Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 20 October 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive157) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:18, 20 October 2014 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive157) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "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,
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
    341342343344345346347

    Andyvphil

    

    

    
Not actionable.  Sandstein  23:43, 17 October 2014 (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 Andyvphil
    

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    

    Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    User against whom enforcement is requested
    

    Andyvphil (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
    

    BLP discretionary sanctions :
    

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

    

    1. 17 October 2014 Restored negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson after being warned; against consensus
      2. 

    2. 10 October 2014 Restored negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson against consensus
      3. 

    3. 9 October 2014 Added negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson not reflected in the source
    

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    

    

    1. 3 October 2014 Recently blocked for disruption on The Federalist (website) (contribs) which is directly connected to the current dispute linked above on Neil deGrasse Tyson
      2. 

    2. 2007-2008  Blocked once for edit warring on Norman Finkelstein BLP and twice for edit warring on  Barack Obama BLP
    

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

    User was twice notified of applicable sanctions a week before latest revert:

    1. 10 October notice
      2. 

    2. 11 October notice
    

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    

    

    I request a topic ban for Andyvphil on all articles related to Neil deGrasse Tyson.  User was previously blocked in this same topic area by TParis on 3 October 2014 for disrupting The Federalist (website), which is also under BLP discretionary sanctions.  Therefore, this is the second major incident in the same topic area in less than two weeks, and just over a week after being twice notified of the sanctions.
    

    @Sandstein: The policies on including BLP material point to consensus as the determining factor for inclusion.  In the case that decided on BLP discretionary sanctions, arbcom wrote: "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.". It is clear from this report that Andyvphil violated this rule of thumb on three separate occasions and continued a dispute in the same BLP topic area from which he was blocked just several weeks ago, disruption that also involved adding controversial BLP material without finding consensus for inclusion.  Therefore, two separate violations involving the same BLP topic where Andyvphil attempted to add controversial BLP material in violation of best practices stipulated by our policies and arbcom itself on this very matter. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    @Sandstein: As the diffs and discussion show, Andyvphil, in three separate instances, claimed Tyson  “washed out” of his PhD program.  The sources do not say this. This is part of a larger pattern of controversial BLP edits made by Andyvphil against consensus that began earlier at the federalist website article, for which he was also recently blocked.  This arbcom enforcement request was filed to stop the bad behavior. I should also like to note that this request has failed to mitigate the poor behavior.  Since this report was filed, Andyvphil has decided to turn the dial to 11, and he is now claiming in discussion, without the slightest bit of evidence "that it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race". Again, I request an immediate topic ban to put a stop to this. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    @HJ Mitchell: BLP was not invoked as a first resort.  The material was edited and removed more than three times by multiple editors, and as the diffs indicate above, Andyvphil added it back in three times against the arbcom recommendation "that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."  This was not a simple "editorial decision" by  Andyvphil, this was a systematic campaign by  Andyvphil on two different articles over two weeks adding negative material about Tyson contrary to the sources. Furthermore, talk page consensus has been against using the terms "washed out" or "flunking".  It's especially important to note that Andyvphil's campaign against Tyson has not abated but has gotten worse, with him now claiming that Tyson got special treatment because of his race, even though there isn't a single reliable source that has made that claim. It looks like Andyvphil's latest comments on the Tyson talk page were deleted as a BLP violation, so the problem has only gotten worse since this report was filed. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    @HJ Mitchell: there has never been any consensus for using the terms "washed out" nor "flunked".  I suggest you see the talk page discussion where consensus has determined that both terms are inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This is not a content dispute.  This is a systematic pattern of disruption and BLP violations by Andyvphil against Neil deGrasse Tyson on both his biography article and on The Federalist website article for which he was recently blocked.  HJ Mitchell, were Andy's latest deleted comments on the talk page, BLP violations? Is this a serious matter? Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    @HJ Mitchell and Sandstein:  It is just come to my attention that Andyvphil's editing against consensus on the Tyson topic have occurred on three separate articles, not two.  The first two, Thefederalist.com and Neil deGrasse Tyson have already been mentioned above.  However, I neglected to mention List of Misplaced Pages controversies, where Andyvphil attempted to add material accusing Tyson of "fabricating quotes" against the consensus of the community. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    @HJ Mitchell:  I have provided evidence of Andyvphil disrupting Thefederalist.com in regards to controversial BLP material that portrayed Tyson in a negative light; Andyvphil was subsequently blocked for that behavior.  I have provided evidence of Andyvphil adding negative material about Tyson to his own biography against consensus.  I have provided evidence of Andyvphil adding negative material about Tyson to List of Misplaced Pages controversies against consensus, where he accused him of being a pathological liar.  I have also provided evidence of Andyvphil claiming that "that it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race". Similar comments were deleted from the talk page as a BLP violation.  HJ Mitchell, what additional evidence would you like to see of this "campaign" by Andyvphil to convince you that it is a direct violation of the BLP discretionary sanctions?  We have three articles where Andyvphil tried to add negative info about a BLP against consensus and deleted talk page commentary removed as a BLP violation.  Is it your opinion that a topic ban is not called for here and that Andyvphil should be allowed to continue his negative campaign against Tyson and against consensus? Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    


    

    

    Discussion concerning Andyvphil
    

    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 uninvolved Lithistman
    

    It should be noted that the main area of "dispute" with the material Andyvphil restored was with the phrase "washed out" regarding Dr. Tyson's time at UT. The source itself says he was "essentially flunked out" or something to that effect. Other than that one phrase, the material actually reflects the source quite well, and I would contend that "washed out" might actually be perceived as not any less kind than the way the source puts it, and accurately reflects what happened. Dr. Tyson himself notes, in the article serving as a source, that he's not particularly proud of the effort he put forth at UT. With all that said, given the context, I don't feel a topic ban is an appropriate course of action in this case. LHM 04:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    Statement by Andyvphil
    

    I'm not sure what to make of Arzel's evenhanded suggestion that if I am sanctioned for incivility, Verditas be as well. As far as I know this notice was triggered solely by a main page edit, my first of any kind in a couple days, I believe.
But, we can do better than that link for Verditas. Somewhere on the Tyson talk page is Verditas' comment that I would fit right in with the "climate change deniers" and other neo-Nazis (the whiff of "Holocaust Denial" is of course intentional) of his fervid imagination. Then we've got Objective300's denunciation of this edit as, iirc, "the most disgusting ever" and Gamalael's dismissal of it as "bullshit". When it comes to civility I don't think they're standing on the high ground.
...and then there's Gamalael's simple falsehood (on one or two of his reverts) that the replaced text better reflected the source, which is absurd. As I pointed out at the very beginning of the discussion of this passage on the talk page the version which has been repeatedly reverted to claims there was a "vote" to dissolve Tyson's dissertation committee, which "vote" appears nowhere in the source. None of the editors who are unwilling to reveal in his biography that Tyson washed out of the UTA PhD program have bothered to attempt to fix even that. They just revert my attempt, which a number of editors have now remarked closely matches the cited text.
And there no doubt that Tyson washed out, a better description of what happened than the source's "essentially flunked" (he got his Masters, he didn't really flunk), but when Objective300 first reverted I asked in the edit comments if he would prefer "essentially flunked", to no reply except that bit about "disgusting".
If I can be topic blocked for this, there's no hope for this process. Andyvphil (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    The amended complaint doesn't appear to address admin Sandstein's grounds for rejecting this block. In particular no explanation is given as to "which specific assertions in the edits are thought not to match which source". I'm just faithfully following the cite, a source that was already used in the article long before I ever edited it, just no longer failing to reveal a significant element in what it says. Andyvphil (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    I will further note that in the cite Tyson is quoted as saying that if he had been in his professors' position he, too, might well have agreed to "kick out" Neil deGrasse Tyson. Of "kicked out", "flunked out" or "washed out" the last is really the most accurate and requires the least explanation. Probably least "negative", as well. The idea that there could be a good-faith assertion, on the part of very experienced POV Warriors 'editors very familiar with this material, that mentioning it is a BLP violation, is, given Tyson's own words, completely absurd. Andyvphil (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    Statement by Gamaliel
    

    Andyvphil has been belligerent and uncivil with other editors and uses the talk page to post lengthy harangues about other editors, the subject of the article, and his thoughts on Misplaced Pages policies.  This is why we can't have nice things.  Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    Statement by Arzel
    

    LHM has stated it well.  The statement certainly was not a violation of BLP as it reflects the source quite well.  One could find fault with his wording, but as LHM stated, it is not effectively different than what the actual source stated, and was directly related to the statement about the dissolution of NdGT's PhD's thesis committee.  As for Andyvphil's claimed lack of civility.  Viriditas has not been a shining example of civility either.  If Andyvphil is sanctioned for civility, Viriditas should be as well.  Arzel (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    Statement by Obsidi
    

    I believe the source said "essentially flunked out", which "washed out" is close enough that it had the same essential meaning without any additional negative connotation to it.  As such I do not believe it violates WP:BLP.  --Obsidi (talk ) 05:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    This request for enforcement was brought about to request enforcement of BLP discretionary sanctions.  As such I ask that we bring any complaints of incivility to the appropriate forum at WP:ANI.

    As Viriditas has edited the complaint I wish to respond.  It is my belief that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is being used to WP:Gaming the system.  Basically what is happening is that editors are having content disputes. Instead of going through the normal WP:BRD process, they wish to skip all that.  They revert and claim that there are WP:BLP problems, when others disagree they assert WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and say there is not consensus as they still disagree.  In so doing they keep the content out of the article and then WP:FILIBUSTER as long as they can.  Now for poorly sourced or no sourced content WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is there to prevent potentially libelous statements from remaining on Misplaced Pages while the editors debate on the quality of the sources.  It is not there to win content disputes on properly sourced material, and I believe that is what is happening.  --Obsidi (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    Oh and the WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires "good-faith BLP objections", not just any BLP objections.  Given the tiny difference between "washed out" and "essentially flunked out" in context, it is my belief that Andyvphil did not believe this to be a "good-faith BLP objection" and as such was not bound by WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Obsidi (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    Statement by Drmies
    

    HJ Mitchell et al., I do not agree that "flunking him" and "washed out" are the same thing at all. "Flunking" doesn't need much explanation, but "washed out" denotes "remove the dirt" (OED, first entry for "washed out") and thus, figuratively, carries a moral connotation to it that in the context gives one reason to pause. In addition, I've been considering blocking Andyvphil for some other suggestive language on the same topic--"It is of course virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race (and maybe political connections)" (on the article talk page) and "it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race" (on his own talk page). This is the kind of thing you can listen to on right-wing talk radio, but Misplaced Pages should not have statements of this kind anywhere in its space: the suggestion that the country's best-known astrophysicist was washed out like a piece of dirt from Texas and then accepted at Columbia only because he was black. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    Result concerning Andyvphil
    

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

    The complaint is not clear enough to be actionable. It does not explain how exactly the edits at issue are believed to violate WP:BLP, that, is, for example, which specific assertions in the edits are thought not to match which source. "Against consensus" has nothing to do  with WP:BLP. I would take no action on this complaint as it is presented here.  Sandstein  05:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    The comment by  Viriditas of 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC) does not make clear, either, which specific negative statement in the article is being contested as untrue, unsourced or unreliably sourced, or as not conforming to a cited source. If no admin objects, I'll close this without action.  Sandstein  09:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    • This appears to me to be yet another absurd interpretation of BLP, and an example of editors invoking BLP as a first resort in a content dispute rather than just editing the contentious material or starting a discussion. The ousrce actually says "After Tyson finished his master’s thesis, his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee—essentially flunking him. “I still don’t talk about it much,” he says, “because it was a failed experiment, and I’ve moved on from that chapter of my life.” “With or without skin color, I wasn’t the model student,” he adds." And that's an interview with the subject! Personally, I wouldn't use terms like "flunked" or "washed out", but that's an editorial decision, not a BLP issue. I suggest closure with no action, except perhaps a reminder to all parties not to rely on BLP exemptions a a first resort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

      • @Viriditas: From what I can see, the material was in keeping with the source—the subject himself says he failed his PhD. You're arguing over the difference between "flunked" (source) and "washed out" (Andyvphil). That's an editorial matter not a BLP issue. Editing against consensus, again, does not make it a BLP issue, though would be considered an aggravating factor at ANI/ANEW. Accusing another editor f conducting a campaign against a BLP subject is a very serious matter, and I've seen nothing in this complaint that comes close to proving that. Adding negative (sourced) information, and even edit-warring to restore it and advocating its restoration on the talk page is not—in and of itself—evidence of a campaign. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

        • I'm still confused—why is this at AE and not ANI? Viriditas, first, to answer your question, the edit that was Revdel'd was mostly a legitimate comment about content and sourcing, but contained one remark that amounted to personal commentary on the subject. It wasn't libellous, but it was off-topic and unnecessary. I see evidence of edit-warring and going against consensus, but those things don't violate BLP. I see no evidence that this is part of a campaign (which implies some sort of ulterior motive and a deliberate attempt to defame or discredit the subject) other than your word. I'm not saying that Andyvphil's conduct has been acceptable, nor that I'm unwilling to be convinced, but that I don't see a BLP violation. Violating the edit-warring policy on a an article about a living person, for example, is not a  BLP violation in its own right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

          • I agree that the difference between "flunked" and "washed out", if any, isn't a matter for AE, and neither is, in the context of the remedies invoked here, regular edit-warring or "editing against consensus". Closed as not actionable (but any admin should feel free to reopen if they believe that more discussion is required).  Sandstein  23:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    

    Wlglunight93
    

    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 Wlglunight93
    

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    

    RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    

    User against whom enforcement is requested
    

    Wlglunight93 (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:ARBPIA : 1RR violation
    

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

    

    1. 07:17, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 628418226 by 183.171.175.71"
      2. 

    2. 07:36, 19 October 2014‎  Edit summary: "Undid revision 630205026 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
      3. 

    3. 05:23, 19 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 630195365 by 150.203.246.127"
      4. 

    4. 07:33, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 630204742 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
      5. 

    5. 03:03, 18 October 2014 Reversion of this edit by Nomoskedasticity
      6. 

    6. 03:11, 19 October 2014‎ Repeated reversion (after 24 hours and 8 minutes)
    

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    

    

    1. 14:44, 6 October 2014 48 hour block for breach of 1RR
      2. 

    2. 15:39, 10 October 2014 One week block for breach of 1RR
    

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

    

    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    


    

    

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    

    

    Fresh back from a second block for repeated edit-warring in the topic area, this editor has returned immediately to the same behaviour, reverting scores of edits by many editors on many articles, including those on which their previous edits led to sanctions.

    

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    

    

    Discussion concerning Wlglunight93
    

    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 Wlglunight93
    

    Statement by (username)
    

    Result concerning Wlglunight93
    

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