note that lack of specificity, which allowed those executing it to target Taylor and her boyfriend — as part of an investigation in which their involvement was never firmly established and whose main suspect and accomplices were already in police custody — violated the is identical down to punctuation and spacing between the diff and the source and the rest of the sentence is similar besides.

So this would seem to fit somewhere in the AE talk page notice prohibition fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. I'm just realizing that unlike other AE notices I've encountered this one does not request immediate reporting but given that WP:COPYVIO isn't just a policy, but a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" I'll submit this and leave it to ARE's judgement.

For full disclosure, I wrote the original sentence that was modified and I restored it to my original wording to fix the copyvio.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13 October 2020

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.

In this bulk edit Struthious Bandersnatch included reference to the Richards case, as well as analysis that appears to be wholly OR. Reviewing his sources, I could find only one that even mentioned the case, and did so as a characterization from something out of a separate Washington Post opinion statement. The characterization from the source was entirely different from the editor's point. Rather than being accused of mischaracterizing the brief statement, I used the statement from the article making only minor structural changes. It appears to fall well within fair use, but I've invited the other editor to paraphrase it if he feels otherwise. He could have done that instead of coming here, of course. John2510 (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had restored the text and noted its fair use in talk prior to seeing this pending action. I've now deleted it pending the outcome of the arbitration. John2510 (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should also say that this would seem like a quickly-fixed minor incident to me, to under other circumstances handle one-on-one rather than with a reporting process, if it weren't a nearly-14-year editor who is a member of WikiProject Law and is Aware™ of Arbitration Enforcement and did it on an AE-marked article furthermore marked |topic=blp. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• John2510 has now restored the copyvio without any paraphrasing or rewriting. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use is not an offhanded excuse for WP:PLAGIARISM to save yourself time; it involves marking the unlicensed copyrighted content and attributing it to its source, as I pointed out in our article talk page exchange earlier today, John2510. (edit: I note that based upon time stamps your comment here preceded my comment there by a couple of minutes.) The way you did it is even more misleading because you also added an intext reference to The Washington Post while the source you were plagiarizing was New York Magazine. How many times have you done this kind of thing during the last fourteen years?
    Also, as from your wording you may not be clear on the matter, this is not an arbitration specifically of a disagreement between you and I; "arbitration" refers to the fact that I have filled out this report about a violation of the 2008 / amended 2015 WP:ARBBLP decision which you were formally alerted to on your user talk page in June of this year by Objective3000 in the diff above, and which the article we have been editing, Shooting of Breonna Taylor, is marked as included under by the notice at the top of its talk page.
    Speaking of your user talk page, I alerted you to this discussion there in the diff linked to above, ten hours before you restored the copyvio.
    Since John2510 has expanded the scope here there are at least a couple of other aspects of their conduct in editing that article which seem relevant to fail[ure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process—
    1. they have deleted a source individually in one edit with one edit comment rationale, then in a subsequent edit deleted the content supported by the source with an edit comment claiming it was unsupported
    2. they have repeatedly deleted a source, by itself, with the edit comment rationale that it did not support the statement it was a reference for, despite me pointing out in both my own edit comments and the article talk page that the source did directly refer to the cited material.
    I have added diffs showing my preceding two points up above but if those sections were supposed to remain unmodified they can be moved down here to accompany my statement.
    I will concede, after closely examining the sources, that there may have been some mild SYNTH in the way that I wrote the original sentence which was overwritten with the copyvio. But of course that in no way justifies plagiarism via copyright infringement in an article both included under Arbitration Enforcement and WP:BLP policy, nor playing deceptive games with sources and edit comments. (Or, for that matter, reintroducing the copyvio after being notified that it was copyright infringement in the edit comment, in the article talk page, and by user talk page that this ARE issue discussed it.)
    @Seraphimblade: I did not intend the capitalization and trademark symbol on "aware" as uncivil snark, but rather as mildly humorous in passing; I have used that formulation to refer to myself. But if it was inappropriately harsh or seemed to make light of what ArbCom and ARE do, I accept the warning and apologize. My own conduct in this forum or on an AE-marked article is just as appropriate for scrutiny as is John2510's. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seraphimblade: (and other admins) I should ask, to properly understand—I actually have filed at ARE before, just last month, on the basis of a single 1RR violation, and the end result was that the editor was indefinitely blocked. Albeit this was on one of the articles where the talk page notice does specifically ask for immediate reporting at this noticeboard. Is a legal issue like copyvio really less important? (Clairifying edit: less important for the decision to report here; I'm not saying that John2510 should be indef blocked for what I have laid out here.)
    Particularly given that—I would say predictably based on preceding behavior—this user simply committed copyright infringement on Wikipedia's behalf again and only relented, with an edit comment implying a temporary deletion of the full pre-copyvio content is happening for alleged copyright infringement—once again instead of simply doing their own writing—once they had apparently accepted that they'd have to respond here. I'd have happily gone elsewhere, but as I remarked in the initial report CCI seems to be for established repeated copyvio. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think warnings on both sides are in order here. For John2510, your edits were indeed a direct copy of the source, and were not marked as a direct quote and properly attributed to their source. There is no "fair use" for plagiarism, and using a direct quote without putting it in quote markings and attributing it is exactly that. Don't do that again. For Struthious Bandersnatch, one hopes that could have been resolved without coming to AE, and if you do in the future file at AE, snark like using "Aware™" is not at all appropriate here. State what you have to say civilly and plainly, and leave out the snark. Other than that, I don't see any need for any action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 13 October 2020 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SPECIFICO (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

Gender-related controversies

• GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions
• Enough is enough "When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community."
• Recidivism
• Battleground conduct
• Decorum Incivility, harassment, gaming the system

American Politics

• Discretionary Sanctions

Biographies of living persons

• Discretionary Sanctions

Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

1. adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia: WP:5P4 Seek consensus;
2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines: WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT;

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

All 5 diffs relate to content about sexual misconduct allegations in BLPs. (WP:ARBGG, WP:ARBBLP) Diffs 4 & 5 also fall under WP:ARBAPDS.

The evidence shows highlights of a larger pattern of manipulation and WP:CRUSHing against consensus, with some incidental personal attacks.

(SPECIFICO's words are in yellow.)

Diffs following AE case 13 September 2020

1) 07:47, 16 September 2020 WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT

2) 07:53 - 20:38, 16 September 2020 WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT

3) 12:58, 18 September 2020 WP:CIVILITY/ lying, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT

Diffs following AE case 2 October 2020

4) 11:50, 7 October 2020 WP:CIVILITY/ lying, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT, WP:PERSONAL

5) 14:56, 7 October 2020 WP:CIVILITY/ lying, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT, WP:PERSONAL

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions

1. 22 April 2017 by NeilN for what User:JFG described as a pattern of disruptive behaviour which contributes to a poor editing climate.[6]
2. 19 August 2018 by Awilley: SPECIFICO is placed under the Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions described at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions for a duration of 1 year.
3. 22 April 2014 for behavior including instances where SPECIFICO's edits and talkpage comments on biographical articles have overtly mocked the article subjects.[7] (Austrian Economics).

Diffs of previous relevant AE warnings

1. 20 May 2018 logged warning by TonyBallioni: SPECIFICO is reminded of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warned that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions per this thread at AE.
2. 9 April 2020 logged warning by Seraphimblade: SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions. (SPECIFICO knows user talk pages are covered by this warning.[8])
3. 15 November 2017 logged warning by GoldenRing: SPECIFICO is warned to edit collegially and assume good faith.

Diffs of previous relevant ANI warnings

1. 14 September 2014 SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban; 3) User:SPECIFICO is also warned that although an IBAN is usually controlled by escalating blocks, the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion;...

Diffs of previous relevant blocks

1. 1 December 2013 NuclearWarfare blocked SPECIFICO for 48 hours for "Creating an unappealing editing environment".

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

• Brought a complaint at WP:AE for WP:ARBAPDS, WP:ARBBLP, and WP:ARBGG on 8 September 2020, see below.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SPECIFICO brought an AE request against me which was closed on 13 September 2020 by Vanamonde93 with the statement that if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so. (I do so now.) That case showed that SPECIFICO has used transphobic language as a weapon and lied about it by feigning ignorance[9] despite their extensive experience with the subject.[10] As seen above, after this case they started right back up continuing their manipulative behavior.

SPECIFICIO's behavior has been dishonest from the start; I believe the evidence shows that they began their editing career briefly sockpuppeteering as User:Kevin4762 over a trivial content dispute.[11] SPECIFICO has not become more honest with time; they have only become more insidious.

It's curious that the same ONUS/CONSENSUS dispute with SPECIFICO at Aziz Ansari has also been happening at Julian Assange, one of the only political articles still on my watch list, but I assume that (other than the tactics) it's a coincidence. Although I do note that they claim (in diff 5) that the Consensus Required DS is flawed. Let's not let it be sabotaged; admins have already interpreted this sanction.[12]

This all is the very tip of the iceberg; it takes a lot more than 5 diffs to summarize the long-term behavior of a WP:SEALION. (I just scratched the surface of what I observed in the Ansari dispute alone.) Now I may be accused of stalking or revenge-seeking for performing due diligence. What I would actually like is for a person to be able to make a few edits to a few articles in peace without having to be a litigator, a detective, and a Wikipolicy expert. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Is there such thing as a "net positive" dishonest editor?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

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.

It's not a contentious claim that Assange has made this "pretext defense". The "Swedish-charges-are-a-pretext-for-extradition" argument is like Assange's #1 argument in his own defense. Widely reported in top RS for years. Examples are on the talk page, and were also discussed at the last AE. The text at issue has been in the lead of the article for 18 months at least [20]. Prior to that, a paraphrased version was in the lead for more than 4 years [21]. It's not a BLPVIO; it makes no sense to allow any one editor to remove any content from an article and force everyone else to form consensus to put it back in. Also, how can the defendant's defense be UNDUE? How can the BLP subject's POV not be a significant viewpoint? I have a hard time seeing the UNDUE objection as having any merit, frankly. It's frustrating to edit an article like this; Specifico should have just made a proposal on the talk page to remove the passage. Insisting that it be removed and the onus is on re-inclusion is disruptive, it's not cool, not for something that's been in the lead for years on such a heavily-edited page. Lev!vich 22:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: FWIW, the April AE might be a good example of AE report formatting. It's 6 diffs from the preceding 2 weeks plus 2 diffs from the prior month with almost no commentary. (If the diffs don't speak for themselves, they won't speak to anyone; if they need to be explained, they can be explained away.) At the bottom of that section those 8 diffs were distilled by Awilley down to 5 comments, each of which is "worse" than any of the comments in this report, and those five comments amounted to a logged warning. Lev!vich 05:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: Here's my take on the 5 since you asked: #1 & #2 are the removal-of-longstanding-content issue; everyone seems to agree that Specifico was wrong about that. It's not sanctionable; it's a mistake, but it's not "on the level". It's not intentional disruption, like vandalism, and it's not repeated disruption, that is, it's not like 3 instances in the last two weeks of Specifico removing longstanding content (three different passages). If it was that, it'd be sanctionable. If it happens again it might be sanctionable. But not this one time; the admin said he was wrong, and that's it for those two diffs. #3: you're inferring a lot about intent from a lack of signature. I agree with El C's take on this. #4 (specifically "Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda") and #5 ("Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently") are uncivil, but fewer and of a less severe nature than the 5 uncivil comments in the last AE. In my view, if this report was just #4 and #5 and you had just said, "He's still at it...", it'd probably have resulted in a quick sanction. But if the report isn't something an admin can read and digest in like five minutes, it's probably not going to end up in a sanction. That's not a knock against admin, it's just that if a person has to think about it, they're going to think other people should think about it before anyone unilaterally acts on it, and before you know it everyone is thinking and not acting, and then they start talking about it, and it's two weeks later and who gives a shit anymore, everyone's tired from all the thinking and talking. There are two kinds of group decisions in the world: (1) the kind that are so clear that anyone would implement it unilaterally, confident that no one could possibly disagree; and (2) the kind that don't get made. Lev!vich 07:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: I think you're pursuing a type of justice that doesn't exist on Wikipedia: the absolute justice that governments try to provide, as opposed to the relative justice of volunteers. Suppose there's a problem editor named Editor A. And you want Editors B, C, and D (regular editors, admin, arb, whoever) to spend how much of their free time (X) to investigate Editor A and then you want them to do what afterwards (Y), and deal with potential backlash/consequences (Z)? And why should they do this? They're going to balance the cost X against the benefit of Y and the risk of Z. If X is five hours, Y better be damn necessary and Z better be 0. If X is five hours and Y is not going to make a dent and Z is gonna cost another five hours at least... nobody is gonna sign up for that. Including me, I've spent as much time on this particular issue as I care to. I generally agree with you, but I just don't think it's gonna change unless you can make the X/Y/Z ratios work. Best of luck :-) Lev!vich 08:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I am an uninvolved administrator (see my talk archives), so I'll comment here: please do something. I was tired of the SPECIFICO/Kolya drama six months ago when I tried to impose a unilateral solution, and I am tired of it now. In another forum a few days ago, Kolya brought up 8 year old diffs against SPECIFICO to try and get sanctions which was an incredibly transparent fishing trip. Here, the only two diffs that could possible justify sanctions are 4 and 5, and even those aren't exactly compelling. It takes two to tango, of course, and SPECIFICO has been "accidentally" using it to refer to Kolya along with the baiting of Kolya which I first noticed when I got involved in this months ago.

This is tiring and we need it to stop. Has our content been improved? Have these disputes encourage more editors to join? Is the time administrators spend handling these disputes time well used? I doubt it. Throw a boomerang, or cast a pox on both houses, or whatever, but quite obviously warnings are not doing anything. 01:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Bringing up 8 year old edits in order to link IP addresses to an account is deeply concerning because it gets into WP:OUTING territory. Simply reading the lead section at SPI should have discouraged what you did--emblazoned in bold letters on WP:SPI: CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances. So either you didn't read the instructions or you ignored them, neither of which makes me confident that you won't accidentally out the next editor you have a dispute with. I don't really care whether it was appropriate to bring up here because it should have never been brought up in the first place. It shows an escalation of your unhealthy obsession with each other and demonstrates why I believe administrators need to take action before this situation continues to escalate. 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: you are misrepresenting the SPI case You're joking right? The page is titled SPECIFICO and you literally named them 17 times in your report. Three people who were not me commented on how that report concerned them including one person who was part of the 8 year old dispute you brought up. In a comment there, SPECIFICO claimed it was part of a pattern of hounding which seems facially plausible. That you don't seem to understand why trying to connect another editor to geolocatable IP addresses is a problem is exactly why I do not think you should be interacting with SPECIFICO. Considering our interaction the last time I tried to explain a policy to you, I'm not interested in explaining this further. You and SPECIFICO have been at it for months, and your mutual antagonism has seriously escalated. I'm not here to help you; I'm here to ask the community to put a stop to the disruption that you have as much of a role in as SPECIFICO. 23:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(This is a copy paste of my last AE statement regarding this SPECIFICO. Since nothing has changed and well here we go again, here is my post from this past April)

In a previous effort to rein in some of SPECIFICO's disruptive battlefield behavior, in August 2018 Administrator AWilley imposed several specialized American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions designed to allow SPECIFICO to continue contributing in the topic area but under a more strict set of behavioral standards as discussed here SPECIFICO was not pleased about these sanctions but they were at that time supported by admins Bishonen and Drmies. The sanctions were set to last one year, but perhaps somewhat angered SPECIFICO almost immediately ceased editing for 6 months, not returning until March 2019. Those sanctions were not applied just in the heat of the moment but after a long series of discussions and warnings that went unheeded, some of which can be seen in SPECIFICOs talkpage discussion just by scrolling up from that link I provided. Has there been any improvement since that self imposed 6 month sabbatical? None I can see:

• [22] Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
• [23] "Hi Ernie. I hope you are well and safely sheltered in a location that allows you to receive your favorite Fox News." IS a deliberate insult indicating that they think the person they are conversing with is a FoxNews watcher, which is rebuffed by the immediate response by MrErnie who claims the channel is not available where they reside.
• [24] "It may well pass WEIGHT but that doesn't mean it won't bog us down in footlong talkpage threads from a few Fox News fans here." Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
• [25] "Awilley, that response of yours reads very self-serving and convenient, without addressing the core issues of community and AE processes. Your words appear either disingenuous or so naive that you need to take an extended leave of absence from these American Politics articles. Similarly, your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA." That comment was responded to at SPECIFICO's talkpage here.--MONGO (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary is still directed at other editors, and is undermining good faith efforts to reach a consensus in numerous areas. Strongly recommend at least a 90 day AP2 topic ban, as well as a final warning to not comment on editors.--MONGO (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(copy paste from SPECIFICO)note that SPECIFICO was recently brought to AE just last week.

SPECIFICO has repeatedly violated DS and is a generally disruptive editor at the American Politics articles and associated talk pages. I think Admins here should focus on enforcement at whatever level is needed to prevent future disruption. I see no basis to hope that further warnings from [everyone] would somehow change SPECIFICO's behavior. Dear Admins: There's not enough patrolling of these articles by our volunteer Admins. Then when non-Admin editors take the time to report an obvious violation, their report too often ends up in a long drama thread at AE and extensive appeals and recrimination and deflection. I think a better model is simply for AE to carry out the escalating sanctions Arbcom mandated in the AP2 decision. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is close to WP:BOOMERANG territory. We're not here to help you "win" your content dispute, and the mining of ancient warnings and disputes suggests that you know you don't have a proper case. I suggest voluntarily withdrawing this and seeking mediation or creating an RfC. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, as to how someone's denials might be undue, if all reliable sources say X and the subject says Y, with any commenting sources attributing Y to the subject but not endorsing it, then we say X in the lead and note Y in the body. That's how it has always been. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Man, this report is so scattershot, and formatted in such a counterintuitive way... I had a real difficult time sifting through it. Bottom line: I found nothing recent that is egregious enough to be actionable. One item of note that I will briefly touch on is the Consensus required dispute, noting for the record that I disagree with Awilley about enforced BRD being superior to it. Anyway, in that instance, I believe SPECIFICO is very much in the wrong — WP:SILENCE applies to Consensus required. There does not need to be explicit consensus to render longstanding text subject to that restriction. Likewise, if longstanding text is removed or modified and nobody objects to that change, then it becomes the new consensus, per SILENCE. But if there are objections, then the restriction does come into effect, with explicit consensus becoming necessary for said removal or modification. To sum up: I see some editorial conflicts, which ought to be resolved in the usual way. And although the aforementioned Consensus required error on SPECIFICO's part is termed a "lie" by the OP, I see no basis to that accusation — how do you prove someone is lying as opposed to them making a mistake, anyway? While I don't think a BOOMERANG is in order, I would caution the OP to look at a few other AE reports as examples before filing another one, with an emphasis on both potency (egregious conduct that is recent) and presentation (formatting that doesn't hurt my eyes). Because this is a problematic report. El_C 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, it is my understanding that the "it" incident was already resolved with a warning to desist. As for the formatting, sorry, I am unable to directly assist you in this matter. But the learning curve should not be that steep for an editor of your experience — again, just look at a couple of random AE reports to get the sense of things. El_C 04:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, I did not single out the weakest evidence — on the contrary, I singled out the strongest evidence. "Crickets" has very little potency as far as egregious violations go. It's silly, it's petty, it's not to SPECIFICO's credit, but it's far from something that warrants sanctions. As for the "it" incident, while I'd rather not relitigate that, I will say this: speaking for myself, I also found SPECIFICO's explanation about that unconvincing. Had I seen it first, I would have blocked them, because I think that was an instance where WP:PACT applies. But a warning was issued before I learned about it, so I let it go. El_C 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often participate in this forum even though I regularly look over cases. But I will say that this would be a lot more clear cut, Kolya, if you had presented a case based on one arbitration cases rather than three (Gamergate, BLP and American Politics 2). Compiling a hodgepodge of evidence of edits you find unacceptable that covers different arbitration cases rather than presenting a strong, and deeper, set of diffs based on one case makes it a challenge to evaluate this. Given the frustration expressed here, maybe an interaction ban is called for although this would also be a challenge since you two seem drawn to editing the same articles.

But I agree that you can't keep bringing each other here hoping to get the other editor sanctioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the comments above. If there are recent problems in the evidence, I can't see them, and SPECIFICO is wrong in their claims about consensus in their comments at User talk:Awilley#DS Guidance at Julian Assange (permalink). I'm saying that based on what is written at Awilley's talk as a five-minute search fails to show a concise statement of the underlying issue. I agree that some of SPECIFICO's edits are too pointy (e.g. diff "Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant") but that was a month ago and 130 edits have occurred at Julian Assange since SPECIFICO's last edit there on 29 September 2020. I'm sorry to be slow but I cannot easily find the issue behind 'SPECIFICO referred to people as "it"'. However, please let me know if something like that repeats and I will give a final warning followed by an ordinary admin block on any further similar poking. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I meant to comment yesterday, but work kept getting in the way. Basically, I agree with the above. Half the diffs aren't really problematic, some obviously so. SPECIFICO can be a bit rude at times (the "fox news" comments need to stop), and yes they needs to pull back on that, but I don't see anything needing the ban hammer. For future reference, don't bother posting diffs that aren't clearly a violation of DS or an Arb finding, you just hurt your own case, and a giant list of diffs that are just a little snippy doesn't help your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a general comment, would people raising complaints here please consider that administrators don't make decisions based on who has the highest word count? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a suspicion but I would guess that the longer the editor statement, the more likely it is that readers will skim through it. Concise, precise and focused statements are always more influential than lengthy, overly detailed and convoluted ones. That's a general statement, like Blade's, not a comment specific to this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 17 October 2020 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on behalf of 2601:2C0:C300:B7::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (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

American politics discretionary sanctions, BLP discretionary sanctions

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

American politics

1. Discussion at Talk:Donald Trump: "Let's at Least be Consistent with Obama's Lead Section" POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources. Two editors warned them about false balance, and one commented "OP's activity in this thread does rather suggest a habit of misrepresenting sources"
2. At Ilhan Omar:
   • Discussion at Talk:Ilhan Omar: "Views on the Police" POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, ABF against other editors. Comments from other editors in the discussion: "Once again you're misrepresenting the source.", "Claiming that she's advocating "dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD--done, plain and simple" is a misrepresentation of your own source and a distortion of her views, in violation of WP:BLP", "I would appreciate it if you observed WP:AGF and not use words like "suspiciously" that question my motives."
   • Discussion at Talk:Ilhan Omar: Capitalism and Socialism Pushing the addition of labels based on poor sourcing, OR, and SYNTH. Comments from other users: "You seem to be indulging in a great deal of WP:OR."; "you seem to want to attach a label that has become ultra-controversial (since McCarthy days)... [that] isn't supported by RS"
3. 00:02, 4 October 2020 trolling?
4. Edit warring at Charlie Kirk (activist). They keep saying "you do not have consensus", but it is Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d who is edit warring out a portion of the past stable version of the page
   • 01:53, 10 October 2020
   • 02:57, 10 October 2020
   • 00:34, 20 October 2020
   • Discussion at Talk:Charlie Kirk (activist): "Claiming he didn't get into West Point because a less-qualified woman took his spot" "What happened to "let's discuss" and then forging ahead?"

BLP

1. Warring and misrepresentation of sources at Don Lemon
   • 23:50, 12 October 2020
   • 00:51, 13 October 2020
   • [26] per another participant in the discussion, "including this manufactured controversy violates WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP."
2. 01:18 15 October 2020 Restoring unsourced material about a BLP
3. Edit warring in the deadname of a non-notable minor at Dan Crenshaw; misrepresenting policy about trans people who were notable under their deadname; attempting to use Fox News support deadnaming the child even after being told it should not be used to verify contentious claims
   • 20:10, 12 October 2020
   • 20:59, 12 October 2020
   • 21:29, 12 October 2020
   • "Luna Younger" discussion, in which Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d claims that the line, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in article space only when the person was notable under that name." in WP:DEADNAME allows us to deadname a non-notable 7-year-old. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d also appears to intentionally misgender the child: I would understand that if his name was exclusively or nearly-exclusively known as "Luna." But, considering the fact that's there so much controversy in regards to his name (and the case in general) adding both names would seem like the best way to assure NPOV.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. n/a

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

• American politics DS alert, placed by HickoryOughtShirt?4 on 00:59, 1 October 2020‎
• BLP DS alert, placed by Acroterion on 01:04, 1 October 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Filing this complaint on behalf of 2601:2C0:C300:B7::/64, who fits all the criteria for being allowed to file the AE request themselves except that they have chosen not to create an account. Dr.Swag lord, Ph.d jumped into editing contentious topics on their second edit ever, making a series of edits to Talk:Ilhan Omar including pushing the right-wing conspiracy theory that Omar married her brother ([27]). This quickly earned them alerts on both American politics and BLP DS. However they have continued to POV push and edit war, not to mention a number of editors have expressed concerns that this is not a new user: [28], User_talk:Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d#Past_accounts?, User_talk:GorillaWarfare#Request_for_advice.

@MONGO: Sorry, that wasn't super clear. I meant they've been editing for 4+ days and have 10+ edits, they just couldn't file this themselves because they edit from an IP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, Atsme, that is an absurd and quite uncalled for accusation against me. The restriction at AE is intended to prevent editors who are disruptive or avoiding scrutiny, not good-faith IP editors, and it has been acknowledged both on the WP:AE talk page and in the original discussion leading to the restriction that IPs could just have an autoconfirmed user file a request for them. I could have taken action as an individual admin against Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, but I wasn't comfortable doing so as I have been working alongside 2601:2C0:C300:B7::/64, so I quite properly brought their request here for uninvolved admins to review. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been around long enough to know perfectly well that WP:INVOLVED applies to administrator actions, not to making a request for uninvolved administrators to review (which is precisely what involved administrators are supposed to do, by the way). The idea that I am involved with respect to the entire topic area of American politics is also absurd. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: If you believe that 2601:2C0:C300:B7::/64 is the reincarnation of a banned editor, please file an SPI report outlining your concerns. Otherwise please stop casting aspersions that appear to be baseless. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: This is beginning to feel like an extremely bad-faith attempt to fling accusations at me in the hope that something sticks. very noble of you if the case had not been filed at AE and you the OP had not been editing the articles used as evidence First of all, even if I had been editing the articles used as evidence, it would still be proper for me to come here and get input from uninvolved administrators by filing a report. Bradv has already confirmed as much to you. But the claim that I've been editing the articles used as evidence is provably false:

• Donald Trump, 0 edits
• Talk:Donald Trump, 2 edits, both from July 2018
• Ilhan Omar, 2 minor edits (punctuation fixes) on September 26, then, after this request was filed, a revert of an unsourced change followed by a readdition of that change with a citation
• Talk:Ilhan Omar, 0 edits
• Mitch McConnell, 0 edits
• Talk:Mitch McConnell, 0 edits
• Charlie Kirk (activist), 0 edits
• Talk:Charlie Kirk (activist), 0 edits
• Don Lemon, 0 edits
• Talk:Don Lemon, 0 edits
• Dan Crenshaw, 3 edits to fix a BLP concern to do with a minor, again all after this request was opened
• Talk:Dan Crenshaw, 1 edit to explain the change I made in the bullet point above, again after this request was opened

This is now the second time I am asking you to stop casting aspersions without evidence. I have no problem with you and I do not know what problem you have with me, but please stop this absurdity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your "evidence" that I have been "editing the articles used as evidence" is my edits to an article/talk page that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d has never edited and that is not listed anywhere in this report as evidence, and a revert/warning regarding an unsourced change to a BLP, both of which I undid minutes later after discovering the change could be sourced, and all of which happened hours after this report was filed. Two arbitrators have already told you that my filing a request here is not an issue, but yet you're continuing to make false claims about my "involvement", even after it has been confirmed by Bradv that even if I was involved, filing an AE report would be the correct action. The idea that an arbitrator can't file an AE report to do with a topic area they've edited in or alerted someone about is both bizarre and not based on policy or practice, but hopefully Bradv and DGG have assuaged your concerns and we can call it a day. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: I had advised our IP friend several days ago that they might wish to create an account. I respect that some people prefer not to register accounts for various reasons, and did not feel the need to repeat myself. When I reviewed the report they left on my talk page, I too was concerned, and so after realizing they couldn't file the report themselves I decided to do it myself. As Seraphimblade has said, it's generally accepted for another editor to do something like this as long as they take responsibility for the report, which I do. Hell, you're even allowed to edit on behalf of banned users if you really want to, so long as you take responsibility for the changes. It baffles me that helping an IP report a genuine concern is controversial, though I suspect it is largely manufactured controversy in a heated topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But protocol is that a registered account is a prerequisite to using WP:AE. A registered account is a prerequisite to filing an AE request, which is why I did the filing. IPs are more than welcome to use AE, as it says clearly at the top of the page: Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It combines the competence of an admin with qualities associated with an IP. I am reluctant to enumerate the qualities associated with an IP. But suffice to say those characteristics are quite unlike those of an admin. You are saying it should not be treated any differently. Yes it should be treated differently. And it should be rejected. Let the admin initiate the complaint. Or let the IP register an account. I did initiate the complaint. It seems the only thing you would have liked to see me do differently is not be transparent that I was doing so after an IP editor outlined to me their concerns about the editor in question, and I do not see how less transparency would be a positive thing here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification

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.

Hello fellow editors. Let me first state that I have never been involved in one of these Arbitrations, so if I am not following proper protocol, please let me know.

These charges against me are completely absurd. Contrary to the belief of some users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d#Past_accounts?), I am a brand new editor. Like the majority of the world, I have been reading Wikipedia for many years, but I just recently decided to make an account and start editing. Yes, I have an interest in contemporary American Politics, political figures, and the media. Is it against policy to have a niche interest? That's not a rhetorical question, if it is against policy, please let me know. However, I am in no way, shape, or form, a "troll" nor do I have any intent on whitewashing articles. If I use unorthodox methods in discussions or in editing, that is because I am a new user and I am not fully familiar with Wikipedia customs/formalities. I think it would be best for me to address each accusation one by one.

American Politics

1. Discussion at Talk:Donald Trump: "Let's at Least be Consistent with Obama's Lead Section". I think it should be noted that this was one of my first edits. Yes, I admit, I was being overzealous here, but I had good intentions. I simply wanted to add a few things in the Trump Lead Section in order for it to be more NPOV, but I was promptly shut down by other users. I have since learned that it's best to address concerns one at a time, instead of in one big talk page discussion.
2. Discussion at Talk:Ilhan Omar: "Views on the Police". There was absolutely nothing wrong with this discussion. I had a very long, but civil, back and forth with NightHeron concerning a congresswoman's views on the police. At one point, I did accuse him of acting 'suspiciously,' but, under the advice of another user, I struck that comment out and I apologized to NightHeron on his talk page [29]. The user accepted my apology and we eventually found consensus on the topic in question.
3. Discussion at Talk:Ilhan Omar: Capitalism and Socialism. Again, nothing wrong with this discussion. A user simply deleted a longstanding section on Omar's views on capitalism/socialism, and I argued, along with other users, that the section should be restored.
4. 00:02, 4 October 2020. Oh, come on! A user simply made a joke that we should change McConnell's name to 'Moscow Mitch.' I responded that "Majority Leader McConnell is a highly respected government official. You shall apologize at once!-- it was harmless tongue-in-cheek, people. I didn't realize harmless jokes were forbidden on Wikipedia.
5. Why am I the one in trouble for the Charlie Kirk page? A user kept trying to change the page, when he didn't have consensus: [30]

BLP

1. I did not misrepresent sources on the Don Lemon page. Please see [31], where I argue that, per multiple reliable sources, Lemon did engage in a conspiracy theory on his show.
2. 01:18 15 October 2020. I politely restored infomrtion on Kirk's date of birth. I was informed by a more experienced user [32] that it is best to find sources when something is unsourced, instead of deleting content.
3. "Luna Younger" discussion This seems like the biggest charge against me. Allow me to state that I was not familiar with Wiki's DEADNAME policy (for the 10th time, I am a new user). I had a very civil discussion with Muboshgu. He presented the policy to me, and explained how I was wrong. After reading the policy, it seemed like adding "(born James Younger)" would be appropriate since many sources refer to the child using that name. Again, Muboshgu stated that I was incorrect. I ended the discussion with this comment: "I would understand that if his name was exclusively or nearly-exclusively known as "Luna." But, considering the fact that's there so much controversy in regards to his name (and the case in general) adding both names would seem like the best way to assure NPOV. But, who am I to argue against Wikipedia's style manual? One more thing, how exactly do you define "contentious claims?"-- I conceded that Muboshgu was correct in his assessment. What exactly is the problem?

All of these charges are completely farcical. I am a new editor, and I am just trying to learn how to be a great editor. I love Wikipedia, and I would never try to intentionally violate policy. I thank all of the editors who are involved in this matter. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GorillaWarfare for filing this and doing a very thorough job with the report. I initially became concerned when I saw that this person was trying to remove well sourced items from several pages. My concern grew when I saw the repeated misgendering and WP:DEADNAME attacks on a minor both on the article and talk page, misgendering and deadnaming being considered acts of hate towards transgender individuals.

I am also concerned by the recent behavior at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_McCarthy_(California_politician)&action=history where the user tried to remove an entire section, claiming that it was because Newsweek was used as a source for a direct quite by McCarthy. A quick look at the deleted text told me that the vote was also sourced to the congressional record and the story double-cited with USA Today as a second source, which means the edit summaries and justification were at a minimum designed to be misleading.

The troubling patterns I am seeing are two. My primary concern as above is the violations of WP:DEADNAME and repeated misgendering of a minor are acts of great incivility. The secondary concern is that the purpose of this person seems to be to try to remove legitimate information from pages concerning conservative (or more stridently/extreme right-wing) individuals, a pattern of whitewashing as described by Doug Weller in interview with the SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add, they also appear to have participated in what they themselves call an edit-war trying to remove the text "far-right" from The Washington Free Beacon, before having their preferred version pushed back in by another account that seems to have a similar behavior pattern and has removed items from pages with edit summaries such as "who cares?"

curprev 14:29, 9 October 2020‎ Marquardtika talk contribs‎ 18,121 bytes +683‎ what RS say undo

curprev 10:52, 9 October 2020‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎ 17,438 bytes -1‎ Reverted 1 edit by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk): It's not edit warring and this is what the sources say, take it to the talk page undo Tags: Undo Twinkle

curprev 09:05, 9 October 2020‎ Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d talk contribs‎ 17,439 bytes +1‎ Undid revision 982345590 by Praxidicae (talk). Stop edit warring and stop referring to it as "far-right." All RSs describe it as "right-wing" or "conservative" undo Tags: Undo Reverted

curprev 15:51, 7 October 2020‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎ m 17,438 bytes -1‎ Reverted edits by 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:35 (talk) to last version by Rdp060707 undo Tags: Rollback Reverted

curprev 15:47, 7 October 2020‎ 2600:387:a:3::35 talk‎ 17,439 bytes +1‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reverted

curprev 03:26, 3 October 2020‎ Rdp060707 talk contribs‎ 17,438 bytes +80‎ Reverted good faith edits by 47.201.225.5 (talk): Not far-left undo Tags: Undo Twinkle

curprev 03:24, 3 October 2020‎ 47.201.225.5 talk‎ 17,358 bytes -80‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reverted

curprev 12:57, 2 October 2020‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎ m 17,438 bytes -3‎ Reverted edits by 2601:603:1E80:AE90:7972:B0F2:DFF1:FA89 (talk) to last version by Dosafrog undo Tag: Rollback

curprev 12:54, 2 October 2020‎ 2601:603:1e80:ae90:7972:b0f2:dff1:fa89 talk‎ 17,441 bytes +3‎ Fixed a biased opinion about this group. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Manual revert Reverted

curprev 19:04, 30 September 2020‎ Dosafrog talk contribs‎ 17,438 bytes -3‎ undo Tag: Reverted

curprev 00:43, 26 August 2020‎ 107.77.202.208 talk‎ 17,441 bytes +4‎ wl undo

I do not know if they have any connection to the others trying to remove the text before they accused Praxidicae of "edit warring". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing their response, I am all the more concerned. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: My understanding is that WP:BLP states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" and that this is cause for concern both for the WP:DEADNAME and misgendering behavior towards a minor, and the stuff about Ilhan Omar. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I very much dislike the response by @Atsme:. If they had bothered to check, they would see that I brought my concerns about this editor to GorillaWarfare to ask for advice on what the proper process was. I did not initially request this AE report, I asked "I'm not sure what to do, but I believe some action is needed.". It was GW who said first that "My advice would be to begin a discussion at WP:AE", and she filed this only after I asked if I was allowed to because of the wording on the top of the page that "Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Luna Younger edits are wildly inappropriate, and the user's edit history makes it implausible that this is their first or only account. The Omar question is a classic case of JAQing off - either trolling or incompetence, as the claim is well known to be false. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO Up top: Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed.. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to get the statement by GorillaWarfare: "Filing this complaint on behalf of 2601:2C0:C300:B7::/64, who fits all the criteria for filing an AE request except that they have chosen not to create an account." Based on what?--MONGO (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I knew the criteria as far as length of time for editing as well as number of edits, so I thought the rationale was otherwise as I see the IP engaging in no worse actions overall than the one they are reporting.--MONGO (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand why the user needed help filing, but from my perspective, this was an inappropriate way to bypass written procedures for this and other venues. What confuses me even more is the fact that a sitting arb proxied for an IP right here at AE, despite the fact that the IP was ineligible to do so themselves. Please explain how this is not an out-of-process action when it clearly bypasses written procedure to remove requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits. Is there not a reason for that procedure? What am I missing here? Why even have that procedure if we're going to ignore it and allow a sitting arb to file cases for any IP who comes along (in AP nonetheless, a few weeks prior to a US presidential election)? I'm sorry, but this action tends to appear politically driven, intentional or otherwise. I can't help but wonder what others arbs would have done this? The community needs to know if this is, indeed, an acceptable procedure - Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, Joe Roe, Maxim, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned? It raises all kinds of questions but I'll go along with whatever...I was going to say "whatever ArbCom decides" but if arbs are going to be taking this kind of action with impunity, then please forgive me, but I will lose whatever faith I had left in ArbCom and the AE process. No, wait...on second thought, I'm a team player so I'll play along - I suck at filing AE/ARCA cases, so will NYBrad or Maxim please file my next appeal here? It will look so much better if it's filed by a highly respected arb who knows the ropes much better than I, and can put a little muscle behind my request. ^[hyperbole] Atsme 💬 📧 12:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade - another editor, perhaps but it is still a bypass of a written procedure. I've been editing for nearly a decade, and I've never seen anything like this - random selection of an arb by an IP who is restricted from filing a case here, not to mention a case with a loud political drum beating in the background or the fact that we have an IP vs a brand new editor who went to the trouble of registering. When procedures are not followed, why is it not considered an action taken out of process. Banned or t-banned editors cannot use proxies, correct? What if they're editing as an IP? With the utmost respect and sincerity, I need a more valid reason than something along the line of why not, we do it all the time. GW is an arbitrator, which carries quite a bit more responsibility than an in-the-trenches editor, or even an admin. GW is also involved in the AP topic area per this diff, and also acting as an admin (I think) per this diff and maybe this one, too, for example, but I don't know anymore. Is she an arb, an admin, and an editor in AP who can just act however she sees fit? There are quite a few reasons for ArbCom to look into this, and either change the restrictions here, or state one way or the other that anybody can be a proxy for an unregistered IP. If we are going to allow any IP to have a voice via proxy, despite restrictions, why have any restrictions at all? Isn't it strange that the IP just happened to randomly select GW, an arbitrator? I want to hear from the other active arbs, please. I'm sorry but this is highly irregular, and not something that should be easily dismissed. I will wait patiently for input from the active arbs, and then act accordingly. I don't certainly know if that IP is a block evader - of course we AGF - but there are still restrictions, correct? What if all IPs want an arb to present their case - is that ok? How do we choose which IP an arb can help here at AE, and how do you think that makes the community feel? Either remove the restriction, and allow all IPs to get arbs to file their cases here, or consider this filing out-of-process and act accordingly. This is just too weird. Atsme 💬 📧 15:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, bradv - but your reply does not address my concerns regarding arb involvement. Arbs are held at a much higher standard than a regular admin who might be actively editing in a topic area or an article that is part of the evidence in a case they are proxying, as what happened here. I provided those diffs - did you not see them? We are talking about an arbitrator - it doesn't matter who - much to my dismay, it just happened to be GW. What matters most is the fact that an involved arb filed this case as a proxy for an IP who was restricted from filing. How is that any different from a banned or t-banned editor asking for a proxy edit, aside from the fact they have been exposed whereas an IP is still too new to be exposed? Restrictions are restrictions, no ifs, ands or buts. What matters most here is the action, the arb's choice to do so, and the topic involved. Read the diffs, and if you need more, look at GW's edit contributions. Are we looking at an involved editor, admin, arbitrator? You tell me. What I'm seeing is that a line has to be drawn, not unlike the lines arbcom has drawn when they've decided what admins get to keep their tools, or how an AE or ARCA case is decided when determining the future of an editor. The community invests a great deal of faith in its arbitrators. Either remove the restrictions, state specifically that arbs cannot file cases at AE, ARCA or ArbCom as proxies, or deal with an out-of-process situation. This cannot/should not be dismissed because the results of AE could mean an indef t-ban, or an indef block or other form of DR for an editor, and that is a serious matter that needs the undivided attention of ArbCom. Atsme 💬 📧 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• bradv, I agree that there is no rule, but the restriction does clearly state: Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. Why is that a restriction? It also does not state that we can proxy for an IP who fails the restriction, or that proxying is an acceptable practice. I think this is a case that ArbCom needs to decide, but I thank you for your input - it is noted. Perhaps, you will help me file an AE, ARCA, or ArbCom case in the future, since there is no restriction against it. Atsme 💬 📧 17:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG - very noble of you if the case had not been filed at AE and you the OP had not been editing the articles used as evidence. Are Would you be equally as willing to help the defendant with his/her responses in this case since they, too, are a new GF editor? Atsme 💬 📧 19:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whom one wishes to help, andwith what, is determined by many factors & is a personal matter. You know very well that I wish to be involved in this area on WP as little as possible. If a case in the field reaches Arbcom, that's a little different, since I accepted it as as a responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• GorillaWarfare - I provided diffs above but I'll provide them again:

1. Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
2. Warning to an editor about their recent contributions to Ilhan Omar.
3. Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Of course, anyone can review your edit contributions, so I don't see any need to provide all those diffs. I've stated my concerns, and there are no aspersions on my part, so I would very much appreciate you not casting aspersions against me for stating my concerns. You are an involved arbitrator in this instance as evidenced by those diffs. This venue is ARBITRATION ENFORCEMENT. You warned one editor about DS in the diff above, did you not? And you were involved in editing the Biden-Ukraine article, or are you denying it? I have not participated in the Biden-Ukraine article, but I did participate in 2 RfCs at Ilhan Omar's BLP early in the year - and that's it. I have simply stated facts. Your contribution history demonstrates your involvement/uninvolvement - none of that matters to me - all I'm asking is that active arbs review your proxy action and explain to me why it is or isn't appropriate. It is unfortunate that you happened to be the one involved in this oddball circumstance, but the behavior raises questions that should not be ignored relative to the scope of arbitrators at AE/ARCA/ArbCom. The community needs to know to what length an arbitrator is allowed to serve as a proxy at AE when there are restrictions in place, when it involves DS & article restrictions that the arb participated in and has presented as evidence in the capacity of a restricted IP's proxy. This is not a difficult question that requires extended discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 21:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d seems to be a mild-mannered editor who is willing to admit they are wrong. At Talk:Ilhan Omar they write "Characterizing her views that she wants Minneapolis to exist without a police department is false--you're correct."[33] As for restrictions on presenting a complaint here: Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed, these are requirements that are easily met. These aren't onerous hurdles preventing anyone from doing this themself. Anyone can register an account and make 10 edits over 4 days. Also, the IP is saying "I did not initially request this AE report...It was GW who said first that My advice would be to begin a discussion at WP:AE". In my humble opinion, better advice would have been to suggest that they register an account, wait 4 days, make 10 edits, and then begin a discussion at WP:AE. Isn't this the protocol that is supposed to be followed? Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare—you say Bus Stop—I had advised our IP friend several days ago that they might wish to create an account. But protocol is that a registered account is a prerequisite to using WP:AE. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv—you say "I don't see why an enforcement discussion started on behalf of an IP should be treated any differently." It is a Frankenstein "enforcement discussion". It combines the competence of an admin with qualities associated with an IP. I am reluctant to enumerate the qualities associated with an IP. But suffice to say those characteristics are quite unlike those of an admin. You are saying it should not be treated any differently. Yes it should be treated differently. And it should be rejected. Let the admin initiate the complaint. Or let the IP register an account. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't get it. I've skimmed over the material and what I saw was someone using the talk page to discuss contentious edits in a non-aggressive way, which is what we want. Adding "conspiracy theory" was possibly WP:SYNTH but hardly sanction-worthy. He reverted ONCE at the Don Lemon article, and you are calling that edit warring. Same for Charlie Kirk (activist), and another time twice with the second revert sticking. He did revert 3 times at Dan Crenshaw but then stopped. The "Omar married her brother" seems to have been asking on a talk page, and linking to two articles. It has earned a lot of column inches in the press, I'm not shocked someone would bring it up on a talk page, which is not the same edit warring to get it in the article. The DS warning were proper, and they are new (ish?), so things like WP:DEADNAME may be new to them, but I don't see the kinds of infractions you would expect for someone to be topic banned or blocked, at least not in the diffs provided. That doesn't mean they are correct in their edits and they do need to exercise more caution when it comes to material relating to BLPs, but I don't know that any of this is in bad faith, even if sometimes in bad form. Many of the points they made on the talk pages were met positively. Based on the diffs provided, I would be against blocking or topic banning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I have seen 3rd party filing at AE before (AN and ANI as well), although it is rare. It is allowed, and if it wasn't it still would be via WP:IAR when appropriate. Whether or not there is politics at play is kind of moot at this point. I can't read minds. The editor is receiving a fair examination and the benefit of the doubt. While I think the merits of the cases are overstated, the report appears to be in good faith. Had it been a completely fraudulent case (and it isn't), then I (and others) would have given GW a harsh warning. She understands that she bears responsibility for the report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am less charitable than my good friend Dennis Brown. I have seen this editor on various talk pages, sometimes skirting the edge, and I remember being struck by the 10 October edit on the Charlie Kirk article, which puzzled me--but there's some healthy dispute over the content in the first place (a bigger cut was just made by North...Baranoff). I was NOT aware of the deadnaming edits, and I find those more troubling than Dennis does, not just because of the problem of deadnaming itself, but more so because of their eagerness to fight over it, in their revert of Muboshgu, for instance. By the same token, the Don Lemon edits are not a HUGE thing by themselves, maybe, but it's tendentious, and suggestive of a POV. What I foresee, if the editor continues, is either a BLP topic ban, or a 1R restriction, because that is where the more easily identifiable problems are; I do not yet see a reason for an injunction on the basis of editing from a political agenda, for instance. Thank you, GorillaWarfare, for your comprehensive report, especially since you did this for someone else. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend more to agree with Dennis Brown. Some of these edits were not ideal, but this editor seems amenable to being corrected when what they are doing is contrary to policy, and their behavior has not been over-the-top bad, more fumbling through things. (I also disagree that isn't indicative of a new editor—anybody can read the policies; learning how they apply in practice is what takes experience, and I see just that process occurring here.) I might advise this editor to pick somewhat less contentious subjects while learning the ropes, though; these are fraught topic areas, a very close eye is kept on them, and there is little toleration for misbehavior even when inadvertent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Atsme, we have generally allowed an editor in good standing to do something on behalf of an IP that they cannot themselves do, be that editing a semiprotected page, filing an AfD request, or whatever have you. I'm not aware of a prior instance of it happening at AE, but policy does not prohibit it. In that instance, the editor who agrees to file the request or make the edit on the IP's behalf bears full responsibility for that request if in any way it is inappropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We've got to leave some room for newbies to bump into things and learn the ropes. Some of my first contributions were really dumb edits to politically charged subjects. I'm not convinced that there's anything here that warrants sanctions at this stage. Haukur (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Atsme, this board also occasionally hears appeals from blocked or banned editors, which are posted by others on their behalf per the instructions in the AE block notice. I don't see why an enforcement discussion started on behalf of an IP should be treated any differently. – bradv🍁 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme, there is no rule that says that WP:INVOLVED editors or admins cannot make requests at this board. In fact, the primary purpose of this board is to solicit action by an uninvolved administrator. – bradv🍁 17:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme, the rule disallowing non-autoconfirmed editors from opening AE requests was established in this discussion. There was no prohibition passed against posting these requests on their behalf, nor is there any reason that GorillaWarfare would be prohibited from filing this request of her own accord. And by all means, if you ever find yourself unable to file a request at an appropriate noticeboard, and I'm in a situation where I'm able to help you, I would be happy to do so. – bradv🍁 17:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would generaly be very willing to bypass formalities to assist a good faith new editor, if I were convinced of their good faith (I will admit I'be been fooled a few. times into helping people who turned out to be sockpuppets, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 21 October 2020 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jorm (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 8 August 2020: fuck off with your transphobia shit personal attack
2. 27 September 2020 : Go fuck yourself, transphobe personal attack
3. 1 October 2020: The Gamergate Controversy is a bullshit set of terms used to describe a misogynist harassment campaign without actually calling it a "harassment campaign" while also not trying to hurt the feelings of a bunch of assholes. It was started by a bunch of chucklefucks-- Battleground attitude, personal attacks etc.
4. 8 October 2020: go fuck yourself personal attack
5. 8 October 2020: Masem always argues that we put the propaganda first. They did it for Gamergate - so much so that those deplorable fucks refer to them as "Based Masem". Masem will always carry water like this. Keep that in mind while developing consensus. Battleground attitude, personal attack

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

Last alerted by SMcCandlish on 9 July 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diffs speak for themselves, and they are all related to the GamerGate/gender topics DS area. Especially the attack on Masem for his GamerGate editing had plenty of unneeded vitriol.

Someone opened a thread about "Attitude" on Jorm's talk page just last week. He responded with his usual "cool story, bro" shtick. --Pudeo (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

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.

Everyone is expressing fear and disappointment that I'm not engaging in this but I don't see much of a point. As I get older I find my desire to engage with bullshit gets smaller and smaller but let's be clear: choosing to disengage is not my go-to action. I don't lead with it.

I find that I am about to get a stern talking to because I do not choose to engage with folk who come to my talk page with rancor. If a person comes to me looking for a fight, how should I respond? Should I get in the fight, and then be dragged before AN/I? Should I just ignore the post, and then get dragged here and called "non-responsive"?

Should I use different language to indicate that I am not going to engage? Would "I am not going to engage with you" be any better? Probably not; I think the same thing would happen: "Jorm hurt my feefees by not letting me vent my spleen at him".

Perhaps someone can provide me with language they find more acceptable.

Other than some salty language, at least 3 of your diffs were reverts from throw away accounts used by abusive bigots. Being told to leave with emphasis is exactly what should be done. I don't see anything there that rises to the level of sanctioning. --Jayron32 23:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside, because several people have brought it up, is that "Cool story, Bro" is the correct way to respond to obvious sealioning. These are not good faith disagreements, these are bigots hiding behind civility in an attempt to win a debate not on its merits but by baiting their opponents, and Jorm's refusal to engage with such bad faith false civility is a perfect way to handle it. --Jayron32 11:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only noting that I know about the statement Jorm made in that discussion related to me and I just let it pass and still plan on letting it pass. Its disappointing that people want to dreg that up and assume bad faith when I try to argue on neutral stances on WP, but such is the case. --Masem (t) 00:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of GorillaWarfare: "We have picked a side, which is that LGBTQ Wikipedians are welcome here." For LGBTQ Wikipedians to be truly welcome here, we should be telling transphobes to fuck off. Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not use the "f-bomb" on Wikipedia (and very rarely in real life) but there is no consensus that the word is banned in these contexts. I encourage Jorm to select other words which are just as effective but less controversial. Trolls, haters and other purely disruptive jerks should be shown the door, quite promptly. As for Jorm's remarks about Masem, I do not see a personal attack but rather a harsh (but defensible) critique of Masem's unique philosophy of editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same sort of personally hostile battlegrounding and socio-political PoV-pushing that lead to me leaving the DS/Alert several months ago. But the editor appears to have simply doubled down. This is not about a specific word and whether it is "banned" (well know it is not). It's about intent and effects, in a long-term disruptive pattern. It's about WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT, WP:DE, and WP:CIR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with Jorm telling bigots to go do one; encyclopaedic neutrality does not, and has never, meant neutrality outside of article-space, and demanding civility in the face of bigotry is peak paradox of tolerance. Sceptre (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem always argues that we put the propaganda first. They did it for Gamergate - so much so that those deplorable fucks refer to them as "Based Masem". Masem will always carry water like this. Keep that in mind while developing consensus.

I can't believe the above statement is being described as a defensible critique of a philosophy of editing or a legitimate behavioral concern. Lev!vich 18:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As to the other comments, while I'm not one to advocate for sanctioning people for using profanity, we'd do better to be more professional, especially in mainspace edit summaries, which are the "official logs" of our articles. Telling people to "f off", even if they deserve it, doesn't make anyone look tough or cool or righteous, it just makes us all look childish for being the kind of place where profanity is used in "official" records. Lev!vich 21:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Jorm has been dealing with some rather unsavoury editors is in no doubt, but seriously, is it not possible to make vandals feel very unwelcome without resorting to a gutter language? That seems rather untalented, me thinks. Huldra (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents: GamerGate etc, is one of the most contentious areas on Wikipedia, for sure. But I edit in the I/P area (that's why I watch WP:AE!) - hardly any less contentious area, where trolls, death- and rape-threats are 13 to the dozen ...still, such gutter language (as linked to above) are not seen (in general!) among "the regulars" there.

Why is that?

Also, I suspect if anyone regularly used such language, they would very soon no longer be "a regular"; they would be topic-banned/blocked.

Why do we allow one set of behaviour in one area, but another set of behaviour in another area?

No, I don't want Jorm sanctioned, just a clear warning that such a language will not be accepted in the future (not even when dealing with vandals who are going to "rape your wife to death before they kill you" (just to mention a pretty common threat in the I/P area)) Huldra (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I'm extremely unimpressed with Jorm's reply here. If people come to you "looking for a fight", you should behave with cool. Simple as that. Huldra (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that changing an article to misgender someone should be an instant indef block. We should ask Jorm to dial back the rhetoric, and then go and block the trolls. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm has chosen to patrol some controversial articles which attract drive-by editors with extreme attitudes who he often effectively shooes away. I don't use the f-bomb and I don't think it is necessary to get your point across. But I can understand its use with some hostile newbies who seek to cause disruption or to radically shift articles that usually have volumes of talk page discussions that have occurred to arrive at a consensus in the article tone and wording.

What I would like to challenge him on though is his use of "Cool story, bro" to editors who are not fly-by-night but are regular editors who just are coming from a different, often opposing, perspective. It's an unnecessarily dismissive and condescending phrase that isn't an appropriate response to another editor's argument. We know that these pages can be polarizing but I think it's important to meet a serious critique from a regular editor with a counter-argument not a flippant reply.

The comment about Masem seems like old news (Gamergate was in 2014-2015!) and it is odd to be rehashing events years later, but if the comment doesn't offend Masem, I don't think we should be imposing any restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs)

I agree, by and large, with the admin comments below. But I'm disappointed that Jorm hasn't seen fit to at least respond to this complaint. That shows an unwillingness to engage with criticism that indicates that a stern warning might not have any effect at all. And, personally, I'd like to see Jorm continue to chase away trolls. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of these edits appear appropriate in context. Transphobia is itself a violation of Wikipedia's principles, so this seems more like a witch-hunt then an actionable complaint. Also, all this tone policing and pearl-clutching over "swear words" seems disproportionate and, ironically, very immature. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Swarm once told me the following [35], which to me seems relevant to the remarks Jorm made about Masem:

Comment on content, not contributors. It really is as simple as that. For example, let's say someone's being a complete prick, and everyone agrees. Is it okay to call them out on being a prick? No, it's not okay to make an accusation, even if you're not wrong. You report them to WP:AN/I with evidence of relevant policy violations, and we will block them. Let's say a user is an obvious sockpuppet. Is it okay to accuse them of being a sockpuppet? No. Again, report to admins with evidence. Let's say someone obviously has a strong bias. Is it okay to imply that they are being motivated by their bias? No, as long as they're complying with policies, their obvious bias is irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of us have strong biases, and the overwhelming majority of us do not POV-push in articles. If someone is editing with an obvious WP:COI, such as a user deleting negative content from an article about their business, of course that's not tolerated. But, even then, you don't attack their character or argue with them, you simply report them to us so we can handle them accordingly. It's really pretty simple. Don't over think it. If you're going to make a negative comment about someone personally, don't.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some topic areas are difficult to work in, but if one can't maintain a proper level of decorum and civility while doing so, one should not edit there. Routine use of comments with such a level of hostility towards other editors, or such aggressive use of profanity in general, is never acceptable.

If it appears that the Jorm is expressing clear unwillingness to change their behaviour, I don't think a warning will even do anything. Users that can't cooperate in a civil and productive manner with those they disagree with should not be allowed to continue to participate here, unless we believe that their behaviour is going to change. --Yair rand (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm begins with the assumption that they are 100% correct. Jorm's approach in what is ostensibly a collaborative editing environment is the my way or the highway approach. Jorm's supporters might argue that Jorm does not mince words. I think WP:BATTLEGROUND more appropriately describes their style of interaction. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm pretends to summarize a discussion but instead misconstrues the discussion: "I love this logic. Adolf Hitler said once that he loved Jews, so we need to dedicate equal weight to that, and have to be very careful about calling him an anti-semite. Jorm (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2020"[36] Jorm needs to be told that they are expected to stay on topic. This is not a free-for-all. Wikipedia requires competence. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have had only limited interactions with Jorm. His incivility combined with an unwillingness to engage with editors when a disagreement occurs is a problem. I agree with the others that the "fuck off" comments were not a good idea but also directed at obvious trolls. Not a good method but understandable. Given the disrespect shown to editors on his talk page as well as here I think a warning should include a statement that Jorm is expected to engage in good faith with editors who reach out to handle disagreements. If an editor is unwilling to discuss their edits in good faith then they probably shouldn't be making those edits. Springee (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looking over the diffs, the only one that is actionable is this personal attack on Masem. At this time I think that we don't need to do more than to remind Jorm to focus on the content not the contributor. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to say that this makes me uncomfortable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The real question is: Do our policies on civility apply to trolls? We have traditionally been very lenient when it comes to responding to throwaway accounts, but this pushes the limit a bit. The real problem is the Masem reply, as Guerillero noted above. I agree with Guerillero that harsh sanctions aren't needed, although I think more than a soft touch is warranted, and would instead recommend a strongly worded warning that civility isn't optional and the lack of it serves to make the editing environment more toxic. especially on the talk pages of controversial subjects where there is often more heat than light. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• My hesitation about any type of warning here is basically what Cullen328 said: this is a legitimate, though strongly stated, critique of the behaviour of another editor. If this was said at ANI/here with diffs it’d be allowable. It didn’t have diffs, so it was an aspersion. That’s not good, but I’m also loathe to start sanctioning or warning people for pointing out what is a legitimate behavioural concern. It does need diffs, though, and that is my biggest concern. Jorm, if you encounter this issue again provide diffs and take it to AE or AN. We have a rule against aspersions for a reason. Note: I’ve disagreed with Masem twice in recent days on how our policies apply to white supremacism, but I don’t consider myself involved in regards to him or the topic area, but I think it worth noting. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest that at minimum, a warning to focus on content instead of contributors is in order. And it's time we accept that labeling people as "deplorables" is always going to be counterproductive. ~Awilley (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think there's much to be done here. However, TonyBallioni the fact that the comment didn't come in a conduct forum and was not supported with diffs is incredibly important. There is a reason we have conduct forums: so our article talk pages can stay focused on content. There is a reason we demand diffs: we don't want to support casting aspersions. If there were a pattern of some the behavior towards Masem being presented I'd feel differently. However, one such act by a longterm productive editor (like Jorm) needs a friendly nudge - and being brought to AE is already more than a friendly nudge - rather than a formal sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverting even truly horrible edits with "go fuck yourself" edit summaries is unfortunate. Even apart from any concerns about decorum, it's just too much fun for the troll on the other end who will think he has successfully gotten a rise out of a perceived enemy. Don't make this a fun paintball game, just stick with boring "Undid revision 982224172 by 190.193.156.241". As for the Masem edit, it isn't some reasonable complaint that just needed a couple of diffs or another forum to be okay. It's a battleground attack which attempts to paint Masem as a member of some hated enemy team. I would support a warning. Haukur (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  [37] If Jorm is absolutely determined to get sanctioned here, we will eventually have to oblige. Haukur (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a warning, not in the interests of decorum or because trolls deserve consideration, but because focusing on content rather than editors, and discussing behavior only with evidence and in appropriate fora, are pretty fundamental aspects of our behavioral expectations, and refusing to participate in a discussion about one's own behavior is not a good look, per Guerillero. Also, speaking purely tactically for a moment, swearing at trolls is typically going to make any trolling problem worse, not better. WP:RBI and WP:DFTT exist for a reason. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got a pretty hard time caring too much if someone replies "Go fuck yourself" to a section entitled "Why don't you be factual and not libtarded?" followed by an obviously transphobic rant. Yes, ideally, we shouldn't sink to the troll's level, but such an individual is obviously not here in good faith. On the other hand, this [38], followed by the dismissive attitude here [39], are not acceptable at all. The first is a clear personal attack and, without evidence, a casting of aspersions against a longtime editor (with serious allegations at that), and the second shows that Jorm does not particularly care about this type of behavior (the "cool story" part appears to be a reference to the sarcastic and dismissive "Cool story, bro" expression, and that's not an acceptable way of engaging a good-faith request). I would support a final warning that one should revert, block, and ignore trolls and vandals, and that one is expected to treat fellow editors, including those with one whom disagrees, with a reasonable degree of respect and civility and not engaging in personal attacks, including evidence-free allegations of malicious intent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jorm, let's ignore the parts where you told trolls to fuck off. (Though I'll reiterate that's not ideal; if nothing else, just revert them and if necessary report them. Getting a rise out of someone is a thrill for them; getting unceremoniously booted out the door is not). Aside from that, though, this [40] was not on your talk page, it was on Talk:Gamergate controversy. That's not appropriate. You've been around long enough to know that we would not use terms like "assholes" and "chucklefucks" in articles. Article talk pages are for discussion of what neutrally worded article text should be, not as a forum for you to express your personal opinions about a subject. But the most concerning remains this one [41], which was also not on your talk page. That was a direct attack against another editor, and a serious one. Indeed, an administrator was already desysopped and site banned for being in league with inappropriate external influences. That is a serious accusation. If you have sufficient evidence, bring it to ArbCom. If you don't, then don't accuse them of that again. So far as your own talk page, you have every right to refuse to engage with anyone who posts there, but if you do choose to, you are expected to do so civilly and respectfully. If you just want to revert, remove, or immediately archive the post without response, that's your choice, but civil and respectful discourse is expected if you do choose to respond. That does not mean at all that you are required to agree with anyone, but if you disagree, it is expected that you will do so civilly and without rancor, sarcasm, or casting aspersions about someone's motivations. Instead, just say "I disagree with you and here is why." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I like Jorm. I appreciate Jorm, for their humanity and wit. To the best of my recollection, I have not had a negative encounter with them, contrasted with multiple positive ones. That having been said, Jorm has been skirting the line for a long time now. As Liz mentions, the flippant nature of the repeated "cool story, bro," for example — I think the usefulness of that as a rhetorical device has been long exhausted. I'm afraid that if Jorm proves unwilling or unable to will themselves to begin acting in a manner which is more reserved, sanctions are probably inevitable. Which would be a sad outcome. But I have confidence that Jorm has it in them to be able to adjust their conduct accordingly. And I don't think that adjustment needs to take away from the potency of their assertions about content. Therefore, I support escalating to a final warning and am very much hoping that that will do the trick. El_C 22:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I find my thoughts generally align with El_C and Seraphimblade. I generally don't think we need to avoid the occasional use of less-than-pristine language and I certainly encourage robust debate, but we shouldn't condone aspersions and battleground behavior either, both of which Jorm is straying into. Hopefully he'll take a warning on board. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with most here, Jorm's conduct in an Arbcom-supervised sensitive topic area, where there is little tolerance for incivility and personal attacks, is unquestionably out of line. It's fairly understandable, from a simple human perspective, to tell transphobic vandals to "fuck off" or to call Gamergate misogynists "assholes". Wrong and out of line, but not something I could really see us justifying sanctions over. However, the personal attack at Masem, in which Masem was essentially just reasonably arguing that we should follow WP:LABEL, and Jorm essentially called them a right-wing propagandist who is a hero to ideological extremists, that's beyond the pale, and shows that this is not simply frustration with trolls and vandals, and that there is a legitimate behavioral problem. Like Seraphim says, that's an extremely serious, defamatory allegation. Given the context, I would personally lean more on the side of hard sanctions, especially considering Jorm's refusal to take this seriously and voluntarily address it. I do not particularly trust that a warning will be effective. However, the consensus above seems to be coalescing around a formal warning, and I am fine with that. Let's issue a formal and final warning and give Jorm the chance to rectify his own behavior. Hopefully we will not find ourselves back here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:06, 18 October 2020 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Buidhe (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

[[42]] :

Pages which relate to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

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

1. [43]User Buidhe falsifying source to claim governing party of Poland denies murder of Jews:User Buidhe creates article titled

Historical policy of the Law and Justice party(Law and Justice being the governing party of Poland), and includes a image with the following caption Law and Justice party rejects that Poles were responsible for the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom, attributing it exclusively to Germans.

• This claim is sourced to following source: At the Crossroads’: Jedwabne and Polish Historiography of the Holocaust September 2017 Dapim Studies on the Holocaust 31(3):296-306. JB Michlic.

I have access to the source, it is publicly available here [44]. Nowhere in the source is there any mention of such claim. It says absolutely nothing like what the Wikipedia article created by Buidhe claims. It does not say that Law and Justice "attributes Jedwabne pogrom exclusively to Germans". According to Michilic the "two historical narratives" of PiS are 1) emphasizing the suffering of Poles and 2) emphasizing the rescue of Jews by Poles. One can disagree with these narratives, one can disagree with Michilic's characterization of these policies etc., but there is nothing in here at all that says that Law and Justice "attributes the pogrom exclusively to Germans". That is pure fabrication by the Wikipedia editor who inserted that text. While some supporters of Law and Justice attribute the events to alleged earlier Soviet collaboration as the reason and some state that Germans encouraged, they do not claim it was done by Germans, nor does the text claim so. I am very concerned since the user in question is very active in this area and I worry that other text could have been falsified as well. Falsifying such claim is a grave matter in my view. Apologies for my grammar and any mistakes-I am not a native speaker--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.[45] User has following template entered on his talk page:

This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area(s): Eastern Europe or the Balkans

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is one edit, but a grave one. Claiming that governing party of a Polane openly denies murder of Jews in Polish made pogrom which was confirmed by historians has taken place is a very serious claim made on Wikipedia. User has attributed this to a source which doesn't contain this information. This is a serious breach of Wikipedia rules and good conduct, even more worrying since the user is very active in the area of this topic.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Guy:The problem isn't that it's "one edit based on one source" the problem is that the edit is not based on the source but rather fabricates false information and pretends that it is sourced.Buidhe is very active in this area, how many other sources have been slightly misinterpreted by him?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

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.

• This report should be dismissed as an issue already resolved through discussion.[47] It is not a "fabrication" on my part—multiple sources discuss the Jedwabne revisionism, including a minister of the ruling party referring to the fact that Poles committed the crime as an "opinion" (she did not state who did it, although it's hard to see who else)—although I slightly misinterpreted the source. More discussion can be found on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 23:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  One of my articles on Polish Jewish history, History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, is currently rated a featured article having been through two source reviews. Verifiability is of crucial importance on Wikipedia and I always try to make sure that I cite sources accurately. (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is just a content dispute, but one borderline diff should not end up in AE. I encourage involved parties to try to talk to one another, WP:MEDIATE in WP:AGF instead of coming here. Let's avoid WP:BATTLEGROUNDs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• You don't like one edit based on one source, and you think this is in and of itself sanctionable? Not seeing it. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not the role of AE to decide content disputes. Reasonable people can and do disagree over the proper interpretation of a reference. The talk page, not AE, is the appropriate place to address disagreements of that sort. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing any basis for action. Even setting aside the problem of interpreting the source, a single poorly sourced statement is quite insufficient for AE; it would be more concerning if it were a pattern, or something an editor had doubled down on, but that isn't the case here. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]