Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:20, 10 November 2015 editOnefortyone (talk | contribs)6,355 edits →Statement by Onefortyone← Previous edit Revision as of 22:06, 10 November 2015 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,202 edits →Appeal of discretionary sanction topic ban violation block of HughD: Closing. Appeal declinedNext edit →
Line 198: Line 198:


== Appeal of discretionary sanction topic ban violation block of HughD == == Appeal of discretionary sanction topic ban violation block of HughD ==

{{hat|1=Appeal declined. ] (]) 22:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC) }}


; Appealing user : {{userlinks|HughD}} – ] (]) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC) ; Appealing user : {{userlinks|HughD}} – ] (]) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Line 268: Line 270:
* This strikes me as boundary-pushing behavior. Suggest a trouting now and an expansion to the American Politics 2 topic ban should this reoccur. ] <small>(])</small> 18:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC) * This strikes me as boundary-pushing behavior. Suggest a trouting now and an expansion to the American Politics 2 topic ban should this reoccur. ] <small>(])</small> 18:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:*'''Close?''' - Three admins have responded, besides the original banning admin ]. Among the three admin reviewers, nobody proposes to grant this appeal so I suggest it be closed. ] (]) 17:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC) :*'''Close?''' - Three admins have responded, besides the original banning admin ]. Among the three admin reviewers, nobody proposes to grant this appeal so I suggest it be closed. ] (]) 17:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )== ==Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )==

Revision as of 22:06, 10 November 2015

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Nocturnalnow

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

    Request concerning Nocturnalnow

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions : Biographies of Living Persons discretionary sanctions with regard to the biography of Huma Abedin.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 3 October 2015 Removes long-standing, well-sourced description of fringe, highly-derogatory claims as a "conspiracy theory."
    2. 6 October 2015 Uses a partisan primary source for negative comments about the subject.
    3. 6 October 2015 Reverts negative partisan primary source into the article after it was removed.
    4. 7 October 2015 Again reverts the negative partisan primary source into the article.
    5. 11 October 2015 Adds more negative material, despite talk page concerns that it is unduly weighted and a coatrack.
    6. 12 October 2015 Reverts the above material back into the article against talk page consensus.
    7. 13 October 2015 Again removes the long-standing description of negative, discredited allegations as a conspiracy theory.
    8. 14 October 2015 Removes a reliable source, falsely claiming that it was written by the subject's husband.
    9. 17 October 2015 Inserts a partisan primary source and an unreliable partisan source (Breitbart) to source negative claims about the subject.
    10. 17 October 2015 Inserts a link to a partisan primary source into the External Links section, violating WP:BLPEL.
    11. 18 October 2015 Reverts the material back into the article after it was removed as not meeting quality and sourcing standards for content about living people.
    12. 18 October 2015 Once again reinserts those unacceptable sources.
    13. 18 October 2015 Yet again reinserts those same unacceptable sources.
    14. 18 October 2015 Reverts the link to the partisan primary source after it was removed as not an acceptable external link for a biography.
    15. 18 October 2015 Again reverts the above link.
    16. 30 October 2015 Makes personal attacks against the article subject and her spouse on the article talk page.
    17. 31 October 2015 Again removes consensus description of widely-discredited partisan attacks against her as being discredited, giving undue weight to a fringe theory which has been widely rejected by mainstream sources.

    Edit-wars the {{NPOV}} tag into the article despite clear consensus that it doesn't apply:

    1. 00:15, 23 October 2015
    2. 20:08, 22 October 2015
    3. 03:28, 22 October 2015
    4. 18:56, 21 October 2015
    5. 02:23, 19 October 2015
    6. 21:59, 7 October 2015
    7. 20:41, 7 October 2015
    8. 01:54, 7 October 2015
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    Notified of the sanctions by Gamaliel here.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This user is essentially a single-purpose account; out of fewer than 200 total edits to the encyclopedia, nearly 140 of them are to this biography or to its talk page. Effectively all of the edits and discussion have been highly negative toward the subject or have sought the inclusion of negative material about the subject, indicating that this user is not here to build an encyclopedic article about Abedin but rather to grind an ax against her and/or her husband. This is neatly demonstrated by this talk page comment which makes personal attacks on the subject and the subject's spouse. They have consistently edit-warred against clear talk page consensus to include negative material out of proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, to treat fringe allegations and claims with undue weight, to use poor and partisan sources and to cast aspersions on Abedin. Biographies of living people should not be edited by people with axes to grind against the article subject and I believe this editor should be encouraged to edit something else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Re: D.Creish, as the reliable sources in the section discuss, the fringe claims about Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood are widely condemned and rejected by reliable sources and commentators ranging from The Washington Post to the Anti-Defamation League to Senator John McCain, have frequently been described as conspiracy theories and have been supported only by a small fringe minority of right-wing extremists. The single source you quote in "defense" only proves my case — you have linked nothing but an opinion blog post by Andrew C. McCarthy, a conservative columnist writing for a conservative publication. That these sort of partisan outlets are the only sources you can find to defend the claims is exactly the point — they are rejected by the mainstream. Describing the claims in the language used by the broad majority of mainstream sources - discredited, conspiracy theory, rejected, partisan, paranoid, dishonest, meritless, reprehensible, etc. - is the very definition of how we write encyclopedically and neutrally. Referring to them in any other way gives those fringe and highly-defamatory claims undue weight and violates fundamental policy. NPOV does not mean we give all "sides" of an issue "equal time" or equal credence. Fringe, discredited and meritless attacks on a living person must be treated as such.
    I would also note that this user is a brand-new account which recently showed up to edit Abedin's biography in a negative manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    Rhoark raises a red herring by mentioning the fact that the highly-defamatory and widely-discredited claims about Abedin are made by "congressional representatives." Members of Congress are not themselves reliable sources, and their opinions and claims about living people hold no more and no less weight than any other person's opinions and claims in this encyclopedia. As with anyone else, the weight to be given to these claims in Misplaced Pages is governed by how reliable sources treat them. It is indisputable that the overwhelming weight of mainstream reliable sources consider these claims, regardless of their source, to be scurrilous, baseless and meritless. Those mainstream sources which have commented on them all but universally dismiss them as politically-motivated paranoia on the order of McCarthyism. The only support to be found for them is among right-wing sources, and even then, they are defended only by a small minority of conservatives. They are, in short, fringe theories, and highly-defamatory fringe theories at that. The biographies of living persons policy demands that we treat defamatory claims about living people with extreme sensitivity, and not give fringe negative claims undue weight or "equal credence" within biographical articles. This is a textbook example of why that policy is in place. Calling these highly-defamatory claims "allegations" without immediately mentioning the mainstream view of the allegations as discredited unfairly depicts the issue as one with "two equal sides," as opposed to what it is: a partisan fringe leveling politically-motivated attacks which have been widely rejected by virtually everyone else across the political spectrum. Policy demands that these claims must be depicted as what mainstream sources say they are — baseless nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notified here


    Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow

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

    Statement by D.Creish

    Based on edits since my involvement in this article I question the filer's neutrality.

    They have several edits to the article so I'll confine my evidence to this one example: They insist on title-ing one particular section "Conspiracy theories" despite the lack of majority support for that statement and that those who allege the theories are living congresspeople, so BLP applies.

    They've reverted a number of editors to retain this heading:

    On the talk page they misrepresent sources to support the "conspiracy theory" heading:

    "Well, no. The reliable sources on this matter are unanimous in describing these allegations as scurrilous, unfounded conspiracy theories." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014

    This is misleading. Only some do, a fact acknowledged in the opening sentence of the section:The claims in the letter were widely rejected and condemned, and were sometimes labeled as conspiracy theories.

    "I suggest you read the reliable sources which universally declare the claims to be baseless, scurrilous partisan personal attacks." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Again, a misrepresentation. The National Review article, a reliable source cited in that same section, describes her mother (Saleha Abedin) as "closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood" - the claim here is supported

    Their last edit to this heading relented somewhat in titling it "Discredited partisan attacks", which I believe is still not sufficiently neutral or supported. The heading they reverted from was my (more neutral, I believe) attempt at a compromise: "Security clearance controversy"

    I also believe the filer has violated rules against canvassing. He notified an editor who frequently agrees with his edits of this filing but failed to notify me despite my involvement just yesterday in a disagreement involving myself, the filter and Nocturnalnow where Nocturnalnow and I agreed. I only discovered this filing after seeing his latest revert and "stalking" his contribs.

    I believe more editors on the article and talk page, and a focus on neutral language throughout would be beneficial. D.Creish (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Re: NorthBySouthBaranoff, I take issue with the claim that I've edited the article in a "negative manner." I've made 3 effective edits to the article:
    One was to change the sentence: In June 2011, Abedin's husband became embroiled in the Twitter photo scandal, which was poorly written - "the" is confusing and ambiguous - to an earlier version: In June 2011, Abedin became the subject of widespread media attention amid her husband's Twitter photo scandal for which I provided additional sources to satisfy an earlier objection.
    The second was the heading change, which I describe above.
    The third was to correct a sub heading Reactions to the letter which made reference to a "letter" without context. In fact, the sub heading I replaced it with Backlash is arguably more favorable to the subject and less favorable to the group to whom you refer as "conspiracy theorists."
    I believe my edits to the article speak for themselves. D.Creish (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Nocturnalnow

    With regard to the a single-purpose account assertion, I tried to show the Filer yesterday that I have a long history of editing going back to 2007, albeit under 4 different User names as I have forgotten my password several times after a rest from editing. I have always had a notification and linkage of that fact on my talk and or User page. I always figured the edits are what's important, rather than the name of the Editor, but in respect of other opinions, I have now written down my password and put the piece of paper in a drawer.

    With regard to the other complaints, I think that any objective and thorough analysis of my editing history of the article will show a reasonable person that my accepted edits have dramatically improved the BLP even as it currently stands, and at least some of the non-allowed edits would have improved it even more. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    I am absolutely willing to stop editing the Abedin BLP, however, when I announced such an intention awhile back, an Editor who in my view has been also trying to improve the content expressed his disappointment with my leaving the BLP. That, plus my own reluctance to abandon what I thought is a non-NPOV BLP, led me to conclude I should continue editing Huma Abedin.
    However, I also am accepting the constructive comments here by Gamaliel and others about me needing to read more about and practice more of our editing process and policies re: BLPs; so, I will be doing that regardless of the outcome of this enforcement request. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


    Statement by Muboshgu

    I'll comment a bit later. For now, World Series! – Muboshgu (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Johnuniq

    The Huma Abedin article needs some serious protection and topic bans. The subject is closely associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign and hence is receiving special attention, primarily focused on WP:UNDUE mention of Abedin's husband's sexting scandal, and claims that Abedin had "immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations" (claims where one ref states "Sen. John McCain denounced the allegations").

    As an example of the "NPOV" editing on this BLP, it appears this edit at 07:27, 13 October 2015 changed the accurate "Conspiracy theory allegations" heading to the smear "Allegations regarding family members". That edit was by 119.81.31.4 which is now blocked for three years!

    D.Creish (talk · contribs) has a total of 24 edits, six to Huma Abedin: two highlight a scandal regarding the subject's husband (1 + 2); two repeat the removal of the "Conspiracy theories" heading (3 + 4); and two are minor adjustments. An article like this should not be getting attention from blocked-for-three-years IPs and perfectly formed new accounts and Nocturnalnow who has a total of 203 edits including 67 to Huma Abedin and 79 to its talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Gamaliel

    This editor should be encouraged to use some less contentious articles to learn about Misplaced Pages policies like BLP, PRIMARY. UNDUE, RS, etc. and return to this article after the election. I believe they want to improve the article but they appear to have a strong viewpoint and a less than ideal grasp of current BLP practice. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    I think that Rhoark's excellent review of the diffs illustrates the situation well. Nocturnalnow is not quite up to speed on how to properly handle BLP issues, and so a lot of time is wasted explaining basic policy and dealing with minor conflicts. Other editors are getting frustrated, as is Nocturnalnow because perhaps they feel that the resistance they are getting is obstructionist and not policy-based. Nocturnalnow should realize that the incident is already covered in the article - nobody is advocating shoving it down the memory hole - and so they should be satisfied even if it is not described in the exact language and manner they would prefer. Misplaced Pages is often about compromise.

    I"m not sure how to handle this, but I think the best thing would be for Nocturnalnow to practice with these issues in a less contentious article that they do not have such strong opinions about. Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    @Callanecc: SInce many people (including myself) on one side of the argument are saying some of these edits violate BLP, a 0RR restriction would essentially only apply to one side of the dispute, or it would at least encourage the other side to invoke BLP as a justification for evading the 0RR. Gamaliel (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Rhoark

    Review of diffs
    1. Changes heading "Conspiracy theory allegations" to "Muslim Brotherhood allegations". Even if the label of "conspiracy theory" were sourced well enough to WP:ASSERT (debatable), this edit narrows the specificity, averts WP:POVFUNNEL, and adheres to the advice of WP:POVSTRUCTURE. Good edit.
    2. These are primary sources as the complainant states; however, I would criticize this edit primarily on grounds of being coatracked, and also out of date. Results of Judicial Watch's inquiry are covered by the NYT. On balance, I'd say it's not an edit that deserved to stand on the page, but neither is it enforcement-worthy by any stretch.
    3. first revert to reinclude the above, with the comment "This information is also in the Hillary Clinton email controversy article and relates directly to the Subject of this blp"
    4. second revert, with the same comment.
    5. Adds factual statements about an FBI investigation, sourced to Fox News. I concur that it is a coatrack; however, I see no talk page concerns until a message by the complainant 6 days later.
    6. revert to restore the above, with the comment "Please read the content. Abedin is specifically mentioned and the email article you refer to is relating to Clinton, NOT Abedin"
    7. Changes heading "Conspiracy theory allegations" to "Allegations Regarding Family Members". Good edit, per no. 1, though it doesn't follow MOS for capitalization.
    8. Removes a source based on good-faith belief that it was written by the subject's husband. It was actually a category tag positioned to look very much like a byline, as resolved on the talk page. Trout-worthy.
    9. Adds further information on the Judicial Watch inquiry, sourced to Breitbart, which is generally considered unacceptable for contentious BLP claims.
    10. Adds an external link to a FOIA response.
    11. revert to restore Breitbart-sourced content with comment "Well sourced. Please do not keep reverting content you do not like. Please get a consensus on the talk page before reverting yet again." NBSB had in fact opened a talk page section a few hours prior.
    12. Goes for a hat-trick, restoring the Breitbart source, the FOIA EL, and also changing heading "Discredited allegations against family members" to "Controversal allegations regarding security clearance"
    13. Restores the Breitbart section again with an additional citation to the Daily Mail (also not sufficient for contentious BLP)
    14. Restores the FOIA EL with the comment "I see no prohibition against this link in the policy you reference. Please advise which section/part of the policy you think applies on the talk page."
    15. Restores the EL again with the comment "Get Consensus on Talk before removing this again". At this point he apparently actually looks at the talk, responding to NBSB's thread from the day before with "Its certainly not intentional on my part. Is there a list of generally acceptable Reliable Sources anywhere? I thought the Daily Mail was just as good as the Guardian."
    16. Describes controversies related to the subject with respect to due weighting considerations. This is not a personal attack.
    17. Changes heading "Discredited allegations against family members" to "Allegations that Abedin might be a security risk".

    Further edit warring over the NPOV banner, whose wording tends to encourage such behavior.

    Nocturnalnow does not seem to have a firm grasp on evaluating the reliability of sources. He also needs to be reminded that the "discuss" part of BRD is a two-way street. The claimed history of accounts seems plausible, as they seem to have similar linguistic patterns and a recurrent interest in American political scandals. I would not call that interest so narrow as to be a SPA, though. I suggest Nocturnalnow be placed under 0RR for BLP articles / claims to avoid similar disruptions.

    Although Nocturnalnow's behavior is not acceptable, the filer should be admonished that NPOV does not read "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views except conservative ones." While sources can be found who unleash all sorts of invective about the Muslim Brotherhood allegations, it is a claim that was supported by five congressional representatives, and many respectable news organizations chose to criticize Bachmann only by proxy of John McCain. That is the profile of a minority view, not a fringe one. There are some very good sources to draw on to criticize the allegations, but it is simply indefensible to do so through such prejudicial section titles. This is an encyclopedia. Rhoark (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    The wording of the NPOV banner is a persistent contributor to edit warring across the 'pedia. I've opened a discussion on that at Template_talk:POV#Please_do_not_remove_this_message_until_the_dispute_is_resolved. Rhoark (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Cla68

    After looking at the diffs, it appears that both NorthbySouthBaranoff's and Nocturnalnow's edits are partisan. Both editors could be interpreted as engaging in BATTLEFIELD behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    By the way, saying something like this could be interpreted as not being a very welcoming or congenial reception to a new editor. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Professor JR

    I don't normally participate in Dispute Page or TalkPage discussions, but have decided to here, as I must agree with Cla68 -- User:NorthBySouthBaranof's edits certainly qualify as partisan, or in violation of POV, as well, if Nocturnalnow's can be adjudged to be so; and, upon my review, it appears to me that Nocturnalnow's have not been, and that this filing is unwarranted. Clearly there is also no basis for the assertion by the filer that Nocturnalnow is a single-purpose account(!), and the filer's neutrality is quite apparently and obviously in question (check NorthBySouthBaranof's contributions history) as pointed out by D.Creish. It might be advisable, and to the benefit of all Wiki users and readers, if NorthBySouthBaranof were to take a brief respite from editing the Abedin article, or any other article relating to Hillary Clinton; and this comment by another editor was also entirely out of line and uncalled for. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Ryk72

    Regarding the 500/30 restriction, referred to by EdJohnston below, and also independently here and at ArbCom Palestine Israel 3 here; I again urge the community to formalise this measure by amendment of WP:Protection policy and through the use of a similar technical implementation to Semi-protection. - Ryk72 04:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Nocturnalnow

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • The full protection seems like a good idea. What to do when protection expires is a harder question. Editors might be required to get approval from an RfC for any further negative material. But it's not easy to word such a restriction. *If* this article were under a 500/30 restriction like the Gamergate controversy article, neither Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs) nor D.Creish (talk · contribs) would be allowed to edit (neither user has reached 500 edits). For now, I'd suggest that User:Callanecc extend the full protection for another three weeks. If we see any useful discussion on the talk page during that time it may give some ideas for what to do in the future. When protection expires, if there is a steady stream of people wanting this article to be more negative (who aren't willing to negotiate patiently over the wording) then article bans or a 500/30 restriction might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    Appeal of discretionary sanction topic ban violation block of HughD

    Appeal declined. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Appealing user
    HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hugh (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Block imposed at User_talk:HughD#One week block for violation of topic ban; logged at WP:DSLOG#2015
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    Notification here.

    Statement by HughD

    The block notice cited "deliberate violation" of the topic ban. No violation of the topic ban, intentional or otherwise, took place. The topic ban is an administrator action under discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBTPM. The scope of topic ban is "...any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers..."

    The block notice and discretionary sanctions log entry cited an edit to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban. The demonstrated consensus of our community is that no reliable sources support a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Evidence that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban includes, most significantly, an explicit ruling from the banning/blocking admin that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban User talk:Ricky81682#Question on scope of ban: "I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity...There should be leeway to edit there..." Additionally, Misplaced Pages article space, edit history 18:35 10 July 2013, 17:13 6 March 2015. and talk page discussion clearly demonstrates community consensus that the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not related to the Kochs.

    The block notice stated reason is "...adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs..." Article Donors Trust was not edited. Donors Trust is not directly related to the Tea Party movement. Koch family foundations have contributed to Donors Trust. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund, the whole point of which is that no relationship may be inferred between a specific grantor and a specific grantee. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund; contributors to Donors Trust describe/specify/recommend the ultimate grantee. Funds generally must disclose their transfers to Donors Trust, and Donors Trust must disclose their grantees, but only very, very occasionally can we reliably state that a given donor contributed to a given org via Donors Trust. A connection grantor -> Donors Trust -> grantee is extraordinary difficult to document. See Searle Freedom Trust for an exception that proves the rule: as required by law, Searle disclosed that they contributed to Donors Trust, but also chose to disclose that their contribution was earmarked to fund a court challenge to affirmative action; a noteworthy, reliable, secondary source wrote about it, and we included it in our project. The topic-banning admin extended the topic ban to all organizations funded by Donors Trust, without consensus and without notice and without logging, and then blocked retroactively for violation of the extended topic ban.

    In discussion of some of these issues subsequent to the block notice, the banning/blocking admin advanced various alternative justifications for the block, including suspected use of a role account, socking, and ownership behavior, which charges can be addressed upon request if necessary.

    Respectfully request community discussion by uninvolved administrators regarding several related issues raised by this block:

    1. Is an explicit ruling from the topic-banning administrator a reasonable basis for a topic banned editor to consider in determining the scope of a topic ban?
    2. Is the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity reasonably considered within the scope of a Tea Party movement or Koch brothers topic ban?
    3. Is the Donors Trust reasonably considered within the scope of a Tea Party movement or Koch brothers topic ban?
    4. Are all grantees of Donors Trust reasonably considered within scope of a Tea Party movement or Koch brothers topic ban?
    5. Is added a source to an article that mentions a banned topic a violation of a topic ban, even if the article is not within scope of the topic ban, and even if the content added to the article text does not violate the topic ban, and even if the source is not primary about the banned topic?

    Respectfully request repeal of block, strike-through of the block notice and strike-through of the block in the discretionary sanctions log. The block was not necessary to prevent disruption of our project. I am appealing this block in order to clear my name and clarify the scope of the topic ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    I embrace my responsibility to recognize the boundaries of the topic ban. Without appealing the the previous AE report linked to by the banning/blocking administrator, WP:TBAN clearly authorizes conscientious editors to contribute to our project to articles which include content in scope of a topic ban, just not the parts of the articles related to the topic ban. Previously, I acknowledged possible mistakes in judgement with regard to the boundaries of the topic ban, but this is not one of them. My point here is that in my due diligence here, all evidence supported the position that the edited article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was not in scope, evidence including an explicit ruling from the banning/blocking administrator, Misplaced Pages article space, Misplaced Pages edit history, and Misplaced Pages talk page discussion. My objection to this block is not based on my intention, which is unverifiable, but on this evidence. The evidence is more than a reasonable person might find necessary for a good faith determination that the edited article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was not in scope. Respectfully request community discussion by uninvolved administrators of the banning/blocking administrator's role in this block, which the banning/blocking administrator admits below was a mistake; this mistake has the form if not the intent of entrapment. The banning/blocking administrator's novel extension of WP:TBAN to encompass so-called "second level links" is not included in the ban notice or in WP:TBAN. The banning/blocking administrator's claim that the edited article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is related to the Kochs via Donors Trust is counter-factual. Does the community endorse the ability of an topic banning administrator to explicitly rule an article out-of-scope, then reverse the ruling without notice, and then block? Hugh (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    Topic bans work when editors and administrators understand policy and act reasonably. Policy is clear. Our articles Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Donors Trust very clearly "as a whole have little or nothing to do with" the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Editing the parts of these articles unrelated to the Tea Party movement or the Kochs is specifically permitted by WP:TBAN, and articles which merely wikilink to these articles, so-called "second-level links," are certainly out of scope. The block was objectively unreasonable and deserves redress from the community. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    Respectfully request uninvolved administrators participating in this discussion, if you believe that a topic ban violation occurred, kindly cite a specific edit of concern, kindly indicate whether you believe the violation was with respect to the Tea Party movement or the Kochs or both, and kindly cite a specific clause of WP:TBAN which you believe most closely describes the topic ban violation. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    Our project's article Donors Trust is comprised of seven sections, 16 paragraphs, and some 23,000 bytes. One paragraph, in the "Donors" section, describes the well-documented financial support of the Kochs. As per WP:TBAN, this paragraph is in scope to a Koch topic ban, but the article as a whole is out of scope. Our project's article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity describes the financial support of Donors Trust. This is not grounds for a reasonable person to consider Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, in whole or in part, to be in scope to a Koch topic ban. Hugh (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    Guy Macon Thank you for attempting to bring new sources to our project's article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Whenever we incorporate new reliable sources and new significant points of view into our project we improve our project. Your suggestions are appropriate at article talk. May I respectfully suggest you pursue your conviction that an obvious relationship exists between the Franklin Center and the Kochs in article space where it will benefit our readers WP:READERSFIRST. Let us know how that goes. Your 1st and 3rd refs, NBC is the publisher and CPI is the agency; this ref has been part of our article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity since 3 October 2014 and serves as part of our sourcing for the Donors Trust funding; however, numerous attempts to draw further from this source and others to include an alleged Koch connection have been consistently reverted, for various reasons, see for example 10 July 2013 "WP:SYNTH" and 6 March 2015 "non-neutral reference to Koch bros, readers are free to click through, unsourced association between Franklin and Koch is WP:SYNTH and BLP violation." SourceWatch has never successfully been added to an article of our project on a conservative organization, as an editor experienced in this area I am not sure how you are not aware of this. Your last suggested source is a letter to the editor, as I know you to be an experienced editor I am not sure why you would bring this source forward at this time at AE. The consensus text of our project's article, its edit history, talk page discussion, and an explicit ruling from the topic banning administrator, all very clearly reflect our project's consensus that there is no noteworthy, reliably sourced relationship between the Franklin Center and the Kochs. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC) In a recent essay cross-posted at ANI and article talk you argued that the funding of political causes by billionaires is not notable ("It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like..."), so while I am not surprised to see you pile on here, I am surprise to see you argue in favor of a significant Koch connection here. Hugh (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC) When an editor attempts a well-referenced, good faith addition of Koch-related content to an article in our project, it is undue, it is synth, it non-neutral, it is a BLP violation, but when it comes to topic ban enforcement, the Kochs are everywhere - even where they are not. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    Respectfully request strike-through of the block notice and in the DS log. Respectfully request uninvolved administrators declining this request, kindly cite a specific edit of concern, kindly indicate whether you believe the topic ban violation was with respect to the Tea Party movement or the Kochs or both, and kindly cite a specific clause of WP:TBAN which you believe most closely describes the topic ban violation. Respectfully request this appeal remain open for wider community discussion of the issues raised in good faith above WP:NODEADLINE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Ricky81682

    First, the topic ban is for any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year. Second, this last AE argument already had repeated violations with the same argument of a lack of intent. I don't believe intent to violate the topic ban is required. It's a bizarre and impossible argument to prove. To summarize the extensive arguments I provided at User talk:HughD, I was asked at User_talk:Ricky81682#Question_on_scope_of_ban asked about Watchdog.org (related to another edit warring issue) which had no mention of the Koch brothers there and mentioned the Franklin as one of a number of in-linked articles (with a possible tenuous connection). Prior to HughD's involvement, this was what the Franklin Center looked like, which does include a reference to Donor's Trust which directly refers to the Koch family foundations and the like. I missed it and probably should have told HughD that the second level links are directly related but I did not inform him of that. However, whether or not that was an oversight on HughD's part is less likely to me when you examine this edit of HughD's which includes a citation to this article which clearly states that the Franklin center is tied to the Koch brothers. The point is, this shouldn't be a game where HughD asks me to examine article after article and I have to solve the tenuous connections that may or may not be there when HughD knows full well that they exist and even makes it my fault that I missed the connection so HughD should be allowed to edit freely on the topic. This is a complete waste of my time and energy to police someone else like this. I considered the ban description pretty obvious but seeing as how no one else has been banned under that sanction and HughD's insistence of playing this game, I suggest we provide HughD with a broader more definite topic ban so that it's clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    • @EdJohnston: No, I think I'm just annoyed with this. It's a fairly concrete topic ban and the punishment is the week-long bock, it shouldn't be a block and further expansion of the ban. If the ban is incomprehensible to HughD given the alleged size and scope of the Kochtopus or whatever, then HughD can suggest a different scope. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement (involved editor 1)

    HughD is right. Guy Macon is a hypocrite here as is Ricky81682. The topic ban is completely i possible to follow given the millions of potential topics. Why should HughD have to make sure he doesn't violate a ban he didn't even come up with?

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    This is classic entrapment. HughD was told this wasn't related to the topic and once he edited there, the trap was sprung and he was punished.

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughD

    One detail of peripheral interest here. HughD mentions the administrator’s "novel concept of "second level links." This isn't, in fact, a particularly novel concept, at least not among hypertext researchers. Nodes reachable within N links of a starting point are clearly interesting and have been studied both in terms of technical and rhetorical strategies. I’ve used the term neighborhood for the concept; more mathematically-inclined researchers would simply say "the subgraph of diameter N from node V" or something like that. The Information Architecture people use "clicks" as a shorthand: "Koch Industries are just two clicks from the Franklin Center." So it’s not an outré invention. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Guy Macon

    The following sources:

    appear to refute the claim that "No evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    • I am concerned that HughD claimed that "No evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs" when a simple Google search turned up lots of evidence for such a relationship (see my statement above). Are we going to have to repeat this exercise again and again as HughD seeks out new and innovative ways to write about the Koch brothers? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    HughD, there is a huge difference between your first claim ("no evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and ... the Kochs") and your second claim ("no noteworthy, reliably sourced relationship between the Franklin Center and the Kochs.") WP:RS does not apply when deciding whether a topic is within the scope of your topic ban. If a Google search turns up lots of unreliable sources say that the Koch brothers fund the Franklin Center for Government, you need to stay away, even if the sourcing isn't up to Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion in an article.
    HughD, Re: "you argued that the funding of political causes by billionaires is not notable, so while I am not surprised to see you pile on here, I am surprise to see you argue in favor of a significant Koch connection here." you have once again completely misunderstood my position. What I previously argued was that Misplaced Pages has dozens and dozens of articles on billionaires, and in the vast majority of those articles nobody has found relatively small (for a billionaire) political contributions by those billionaires to be notable unless they happened to be named Koch. This is easily verified. Again, I have zero interest in politics, political contributions, or billionaires, but I do care about Misplaced Pages being NPOV even when talking about people who have unpopular political views. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by HughD

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • It's HughD's responsibility to adhere to the topic ban, not Ricky81682's responsibility to research each topic on behalf of HughD to verify if it is or isn't in compliance. HughD can appeal the original ban or suggest a narrower restriction or exemption. Failing that, there are five million articles on Australian shrubs and the like to edit which are not related to the relatively narrow topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Topic bans work for those who understand them and are willing to follow them. It appears that no amount of words will be enough to convince HughD where the exact, precise limits of his ban lie. Per the header of this report, HughD is appealing a one-week block which has already expired. I recommend this appeal be closed as moot. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify one thing, my warning rather than block which Ricky linked to wasn't directly related to intent but instead that Hugh seemed to recognise the problem and assured that it wouldn't happen again. That's a one chance thing so this block (on a topic which was covered by the TBAN is completely appropriate). Even if it wasn't the block has now expired so I also agree/recommend that this can be closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • This strikes me as boundary-pushing behavior. Suggest a trouting now and an expansion to the American Politics 2 topic ban should this reoccur. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

    Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

    I've sent this to ArbCom for clarification of whether it is covered or not given the grey area regarding redirects and articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#October 2015 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 7 November 2015 Replacement of an existing redirect with an article, violating his ban on the creation of articles
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    On October 16, 2015, after a request for clarification requested by me, Section 2.3 of the case involving Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") was amended to say:

    2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:
    • Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.
    • Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.
    Other editors may move pages created or substantially edited by RAN, but only if they explicitly take responsibility for any copyright violations on that page.
    This remedy may be appealed after the later of 6 months and when all draft articles he has authored, in his userspace and in the draft namespace, have been verified free of copyright violations and moved to the article namespace by other editors or deleted. In order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.
    Any article or draft article created contrary to this restriction will result in a block, initially of at least one month and then proceeding per the enforcement provisions. The article or draft article may be speedily deleted under criterion G5 by any administrator.
    Any page moves made contrary to this restriction may be enforced by blocks per the enforcement provisions. The page move may be reversed by any editor able to do so.

    Today, RAN converted an existing redirect at William Sloane Coffin, Sr. into an article with the edit noted above, and then expanded the article with an additional 9 edits.

    I would contend that a redirect is not an article. This is not merely a technical distinction: a redirect has none of the attributes of an article, except a title. A redirect is, instead, an automated pointer to an article, not an article in and of itself. This distinction is recognized at, for instance, Misplaced Pages:Redirects in the section How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article; the word "convert" is a clear indication that a redirect is not an article, but must be changed in some fundamental way in order to become one. The distinction between redirects and articles can also be seen in Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion, in which there are different rules for the deletion of articles and for the deletion of redirects. It is recognized in the distinction between Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion and Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion.

    The fact that articles and redirects are different things is simple common sense.

    By converting a redirect into an article, RAN has, in effect, created an article that did not exist before, which I believe is a violation of his ban from creating articles as outlined in section 2.3 quoted above. Such "pushing the boundaries" of his various sanctions is par for the course with RAN, and indeed has led to a number of Arbitration proceedings both before and after the full case he was the subject of.

    If the admins here agree with my argument, I have no recommendation for what kind of response is appropriate. I will say that the article itself is not problematic, and should be retained. BMK (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    Let me also say that I have not been monitoring RAN's activities in any way since the conclusion of the Clarification request. This came to my attention because I created the redirect at William Sloane Coffin, Sr., and it was therefore on my watchlist. Nor is my report prompted by the replacement of my redirect with an article; as I said above, I'm perfectly happy to have the article there instead of the redirect. The problem here is not the content involved, it's solely in the behavior of RAN and his apparent inability to adhere to his sanctions, or, perhaps, to perceive what his sanctions mean or what their boundaries are. BMK (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Andreas Philopater: Sure, a clarification from ArbCom would be peachy, I guess, even though they just did that. Besides, I'm not sure why clarification would be necessary. Before yesterday, if you typed "William Sloane Coffin, Sr." in the search box, you would end up in the article MacDougal-Sullivan Gardens Historic District because there was no article titled "William Sloane Coffin, Sr.". Today, if you typed that in to the search box, you'll end up at the article William Sloane Coffin, Sr., because that article now exists. That didn't happen miraculously by spontaneous generation, it happened because RAN made it happen, even though he is explicitly banned from creating articles in any namespace on Misplaced Pages. If that's not "creating an article", I'm completely boggled about what one would call it. There was no article, now there is an article, RAN is the one who did it - that's pretty cut-and-dried, and does not really need clarification. BMK (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Alansohn: Unfortunately for your argument, I created no article, I created a redirect: the automated edit summary says "(←Redirected page to MacDougal-Sullivan Gardens Historic District)". Contrast that with the automated edited summary for an article I actually created Naughty but Nice (1939 film), which says "(←Created page with '{{inuse}} {{Infobox film | name = Naughty But Nice | image = Naughty But Nice 1939 poster.jpg | image_size = 225px | caption = thea...')". The first I "redirected", the second I "created". Both articles and redirects are pages, but they are not the same thing.As I said, I do agree that the article should stay, and I don't deny that it improves the encyclopedia, but that's really not relevant here: RAN's ban doesn't say that he can't create an article "unless it improves the encycylopeda", it says that he cannot create an article, period. As for creation, as I said above, absent Divine Intervention, for an article to not exist one moment and then exist the next means that someone had to create it. That someone was not me, it was RAN. BMK (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, Alan, but you're entirely wrong. I created a page. That page was a redirect, which is not an article. I've created a number of articles and certainly know the difference, as do you. All of those articles were pages as well, as is this one I'm typing on right now, but it is not an article either. Talk pages are pages, File info pages are pages, Articles are pages, Redirects are pages, but all of them being pages does not mean they are the same thing. I did, indeed, create a redirect where there had been nothing, so I "created" a redirect. RAN then made an article where there had been a redirect, thus creating an article. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you. BMK (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Kingsindian: "Petty"? Perhaps, but note that I am not calling for any specific sanctions against RAN. If the admins reviewing this complaint feel that a warning is sufficient, that's fine with me - at least until the next time RAN attempts to push the boundaries of his bans, which he has does constantly over the years. BMK (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    One last thing: I contend that a redirect is not an article, and that in converting my redirect into an article, RAN created an article, violating his ban. Alansohn, on the other hand, says that I created an article when I made the redirect. If Alansohn is correct that creating a redirect is the essential act of creating an article, then RAN has violated his ban by creating redirects here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and in most of the rest of these. (He also violated his ban on page moves here. You can't have it both ways. Either my definition of the creation of an article is right, or yours is, but either way he has violated his ban. BMK (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Alansohn: If you believe I'm harassing RAN in some way because I filed a Request for Clarification and this Arbitration Enforcement Request, please feel free to file a report at AN/I -- but be sure to include specific incidents supported by diffs. If you believe -- as it seems you do -- that I am in some way connected with User:Javert, (who I have never neard of, but who was apparently indef blocked in 2009 because the account was no longer in use ), then I invite you to file an SPI with the behavioral evidence you feel supports that contention. If you aren't planning on following through with either of these suggestions, I would appreciate your not making unsupported allegations again. BMK (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification to RAN

    Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

    Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

    Statement by Andreas Philopater

    I would suggest that clarification by the committee as to whether or not this breaches the ban is the only desirable outcome here. The article itself should be retained; no further sanctions should be applied. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Alansohn

    On October 16, 2015, after a request for clarification requested by User:Beyond My Ken, Section 2.3 of the case involving Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") was amended to say:

    2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:
    • Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.
    • Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.

    RAN did not move an article into article namespace. Nor, did RAN create an article. BMK was the one who created the article in this edit. Both RAN and BMK worked collaboratively to expand the article. The term "create" -- to bring (something) into existence -- has not been met here.

    As there was no violation of any aspect of this enforcement action and as the encyclopedia has been unequivocally improved by the collaboration between both BMK and RAN, I move that there is no justification for any enforcement action to be taken here. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

    Beyond My Ken, the article you created was, is and will remain an article. Your initial edit created an article ex nihilo titled William Sloane Coffin, Sr. Check the history of that article, which shows that it was created, by you, at 15:51, 3 July 2011‎, more than four years ago. The day before it didn't exist; For the 1,600 days since, it has existed as an article, and that article has been expanded. In pursuing an enforcement action here, where none is justified, you are again creating something out of nothing. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sadly, Beyond My Ken / Javert, has over the course of his editing history, demonstrated that he is obsessively concerned with the pursuit and punishment of RAN. There is nothing productive here other than a desire to exact his ounce of flesh for some imagined slight that some other editor has committed . The article that BMK has created, and that RAN has expanded, is one that even BMK acknowledges is unequivocally encyclopedic and should be retained.It's time to end this once and for all and close this misguided and self-destructive pursuit of justice. Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    Having followed slightly the RAN drama for some time, I am amazed by the pettiness of some of the stuff brought against them. BMK states that the article should be retained, and there was no disruption to the project. Why then are we here? This seems to be the triumph of WP:BURO thinking. At most, there should be a clarification on whether the topic ban was breached, in which case, perhaps WP:ARCA might be a better venue. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Drmies

    A redirect is not an article. That's clear. I don't know if that really needs clarification, but there's all kinds of places in which we count them separately, for instance. I can't see the NYT obituary on which RAN's version was based so I can't see if there was a copyvio (I assume there wasn't, AGF and all--and common sense). I understand that Tim (Carrite) has been ferrying content in a way allowed by ArbCom (thanks for doing that, Tim) and don't know why RAN didn't go that route here; I can't help but think that RAN was trying to skirt the decision here a bit. Personally I don't see the point in a block or something like that, but I suppose it's a good idea for ArbCom to at least speak out on the matter in order to admonish/clarify. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

    Onefortyone

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

    Request concerning Onefortyone

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Canvassing.
    2. Use of false sources and misrepresentation of source. Already pointed on his talk page and here, he use this source on Graceland(edit) for claiming that Biltmore Estate is more visited than Graceland. However that source doesn't mention Graceland anywhere, neither they say that Biltmore is 2nd most visited. He made this new edit to the article, however this book is not comparing Biltmore with Graceland or calling it second most visited either. Thus violating WP:OR too.
    3. Personal attacks: referring opposition as "Elvis fans", and considers fair edits to be "vandal" or "vandalism".
    4. Edit warring. Already told by user:EdJohnston not to add any controversial material without gaining consensus first. There was discussion about his edits on three different venues. Yet he selected to re-insert non-consensus and incorrect edits again.
    5. Stonewalling. After he saw that consensus is against him, he resorted to stonewalling by copy pasting cherry picked quotes and pasting same feud on at least three pages ("did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments..")

    This all comes from last 9 days. If we were to talk about his decade of editing, there have been many complaints and they can be pointed too. Excelse (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 2006 Topic banned on few Elvis articles for 2 months.
    2. 2006 Topic ban violation block.
    3. 2006 Topic banned for two months from Elvis Presley article.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Onefortyone

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

    Statement by Onefortyone

    As many diffs show (see, for instance, ), Excelse and his sockpuppets (see ) are new users whose edits are nothing more than an attempt to remove well-sourced content from Elvis-related pages that is not in line with their personal opinion, but was part of these articles for many years. From time to time, some of these Elvis fans took me to arbitration, because I am not always singing the praise of the mega star, having a more balanced view of the singer. However, according to arbcom decision, my opponents in these cases were all banned from Elvis-related articles, as all of my contributions are well-sourced (see, for instance, this more recent list of sources here), and their massive removal of content was thought unjustified. Here is what the arbcom says: "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." Therefore, Lochdale, one of my former opponents, who had shown "evidence of misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view" and "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley," was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." See . As Excelse says in one of his recent edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see ), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars and is one of these banned users. So some warnings may be necessary in his case, as most of the sources I have used are mainstream biographies of Elvis, studies published by university presses and books written by eyewitnesses. Onefortyone (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Onefortyone

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • See:
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone (Nov 2005)
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone (Nov. 2005)
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis (Nov. 2006)
    • Probation from 2005: "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research."
    • A ban on Elvis-related editing should be considered. There has been a previous discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Onefortyone. The question is whether Onefortyone's zealous efforts to add certain material to Elvis-related articles crosses the line into disruption. Since there are three relevant Arb cases, the committee has already judged some of his past edits to be disruptive and they did enact a probation which allows for bans. One of the options is to go ahead and enact a ban from Elvis-related material, but that would need some evidence of recent bad behavior. The above complaint is more complete and thorough than the one left on my talk page, so I think the option of a ban should now be considered. Would like to hear from others who can look at the diffs in the above complaint and give their opinion. I became aware of this editor through a post by User:Laser brain on my talk page. Without carefully judging all the material, and just observing the attitudes of the participants, Onefortyone does not seem to be eager for careful discussion of his proposals. He is quick to accuse the people who revert him of various misdeeds: "Don't you see that Excelse is one of those POV warriors who are here to remove well-sourced content from articles that is not in line with their fan view?" EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • For a more recent discussion of User:Onefortyone's editing, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#Onefortyone. Lots of TLDR there from the accused person, which makes it hard to understand exactly what's in dispute. The level of disruption from Onefortyone seen in 2010 would probably be enough to justify a topic ban under the standards that are currently applied to others at this noticeboard. If he gave any hint of being open to negotiation, or being willing to express himself briefly, it might be taken into account.
    • I can't rule out that some of Onefortyone's opponents may be socks, but irrespective of who is on the other side, the long term issue of needing consensus for controversial material remains. I hope that Onefortyone knows there is a right way and a wrong way of bringing up sock charges. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Lvivske

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

    Request concerning Lvivske

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBEE :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 4 November 2015 First removal of "Neo-Nazi" from the lede; the issue at the time was under discussion at the talk page. After this edit, I opened an RfC at the talk page.
    2. 4 November 2015 Revert; after this revert, the page was protected
    3. 10 November 2015 Next revert; the user insists that the lede is "incorrect POV". The RfC is ongoing, the only arguments of Lvivske are essentioally repetition that "this is wrong POV". They did not edit between 5 and 10 November; their first edit after this period of inactivity (which started when the article was protected) was the revert.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above (last time 18 June 2014 by Callanecc)
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 October 2011 by Cailil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Obviously, this is not the first time Lvivske edit-wars in EE articles, without giving any satisfactory explanation to their reverts. Whereas many of the opponents of the "neo-nazi" definition constructively participate in the RfC, Lvivske decided to edit-war. When I alerted them that I am going to file an arbitration enforcement request, they have chosen to revert again.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Lvivske

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

    Statement by Lvivske

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lvivske

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