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 05:30, 9 October 2017 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,377 edits →Result concerning Volunteer Marek← Previous edit Revision as of 05:58, 9 October 2017 edit undoVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,116 edits →Statement by Volunteer MarekNext edit →
Line 214: Line 214:
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Volunteer Marek==== ====Statement by Volunteer Marek====

* Another user agreeing that Forbes is RS
* Added a second source
* Dr Fleischman himself using the second source and calling it
* ] affirming the use of Buzzfeed as a source

Additionally, inline citations are not required in the lede as long as the text is well sourced in the body of the article. Which it is. Hence, it's sort of hard to understand the objection and why Dr. Fleischman is bringing this here.

Dr Fleischman's own edits
* claiming it does not support text. Not true.

Masem's claim below that "any (Forbes) "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not (reliable)" is also completely false. The two discussions at WP:RSN are a) and b) . a) Most certainly DOES NOT say "definitely not reliable". What it says is "reliable if the contributor is reliable" which is the case here. Likewise b) again says "reliable if the contributor is reliable" and "no, it's not user generated content" (and in the particular case discussed there the commentators deemed Forbes reliable). Masem, please don't falsely misrepresent discussions like this, especially since this is something that is trivial to check. There's absolutely no "definitely not" in there by any stretch and I have no idea how you came up with that. Please retract or strike.

Regardless, like I said, 1) there are other sources in the article, 2) lede doesn't need citations if it has them in text, 3) additional citations could - and were - easily provided, all that Dr. Fleischman had to do was ask for them.

I'm also not quite sure what DS was suppose to be violated here. There was one revert by Dr. Fleischman and one by myself. I did start a discussion on . Dr. Fleischman responded by making the claim about Forbes' reliability. So I added a second source just to appease him, although, one more time, this actually was not necessary since there were inline citations in main body already.

So this is sort of a strange request over ... not sure what exactly, but definitely something trivial that could've (and I think was) handled simply through good faithed discussion and clearing up of what appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Fleischman's part.
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by (username)====

Revision as of 05:58, 9 October 2017

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP: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,
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

    Stormwatch

    Not actionable because the alert has expired. New alert issued.  Sandstein  17:52, 3 October 2017 (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 Stormwatch

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Yamla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Stormwatch (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/GamerGate#Sanctions_available :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 2017-10-02 Falsely claiming 'vandalism' as grounds for reintroducing material apparently removed by consensus
    2. 2017-10-02 Falsely claiming 'Definitely vandalism'
    3. 2017-10-02 Claiming 'That's some orwellian shit.'
    4. 2017-10-02 Talking about 'unpersoning'
    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)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Cassie Jaye is the producer of The Red Pill, pretty unambiguously closely related to the Men's rights movement and I strongly believe, related to GamerGate for which sanctions apply. Note that I personally take no position here on whether or not Cassie Jaye deserves an article outside of the documentary. I do strongly take the position that notability has not yet been established, and that IMDB does not serve to establish notability. This position has been raised on the article's talk page.

    Note; I am an admin, but may be considered involved here because on 2017-03-07, I nominated this article for speedy deletion. At that time, the article consisted of nine words. I currently take no particular position on whether the article should be a simple redirect or should be a separate article. --Yamla (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    User has been notified. --Yamla (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning Stormwatch

    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 Stormwatch

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Stormwatch

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Since Arbcom has decided that alerts expire after one year, the GamerGate notice that the editor received in 2015 is no longer in effect. This does not rule out taking normal admin action for edits such as this one at Mike Cernovich, where he describes some people who opposed GamerGate as 'dishonest journalists' in Misplaced Pages's voice. This seems to be an example of WP:Tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Looking at Jaye, I'm having a hard time finding anything that relates to Gamergate in the edits Stormwatch was doing there. Of course, falsely claiming an edit to be "vandalism" is still sanctionable behavior, as is edit warring. The Cernovich edit I'm quite unimpressed with (and that's unquestionably GG related), but it seems like AE sanctions aren't available for it due to the age of the notice. I'm still rather inclined to think we ought to do something here about the tendentious editing, but I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss it since we can't use AE remedies. Seraphimblade 17:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree that we can't issue sanctions because of the expired alert, and this isn't the place to discuss normal admin actions. Closing this with a renewed alert.  Sandstein  17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

    Angel defender

    Indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by Doug Weller.  Sandstein  08:12, 5 October 2017 (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 Angel defender

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Angel defender (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 5 October 2017 Defamatory edit on BLP which this account is not permitted to edit
    2. 5 October 2017 Defamatory edit on BLP which this account is not permitted to edit
    3. 5 October 2017 POV edit on BLP which this account is not permitted to edit
    4. 5 October 2017 POV edit on BLP which this account is not permitted to edit
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • 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

    Despite repeated notifications of the 500/30 restriction, this editor continues to edit articles covered by the sanction. Today, they made a series of defamatory edits to a BLP covered by the sanctions. They have also made several POV edits to the article Olive production in Palestine, another article covered by the sanctions.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Angel defender

    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 Angel defender

    Statement by Ryk72

    ECP requested at WP:RFPP. - Ryk72 00:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Angel defender

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I've blocked indefinitely as a routine Admin block telling them that to be unblocked "You need to request an unblock using the instructions above, and show that you understand the concerns expressed by other editors and how you will avoid such problems in the future." The lack of communication on their or any talk pages after all the warnings is sufficient to block. Hopefully the block will get their attention and they will begin to communicate. If anyone wants to unblock with a topic ban go ahead, but it should include BLPs. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

    2.29.61.73

    The IP is blocked two months for Troubles-related edit warring and vandalism as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning 2.29.61.73

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    2.29.61.73 (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/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Repeated imposition of their clearly POV and contested edit violates 1, 2 and 3 of this section of the Arbitration decision.

    1. 6:00, 7 October Latest imposition of their edit and the first since their DS alert, once again replaces "Northern Irish" with "Irish" with no supporting evidence
    2. 15:50 6 October same as above
    3. 05:02 5 October same as above
    4. 01:14 14 September same as above though calls it a spelling error for justification
    5. 23:57 18 August as before also citing spelling errors as justification
    6. 23:32 15 August as before
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    21:43, 6 October 2017
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I requested via my last edit summary and at the IPs talk page to provide evidence for their change however they provided none. This is now their 6th imposition of their edit and have now ignored my request for a source as well as the DS alert I gave them yesterday.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning 2.29.61.73

    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 2.29.61.73

    Statement by Scolaire

    These edits relate to Janet Devlin, a 22-year-old singer from Northern Ireland. I can't see any Troubles-related content in the article, and there is no notice on the talk page to say that it falls under the ArbCom case. Simply changing somebody's nationality from "Northern Irish" to "Irish" is not a Troubles ArbCom issue. Scolaire (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Mabuska

    @Scolaire:, actually it does. Notwithstanding their edits to other articles, in this instance persistently removing Northern Irish for Irish especially calling it a spelling error can easily be construed as being Troubles related. Indeed see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions, which whilst stating pages, does state "broadly interpreted", and the issue here is clearly within the catchment of it. The talk page ArbCom message which doesn't have to be included does state in it edits related to British and Irish nationalism, not just the Troubles.Mabuska 16:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning 2.29.61.73

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

    Volunteer Marek

    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 Volunteer Marek

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Volunteer Marek (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 00:20, 8 October 2017 Volunteer Marek added new content.
    2. 00:31, 8 October 2017‎ I reverted
    3. 01:16, 8 October 2017‎ Volunteer Marek reinstated their edit without consensus.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Lengthy block log, but nothing recent seems relevant.

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12 December 2016
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I asked Volunteer Marek to self-revert but they have ignored me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    22:20, 8 October 2017


    Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

    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 Volunteer Marek

    • Another user agreeing that Forbes is RS here
    • Added a second source here
    • Dr Fleischman himself using the second source and calling it reliable
    • User:Doug Weller affirming the use of Buzzfeed as a source

    Additionally, inline citations are not required in the lede as long as the text is well sourced in the body of the article. Which it is. Hence, it's sort of hard to understand the objection and why Dr. Fleischman is bringing this here.

    Dr Fleischman's own edits

    Masem's claim below that "any (Forbes) "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not (reliable)" is also completely false. The two discussions at WP:RSN are a) this one and b) this one. a) Most certainly DOES NOT say "definitely not reliable". What it says is "reliable if the contributor is reliable" which is the case here. Likewise b) again says "reliable if the contributor is reliable" and "no, it's not user generated content" (and in the particular case discussed there the commentators deemed Forbes reliable). Masem, please don't falsely misrepresent discussions like this, especially since this is something that is trivial to check. There's absolutely no "definitely not" in there by any stretch and I have no idea how you came up with that. Please retract or strike.

    Regardless, like I said, 1) there are other sources in the article, 2) lede doesn't need citations if it has them in text, 3) additional citations could - and were - easily provided, all that Dr. Fleischman had to do was ask for them.

    I'm also not quite sure what DS was suppose to be violated here. There was one revert by Dr. Fleischman and one by myself. I did start a discussion on talk. Dr. Fleischman responded by making the claim about Forbes' reliability. So I added a second source just to appease him, although, one more time, this actually was not necessary since there were inline citations in main body already.

    So this is sort of a strange request over ... not sure what exactly, but definitely something trivial that could've (and I think was) handled simply through good faithed discussion and clearing up of what appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Fleischman's part.  Volunteer Marek  05:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Volunteer Marek

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Only to comment that is long-standing that while Forbes articles written by staff are RS, any "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not. ( in July 2017 has two sections dealing with Forbes contributors). So they should not be used as a source for factual claim, much less any controversial one. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)