Eric Corbett was blocked as AE action for 72 hours by User:GoldenRing. Remaining discussions about specific articles or the FA process are best held at other venues. MLauba(Talk) 12:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
August 9 "If you seriously believe that I will be engaging in any discussion with an incompetent gutter-snipe like yourself you had better think again."
August 9 "Your reading skills as are almost as bad as your writing skills, but both are admittedly better than your comprehension skills"
August 9 "I expect you think you're being clever, but you're a long way off with your stupid comments."
Comments are self-evidently insulting or belittling and violations of WP:NPA. Corbett has been blocked once before for violating this remedy, and per the remedy, the first two blocks should be 72 hours long. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: As I noted up, the only reason I'm filing here rather than blocking straight away is because ArbCom has mandated that the GGTF remedies relating to Corbett have to be filed at AE for 24 hours before they can be enforced. I'm commenting in this section to clarify the role I'm acting in here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved up my comments from the "uninvolved admin" section. This is an unusual situation (AFAIK in no other case is there a "must be filed at AE first" provision) with not much precedent; I put my comments in that section since I am uninvolved with respect with Eric Corbett and an admin, but that seems to be causing confusion (and no one else is seeing it from that perspective, apparently). Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Cryptic mentions, most of the previous blocks related to the GGTF topic ban, not the prohibition (which I myself was surprised to see - when initially looking at this, I thought we were up to the fourth or fifth block under that remedy, not the second). The last block by Keilana was reduced to 72 hours as it was the first block under that remedy, and as this is the second block, the maximum block length that can be done under arbitration enforcement is 72 hours. So I'm not sure how the three months figure was determined - the topic ban and the prohibition are separate remedies, so I don't see how blocks for violating the topic ban count for the prohibition. Nor do I see how the standard enforcement provision overrides the specific enforcement provision stated in the remedy. (Of course, any admin can block longer as a non-AE action, which considering the amount of attacks Corbett has made in the week since his last block expired and previous blocks could certainly be justified.)
Regarding the whole "baiting"/"poking the bear" thing: it seems a great assumption of bad faith to think that EEng, MJL, or every other editor (did the editor with ~100 edits that Levivich mentions deliberately poke Corbett?) that Corbett has attacked is deliberately trying to make Corbett violate his remedies. Without any actual evidence of people trying to get him blocked, I see absolutely no justification for not blocking here. If the claim is merely that all the people he was responding to were uncivil (which I don't see anyhow), "they started it first" hasn't been a valid excuse since kindergarten. It would be nice if Eric did recalibrate his approach as Vanamonde93 suggests, but I think a decade after his first civility block, any hope of that is futile. The violations are clear, and so is the remedy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
I'm only posting here to clarify that BabbaQ has got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick, and that no blame for "baiting" should be attached to Cassianto. In point of fact, he and I are in complete agreement on the way forward with the Moors murders article. EricCorbett 13:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Against my better judgement, a couple of people, notably Sandstein, have lied - there is no other word for it - about my threatening to use socks or IP editing if I'm blocked. I have said/threatened no such thing, and unless Wikimedia has it in mind to enforce logging in to read Wikipedia I would have reason to do so. EricCorbett 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a response to Ian's (originally) saying about how Eric has not mastered the charm school and then, his' bringing a completely different issue out of nowhere to discredit Eric. Even then, I don't deem it to be a PA.
All the parties have unclean hands; no sanction based on this set of diffs. Or sanction everybody involved.
Whilst I am hardly a fan of Sandstein's maneuvers at AE, unpaid goon is (indeed) way much into NPA territory. But, their illustrious history goes back quite many years ....
I also recall this flagrant breach of NPA from recent past but don't think Ritchie would have supported a sanction, at all.
Not certain about supporting a sanction, based on these either.
And, if we are at all going to do this, please indefinitely block Eric; short-term-blocks have not worked and will not work. He will come back, make a bunch of diffused borderline PAs after provocations and we will continue having this theater at AE ..... ∯WBGconverse 06:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Parabolist: - Noting someone to have a robotic and authoritarian style of management is not a personal attack; I might point to snowflakes, if one is unable to absorb such (borderline-legitimate) mild criticism. But, as I noted earlier, unpaid goon is indeed clear-cut breach of NPA. ∯WBGconverse 09:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad, well, Sanstein notes above:- But, to make my view even clearer, the enforcement action that I took and might again take in this case .... Any suggestions? ∯WBGconverse 15:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL's diffs are highly concerning -- I'm all in favor of treating textbook-trolls like that in controversial areas but that discussion genuinely looked like a bout of ownership being leveraged to shut down a highly valid question. It's my feeling that Eric is slowly but steadily getting close to the net-negative boundary. ∯WBGconverse 20:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich - If you deem this, this and this as in-civil; I might gently suggest improving your comprehension skills. Taking words out of context and what not. ∯WBGconverse 06:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As WGB notes, the only problematic comments from Eric were reactive to editors indulging in similar mockery. Either sanction all, or none.@Galobtter: incidentally, any reason you're posting in the "Uninvolved admins" section?! ——SerialNumber54129 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as goon goes, I think the most common usage in multiple Engvars is, unfortunatey , not so much that of the black and white telly (which has long seen a picture); rather, the beats of Ginbserg
Kennedy stretched and smiled and got double-crossed by lowlife goons and agents
Rich bankers with criminal connections
Dope pushers in CIA working with dope pushers from Cuba working with a
big-time syndicate from Tampa, Florida
And it hadda be said with a big mouth.
It may not have been intended like this, of course, but in terms of how it would likely be received, I think the probability is tendential. But context, people, context. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 11:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: your assessment does not seem to be universally accepted; why is this ——SerialNumber54129 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How bout a deal? You don't block EC, and my current FAC* tanks. Seems fair: the community keeps a better content writer than me for the sake of a bronze star. That, my friends all, is surely a no-brainer. Please consider this option. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* With absolute apologies to those reviewers who have already looked in of course. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Out of (some) curiosity, you say that were undoing the enforcement action (for now); my emphasise. Does this mean you are considering waiting 17 hours...and then doing it all over again? I'm somewhat wary of that implication. ——SerialNumber54129 14:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As WGB notes there is only one possible infringement here, but that's up against a lot of poking and baiting to get there. If you want to play power games to get Eric blocked again, you have to look at the standards pushed by others, particularly EEng, who has littered his comments with snark, PAs and baiting which are far more egregious than anyone else's. While that thread isn't Wikipedia's finest hour, it hardly constitues enough of a breach to impose further penalty (unless one was in the hypothetical situation of being so small-minded as to try and scaphunt Eric on the flimsiest of excuses).
I can see EC being blocked again, and it will be on the flimsiest of excuses, but the finger should be pointing at others who have pushed and prodded him constantly for no beneficial reason. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Parabolist, Perhaps you could sign your posts please? (And there is nothing "condescending" about the use of the 'bear' term: who is supposed to be patronised by its use?) - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WBG, I'm not entirely sure "unpaid goon" is a personal attack. "unpaid" certainly isn't ("paid" certainly would be!), and to me a goon is someone with what the OED calls an "absurd brand of humour", after The Goon Show. When I saw it, my first reaction wasn't that it was an PA, but, of course, I may be wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, then I presume you are an American? I’m not, so my take on certain terms is sure to differ. The cultural differences of language are tricky, and I’d hate to see a block given for a transatlantic misunderstanding. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky caldron, well I’m delighted you can mind read and say exactly what was in another editor’s mind. Goons perform goonery (check the OED if you think I’m making it up). Goonery is doing absurd things. You may not like the difference in language, but there you go. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky caldron, Except that I have said what my take on reading it was. I also said “of course, I may be wrong”, rather than pretend I know what someone else is saying. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the silly little dig: I take it you’ve realised I was giving my opinion, Esther than trying to give something as fact. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaky: So much for "This is my sole contribution, take it or leave it": if only it had been sole, or not at all. Please feel free to have yet another "last word", as it seems you like that sort of thing. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, 1 you are too involved. There are enough people saying that right now and very few arguing against it. There are other admins available, so back off and let someone else handle it. 2. "If I had to recuse myself because of being mentioned, all editors could immunize themselves against enforcement actions by pre-emptively insulting or otherwise attempting to incite conflicts with all admins active at AE and all arbitrators": bollocks. That's the weakest attempt I've seen to justify getting involved. That doesn't wash normally and it wouldn't necessarily matter here, but AE sanctions are slightly different, and, in this case, you don't have to do anything, because if you do, it will make any action you take immediately suspect, particularly as several people have already advised you personally not to act. Just step away and leave someone else to deal with it. – SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, as you haven't read the thread at Moors Murders properly (given you are accusing Cassianto of baiting EC, when they were both in agerement on the point, I'm not sure your judgement adds much weight when backing Sandstein's action ! - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bear poking if ever I've seen it. CassiantoTalk 07:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter, can I please reiterate the point made by Serial Number above about you posting your comment in the "uninvolved administrators" section, below? Or is this another case of one rule for one and another others? CassiantoTalk 12:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 has confirmed at least that it is one rule for one and another for others re his comment about not wanting to move Galobtter's comment from the "uninvolved" section for the fear of "responses". What are you saying, Bbb23, that you'll be met with incivility by Galobtter? But then, like I say, one rule for one... CassiantoTalk 17:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out MJL and their very recent harassment of Eric here, which came after this and now suddenly, this. Just another random article, was it MJL? I think it's time this peanut gallery closed. CassiantoTalk 21:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, you may've missed it, did you read the "shut the fuck up" comment at 18:01 GMT, issued by EEng, before my "shit edits" response (at 18:40 GMT)? GoldenRing, that's relevant to you to, seeing as you've ignored my comment saying just this on Eric's talk page. Oh, Vanamonde93, you too, it seems - just seen that you've missed this as well. Perhaps that's what Diannaa meant when she praised EEng "calmness". Because that sounds like a calm response, doesn't it. The silence is deafening on this one. CassiantoTalk 17:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, my apologies, I had no idea that there was a limit on how much one can alter a question. Anyway, thank you for your subjective view on what is and what is not "hurtful or personal or insulting". Others may disagree with you, of course, which is why all this is such a huge great waste of time. CassiantoTalk 19:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There really needs to be a formalized exception to this for when he's baited. Most of these are clear cases of baiting. I've no love lost for Eric and think he's his own worst enemy, but this is egregious. I'd even discount the last comment on the grounds that he'd been baited into a frenzy there and elsewhere over the previous 24 hours.
In fact, why isn't there a DS regime on Eric Corbett more generally? He's divisive enough a character, and we've had DS regimes for subjects attracting less on-wiki controversy. Why shouldn't people who try to rub Eric's nose in c-gate in unrelated discussions be subject to discretionary sanctions? Just a thought.
Also, OP should not be commenting as an uninvolved admin, being the filer. The claim that he'd have blocked if not for the directive to have an AE discussion for 24 hours first only reinforces this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Parabolist: I think your point on the Sandstein comment may be right, but I believe that, read in context with the baiting that took place at Talk:Moors murders over the previous day (and perhaps other comments made elsewhere that haven't been listed and which I'm not going to dig for), we can surmise that Eric was still lashing out. If we're going to give him credit for the baiting at Talk:Moors murders, I don't see why that credit shouldn't extend to the Sandstein comment. Yes, Eric should be warned for lashing out, and if he continues without abatement despite such warning, then we can talk about enforcing this provision. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Parabolist:If someone is being provoked by throwaway troll accounts, and they respond by lashing out at an unrelated editor three times, how is that not an issue? It's not a non-issue, but I don't think it merits a block. I think the fact that Eric was provoked should be a factor in mitigation. Sandstein has had absolutely zero involvement with Eric or the Moors murder discussion in the last week, and yet Eric is using disruption at that page as a free pass to take swipes at him. Sandstein practically lead the charge for Eric's last block, so it's not like he's an innocent bystander, or someone that's going to be forced off the project because Eric bullies him. In short we must take context into account. I think another important aspect to look at here is the level of disruption caused by the comment, for if there is no disruption, no sanction should lie, since the sanction would not be preventive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: To me, "goon" is closely related to "thug", and typically means "hired muscle". Like the guy who works for a debt collector or bookie and breaks debtors' thumbs. Of course an "unpaid goon" is at odds with the idea of a goon as "hired muscle", which I read as the intent of the statement; it means someone who acts like a goon but isn't paid for it, with the implication being someone who gets pleasure out of breaking thumbs and kneecaps. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Yes, I am American. I agree it would be unfortunate to block if Eric didn’t mean “goon” in the sense I understand it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaky caldron and SchroCat: I just checked OED actually. The first three senses of the word “goon” are pretty clear PAs (someone stupid, a mob enforcer, a WWII German POW camp guard), and while the first two are listed as originally American senses, the attestations make it clear that they’re used in those senses in the UK as well. And really, Eric’s use of “unpaid goon” makes it clear that it was in the second sense (maybe third, but not likely); the irony of an enforcer working without pay is certainly the idea. I am appreciative of the fact that we can’t read Eric’s mind, but there’s no sense in pretending we can’t infer intent from the context. If he wishes, Eric may explain what he meant. But as I’ve already said I’d be prepared to let it go with a warning given the baiting he’d suffered in the previous day. Treating the two occurrences as fully separate strikes me as rather naive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: I think you give better context to the Sandstein comment than I have. I think Sandstein does good work, but I also think the monthlong block was excessive. I frankly don't think there was consensus for that specific length at the last AE, and have a great deal of frustration with the lack of factor-based analysis in that case rather than automatically falling back on the equivalent of "We have two options: one month or nothing." But I don't intend to relitigate that past issue. I would tend to view Eric's lashing out at Sandstein in the context of any splanchnic ventilation in close proximity to a sanction, and not throw the book at him. As RexxS's comment indicates, there are several factors in mitigation should we actually try to look for them. And, as to the perennial comment that "If this weren't Eric we'd have blocked by now," my response is to suggest that means we should reconsider how we treat other editors. We should not advocate "This is how we treat people with no friends, so let's treat everyone that poorly," but instead advocate principled analysis that explicitly weighs matters in aggravation and mitigation when deciding the severity a sanction needs to be adequately preventive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein:If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. “May.” Not “must.” Not “shall.” As to the decision about block length, there are two ways of answering this, both of which are fatal to your argument. First, it constitutes an undue invasion of the province of the administrator by commanding particular ongoing actions and prohibiting discretion in their enforcement; admins are not agents of the arbitration committee. Second, if a three-month block is excessive but mandatory if a block is to be issued, then it is an abuse of discretion for you to impose it at all. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Awilley's revelation below of an inconsistency between the GGTF sanctions regime targeting him and the enforcements provisions in that case and in AE2, an ARCA filing may be required to resolve the inconsistency. These provisions are irresolvable, even in AE2, which expressly "confirm[ed] the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case", which raises the exact same problem. I propose that this AE request either be denied or held in abeyance unless and until an ARCA resolves the inconsistency. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: Ah, that is smart. I agree with that argument, that the sanction/remedy being confirmed doesn't include the specialized enforcement (which, if the Committee were following the proper formality in the GGTF case, would have been a separate provision in the enforcement section of that case). So at least, for the purposes of this case, there is a discretionary outcome. Though I also agree with Cryptic that it might not make much difference. As to going to ARCA, we'll probably be back here at AE by the end of the year, so perhaps it's best to wait until that time. @Vanamonde93: I have much the same concern, that there's not a clear way for a sanction that can be imposed by "any uninvolved administrator" could have all but unanimity that no block was appropriate, that last remaining admin could block and it would be within that admin's discretion, at least within the scope of the original GGTF enforcement regime. I'm really not sure what to do about that. The AE2 requirement that Corbett sanctions discussions happen here at AE might be relevant; what happens, for instance, if there's a consensus of uninvolved admins discussing here that say "No action" and a section is hatted? Could an uninvolved admin come back and reverse that closure with no action? I think it would at least merit a trip to ARCA if so. Honestly, I would argue that if any uninvolved admin can impose a block, it follows that any uninvolved admin can "impose" a "non-block", which would have the same strength as an AE-imposed block (i.e., if someone then imposes a block, the lifting of that block might not be wheel warring if sanctions were then imposed on the blocking admin; see WP:ARBAE2#Reinstating a sanction reversed out of process). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Point of clarification: I don't believe the Corbett remedy in GGTF is a "discretionary sanction" in the WP:DS sense (i.e., it doesn't use the phrase "standard discretionary sanctions" anywhere). There is clearly discretion built into it, of course, but there's enough difference between that and standard DS regimes that our understanding of how DS regimes are handled at AE doesn't apply, at least not uncontroversially. My thought on that, however, is that it's a really, really nitpicky distinction that borders on wikilawyering, and even if the intention of the Committee was not to import those concepts of consensus and administrative discretion, we should consider them part of all administrative actions seeing as they're just such core components to the overall Wikipedia system. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: That actually raises an interesting point of Awilley’s: If that portion of the remedy is a case-specific enforcement procedure (i.e., should have been in the enforcement section of GGTF), and the AE2 reaffirmance of the “sanction” in GGTF applied to the “remedy proper” (as Awilley suggests), then AE2 took jurisdiction of Eric’s sanctions, subject to the enforcement regime in AE2. At the very least, the action in the last AE that resulted in a one-month block was consistent with the nonspecific enforcement regime rather than the case-specific GGTF enforcement regime (Sandstein—the blocking admin—applied the nonspecific enforcement regime rather than the GGTF-specific one, and several commentators agreed that was the rule). Why should we revert to the GGTF-specific regime now? If Eric is to be blocked for this under the GGTF-specific rule, we should treat the prior block as though it was the appropriate length under that enforcement rule (72 hours), designate this block as the next appropriate length (72 hours), and deduct the time improperly served under the previous block (1 month - 72 hours). (see below) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Ah, you caught me napping. I missed the distinction between the TBAN and the behavioral prohibition in the previous AE and in the enforcement log. Yes, I agree, 72 hours is the right number for this specific enforcement regime. I have struck my earlier suggestion that the incorrect enforcement regime had been used in the previous AE, and that some kind of corrective math would be appropriate in calculating the current sanction. I am also mindful of the extensive factors in aggravation pointed out by Levivich and passionately argued by Swarm. Certainly, there are also factors in mitigation, but as Levivich has pointed out, Eric's positive contributions have grown to be fewer in recent time. Whether there's discretion to block for more or less than 72 hours, I'm not as sure; I'm not a fan of the idea that the Committee's assertion of jurisdiction over this dimension of Eric's behavior deprives the administrative community in general of not only discretion to determine the length of sanctions, but whether to sanction independently of the Committee regime. I think, at the very least, both ideas can be considered independently (i.e., blocking under the behavioral prohibition in GGTF, and blocking under WP:NPA generally), sort of like separate causes of action or theories of liability in a single case. Going under NPA, of course, requires slightly heavier lifting in terms of justifying a sanction (since it's not automatically justified by the fact of a Committee remedy). Anyway, those are my thoughts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The context is that there have been some frayed tempers over editing at Moors murders for over a month now (oh and some socks causing disruption too). In the past few days, the page has got some admin attention (and thus ceasefire on page edit-warring with a full-protect and me setting up a structured argument/RfC to sort it out conclusively. The general tone has fluctuated and hence no comments are particularly egregious when taken with those that come before and after. This should be sorted out with the RfC. at this point, any ad hominem quotes have suck into the quagmire and been forgotten. Hence any action now would be punitive and not preventative, which is contra our blocking policy. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that the Big Game hunting season is upon once more. It’s a pity Wikipedia can’t be like the rest of the civilised world and turn its back on such abhorrent practices. At the end of the day, the rhino is left dead and the hunters without glory having found the uses of powdered horn are a myth. No winners anywhere. Giano(talk) 08:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you block based on this, then Wikipedia is truly lost. There was clear baiting, clear poking of the sleeping beer. How about a novel suggestion--let Eric create content and the instigators leave him the hell alone. GregJackPBoomer! 09:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to provoking and ~poking the bear~, what exactly does that make Eric's three unprovoked jabs at Sandstein on his talkpage in the last week (including the one filed with this complaint)? Constantly repeating "well they poked a bear!" is a powerful miss of a metaphor, as in this case, perhaps no one should be a goddamn bear in the first place.Parabolist (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mendaliv: If someone is being provoked by throwaway troll accounts, and they respond by lashing out at an unrelated editor three times, how is that not an issue? Sandstein has had absolutely zero involvement with Eric or the Moors murder discussion in the last week, and yet Eric is using disruption at that page as a free pass to take swipes at him.
@Winged Blades of Godric: If someone were to say similar things about Eric, and Eric lashed out at them, well then we'd all just say they "poked a bear." But it seems only one person is allowed to be a bear. Parabolist (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is my sole contribution, take it or leave it. I am from the UK, not the US. The suggestion that Eric's reference to Sandstein as an "unpaid goon" cannot relate to any humorous connection to the comedy sketch. Given the history between the 2 and in particular past enforcement actions taken by Sandstein against Eric, the reference to goon is clearly in the context of an enforcer. There is no other sensible interpretation. In that context it is an accurate description and as recognised slang, not an obvious PA. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, I am delighted as well. I am frequently staggered by my omniscience. Do I care you prefer your bizzare Goon show alternative? Not one bit. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto. In reply to your exceptionally crass question. Yes, I have. I will not be accountable to you and I have no desire to extend the discussion about Eric's intention regarding his description of Sandstein, his actions, his meaning; implied, obvious, abstract or otherwise, here or anywhere. You also can have what I gave your friend. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even here?. –Davey2010Talk 11:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add above but IMHO the goon comment shouldn't of been made ... but other than that I don't see any issues here. –Davey2010Talk 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein if you are planning on closing this in 24hours ... I would suggest you don't, Given no one agrees with your actions thus far you can bet your bottom dollar no one's going to agree with your next close either, Up to you but just a friendly suggestion. –Davey2010Talk 16:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein will not be blocking here, his advanced authority in this case is finished. Considering the comments here by admins and user alike, any admin that blocks for three months should expect the same. As User:SlimVirgin's comments I also don't support a block at all. It should be noted also that Sandstein has been restricted from acting here and the reason why, even if that is that he admits that consensus is against his actions and that in future he refrains from taking unilateral actions here at AE. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Corbett undoubtably violated his sanction, which he had agreed to follow. That he was poked is not relevant, as he is obliged and advised by his sanction to disengage from these types of situations. Eric is a fully capable human in full agency of his actions - his decision to violate his sanction was his alone. If the Arbitration Committee is not interested in applying the sanctions to Corbett’s violations, they should lift the sanctions. ToaNidhiki05 12:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really involved. But his comments over at Moors murders talk page shows lack of judgment. And a clear violation of the agreement has been made, and a full ban should be done. Why otherwise have clear cut restriction agreements. Why have restrictions if when they are broken, excuses are made for them not to be implemented. I can see that he has been baited by EEng and Cassianto. To be fair to Eric, if EEng and Cassiantos comments over at Moors murders were looked at by an admin both would likely face blocks for abuse. However, no one is responsible for Erics behaviur other than Eric himself, he should have distanced himself immediately, instead he fell back to his old behaviour. Here and and here are just two of the examples as to why his restrictions has been breached, both comment and edit summary are inflammatory.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sense a lot of animosity towards Sandstein with a lot of the same petty bickering that lead to EricCorbett even being blocked in the first place. It is really sad to see this kind of behaviour escalating all over Wikipedia. Here Toa is right, Sandstein made a correct decision to block Eric. Erix made the decision to violate his sanction, three months are correct.BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, All three involved are as responsible for the inflammatory comments. The block of Eric was correct. That Eric and Cassianto were in an agreement at one stage makes little difference.BabbaQ (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with admin Swarm assessment. On point. BabbaQ (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing has done the right thing in taking action. And his criticism of other parties involved are right on point. BabbaQ (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen - Though I agree with you that baiting such as the diff you provided are proof that EEng was indeed baited. Diffs like this one, one of many, proves that EEng also have done nothing to step away from the baiting himself. BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dragged to this place (AE) a few times in the past & learned quickly, how many folks were watching me & waiting to pounce, the moment I made any perceived mistakes. I know what it's like to have a target on one's head. The only thing EC can do, is resist responding to any poking & stay away from potential confrontations & most of all, certain editors. Otherwise? go out with a bang. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Dicklyon on Sandstein's involved close[edit]
My comment here is about Sandstein, who made an extensive comment in the section for "uninvolved administrators" below and closed the discussion and blocked Eric Corbett. I complained below, outside the closed discussion, and he hid my complaint, and said to refer to his explanation of why he didn't recuse himself. His close and comment were reverted by Winged Blades of Godric on the technicality of it not being 24 hours yet as required by AE actions, so this is open again.
I have taken note that one of the edits mentions me, but I am not recusing myself because of this. If I had to recuse myself because of being mentioned, all editors could immunize themselves against enforcement actions by preemptively insulting or otherwise attempting to incite conflicts with all admins active at AE and all arbitrators. This would render the enforcement process ineffective. That cannot be the intent of the Arbitration Committee.
A review of comments above makes it clear that Sandstein is way too deeply involved with Eric Corbett, and his actions there in the past questionable enough in comments on the present case, that this feeble slippery-slope excuse is unacceptable. When involved admins act this way, they further erode the already fragile reputation of admin fairness. Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And now he has re-added his involved statement below (and my comment on it) where it is prohibited. I did not edit that section and don't want my comment in it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My request
an uninvolved admin should strike or remove Sandstein's comments, and mine, from the section for uninvolved admins below. I have no further interest in this case, except maybe I'll give Sandstein a trout. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved up from below, my note outside/after Sandstein's hatting
On the close, not the case: @Sandstein: given that you were among the editors he was making personal attacks on, don't you think it would have been wise to leave the close and blocking to some uninvolved admin? It does say "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators" where you added your big concluding comment. Dicklyon (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still object
To postings from Sandstein being allowed in the section for uninvolved admins below. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a "clerk" or similar available here who can move the extensive comments by Sandstein out of the section below that is reserved for uninvolved administrators? Dicklyon (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having personally been subjected to heavy handedness by Sandstein, I may be somewhat biased here but based on an obvious acrimonious history between Eric and Sandstein, I believe the community would be better served if Sandstein refrained from enacting any penalties in this matter.--MONGO (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care what is happening here. I actually only noticed it because Bishonen commented on Dicklyon's talk page with a link here. I just wanted to note that I recently got into a content dispute with Eric over the sourcing of the Cotswold Olimpick Games in which he called me a clown.[2] Reminder, that was after he had finished treating me like dirt because I question the reliability of the article's main source. If this was any other editor, I'd have posted on their talk page and, assuming they persisted casting aspersions against me and making personal attacks, I'd have filed at AN/I. However, after my AE report against Eric, I pretty much have given up on ever pursuing enforcement actions against this user because I sincerely doubt anything less than an arbcom ban would actually be effective in stopping the main issue. It's pretty pointless for peons like me to even pretend otherwise. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the general manner in which discussions about Eric Corbett are handled makes me just want to silently quit Wikipedia. I was right about to go finish my work on Draft:Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi, but I keep asking myself what the point of it all is. I'll pretty much never feel safe on this project and would rather leave than constantly be told there is nothing I can do about it. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 20:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: Glad to know you care about this perceived harassment enough to make a note of it here, but not enough to actually do anything about it. I always pondered whether this comment and this one were intentionally timed to coincide with AmericanAir88's RFA (which I was a prominent supporter of), but I had the good decency to bite my tongue and WP:AGF for editors who have never done the same for me. Your accusation comes with no weight unless you prefer to open up an AN/I discussion about it. It's just a baseless personal attack meant to kick me while I'm down. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Can you please take a look at my statement? –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 05:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Corbett's last 500 edits go back to May 2018. That's when he more or less stopped editing, other than to work on an article by request in January 2019.
In May 2019, he returned.
One of his first interactions is typical Corbett:
An editor with like 100 edits asks why the article Elizabeth Mallet says she was born in 1672 but her husband died 11 years later in 1683. [4]
Corbett's response: "Your ignorance does you no credit."[5]
The other editor objects to "a huffy puffy responder". [6]
Corbett's response: "How about minding your own business and stop trying to get under the skin of other editors?"[7]
Another editor intervenes: "How about explaining the term instead of behaving insufferably?" [8]
To another editor: This is supposed to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, not an example of how we can't phrase something correctly.[10]
To another: Why don't you just fuck off back to whichever stone it is that you live under?[11]
To another, after calling an RfA "quite simply ridiculous"[12]: What leads you to believe that I give a rat's arse about my topic ban?[13]
To another: I will do as I please regardless of what you or anyone else may say.[14]
To another: I don't regard it as any kind of privilege being allowed to edit here, quite the reverse really, so what is there to lose?[15]
About WMF's ED: I like Katherine Maher, but only as a decoration, which is undoubtedly what she was hired for.[16]
To another editor: ... your attitude is at best inconsistent and at worst downright dishonest; I'm going for dishonest.[17]
Opposes an RfA because The candidate shows poor judgement in the timing of this nomination and in her membership of WiR.[18]
It'll be a cold day in hell before I ask you for anything Sandstein, much less bow to your authoritarian style of "management" ... do your worst and see exactly how little I care for you or for what Wikipedia has become.[19]
At this point, he was blocked for one month by Sandstein. Upon his return...
More stuff about Sandstein:
So, what difference does the Sandstein robot believe that has he has achieved by his customary heavy-handedness?[20]
Heck, I'm sure that Sandstein is already looking for his AE enforcement bludgeon.[22]
And herein lies the stupidity of ArbCom and its unpaid goons like Sandstein.[23]
I wonder how many others he hovers over like some evil bird of prey?[24]
Calls MJL ... some clown ...[25] and says ... he does not take the trouble to read the sources ...[26]
About Wikipedian "cult members": I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire.[27]
Gravedancing at Ritchie's talk page maybe you'll reflect on this episode the next you feel like slagging me off.[28] and Gravedancers like Ritchie333 ought to expect to have their graves danced on.[29] and more on his own talk page [30]
Calling EEng an incompetent gutter-snipe[31] and a bull in a fucking china shop[32] and said Your reading skills as are almost as bad as your writing skills, but both are admittedly better than your comprehension skills; this is the only thing I have to say to you.[33] and EEng ought not to be allowed within a country mile of any FA/GA.[34]
To yet another editor: I expect you think you're being clever, but you're a long way off with your stupid comments.[35]
About an admin page protecting Moors murders: This is beyond stupid.[36]
And Corbett recently writes: In real life I'm about as charming a person as you're ever likely to meet, with one exception; I have absolutely no time at all for idiots.[37]
The stuff about the 3 months AE remedy is a sideshow. Any admin can block for incivility, and there's no reason to treat this editor differently than any other. There has been plenty of incivility in the one week since his last one month block expired. That wasn't long enough to be preventative, so an escalation is in order. Somebody please block this editor for two months and let's get back to building an encyclopedia. – Levivich 21:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: I think you're mistaken about that being the point where it all kicked off. Before the diff/quote you posted, Cassianto referred to EEng's 150-edits-over-two-weeks as a "bloodbath" and repeatedly advocated rolling them all back and having EEng do them again "more slowly". If I had my way I'd lock all FAs up and anyone wishing to change them would have to request it on the talk page. and The English language has not changed that much over the last 10 years and with Eric and Tom as the authors, I doubt that any of the problems you saw, even existed in the first place. were whoppers. The notion that an article is perfect and should not be changed without permission? Or while the FA nom is blocked? After two weeks of silence? That would drive me crazy; wouldn't you feel the same way? The diff in which EEng "snaps" came after 5,000 words had been written in that thread, and yet only like two actual edits were put forward as problematic. Talk about poking a bear! – Levivich 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SN: Because nothing is universally accepted. What a strange standard that would be to apply to anything. – Levivich 16:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: In arbitration case 2015-10, "Arbitration enforcement", the arbitration committee stated in a principle that ...when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Thus if there is a discussion amongst a significant number of administrators who reach a consensus not to enact a sanction, an adminstrator cannot impose a sanction without violating the consensus policy. I agree, though, that the motivation for the amendment in 2015-15, "Arbitration enforcement 2", was to delay administrators from taking precipitous action, which exacerbated the situation underlying the case. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding I can do everything I want to do without ever logging in again, which some above seem to think is a threat to sock as an IP, it is quite clear that this is not what he meant. Eric simply doesn’t feel he needs to edit Wikipedia again if he is blocked. He contributes to FA reviews but has virtually retired from writing articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Swarm wrote: "There was no trolling or personal attacks which provoked Eric's own personal attacks"; however, "So tell us, Shakespeare, [...]" was clearly crafted as a personal insult [38]. --IHTS (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have been reading some by participants here & elsewhere (as much as can be stomached anyway), and really, there is so much unadulterated *hate* & white-bot antipathy & animosity, reminiscent of a RL venue. I therefore declare that CDS (Corbett Derangement Syndrome) exists, and explains much. No wonder he is indifferent to decisions here. What a place! --IHTS (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally participate in AE or EC related stuff, so sorry if I'm doing this wrong but I have to agree with others that provocation/baiting/whatever you want to call it should not be much of an excuse to lash out at unrelated editors. While I don't know how to deal with harassment by socks/trolls nor editor's who rile each other up, I'm quite sure the solution is not to excuse the misbehaviour of someone so affected against yet other editor's. Even so much as such provocation may be considered, it should also be limited in the level of misbehaviour accepted and the frequency. In other words, if someone keeps lashing out at others just because someone else 'provoked' them and in an extreme way, we ultimately have to say 'sorry but if you can't control that reaction you're not welcome here'. I have only had a cursory glance at the evidence so make no comment on whether we're here now, I was simply concerned about an IMO extremely harmful suggestion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps somewhat OT, but it's a point others made and there's no other place to put it. Anyway I agree that the discussion at Moors murders is depressing. It wasn't too bad at first, some IMO unnecessary sniping but then someone actually highlighted one of the edits and there was discussion over it. But then that ended and there was no discussion over any of the actual edits. I appreciate that reviewing 150 edits takes time, but it seems to me reviewing 10 is not so bad. So it would have been reasonable to review the first 10 or a random 10. If problems were found with these edits, and these were politely pointed out, this would surely be a much more conducive way to convince hopefully User:EEng and if not, others that there were problems and maybe wholesale reversion was justified. If these problems weren't found especially with a random 10, then there is a reasonable chance that the problems with the edits were few. If someone really wants to they could review all the edits. Alternatively they could let it be. I doubt there was zero problems with the edits, but at the same time neither the FA process nor any editor is perfect, so it's doubtful that there were no problems before. And of course there are always going to be editors who understand things differently. In any case none of this happened and instead all we got was persistent sniping at each other. While to some extent there wasn't much EEng could do, at the same timing, I don't think they needed to respond how they did. Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse GoldenRing's 72 hour block of Eric. As for EEng, I tried blocking him recently and it didn't take.[39] I just want to add that I am sorry if my poorly prepared block has made things less clear. EEng regularly makes egregious personal attacks and seems to get away with it because of his gift for comedy. To add a recent diff to the mix, here he is accusing another editor of "ignorance and lack of sophistication" and threatening him with "one of my patented beat-downs".[40] Threatening people with "beat-downs" is not remotely okay and I would have blocked him for it right then and there if I hadn't been fresh off botching a block. I'm a rusty old legacy admin so take this with all due pinches of salt. But it seems to me that Eric and EEng have a lot in common – they're talented writers who, at their best, make Wikipedia a better and more colorful place. And I'm happy to cut productive contributors some slack – but not to give carte blanche for any sort of insult they care to fling. Haukur (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: The ANI thread is about my botched block and contains no 'unanimous' finding endorsing your "pha66otte" comment, a comment which I still believe is a breach of policy. I wish you would refrain from using your considerable wit and writing skills on such base things. But you provided the link so anyone can read this and decide for themselves. Haukur (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: I regret that by mentioning EEng's "beat-down" comment, I seem to have induced him into a fresh round of civility breaches against you. Haukur (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haukurth, you blocked me for a "PA" which was unanimously determined at ANI not to be a PA [41]. Then Anne Drew – who not much earlier had to be scolded repeatedly by multiple editors (sample comments: "This is beginning to get annoying"; "behaviour is verging on POINTy"; "Drop the stick and get a grip") [42] before he would stop flashing his Junior Enforcer's badge in the FRAMBAN discussion – inserted himself by insisting, repeatedly, that I'd made a PA after all. The next day he was still repeating that, and here's the full text of what I finally said [43] (which you selectively quote above):
But it wasn't a personal attack, as the universal opinion at ANI confirms; that you can't see that speaks to your ignorance and lack of sophistication. I and others have been cutting you some slack because you appear to be a young person inexperienced in the ways of the world, but if you keep this up you're gonna get one of my patented beat-downs reserved for the stubbornly impenetrable, and I don't think Haukurth wants that here on his talk page. So smarten up: listen more and mouth off less. EEng 19:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I stand by that advice (well, I guess I could have left out "ignorance and lack of sophistication" and it would still have done the job) and I'm glad to say that since then Anne Drew seems indeed to be listening more and mouthing off less.
I appreciate the kind words at the end of your post but I would appreciate your not comparing me to E.C; it's true we both write well (ahem) and enjoy doing it, but beyond that he and I are nothing alike. Nothing.EEng 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haukurth: That you're still calling my post "a breach of policy" when every comment was some variation on Bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... suggests you should stop making such evaluations until you've have a chance to send your policy-breach detector in for recalibration.
As for the waste of my considerable wit and writing skills on such base things (and again I appreciate your kind words) see Lenny Bruce and/or George Carlin (not that I'm comparing myself to Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, to be sure, except for the baseness of course). EEng 16:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To no one in particular: since my infamous "shut the fuck up" rant from the article's talk page has been quoted on this page, but in a way that lacks context, I'll give it more in full here (full thread at [44]); it really tells pretty much the whole story:
In the past 3 days there have been an incredible 110 posts to this thread, totaling 40K of text, all to discuss the abstract existence (but not the substance) of my 150 edits to an article which itself consists, in total, of a mere 65K. Most of these edits are no more complex than[before-and-after of seven edits omitted]There, that's seven of them – 5% of the total – right there. They can be reviewed in 15 seconds each, and if you think "officers were drafted to search" is better than just plain "officers searched", or that readers will benefit by knowing about the dog's teeth and kidney complaint, or about how many days past his birthday Keith Bennett was when he was killed, go right ahead and change those things; I'm not married to anything. But in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, at long last you bunch of old ladies stop pearl-clutching and hand-wringing (you gotta love the imagery there) and either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. I've spent far more time in therapy with you lot responding to your hypothetical anxieties than I did making the changes themselves. Really, it's unbelievable.
SlimVirgin: You say errors were introduced. I call bullshit on that. Here [45] are my 153 edits from July 2 to July 10. Please give diffs showing where errors (plural) were introduced. Since you made that statement from, of course, your own examination of the edits, and not just because you believe some vague hand-waving by Cassianto, E.C., and the rest of that gang, you'll have no trouble doing that. EEng 02:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, here's some news that may interest folks here. I got off my ass today and moseyed on down to the library to get the sources. And guess what? This article's a complete fraud. In just a single section of seven paragraphs, I found 22 distinct verification failures -- statements of fact that are either not in the source cited, or contradict the source cited. Check them out here: [46]. And before you bother looking, almost all of it was there, with the same sources, on the day the article passed FA eleven years ago. Eleven years it's been this way. So much for coddling and indulging our difficult-but-brilliant "content creators". I can't wait to hear how this is going to be excused and explained away. Alien abduction, perhaps? I'll check out a few more sections tomorrow. Wikipedia's finest work, my ass. What a travesty. EEng 07:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a ban on third-party reports (and comments too if we're being honest) here. If the supposed target of the attack either thinks it not important enough to report here or is mindful enough of their own role in the dispute that they would rather not invite further scrutiny it should not be brought here. This ohhhhh I saw him say something mean shit is childish. nableezy - 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
(comments moved up)
Galobtter, seriously, you shouldn't post in the Uninvolved admins section when you're the filer. Please put any and all comments in the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I concur. This is confusing. Galobtter already has a section in which to place additional comments: the opening section. El_C 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to look at the context for the diffs listed, but the persistent gravedancing on Ritchie333's talk page were unbecoming and lacked compassion. El_C 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: you went with a maximalist interpretation of consensus last time — as one uninvolved admin who participated, I was prepared to block for a few days, for example. Taking into account that you've gone with a multiplier of the last block and the fact that you closed this request so swiftly, it's probably best that someone else closes this request. I, myself, tend to consider a 3 month block to be excessive for these violations — which admittedly, I've yet to look closely into, just to be clear. Again, I'm not greatly familiar with the user, to be perfectly upfront. El_C 15:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I agree that on their own, these edits would merit nowhere close to three months of a block. But this is not a matter of discretionary sanctions, and we have no discretion as regards the length of the block we are to apply. The remedy mandates an escalation from one month to three (and then to ArbCom), as discussed below. I also do not intend to recuse myself from this case or other matters regarding Eric Corbett. As far as I can tell, any supposed involvement of me with him stems from the fact that I have taken enforcement actions against him, and that he has criticized these actions (as is entirely usual in such cases). As WP:INVOLVED makes clear, an admin who interacts with a user only in an administrative capacity, as I have with Eric Corbett, is not considered involved as a result of these interactions. But, to make my view even clearer, the enforcement action that I took and might again take in this case is not based on the diff in which I am mentioned, but on the other diffs. Sandstein 15:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: The point is that there hasn't been any blocks in four years, so maybe it would have made sense to block for a few days and seek clarification at ARCA during that time. The block could always be further increased. But you went with the letter of the law (one month), which I'm saying, in context, was a mistake and outside AE consensus. El_C 15:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: Regarding your suggestion of a topic ban for Sandstein at WP:AN — I'm afraid I don't see the connection. El_C 04:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: My wording ("An alternative might be...") was not an active suggestion—I was trying to lay out the possibilities. If there were a consensus of uninvolved admins and if the possible WP:ARCA request I mentioned gave an unclear result, and if an admin overrode the possible consensus, about the only remedy I can think of might result from WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: Sorry, that's still unclear. Why would Sandstein be topic banned and what would he be topic banned about? El_C 07:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: This is hypothetical and I don't see a reason to examine the issue in detail now. However, given the string of if's that I mentioned (in particular, an unclear ARCA response), it might be reasonable to seek other views. I agree that an AN request would be highly unusual and might not do anything other than generate more noise. My main problem with the hypothetical result would be that Arbcom provided for 24 hours discussion which an admin might choose to ignore—if Arbcom cannot rationalize that, AN might. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find that Mendaliv sums up the situation well. The first three diffs are responses to equally problematic behaviour. We either accept a certain amount of rough-and-tumble when editors disagree strongly over an issue, or we ensure that the instigators of breaches carry the bulk of the opprobrium for those breaches. How many times do I have to draw attention to User:Geogre/Comic to make the point? The fourth diff was not directly provoked, but I understand Eric's antipathy toward admins because of his poor treatment by some of them over the years. Eric had not long returned from a month-long AE block by Sandstein where Sandstein had unilaterally removed Eric's talk page access as a further undiscussed (and unlogged) sanction, so I'm not surprised that Sandstein was the target when Eric lashed out against some of the the iniquities that arise from Arbitration Enforcement and those who enforce them. That's not to say I condone it, but I feel we are well past the point where we need to be looking for other means for avoiding Eric being drawn into conflict. It's been quite clear for years that blocks are not a useful tool in these circumstances because they plainly have not changed Eric one iota, beyond embittering him with his tormentors. Between October 2015 and July 2019, Eric was not blocked for any reason. During those four years, he made over 15,000 edits – the overwhelming majority of which were to mainspace – despite carrying sanctions. It is only the recent flare-up last month and its fall-out that has brought him back here, and we ought to be taking actions that restore the situation of the prior four years, not further inflamimg the problem. I'm strongly opposed to blocking in this instance and suggest instead much more dialogue with Eric to see how we can better make use of his undisputed skills and avoid further unpleasantries. --RexxS (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The request has merit. The edits at issue violate the ArbCom decision that is to be enforced.I have taken note that one of the edits mentions me, but I am not recusing myself because of this. If I had to recuse myself because of being mentioned, all editors could immunize themselves against enforcement actions by preemptively insulting or otherwise attempting to incite conflicts with all admins active at AE and all arbitrators. This would render the enforcement process ineffective. That cannot be the intent of the Arbitration Committee.In enforcement of the decision, Eric Corbett must be blocked. The decision requires that the duration of this block be set to three months, because the previous block (for a topic ban violation in enforcement of the same decision) was of one month in duration. I am interpreting the remedy such that its escalation pattern includes any blocks in application of the topic ban provided for in the same decision. Even if that were not the case, there was another one-month block in enforcement of the civility restriction by Keilana. That this block was cut short does not mean that it must not be taken into account for the purposes of the mandatory escalation pattern set forth in the decision.The decision also instructs: "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block." I am exercising this discretion because I had to remove talk page access from Eric Corbett the last time around as well, after he continued to violate the topic ban after being blocked.I note that Eric Corbett has declined to respond here, but has implicitly threatened evading sanctions through sock accounts or IPs. This, too, indicates that a block is required.Because the conduct of other parties is not covered by the decision to be enforced here, it cannot be examined here. If needed, other venues can be used for this. Sandstein 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained in the closing statement above why I did not recuse myself from acting on the enforcement request. In addition, the remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric Corbett prohibited instructs: "Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." Accordingly, any discussion about this case elsewhere is inappropriate, and I do not intend to comment further about it outside of an appeal by Eric Corbett at WP:AE. For the same reasons, I am hatting your comment and my response to it. Sandstein 14:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: You are far too involved with this request to even consider taking enforcement action. Your earlier block was the proximate cause of Eric's comment, and that comment was unambiguously critical of you. You are not sufficiently distanced from this request. If sufficient other admins agree with your opinion, there are plenty of them who are clearly uninvolved and available to close this request. Your attempt to impose your own close is unbecoming an admin and leads to the community losing faith in this mechanism of dispute resolution. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that a block is warranted on this record. The action suggested by Sandstein is blatantly excessive and certainly should not be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that while Sandstein may not be formally "involved" in the policy sense, it will be damaging if he is the administrator who closes this discussion, particularly if he does so in a way that no other admin endorses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for this feedback; you do have a point with it. As regards the "excessive" length, what is your view as to the discretion admins have about the block length? It seems to me that the remedy removes such discretion by specifying the exact length of the blocks that are to be applied. Sandstein 15:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Although sanctions usually involve a formula such as "up to a month", which are designed to allow Adminstrator discretion, in this case the process is outlined clearly in the Arbitration Case:
The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
There is no need for discretion on the length of the block in this case, but discretion is called for in determining whether a block is the most appropriate sanction in this case. If it is, we are all now aware of the steps that the enforcing admin must follow, and have no further excuse for disregarding them. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Eric should be blocked for three months per the remedy or not at all. I see no discretion to impose a block of a different duration. Also, per the remedy, ArbCom must be notified if a 3-month block is imposed. Sandstein should not be the blocking admin. I agree with that part of NYB's comments. Galobtter should not have posted in this section, but I am reluctant to move their comments because of the responses. They also appear to be wrong about the remedy (Eric's block log is not easy to follow). Although it has nothing to do with the issue of belittling other editors, I also do not like Eric's statement about editing with IPs (I see nothing to imply that he would created named accounts). Eric can be sly, though, and it wouldn't surprise me if he were stating a "fact" as opposed to making a threat. Finally, in my view, "unpaid goons" is an insult, no matter what "goon" might mean in some context in England. Eric knows more than most of us about language, but I think we should take such a statement at face value, not some extended play on words. In case it's not clear, I have not argued that Eric should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I don't understand what it means that you're unwilling to move Galobtter's post from this section "because of the responses". The only responses directly to Galobtter have been requests for him to move his comment. That said, I think it would be better if he moved it himself. Perhaps my ping above[47] didn't work, as he has neither complied nor replied; I'll ask him on his page. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. (emphasis added)
"Any user" obviously includes Eric Corbett and nowhere in the amendment page does it mention a specific schedule of mandatory escalating block lengths. So no, we are not facing a binary choice here of either "3 months" or "no block". We still have discretion. If somebody wants to go back to the (IMO silly) system of mandatory scheduled block lengths they can file a request at ARCA. But until then we can use the discretion we're clearly allowed by the amendment, following the principle that unless Arbcom explicitly limits administrator discretion, administrators have discretion. ~Awilley (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, a model of clarity. Now I know why I stay away from AE, and the one time I break my "rule" it involves Eric to boot. Stupid, stupid ...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mendaliv: I don't think it's that ambiguous. Read it carefully. Sanctions are different from Enforcement. The sanction (EC prohibited from shouting, swearing, belittling) is confirmed, but the enforcement procedure is changed (requiring 24 hrs at AE). Nowhere on that page does it say anything about continuing a special schedule of block lengths, whether the clock should be reset to zero, or whether the next block should be 3 months. It does give the standard enforcement provision which I quoted above. I think an ARCA at this moment is a bad idea. We don't need more drama: an amendment request charged by Eric being on the line for a 3-month block. We can resolve this here using the current wording of AE2. ~Awilley (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced AE2#Enforcement really lets us impose a block shorter than three months; it's boilerplate, included in every full arbcom decision, and this decision explicitly confirms the previous remedy (adding only that complaints must be brought here and must be left open 24 hours). The question of amending the sanction to allow discretion in block length was raised on the proposed decision page, and no such amendment passed.That said, three months for this set of diffs would be perverse. I can't support it. —Cryptic 18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On another reading of the remedies and enforcement log, Galobtter got it right from the start and Mendaliv in his comment of 22:34, 11 August - most of the previously-logged blocks were for the GGTF topic ban (for which the standard enforcement provision applies), with only one previous for the civility sanction (where the block length is dictated by the sanction). The right length is 72 hours. That's much less obscenely out of proportion to the initial set of diffs. —Cryptic 02:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the comments above by Newyorkbrad and RexxS. This is the time for de-escalation not another prolonged shitstorm. Accordingly, I oppose a three month block and I strongly suggest to Sandstein that he let other administrators deal with Eric and his eccentricities. Cullen328Let's discuss it 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a block and ask that Sandstein allow other admins to deal with this. The goading at Talk:Moors murders is clear. This is an important featured article that Eric has put a lot of work into, which must be taken into account. I follow RexxS in pointing to User:Geogre/Comic. SarahSV(talk) 18:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am thoroughly unimpressed by the behavior of several of the editors at Talk:Moors_murders, and for that reason, though I think Eric's comments are obviously blockable, they shouldn't be met with a block in this instance. That said; I'm beginning to lose patience with the "he was goaded" defense. Editors who do content work in difficult areas are goaded on a daily basis (and so are admins, but well, we signed up for it). Most do not fly off the handle in response. For someone in whose defense "you need to have a thicker skin" is frequently used, Eric really needs to recalibrate his approach, and be baited less easily. Unfortunately, though I and several others are recommending against a block here, it doesn't really matter very much. The rules of AE are such that even if all 1147 other admins recommend against a block, the last admin remaining would still be allowed by policy to implement a 3-month block. All we have is persuasion, so with that in mind: Sandstein, I think that a fair bit of what has been said at ANI and further above is quite wrong; by the letter of the law, you are not WP:INVOLVED here, and you are quite correct in saying that being the target of abuse from user X does not make an admin INVOLVED with respect to user X. That said, the purpose of AE is to return a topic to a situation where productive editing can resume. If you close this with a block, that purpose is not going to be achieved, because it will begin another shitstorm, even though your actions may be allowed by policy. That isn't particularly fair to you, but it's how things are. You've made your opinions clear; you should let another admin close this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Mendaliv: Yes, any admin could probably close this as "no action taken", and a reversal of such a closure would be inappropriate; but admins aren't constrained by AE in their ability to implement discretionary sanctions, either; an admin could implement a block in total ignorance of this discussion. There is actually a very good reason for the rules being as they are (or at least one); it's so that bad behavior doesn't go unsanctioned because the admins are unable to come to a consensus. However, that relies on the admins here displaying good judgement. If at all a case were brought to ARBCOM (or ARCA), it would have to demonstrate either that a specific admin was displaying bad judgement (ie a standard desysop case) or that the rules as written were leading to bad outcomes. A case arguing that "Admin X shouldn't be allowed to act at AE because they ignore consensus" isn't going to fly, because discretionary sanctions are, well, discretionary, and consensus isn't required to enforce them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Vanamonde93: Thank you for this feedback. I strongly disagree with you in one point: AE's purpose is clearly not "to return a topic to a situation where productive editing can resume". That is the job of the elected members of ArbCom, whose decisions are supposed to bring this about. The purpose of AE (outside of discretionary sanctions) is to enforce these decisions, not to second-guess them or to exercise discretion. In this case, my reading of the sanction is that it mandates a three-month block, whatever we might think of the value of this in these circumstances. Unlike you, I see also much in this entire episode that probably needs clarification at ARCA, but this should probably wait until after a decision has been made here. For the moment, I'll take into consideration the views of other admins above, and wait to see what others propose to do. But I believe that not to take action here, in the face of flagrant, severe and repeated incivility, and a clear ArbCom mandate for action, would be to signal to the community and to the WMF that, even after the WP:FRAM debacle, that the community cannot effectively address endemic harassment and incivility by established editors. I strongly criticized the WMF for bypassing community dispute resolution mechanisms in the Fram case, but I'm not sure I could criticize them again if we do nothing here. Sandstein 19:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Our mandate here is absolutely to exercise discretion. That's why they are discretionary sanctions, not automatic sanctions. If you want to clarify that at ARCA, feel free; I would be very interested in the outcome; but as long as the policy allows us discretion, I will use it. I agree that Eric's comments were beyond the pale, but what we have here is a multi-way conversation that degenerated into a total mess, in which Eric was not the only one to blame; and I don't want to sanction him and not the others simply because his actions are restricted by an ARBCOM decision and the others' are not. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 and Awilley: I believe that what we have here is a misunderstanding. What we are applying here are not discretionary sanctions, which do give admins discretion to act in certain topic areas. We are instead directly applying a single remedy that pertains only to a single editor. Therefore, there is no discretion, and any consideration of the context of the conduct at issue would be an usurpation of authority from ArbCom. If you look at WP:AC/DS, you'll see that "Eric Corbett" is not among the topics for which discretionary sanctions are authorized. Sandstein 19:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sandstein you are of course correct that the rules of Discretionary Sanctions don't apply here. I still stand by my point that by requiring a 24-hour discussion at AE, Arbcom intended for the consensus of that discussion to determine whether or not a block is applied. ~Awilley (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Re: "Unfortunately, though I and several others are recommending against a block here, it doesn't really matter very much. The rules of AE are such that even if all 1147 other admins recommend against a block, the last admin remaining would still be allowed by policy to implement a 3-month block." I disagree. Arbcom mandating a 24-hr discussion at AE makes it clear that they want the outcome to be determined by a consensus of administrators at AE, and not by the first admin who sees fit to pull the trigger on a block. ~Awilley (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that at all; if consensus were mandated, they would have said so. IIRC that provision was to prevent precipitate admin actions; not necessarily to require admin consensus, which would be unprecedented for discretionary sanctions. I agree that it would be terrible judgement for admin 1148 to act as I outlined above; but the problem there would be bad judgement, not violating policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replying partially to this, partially to your comment higher up that "consensus isn't required" to enforce DS. One of the defining features of Discretionary Sanctions is that they can be overridden by consensus. See WP:AC/DS#Modifications_by_administrators A consensus of administrators here trumps that single admin acting on their own. ~Awilley (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
True; but I think that in many important situations "consensus against sanctioning" may not equate to "consensus to overturn implemented sanction", and a sanctioned user would have to appeal for the unilateral sanction to be overturned; which of course many can't be bothered to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but an admin initiating a block against the feedback of most colleagues should obviously tread lightly, and ideally should reevaluate their position if strong consensus is opposed, since they're probably missing something... Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a website where IAR is policy. Arbcom would not mandate 24 hours of discussion if that discussion could be ignored because rules must be followed. Sandstein's eagerness to impose his view is not productive although I suppose another clarification request will be required to spell that out. An alternative might be to seek a topic ban for Sandstein at WP:AN—hmm, a two-way interaction ban might solve two problems. My view is that there should be no sanction because of the mindless provocations. That would send a message to future bear-pokers that their efforts would be better used elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am nothing short of disgusted by the apologetics above and would endorse a block. Mind you, I respect Eric, and read the entire discussion in search of anything that would justify his responses, just from a "we're all human" perspective. But the thread is nothing short of frightening: a user makes good faith changes to an article, and is aggressively shut down for not any specific reasons or objections, but instead for merely editing an FA, to which WP:BOLD still applies, and, per the second comment, because it is "largely Eric Corbett's article". That is a seriously frightening overtone for the subsequent discussion, and was shamefully set by an admin whom I would have expected better from. There was no trolling or personal attacks which provoked Eric's own personal attacks, merely Eeng begging for anyone to cite specific objections to his edits, over and over again. The personal attacks were unacceptable, generally or in the context of the Arbitration remedy. The violations are clear-cut, and the excuse-making is problematic. Not only that, but EC has been personally attacking Sandstein on his talk page repeatedly since the previous block, which was in response to objective violations and supported by a strong consensus at AE. One or two venting comments are forgivable, for sure, but Eric's been attacking the blocking admin over and over again, for over a month now. If you get blocked for an AE sanction, you don't get to bully the blocking admin! Fuck! Especially if you're already under an Arbitration sanction against personal attacks, right down to "belittling". It's astonishing to me that admins are still defending this fucking bullshit, after all these years. If this request gets buried by Eric's apologists, I'd go so far as to favor a new case. Note that Newyorkbrad offered Eric a voluntary resolution the last time, which he expressly rejected, and only then was he blocked. But here Newyorkbrad is again, ignoring all that, arguing for a free pass. Bullshit. This is a clear cavalcade of violations, which deserves the short block as proposed. ~Swarm~{sting} 04:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, bold edits are encouraged as a matter of policy. Obstructing bold edits without citing a specific rationale is disruptive editing. "Specific" means "policy-based". Arguing that "this is X's article, and X needs to have a say" is a policy violation, not a reason to personally attack the editor making the edits. FA's require "stability". But "stability" does not mean "absence of editing". "I don't like your edits", or "this is X's article, don't change it" is not a legitimate content dispute. Illegitimate stonewalling is not what's intended by "FA stability". "Stabilizing" FAs is an old school concept that has been rejected by the community in favor of Pending Changes, which only "stabilizes" articles against obvious vandalism or disruptive editing. There is no remotely-legitimate reasoning to stonewall good faith copyediting for the sake of "stability". ~Swarm~{sting} 05:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will further note that there is no "catch 22" in which an admin is considered "involved" because an editor personally attacked them. Sandstein jumped on a 3 month block, in violation of a 24 hour hold that he was not aware of. If that's poor optics that should warrant his recusal from further actioning this request, then fine. But it should absolutely not invalidate or distract from the obvious merits of the complaint itself. ~Swarm~{sting} 07:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has invalidated it (indeed, Eric has still been blocked). However, Sandstein would have been aware of the 24 hour hold if he'd actually read the damn discussion because it was mentioned twice, including once right at the top of this section. Not only that, but in the very first line of this section the filing admin points out that the next block should be 72 hours. He clearly didn't read that either. It is unsurprising therefore that it gave the impression of "just jumping in and blocking Eric". I never comment on any EC-related cases any more, and haven't for while, because I've previously been accused of being "pro-Eric". I don't see why the same shouldn't apply in reverse. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've thought about this some more, and looked through not just the talk page history, but the edits and the edit summaries on the article. EEng was being unnecessarily snippy on the talk page, but with considerably more justification than I had previously thought; and Eric's "guttersnipe" comment was a wildly disproportionate response to anything that went before. I'm still not wholeheartedly in support of a block, especially because Casliber is attempting to deescalate on the talk page, but I'm no longer going to argue against a short block, of the sort that several folks have discussed since my previous comments here. @Cullen328, Newyorkbrad, and SlimVirgin: It's quite possible you have done so already, but if you haven't, might I suggest reading the edit history along with the talk page conversation? I found it instructive. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Yes, I do; as I mentioned I read through the entire thing multiple times. I've already gone on record saying EEng's conduct was not ideal; but since we're mentioning extenuating circumstances, do you realize that the "Shakespeare" comment cam after Eric had agreed with Cassianto's comment ("Your edits are shit, all of them")? And what's more (this is what changed between my first response here, and my second, several hours later) those comments about EEng's edits came without any substantive engagement with the specifics of the changes he made. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I was just checking, as I didn't really think it was "wildly disproportionate", more an annoyed response to a bit of snark (FWIW, I think the "goons" comment was more of an issue). Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably certain Eric is due a block based on the evidence provided, but not enough to feel particularly strongly about it (as if he's not blocked here, he will be eventually; it's a matter of when not if, given his inability to rein in his temper). What I am certain of, however, is that Sandstein should not be making any kind of call on this, he is capital-I Involved. Fish+Karate 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've blocked Eric Corbett for 72 hours which, as far as I can make out, is the block the remedy actually mandates at this point. I'm not going to close this section as it seems clear that people will have a thing or two to say about it and this is as good a place as any. I'd like to be clear that EEng's conduct on that talk page has also been a long way short of what we should expect of editors. If I'd come across this two days ago, as it was happening, I'd have imposed a shortish block to prevent incivility. At this point, I don't see that as preventive. I know blocking Eric is not immediately preventive either, but when your misconduct reaches the point that you have specific arbitration remedies written against you, them's the breaks. Sandstein I join others here in at least questioning whether you are able to act neutrally in regard to Eric Corbett. Jumping in with what you thought was the mandated sanction when actually you hadn't respected the minimum waiting time, which had been pointed out, and you got the mandated sanction wrong by an order of magnitude, is a sign that you are not. You might well stand on the letter of INVOLVED; we still expect administrators to have enough self-awareness to recognise when they are not able to act impartially and you certainly give the impression here of having reached that point. GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to censure EEng's conduct on that talk page, which as I said before isn't beyond reproach, I think it's important to note that Cassianto isn't exactly covering himself in glory, either. "Your edits are shit, all of them" is well outside the expected realm of behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GoldenRing's 72-hour block of Eric. I'll add that, having just read through the talkpage at Moors murders (a depressing experience altogether), I don't share GoldenRing's criticism of EEng. Diannaa, who was pinged to the page a month ago to provide expertise about potential copyvios, said she admired "EEng's calmness at the suggestion that his work might all have been in vain",[48] and I agree with her. Since that time, EEng's calm has worn thinner, but he suggested many times, civilly, that people simply revert any of his changes they didn't like, before he started suggesting it less civilly. He has been the target of some egregious nastiness, as Vanamonde points out.[49] I definitely would not single out EEng as behaving badly on that page. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
If you're done altering your question, User:Cassianto, I'll answer it. Diannaa praised EEng's calmness a month ago, on July 12, as I already pointed out in my own comment above. I'll quote myself further: "Since that time, EEng's calm has worn thinner." You have little cause to triumph over Diannaa or me by suggesting a comment from EEng from August 5 is a poor example of calm. Also I don't think EEng's "shut the fuck up" is either hurtful or personal or insulting; it's just an impolite expression of anger and upset. Impolite expressions of anger and upset are nothing IMO. By contrast, saying "Your edits are shit, all of them", as you did is a big deal; it is hurtful and personal and very much insulting. I'm not going to respond further on this page, because I'm really not crazy about having to repeat what I've already said. If you don't agree with the opinions I've expressed, that's fine, it's your privilege. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I dunno, as far as I can tell this all kicked off with this comment reading, in part, "But in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, at long last you bunch of old ladies stop pearl-clutching and hand-wringing (you gotta love the imagery there) and either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. I've spent far more time in therapy with you lot responding to your hypothetical anxieties than I did making the changes themselves. Really, it's unbelievable. ... Looks like that calmness you were admiring above ran out." Up to there it was frustrated but civil. After that it all became somewhat difficult (or "not great" as JzG described it.) GoldenRing (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the calmness ran out. I thought I said that? Bishonen | talk 18:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
This appears to me to be pretty much what the WP:TROUT was invented for. There are several experienced editors knocking six bells out of each other at Talk:Moors murders, the entire dispute is out of all proportion to the substance of their disagreement. Singling out one of them seems somewhat invidious. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"One of them" was singled out for violating a personal editing restriction imposed by Arbcom that only applies to said "one of them". Also, the dispute appears to have degenerated to this level because one editor tried to make good faith edits to an article, and was stonewalled, obstructed, and bullied for no reason other than that "this is Eric's article" and Eric was blocked. Not exactly a legitimate content dispute that should have ever happened. ~Swarm~{sting} 00:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm, WP:STEWARDSHIP, which is policy, says: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." That was ignored, and the result was that errors were introduced into an FA on an important topic, one that's harder to get right than it looks. Eric has worked on the article since 2007, so that would have been extremely frustrating to watch. SarahSV(talk) 00:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No action taken in this instance. Srithikdatta is warned to moderate interaction in speaking to other editors, and to be willing to discuss controversial edits or reverts rather than repeatedly making them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
I've probably botched this completely as it's my first AR report. Note that the editor has ignored the DS Alert as well as the request to self-revert and continues to edit the article. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
I will admit that my first edit had improper notation to support it and should have been reverted. The user that reported me insisted that a source was reputable. I have a career in this subject matter. Many of the sources were not appropriated used. They were misquoted, not used, and in one case were factually incorrect. A British newspaper speaking on the specifics of the US Army personnel is not a reputable in my opinion.
In my second edit, I created small edits, that were all explained, had new sources, or comments on use of source. Therefore they could be reverted individually or en masse as required. The user that reported me noted that I had deleted a reputable source, therefore I added to a new one. I felt this was very different reverting my first edit. Instead I was reported. I had already responded to their criticism by adding a new source. I was given notice of the report and asked to self revert, but doing use would have reintroduced factual errors into the article that I believe most editors on wikipedia would had have the technical expertise to correct. By the time, I saw the revert, I had like 8 different edits and compliant didnt specify their new issue with the new edits. So I just waited.--Srithikdatta (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mendaliv: I understand that I can't just rerevert things. But based on the compliant's comment, I replaced the source. And I had created 10 new edits, so I wasn't sure what the proper way to respond was, except to explain myself. --Srithikdatta (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mendaliv: I accept your criticism regarding the manner about how I made the edits. Onto the facts of the matter. There is no mechanism or exception for politicians deploying. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove that a policy does not exist. There is no "volunteering" for a deployment, outside of members from the Inactive Ready Reserve, of which Gabbard and Buttigieg are not members. It may be the case that higher ranking officers allow politicians to transfer out a unit before a deployment, however this is a command decision made by higher ranking officer. The reason you do not normally see politicians deploy is that they are high ranking and typically assigned to non deploying headquarters units. This circumstance applies to all higher ranking officers in the National Guard and Reserve, and is not specific to politicians. No service member has the right to be exempt for deployment. The only exception is that service member are allowed 12 months between deployments. This may have been the case with Buttigieg if he recently was redeployed. In a related matter, no one can volunteer for a deployment. They can request a transfer to a unit with the hope that unit will deploy soon, but what they are a requesting is a transfer to the unit. If the deployment is cancelled, they will remain in that unit. All deployments orders for members of National Guard and Reserve are involuntary in a matter of law. This is done so that they qualify for USERRA protections. --Srithikdatta (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde: I accept the correction and will adhere to it going forward.
@GoldenRing: Regarding: "first" vs "among first". One source states A primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was the first woman to ever set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[50]. However, other source in the article states that Tulsi was one of the first women to set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[51]. The latter article is from her official Senate biography was already cited in the military service section. --Srithikdatta (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like diffs 1-2 are before the DS notice, diff 3 at the same moment, and diff 4 was a few minutes later. But diffs 3 and 4 were sequential edits; if we were on 3RR, they would be considered a single revert. So in some sense I think we need to consider the subsequent edits all part of one revert taking place after the DS notice.
I’m not sure what standard practice is with AP2 and 1RR, but I feel like aspects of this are very technical and a formal sanction or block might be overkill. I’d like to hear Srithikdatta‘s explanation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: My understanding of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware is that the formal alert is required. Of course, the policy doesn't talk about whether pre-notice edits are counted. I think they normally should be. So if Srithikdatta had been reverted, notified, and then made another revert, it should count as a 1RR violation. But here, there was no revert, so the edits/reverts that took place after the notification were connected to the pre-notification revert chain. As to the "enforced BRD" sanction listed on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard, I think that should be considered, though I also think the same issue of requiring the formal alert applies. My feeling is that, if we get a reasonable statement out of Srithikdatta here, a formal warning should be enough, with the understanding that the edits being made are not exempt from the DS regime. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srithikdatta: Do you understand that going forward you are not permitted to make more than one revert/undo in 24 hours to the Gabbard article? And that you are required to discuss matters at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard rather than continuing to revert/undo if someone reverts/undoes your edits? Articles on post-1932 politics and political figures in the USA are subject to special restrictions that you may have violated with the contributions under discussion here. I understand your position about the correctness of the source and that as a person with subject-matter knowledge, this incongruence is probably annoying. Nonetheless, it is necessary going forward that you discuss things on the talk page rather than revert. Even if I happen to agree with you that the specific newspaper is probably not a reliable source for things dealing with military careers, the errors allegedly introduced are not so severe as to bypass the WP:1RR limitation on that article. If you understand that and agree to abide by the restrictions going forward I believe the admins can be convinced to close this case with no further action. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The response to this complaint from Srithikdatta, in light of the edits themselves, doesn't fill me with confidence. One thing I noticed was this diff, including the edit summary the source does not state whether she volunteer. There is no mechanism for soldiers to volunteer for deployments so for soldiers to ask for a reassignment of unit. and in the phrase, "In July 2004 she volunteered for a 12-month tour in Iraq", replaced the word "volunteered" with "was deployed", and in these diffs replaced the Guardian source with Gabbard's House "about" page. Now, this explanation makes sense, and I could see this sort of thing getting confused. But then I looked at the source, which itself says Gabbard volunteered for her deployment. How could this be? It appears that Gabbard, being someone who held public office at that time, would have been exempt from deploying. But as some other politicians have done (I believe this happened with Pete Buttigieg), she volunteered to deploy anyway. So while there's some logic behind the edit summary rationale, the source provided proves it incorrect, at least in a way. My conclusion is that this is something that should have been discussed at the talk page rather than in edit summaries implementing changes. I think it might be better if Srithikdatta contributed to the Gabbard page via the talk page rather than making reverts going forward. Whether that should be implemented as a formal sanction, or whether we should see what happens first, I'm not sure and I'd defer to those with more experience in sanctions in this content area. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dang it. Mendaliv beat me to being the first to to comment!
@Ponyo: This doesn't seem like a violation of the sanction. This is on enforced BRD; so basically as long as diff 1 is substantively different from diff 2, this user is in the clear. They sort of did that, but not really? I don't know. It's up to any uninvolved admin not folks like me. I guess then it's good you're asking for feedback on it. Either way, it's not entirely necessary to warn this user of 1RR per the instructions on ((American politics AE)) on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. A 24hr block on their first offense would've been maybe the thing to do here, but I leave that to the admins. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious to see how this played out, and I am rather pleasantly surprised by Srithikdatta's ability to already so quickly navigate AE. Of all the processes to go through, this one has to be least newbie friendly. I really think we should cut them some slack here. After taking a look at their edit count, I see some interesting statistics: 94.7% mainspace edits, a clear interest in military history, received extended only as of this year, and has never had to use a talk page before. @Srithikdatta: you clearly do good work. This was a misstep, but I don't think this experience should define your time here. Check out those last two links for good resources to get started. Also, Help:Notifications and Wikipedia:Civility are really helpful as well! Happy editing! –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 02:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am less concerned about the specifics of the enforced BRD sanction, and more with the aggressive nature of the edits. I'm only willing to excuse complete newbies for using the peremptory tone employed here. It's particularly inappropriate to order all other editors to not revert without discussion, when you yourself have removed content without discussing the matter first. Srithikdatta, you need to commit not just to not edit-warring, but to discuss matters when your edits are challenged. Your approach to this article is not one that I want to encourage in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While not impressed with the editing going on here, I think we'd be on shaky ground imposing a sanction for edits made in the 15 minutes following the DS alert. Technically they meet the awareness requirement but I'd be uncomfortable with it still. At the same time, edits like this (made about ten minutes after those in the complaint) should be sanctioned if they are repeated; the edit summary says citation states that she was "among the first" not the first but the source says A primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was the first woman to ever set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[52] and as far as I can tell, this is the only source used there that makes the claim; I'm struggling to see this as anything other than blatant source misrepresentation. Srithikdatta, this sort of thing is not acceptable. You need to edit collaboratively and with care, especially in this topic, or you will be restricted from it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the above. I don't think I would sanction this time, but I think Srithikdatta should be well aware that this type of conduct is not acceptable, and if repeated will lead to removal from the area. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 23:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JGabbard is reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground; edit collegially and assume good faith in others. Administrators commenting here are generally of the opinion that the diff cited is not acceptable but that it alone does not merit action. GoldenRing (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
18 August 2019 Declares that an article is blatantly leftist-biased because the article is among many he believes controlled by a small but diligent minority of partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
31 May 2017 Topic-banned from all edits or articles about Seth Rich for six months. Sanction imposed for passive aggressive remarks about other editors.
27 August 2016 Topic-banned from post-1932 American politics for six months. Sanction imposed for unacceptable pattern of attacks on other editors rather than discussion regarding article content.
If this was isolated behavior, I might skip past it. But what this diff evinces is a continuing inability of this editor to consider editors he disagrees with as anything other than partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs. Because that's the exact same behavior that got him topic-banned in 2016 and again in 2017 - both cases where sanctions were imposed for continually casting aspersions on those he disagreed with. An editor who believes and indeed repeatedly publicly declares that all of his opponents are acting in bad faith is an editor who cannot participate in good-faith discussion leading to consensus. JGabbard apparently contributes well in other areas, but when it comes to American politics, he cannot shake the belief that all his opponents are partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs, and that means he probably shouldn't be editing these articles at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that in between my warning and opening this AE case, JGabbard removed the aspersions from his comment. That's a good sign. However, that their knee-jerk reaction to insult and attack their opponents has continued after multiple warnings and at least two AE topic bans is not a good sign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
I have self-reverted the objectionable portion of my comment. It was not article specific, and was directed at no editor of the Project Veritas article, including the one who has apparently taken personal offense. I have replied to him/her with my apologies.[53] Only the former (remaining) portion of my comment applies to that article, which may be why Wikipedia's article on the topic is so underdeveloped. - JGabbard (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great question, starship.paint (talk), and thank you for asking. The fact that we do not want them and are supposed to assume that they do not exist, in no way assures their non-existence. After 13 years on this site, I certainly could name names. This same tendentious group (or 'squad', if you will) is ubiquitous across the most volatile 'hot potato' political articles, and I have learned to avoid them wherever I see them. If I were confident that my efforts would be successful, I would take them to AE posthaste but would likely have to stand in line to do so. - JGabbard (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JGabbard - so, which Wikipedia editors did you really direct your comment at? I'm sure we don't want partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs on Wikipedia. You should be taking them to AE, no? starship.paint (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So JGabbard knows "them" when he sees "them", and "they" are ubiquitous, but won't report "them" or name who "they" are (although he'll give "them" the highly controversial designation "Squad") because "they" won't be punished, presumably because some of "them" are among the admins who patrol AE. So JGabbard feels justified in WP:Casting aspersions at the shadows and calling "them" out as "partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs".
It seems to me that JGabbard needs to be relieved of his heavy self-appointed responsibility to police Wikipedia of "their" influence with a hefty AP2 ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to concur with Sandstein on this one. One of the touchstones of whether to apply a sanction, discretionary or otherwise, needs to be disruption. While it's not optimal that the comment was made in the first place, the fact that JGabbard self-reverted and apologized clearly mitigated any disruption. Those acts in mitigation speak to a recognition that the conduct wasn't optimal and a desire to do better going forward. We need not expect perfection from everyone, whether or not they've been subject to sanctions in the past. Unless there's other evidence of a pattern of misconduct—and by this I mean an actual pattern, not a series of isolated incidents distilled from JGabbard's contributions—I would favor closing this with no action other than confirming to JGabbard that the comment was inappropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'm not really inclined to take action. Yeah, that's not a good comment, and there's relevant history, but it's one talk page comment, not aimed at an identifiable editor, and they reverted themselves. Sandstein 17:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rather agree with Sandstein. The comment was not the greatest one to make, and JGabbard certainly shouldn't make a habit of generally accusing other editors of bad intentions like that, but one such comment (which JGabbard retracted) is not enough that I'd impose sanctions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough here to take any action on. Haukur (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen has placed a standard 72 hour block for disruptive editing on IronAngelAlice. There is a consensus here that the action is sufficient in the circumstances, and that consequently no discretionary sanctions need be applied. I am therefore closing this request as "no further action" without prejudice to future discretionary sanctions being applied should the behaviour recommence following the block expiry. --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months (alerted 08:06, 22 August 2019), see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
User warned in October 2018 about edit warring on the same page discussed here (Feminazi); they made no further edits to Wikipedia until a recent series of rapid-fire changes to several articles, including this one. All of their changes since returning on 22 August 2019 have lacked edit summaries or other explanations.Their recent changes to the article have had the effect of removing reliably-sourced content that correctly described the topic as a pejorative, in favor of text that frames the topic as merely "offensive" (to whom they don't say) "according to Dictionary.com...", which erroneously suggests the term has no widely-accepted meaning, thereby undermining the article's Neutral point of view (Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity ... Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources).
@RexxS: I see the problem with the timing of the edits/alerts. I'm satisfied with the present outcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I agree these edits are disruptive but since they were all before the DS alert was issued, there's nothing we can do in terms of arbitration enforcement. @IronAngelAlice: You've been warned. Seek consensus for your edits at the talk page. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked and topic-banned. GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though depending on whether you construe the second diff above as a revert, we might be at 4RR here. I think it's arguable either way, though. GoldenRing (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf: Sorry, my bad with the timestamps. At any rate, it was all within an hour or so and my feelings match Bishonen's below. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user only just got the DS alerts for Gamergate and American politics. They did continue editing the article disruptively after that, in the fourth diff given by Sangdeboeuf (8 consecutive edits), but it's still all so new that I don't feel comfortable offering a discretionary sanction. Instead, I have blocked the user, not as a ds, for 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. I don't have any objection if another admin wishes to place a ds instead of or in addition to my block. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Nope, that works for me. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: it's arguable whether the edits constitute a breach of DS because of the timing of the notifications, but there's clearly sufficient disruption to sustain a normal block of 72 hours. I doubt that any DS would give a significantly different outcome, so I'm minded to close this request as now superseded by the block. I would still be interested to hear if Sangdeboeuf, the filer, is content with that. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No discretionary sanctions, but a one-week block for vandalism as a normal admin action. Sandstein 08:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
23:19, 22 August 2019 - Vandalism of a WP:BLP page by adding false information about Donald Trump. Ivy-League golf team? Dreams of joining the military? Big hands? Seems totally made up.
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 section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Decline. Discretionary sanctions are for persistent problems, not for one joke edit, however silly. The previous warnings and the one 24-hour block are quite old. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
CMTBard is indefinitely banned from any article or page related to the topics of vaccines and/or autism, and from any discussion on any page on English Wikipedia about either or both of those topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
14:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC) On Jenny McCarthy, replaced "She [Jenny McCarthy] has promoted the disproven idea that vaccines cause autism" with "She [Jenny McCarthy] has promoted the idea that vaccines can contribute to autism in certain children" despite 100% strong consensus against this change on the talk page.
15:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC) On Causes of autism, replaced "Scientific studies have refuted a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism." with "Scientific studies have remained unable to confirm or refute a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism"
This violates principle 1A: Neutral point of view as applied to science
Attempting to make Wikipedia say that scientific studies have remained unable to confirm or refute a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism is not a legitimate scientific disagreement. Scientific studies have refuted a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism. To say otherwise is to replace science with pseudoscience.
This also violates principle 14: Serious encyclopedias
No respected scientist agrees that vaccines cause or contribute toward autism. It is a discredited idea from a scientific fraud.
"You can't definitively state that 'there is no link between vaccines and autism'" 03:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
"there are actual studies that have linked specific vaccines to autism causally" ... "Specific court cases in the US and abroad have awarded damages to children whose autism was found to be triggered by a vaccine" 23:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
(CMTBard keeps mischaracterizing sources that explicitly reject vaccines causing autism.)
In my considered opinion, CMTBard should be topic banned from any page related to Vaccines, Autism, or Jenny McCarthy.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
...I'm a brand new editor who joined Wikipedia because there was a box that popped up on my screen that said something along the lines of "anyone can edit", and "every edit increases accuracy!" So, I said, ok! I see some inaccuracies, I can help! I spent hours looking up references, made some edits, tried to figure out how to properly cite things... next thing I know, my edits are deleted with nothing to show for my efforts. Frustrated, I redo them. Same thing. After a while I figure out that there are "talk" pages and try to figure out how to use them. In the meantime, people are dismissive of my concerns and don't even respond to my actual points on the talk pages. It takes me logging in on a computer rather than a phone to realize how to add citations to talk pages. All along, I'm trying my best to figure out how the actual system works. Nothing in my initial joining of Wikipedia said anything about edits having to be approved by another editor, nor did they suggest that putting back what was undone would lead to being banned or anything. I joined expecting a group of equals who backed their changes up with good sources and logic... that is not at all what I am finding. Frankly it's a bit bewildering and very disheartening. I'm not encountering open mindedness nor desires to be accurate nor fair-- its seems far more about maintaining the status quo and allowing only senior editors to keep their articles the way they want them to be. CMTBard (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...I submitted an entire section in the Talk section of the "Vaccines & Autism" page citing 21 peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles in addition to several other articles, all from medical journals, none from behind paywalls. My only goal is to show that the discussion is far more nuanced and less settled than the article implies. None of the articles were outdated. Nor can they be called disproven, when that is the entire question, and as for disruptive, yes, science is often disruptive to itself. Hand-washing in gynecology was a hugely unpopular and disruptive idea, its proponents died in disgrace. But that doesn't mean we shy away from presenting questions as questions rather than answers, when they are indeed ongoing questions. TylerDurden's response was a simple "No" within minutes of me posting this document...definitely not enough time to click through any of the citations or even see what they were. CMTBard (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to summarize... my goals have been 1. to change the summary of Jenny McCarthy's position from "belief that vaccines cause autism" to "belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in some children" and to 2. change the word "disproven" to "disputed" when it comes to vaccines & autism. As I've been prompted, I've provided explanations and citations (from peer-reviewed medical journals)-- and I've gone to different pages as I was instructed to do. But really... sanctions are being discussed because I want to change 7 words in 2 separate articles- and I have tried to provide reasoning behind why I think it's important to change those words in order to be accurate and up to date. Let's just keep that in perspective. CMTBard (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the request of Sandstein, I have added specific links to the arbcom findings and how CMTBard has violated them, but I do not agree that this is a content dispute. There is no dispute. Vaccines do not cause autism. There does not exist a single MEDRS-compliant source that says that they do. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the request of El C, I have condensed the evidence. In my opinion, the pattern of behavior I have described can still be easily seen by reading Talk:Jenny McCarthy and Talk:Vaccines and autism but is not clear from the condensed evidence I have included. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Bilby's statement about not enough recent edits after the DS warning, fair enough. I would be happy to withdraw this request and wait for more attempts to promote antivax by CMTBard. I do not believe that CMTBard has stopped his pattern of behavior, and I am convinced that I will be back at AE in few weeks if I withdraw the case, but I could be wrong.
[I redacted my previous full disclosure of a previous conflict that may be causing me to have a bias (conscious or unconscious) at the request of Bilby.] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sandstein's comment "The sole conduct allegation - misrepresenting sources - is not substantiated by a diff". it was supported by diffs, but then I was asked to trim the evidence. I can either document everything at length with multiple diffs and explanations attached to each diff or I can keep the evidence short and ask that those evaluating it simply look at CMTBard's editing history (which isn't all that long), but I cannot do both.
Let me focus on one source. CMTBard keeps cherry picking sentences from deep within Adverse Effects of Vaccines Evidence and Causality (2012)[66] and misrepresenting them as supporting his antivax position. But that same page contains links to the following clear statements:
"CLAIM: Vaccines cause autism. FALSE. Many scientists have studied this question, but no credible studies show that autism is caused by vaccines."[67]
"CLAIM: Vaccines are safe. TRUE. Vaccines are extremely safe. They have many health benefits and few side effects."[68]
No editor who actually wants to properly represent what this source says would ignore these clear statements. CMTBard is misrepresenting The National Academy of Sciences as supporting his antivax claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this[69] is how CMTBard behaves when he is under scrutiny. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the result is a topic ban from "All pages and edits related to both vaccines and autism, broadly construed", it should be made clear that this includes the Jenny McCarthy page and that it includes talk pages as well as articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Moved this up as an admin/refactoring action - Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)]Re: "Has any admin taken ownership of this and taken action? Is there a consensus on what to do?"[70] It appears that CMTBard has tumbled on to the fact that if you stop posting when ANI or AE starts looking into your behavior, nobody is motivated to take immediate action. Eventually the archive bot will archive the discussion with no decision, and CMTBard will be free to continue pushing his antivax POV, ignoring consensus, and misrepresenting sources. Unless someone here thinks that CMTBard has been immunized against suddenly lost his interest in Righting Great Wrongs... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:CMTBard was given a discretionary sanctions notification on August 10 [71]. Since then, CMTBard has made no edits to mainspace, and has only discussed content concerns as part of ongoing discussions on their talk page and (briefly) on the two article talk pages. - Bilby (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Guy. CMT has shown exclusive interest in editing in this particular domain and unequivocally espouses and vigorously advocates for the inclusion of clearly pseudoscientific anti-vaccination information in the aforementioned articles. The dialogue on the affected talk pages does not demonstrate a willingness (on CMT's part) to really consider other (AKA reality-based) viewpoints and as Guy stated, CMT grossly mischaracterizes what reliable sources say. CMT has also tried to soften descriptions of Jenny McCarthy's stance on being anti-vaccination from multiple reliable sources on the basis that she does not view herself as "anti-vaccine" and personally rejects that label (even though it's absolutely applicable to her). S/he continues to mischaracterize the relationship between vaccines and autism as one that is actively disputed and not firmly rejected by the scientific consensus despite being strongly refuted by numerous well-sourced documents.
CMT has not provided any substantial evidence to overturn the established scientific consensus that there is no link, causal or otherwise, between vaccines and autism. Furthermore, s/he rejects very clear conclusions from noteworthy reports (e.g., the Institute of Medicine report) on vaccines and autism. S/he is simply espousing outdated, disproven ideas and it is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia's policies. S/he doesn't seem to understand WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc. It's clear they are very passionate about this topic, but his/her actions only seem to spread misinformation and nonsense rather than provide meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia. I would support a topic ban on articles pertaining to vaccines, anti-vaccine ideas, vaccines and autism, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So...has anything happened? I see a lot of discussion amongst the admins below about a possible topic ban vs alternate courses of action but I don't see that anything has actually occurred. Has any admin taken ownership of this and taken action? Is there a consensus on what to do? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I am inclined to apply WP:ROPE for newbies who are restricting their activities to Talk, but today CMTBard posted a wall of text supposedly showing that the area of vaccines as a cause of autism is still a live scientific inquiry, and this included lots of old studies still citing Wakefield, some synthesis, some antivax websites, and some antivax studies citing the likes of Mark and David Geier (the former struck off and disqualified as a vaccine witness and the latter never having had any qualifications art all as far as I know). This is a monstrous waste of everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the type of situation the pseudoscience DS were exactly put in place for in order to swiftly deal with editors who have or obviously will waste a lot of the community's time in scientific subjects. Admins are on the right track with a topic ban here given the most recent discussion in terms of preventative action.
I understand the filing has changed a bit over time, but even in the initial filing, this should have never been initially labeled just a content dispute when Guy provided evidence CMTBard was promoting an antivax POV. A general problem I've seen at AE in science topics is reported behavior being dismissed with "just a content dispute" comments, and requests dragging on because of it unless later admins are quick to correct it. Most sanctionable behaviors, especially in pseudoscience topics, are related the content or views being pushed, and being at odds with consensus or science is a behavior problem in a subject like this. Just something for folks to be mindful of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CMTBard needs to understand that his goal "to show that the discussion is far more nuanced and less settled than the article implies" is not compatible with how WP:MEDRS works. In the Med field, WP:NPOV means western medical POV is the only one that should be represented in articles. A short block will bring home the point. Dicklyon (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@Guy Macon: Please make clear how this conduct violates any specific conduct policies or guidelines, rather than just being a content dispute. We don't resolve content disputes here. Sandstein 17:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As presented, this is a content dispute. A content dispute is any dispute about how articles should read, even if one party to the dispute is at odds with consensus or science. The sole conduct allegation - misrepresenting sources - is not substantiated by a diff. But I agree with Hut 8.5 below that persistent editing in violation of content policies is a conduct issue, and if other admins consider such conduct established then I don't oppose a sanction. Sandstein 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Not a content dispute. One side cites reliable sources. The other side pushes unreliable sources or misrepresents reliable sources. JehochmanTalk 02:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much better. El_C 21:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This behaviour does look to me like an attempt to POV-push the fringe theory that vaccinations are a cause of autism, which is the sort of thing that these discretionary sanctions can be used for. This edit is particularly telling, rewriting large parts of an article on the causes of autism to make it look like the question of whether vaccines cause autism is an open one - the exact opposite of what the sources say, and misrepresenting this source in particular. This isn't in itself a content issue, as persistent editing in violation of content policies is a conduct issue. Sure, CMTBard hasn't edited mainspace since the DS notification was given, but s/he has made plenty of edits related to the topic in other namespaces and they don't show any change in behaviour. I think some sort of sanction would be appropriate here. Hut 8.5 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we can impose a topic ban from vaccines in general given that the discretionary sanctions only apply to pseudoscience and vaccines aren't pseudoscience, but I'd be happy with something more targeted. Hut 8.5 06:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does "articles related to the intersection of vaccines and autism, broadly construed" sound? --RexxS (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: I'd prefer the standard "all pages and edits related to the intersection of vaccines and autism, broadly construed". "Articles" is too narrow. I'm a bit worried that "the intersection of" also feels somewhat prone to wikilawyering; maybe "the relationship between vaccines and autism"? GoldenRing (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: Yeah, you're right that "all pages and edits" is the correct formulation. I didn't like "intersection of" either, but couldn't think of a better way of expressing the appropriate set of pages, given that there is no actual relationship between autism and vaccines. Maybe somebody else can think of a better wording? --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Yes, I have the same problem with "relationship" but couldn't think of better. "related to vaccines and autism" is technically correct but would be too open to people interpreting it as "related to vaccines or autism" I guess. GoldenRing (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with "relationship", the suggestion by Levivich above ("All pages and edits related to both vaccines and autism, broadly construed") or something similar. Hut 8.5 18:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the appropriate sanction is to ban CMTBard from vaccine related pages, including articles and talk pages. Avoiding mainspace is not enough. Talk page disruption can frustrate the formation of consensus and the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. The activity is directed at damaging the accuracy of the encyclopedia. This is an important problem we face. Users of the encyclopedia could be severely harmed if they rely on false information appearing in our articles. If CMTBard demonstrates good quality editing in other areas, they are free to come back and request that the topic restriction (ban) be lifted at some point in the future. If they are only here to push a POV on vaccines, this sanction may end their involvement. JehochmanTalk 02:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the edits and the diffs (which do show persistent fringe-promotional edits), I would impose a six-month topic ban on vaccine-related edits. Neutralitytalk 04:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: the conduct of CMTBard is beyond what should be tolerated in an area subject to discretionary sanctions. This is not a content dispute, because there is no dispute about the science. The reason for DS in the vaccine area is precisely to attenuate earlier POV-pushing of a fringe theory, long discredited. CMTBard is going to have to understand that it's not just article edits that are problematic, but also the volume of text on the talk page that regurgitates sources, familiar to regular editors, that do not meet our standards for MEDRS. I would support a topic ban, to give a chance to contribute productively elsewhere; my only reservation is whether the behaviour has continued after the DS alert. I would alternatively support an injunction that CMTBard become familiar with the requirements of discretionary sanctions, with the understanding that the next breach would result in far more severe action being taken. --RexxS (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Largely per RexxS. I'd like to treat new editors gently and educate them rather than turn them away, but that does need some sign that they're willing to learn and the response here isn't showing that. GoldenRing (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: we can certainly topic ban an antivax editor from vaccine-related editing per the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. There may not have been enough disruptive article space edits since the DS alert to motivate a topic ban, but bludgeoning and overwhelming talkpages in the way JzG describes is also disruptive, and the editor needs to understand that. However, I agree with RexxS that we're not altogether ready to topic ban the user yet, as the DS alert came kind of late. I propose a logged warning stating that any further disruption, including talkpage disruption, will lead to a preferably indefinite topic ban. (Indefinite, because time-limited topic bans make it too easy for SPA users to simply wait them out, instead of editing in other areas and learning about helpful editing.) As you know, dear colleagues, any admin can place such a ban per their admin discretion — if the disruption persists, it won't be necessary to waste AE time again. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Needs a swift ban from the subject area with extreme prejudice. ~Swarm~{sting} 00:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mine is a logged warning, but I don't really feel too strongly either way. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I'd be happy with a sternly-worded logged warning, but wouldn't oppose a six-month ban either. This user carried on for more than a week after the DS warning; this is not a case of a few minutes between the alert and the diffs. If they're taking a break to collect their thoughts and come back as a more measured editor, that's great. If they're taking a break for this to blow over then they'll run into sanctions quickly enough (contact me or another admin who's commented here). If we've scared them off from editing then that's sad, but they couldn't go on as they were. GoldenRing (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ban them. This user is engaged in a sneaky campaign to add medical disinformation to the encyclopedia. They’ve been told and had many chances already to stop. They are here with a purpose that is contrary to ours. They will never be a useful editor. Moreover, what they are doing is a danger to the pubic. Antivaxxers have cause epidemics and deaths in the United States of a flight attendant who may have caught the virus in New York earlier this year.[72] We must not allow this campaign of disinformation. JehochmanTalk 10:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
This is ridiculous. There's a clear consensus here that CMTBard's edits reveal an anti-vaccine advocacy POV which is disruptive and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. They have been notified of the available sanctions, yet two weeks afterwards they are still campaigning at Talk:Vaccines and autism to include discredited pseudoscience in our medical articles, and clearly stating they intend to continue doing so. In response a bunch of us are sitting on our hands pondering whether they've been warned enough. It is not a content dispute and should never have been labelled one; it's WP:GREENCHEESE, and discretionary sanctions exist to shield editors trying to maintain high-quality encyclopedic articles in these topics from having to continuously refute these persistently tendentious advocates of discredited fringe medical views. This has already gone on 8 days longer than we should have let it. I am enacting this restriction: CMTBard is indefinitely banned from any article or page related to the topics of vaccines and/or autism, and from any discussion on any page on English Wikipedia about either or both of those topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PeterTheFourth is banned from all pages and edits related to living people, broadly construed, for six months. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
alerted on the Gamergate discretionary sanctions last time on 2 October 2018: [73]
alerted on BLP discretionary sanctions on 8 April 2019: [74]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
On August 27, EverGreg mentioned sexual assault and harassment allegations with a direct Twitter link and no reliable source on Talk:Alec Holowka. He almost instantly understood this was wrong because it's a primary source, and later called his attempt "misguided". No complaints about him. An IP, 65.183.99.29, removed the Twitter link and discussion, correctly citing WP:BLPTALK.
PeterTheFourth, who has been cautioned to be more careful with BLPs, re-added the sexual assault allegation Twitter links twice despite no objection by EverGreg to their removal. Admin Deepfriedokra told PeterTheFourth that BLP-violating content should not be restored on his talkpage (permalink). He then again posted the Twitter link and told Deepfriedokra that You seem to have a poor grasp of BLP. He was told that Twitter is not a reliable source, to which he responded again with hostility, claiming that Deepfriedokra has either a huge gap in understanding or an unwillingness to examine the situation at even the simplest level. Lastly, I explained in simple terms how it is a BLP violation by pointing out that WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPTALK mean we remove contentious claims not supported by reliable sources. He reverted me and told I should go pick a fight in traffic.
The BLP subject Alec Holowka died on August 31. This is a Gamergate-related dispute because Zoë Quinn, whose blog sparked the Gamergate controversy, made the sexual assault allegations (Polygon). PeterTheFourth has 204 edits in Gamergate controversy. Now we have better sources covering it, but this wasn't the case when these Twitter links were posted. Given his shocking BLP interpretation, refusal to get the point and prior caution, I believe he should not be editing these controversial BLPs. --Pudeo (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Ernie: the whole Twitter account is now deleted. The situation is extremely serious, as although it's not accounced how Holowka died, his sister referenced to the recent allegations and "mood and personality disorders" (PC Gamer). --Pudeo (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: As for incivility, there is a pattern behind this. PeterTheFourth made a pretty bad personal attack on Salvio giuliano the last time they were involved in AE in Dec 2018 and got away with no boomerang. I suppose some may take that as a license to act that way. --Pudeo (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline here seems a bit blurry. If you look at the page history of Alec Holowka starting from August 27, there had been only one attempt at covering the allegations with a source (with Wccftech.com - pretty hard to assess whether these kind of tech sites are reliable for more serious issues). Many IPs and one user had just added nasty names and unsourced defamation which have been now rev-deleted. I think it was very unreasonable to add the primary Twitter link without any RS links in this situation. There was emerging coverage, although many of the links later added on the talkpage by WanderingWanda perhaps were not reliable for such serious allegatations. Polygon covered it only on 11 am 29 August. --Pudeo (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
I’m more than a bit concerned by the edit summary in this diff - [75], which seems to clearly advocate for violence. Peter has been skirting the line for a long time, and it seems a sanction is due. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the tweet Peter linked to several times has been deleted for some reason. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the time when most of this occurred, that tweet was receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources (there was also some discussion of sources used in the article in the section that was being removed.) That doesn't mean it was necessarily enough to include in the article - I feel the sources in the article at that point weren't quite good enough, though they would be shortly - but talk pages are where we work that sort of question out; removing the entire section (rather than just, at most, the link to the tweet) was well beyond what WP:BLPTALK requires or WP:TPO allows for. When cautiously-worded, "here's a controversial thing about the article's subject that seems like it's likely to be an immediate focus of attention and which people might expect our article to have; does WP:BLP-quality sourcing exist to support it?" is the sort of discussion talk pages are supposed to have (and need to have, if only so we have a unified answer when people start arriving and trying to add that material.) As the policy says, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Provided it's reasonable to believe appropriate sources may exist, it's appropriate to (carefully) discuss an allegation so we can investigate the sources and determine if there's enough coverage to justify inclusion in the article - and that discussion, note, that seems to have reached a consensus to include little over a day later (even before the subject's suicide, which obviously made things more notable.) Restoring the link to the tweet after people objected to it wasn't ideal (though the sweeping nature of the deletions made it hard to see what the exact objection was at first), but the people repeatedly deleting the entire section (rather than just the link they found objectionable) weren't behaving ideally, either, especially given that as soon as people stopped deleting the section, editors were able to find like six or seven sources - some of which admittedly appeared during discussion, but some of which were already out there. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call anybody a cunt, so I think I'm well within the established boundaries for civil conduct. I don't take kindly to random people showing up at my talk page to pick fights, and it seems my initial impression that they were itching for conflict was correct given they immediately ran to AE after being booted off my talk page.
Somebody on BLPN was complaining that an IP deleted a talk page section. Please note that they provided reliable sources for the allegations having taken place. I restored the talk page section. The talk page section did not violate BLP. People saying it did are wrong. The section I restored (here and here, the second of which has more comments) talks about abuse allegations. These allegations happened, and were covered in reliable sources. Whether or not this content was due for inclusion on the article itself is a matter for discussion, which is why we have the talk page.
Please note the wording at WP:BLPTALK, from which I will quote- "For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"". PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pudeo mentions a pattern of incivility. Pudeo has displayed a pattern of trying to get me banned from Wikipedia. Forgive me for not having much patience for his continued efforts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Liz, you're right. Here's an earlier thread against me by Pudeo at ANI. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm not asking for a boomerang or something like that. The only wrong that Pudeo has done is seriously frustrate me and waste my time. I intended to explain what I see as the context of my attitude toward them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterTheFourth: - bringing up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive994#Calls for executions by firing squad in edit summaries seems like an own goal. It seems to me that it was reasonable for Pudeo to have opened that request. By my own judgment of reading that discussion, it seems that eight other editors at that discussion agreed (Bilorv, Snow Rise, Black Kite, Dlohcierekim, Masem, Diannaa, zchrykng and the closer 28bytes), compared to four against (Simonm223, MPants, NorthBySouthBaranof and WaltCip). If Pudeo was unreasonable in opening that ANI thread, the discussion should have trended towards a BOOMERANG, which didn't happen. It is even more of an own goal as that ANI thread is regarding edit summaries by PeterTheFourth that certainly could be construed as intending violence to occur against other editors, which the same as one of the issues in this very request. starship.paint (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point in bringing up that previous case in AnI is that this isn't the first time that Pudeo has used... minimal misconduct... as an attempt to get the ban-hammer brought down against a perceived opponent. It's pretty evident that PetertheForth and Pudeo have tangled regularly as demonstrated here and I think this is an attempt to arbitrate a personal dispute by way of Arbcom. As has been pointed out elsewhere, bringing a source to article talk for discussion of whether it warrants inclusion is actually something encouraged at WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N while refactoring other editors' comments in a manner such as this is, while not prohibited by WP:RTP certainly not encouraged. I believe the quote is Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said..
Furthermore, per Aquilion, it appears that there was secondary coverage of the quote which makes the discussion at article talk largely around WP:DUE and WP:RS. And while a high standard is required for BLPs on both, it's something of a chilling effect to try and get a person sanctioned by arbitration for trying to have the conversation. In short, I'd suggest this enforcement request should be closed promptly with no admin action taken against Peter or Pudeo. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I agree entirely that this could be a valuable object lesson in getting sourcing right before introducing controversial statements for BLP protected individuals. I just feel that arbcom sanctions over this unfortunate dispute would be excessive. Simonm223 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my understanding of BLP is better than one might suppose. I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong, but what I find concerning is the insistence on adding negative BLP on a talk page that seemed to me to be clearly inadequately sourced. I think it's great if PTF goes a little overboard in removing negative BLP (as is evidenced by some of the links above). I think he should be more circumspect about adding it. I don't see a need for a BLP T-BAN. I just see a need to be more thoughtful and less passionate when he disagrees with others or feels content must be removed.-- Deepfriedokra 19:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MastCell and Haukurth: I agree saying people should be lined up and shot is over the top. I do think this is fixable without sanctions. He's working in a stressful part of the 'pedia and at the same time trying to maintain his own dignity and aplomb while trying to clear away the rubbish. I also think Pudeo could lighten up a little-- be a little less confrontational and forceful.-- Deepfriedokra 21:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: And if the talk page post had been RS'd instead of to Twitter, I would not have removed it and this latest contré temps between Pudeo and PTF not occurred. -- Deepfriedokra 21:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Re: "intending violence to occur," I think that's a stretch, and at the time I believe I likened it to hyperbole. -- Deepfriedokra 21:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what Dumuzid says about "taking a flying leap", etc. It's been so long, I'd forgotten those charming little turns of phrase. Yeah, calling those calls for/threats of harm is way beyond the intended meaning.-- Deepfriedokra
So, I hesitated before weighing in here, as Peter is someone I like and admire, and someone with whom I have interacted with occasionally here. All that being said, I agree he was in the wrong here. Things really did look like Gamergate 2.0 was in the offing (still might be, for all I know), and I agree he went too far. That being said, I pretty consistently argue for leniency, second chances, and well, WP:ROPE (though I know it doesn't directly apply here, the principal does). I think it is absolutely deserved here. As already observed, this user edits in some stressful topics and we all make mistakes. Furthermore, I have sort of tried to avoid directly expressing this, but the language issue rankles me. The "to the wall" language strikes me as beyond the pale and I think Peter and the encyclopedia would both be well served if he ceased with that (as it seems he has, for a year or so?). But "go pick a fight in traffic" is, to me (and those of a certain age, I suspect), such an anodyne schoolyard taunt that I don't quite know what to make of it being seen as an exhortation or encouragement of violence. It and its cousins are generally understood to mean, simply, go away. Now, perhaps the idiom is no longer current and should not be used. That's fine. But to castigate for this would be akin to heaping opprobrium upon me if I said "take a flying leap, as though I were encouraging self-harm. Whatever the great and good of Wikipedia decide is fine by me, but I do think mercy is pretty much always warranted, and more in this case than most. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't treat myself as uninvolved here (both from the past GG case, as well as having commented on this at BLP/N and having edited Holowka's article). That said:
I don't think we can do anything directly about repeating the Twitter reported here. Peterthefourth did not make the original post, and given that we're talking about Quinn, a person that has been a target of harassment, even knowing the tweet existed was a good warning to keep an eye out for offsite meat puppetry. It probably didn't need to be re-added since we'd never use the Tweet itself (BLPSPS and all that) - the main point could have been added back with a (redacted) and note that one can look for Quinn's twitter account for details, but knowledge of its existence helps in terms of watching out for potential nonsense hitting certain articles. Let's call that a lesson learned. (Given that the point has since gotten wide coverage to no longer make it an issue).
That said, the edit summaries, not only from this report, but the one referenced by PeterTheFourth themselves in response to Liz, are troublesome. I know they're meant to be rhetorical but that's just a bit too hostile for any talk page that aligns along the Gamergate area. That's something to ask Peter to keep in check. Whether that needs admin action I don't know. --Masem (t) 21:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Just at a glance, I'm not particularly impressed with passive-aggressive (or even outright aggressive) nature of PeterTheFourth's responses to this dispute. El_C 20:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterTheFourth: civility is not about namecalling, per se., and you are, in fact, well outside established boundaries for civil conduct. Telling someone to Go pick a fight in traffic conveys imagery far worse than namecalling someone a "cunt," as far as I'm concerned.El_C 19:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of people would disagree with you on that. I'm one of them. But more generally, I don't think it's worthwhile to start ranking degrees of incivility. To the extent that Peter is making the point that we're wildly inconsistent in our approach to civility, he's undeniably correct. MastCellTalk 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about sanctions; I'm on the fence. But I agree with El C, and I seriously can't give PeterTheFourth any plus points for bringing in Eric Corbett here. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Peter, if you are going to make claims that Pudeo has been trying to get you blocked, you have to supply some diffs to support that claim, like previous complaints at AE or ANI regarding you. And it doesn't help your case that you are so dismissive towards this serious charge. Pudeo's claims, along with your conduct here, are being scrutinized. LizRead!Talk! 03:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to sexual assault claims made on twitter is clearly unacceptable. The section of BLPTALK that PTF refers to presupposes that there is the possibility that the link might be used in the article; since there is no chance whatsoever that we would ever source such an allegation to twitter, bringing up such a link on the talk page is not something that BLPTALK allows. I also find the "go pick a fight in traffic" edit summary very concerning. I'm inclined to a BLP topic ban but would value others' thoughts. GoldenRing (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some sanctions do seem warranted and a BLP topic ban would not be unreasonable. And please, Peter, refrain from violent imagery in edit summaries. Haukur (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I see this as a pretty minor sin. The talk-page thread seemed to be a good-faith effort to discuss a controversy that had already led to extensive edit-warring on the associated article. In an ideal world, yes, the thread should have included links to reliable sources discussing the allegation (which did exist, even then). I think Peter could have de-escalated the issue relatively easily—as could have Pudeo. Peter could have simply added reliable sources when restoring the thread, and Pudeo could have accepted that the topic is covered by reliable sources, rather than playing gotcha (which I think is a reasonable interpretation of this request). I probably wouldn't sanction anyone for this incident, but I do recognize that Peter has been warned in the past to be more careful... so I understand why sanctions are being considered for him, and I'll go along with the group consensus.
But "clearly advocat[ing] for violence"... "violent imagery"... come on now. Telling someone to go play in traffic is a very rude way of telling them to leave you alone, but it's not a violent threat, and it's really silly to pretend that it is. MastCellTalk 19:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of his "to the wall" comments as well.[76] No, it's not exactly a threat but it is ugly nevertheless. Haukur (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm implementing a six-month ban from living persons. I don't think this quite rises to the level of an indefinite ban, taking MastCell's thinking into account. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
