Andrew Davidson is advised that before commenting further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted), they need to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. They are warned to only offer comments or article edits supported by directly relevant sources judged to be reliable and of high quality. Sources without recent consensus must be presented for review first. If the user intends to work on the draft User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes, which has been languishing for five years, that work is to be exempted from the restrictions mentioned, i.e. Andrew Davidson is allowed while it's still in userspace to offer weaker comments and sources there, provided this work gradually leads up to acceptable quality and sourcing, before it's offered for mainspace. Failure to comply with this warning will result in a topic ban or other sanction. Bishonen | talk23:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
What appears to be a long-term fundamental inability to understand the complexities of the Indian caste system leads to often lengthy and wikilawyered discussions such as here, here and here. There is no easy way to explain the complexities in 500 words, sorry, but, for example, in the last diff AD argues use of sources that simply do not refer in any meaningful way to the subject, in the linked Samra discussion he argued at length to use unreliable sources, causing Drmies to issue a sanctions alert, and in the first of these diffs he argued using both unreliable sources and with a clear lack of understanding of how the caste system functions. As some of those diffs infer, they are not the only examples but I'm struggling with the interaction tools at the moment - they keep timing out or simply not returning a result.
We've currently got this, where AD is perpetuating his previous stances, again without any apparent understanding of the caste system. In that discussion, he seems even to think that we should keep an invalid statement rather than remove it and so cause an article to be blank. He has also been arguing at length about the validity of the most recent sanctions alerts here, indulging in yet more time-consuming litigation of dubious merit.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here, soon after expiry of one issued issue a sanctions here.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I have filed this under the username Andrew Davidson but some past discussions were under another username, Colonel Warden, which he allegedly agreed with ArbCom to stop using but actually has not. The AD account is more active of late.
It is ok to have an opinion but to tendentiously pursue it can be problematic, as can misrepresenting what sources say even if it is due to a lack of understanding. I'd like to see a topic ban from caste-related matters, broadly construed, because I and probably others feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall.
Replying to AD's edits here. It is nothing specifically to do with one AfD. It is a general pattern of lack of comprehension that, in fact, you are even demonstrating in your comments here. The problem is, you mention expanding your interests into editing caste-related articles but you cannot even demonstrate understanding in the AfDs, throwing in irrelevant sources (the Oxford book being one), unreliable ones and arguments that are non-starters because the caste system does not operate in the manner that you seem to believe. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: then you are unwittingly part of the problem. I know that CIR is not a policy but when someone like Andrew Davidson gets involved it just creates a shedload of issues that need to be addressed. Just one example: this not only fails WP:V on the relevant point but makes a grossly incorrect assumption that "important" = something special in terms of Reservation in India. It doesn't. There are plenty of "important" communities - politically, economically etc - that do not conform to the original research which AD insists makes this impossible list meet LISTN. Yes, AD is a quite extreme inclusionist and, yes, way back he gave me my first barnstar for rescuing an article at AfD, but if people cannot understand that caste-related issues need understanding then there is no hope, sorry. And when the same easily verifiable point is made again and again but AD refuses to accept it, well ... It is just a timesink and it is a timesink that can have quite peculiar consequence because these articles are not particularly well watched (Catch 22?). In this instance, I strongly suspect that AD's fake references in the first AfD caused it to be determined as not suitable for deletion, yet he protests when the thing is blanked because there is nothing verifiable. Then comes back umpteen years later and says he can make it verifiable but in fact he cannot, as anyone familiar with the topic would know. The same applies to his insistence that unreliable sources are in fact ok to use.
I admit that I am struggling to explain here. I know for sure that there are people who think AD is being absurd but this is a topic area where scrutiny is poor and one of the consequences of that is examples such as the current AfD, which comes out of a previous AfD that had no merit other than the fake refs, a complete lack of comprehension, and an admin who presumably saw some mention of sources and thought "that's ok". But, as I said at the outset, this is not a one-off issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: I acknowledge your comment about a lack of diffs. I was utterly bemused regarding how I could possibly give specific diffs in such a complex matter but if you can suggest a way to disentangle then that would be great. As it is, I am sort of hoping that common sense could prevail here: if people really cannot see the problem just reading a few example threads then, frankly, I despair and may as well give up. We have two sets of sanctions regims for the topic area for a reason.
@D4iNa4: I have had little involvement in this process and couldn't possibly comment except to say that I used the word unwittingly on purpose. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: regarding the FloridaArmy situation, you are being economical with the truth, as so often. Plenty of admins are aware of that situation, eg: Deb, Ritchie333, Drmies. Given your long-term ability to frustrate people with your contrarianism at RfA etc, I really don't think you should be raising your head above the parapet in this manner. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: your (c) proposal should perhaps also say that the sources should be directly relevant. For example, the three sources referred to by RegentsPark were useless for creating the list that was under discussion. Andrew was arguing that since they mention Sikhs and caste, they verified the notability of the list but in fact they did nothing of the sort because of his common inability to comprehend the Indian social systems etc. A source merely mentioning a word or phrase is not necessarily relevant to whatever is under discussion. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I don't think it is wise for me to agree or disagree with any proposals because, obviously, I am very close to the issue at hand. However, I do not agree with Sandstein that this is a content dispute and I do note that the proposal may cause an issue relating to any developments concerning this thread. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: a simpler solution than a rewording that affects untold other matters might be to exempt that specific draft. To be honest, it has no chance of becoming an article anyway and is another example of Andrew Davidson not understanding the system. It probably should go to MfD but I can't face the aggravation. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
What we have here is an AfD – note that I have not edited the article in question at any time. I'd be quite happy to stop arguing about the matter and just let the AfD process take its usual course but it's Sitush that keeps coming to my talk page to belabour the matter (8 times already today). There are some content issues and I understand them just fine. What Sitush doesn't seem to understand is our policies and guidelines such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLANK and he states openly in the discussion that he's not heard of them before. My position is that there's some scope for improvement here and so our policy WP:PRESERVE would have us prefer this alternative to deletion. In the course of discussion, I have produced good sources such The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies – a respectable and recent work from a university press. I have also pointed to other related pages such as List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism which no-one else seemed to have noticed. I'd be quite content to have both these pages merged to Sikhism#Sikh_castes which contains a similar list of Sikh castes and so am quite flexible about the outcome. All that needs to happen now is a period of quiet so that other editors can contribute to the AfD and then the closer can settle the matter in the usual way. Compare, for example, Manchu studies, which is about a similar weak page but for which I have found a good source. I have no strong feelings about these topics but am entitled to my views on them, as is common at AfD, and I contribute usefully to the discussions, arguing from sources and policy, as we're supposed to. Note that the previous AfD referred to (Samra) was over two years ago and so these issues don't arise often enough to warrant special measures. What might require attention is Sitush's insulting incivility, for example, "how dense can you be ... your incompetence". In that previous AfD, I noted that Sitush seemed to be violating WP:OWN, WP:PA and WP:BLUDGEON and we have the same pattern again here. Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: should please move their contribution from the section reserved for "uninvolved admins" because, as they recently discussed the specific topic in question, they seem involved. Note that, when they stated their opinion of the topic, they did not provide any evidence, whereas I provide and cite examples, sources and policy. Note that I don't just google in a crude way, as RP supposes. I have an extensive personal library, including multiple, respectable books on the specific subject of caste. I have good access to research libraries in London which I regularly visit, such as the BL, the Senate House Library, the Wellcome Library and more. Through these and other resources such as the Wikipedia Library, I have good access to online resources such as JSTOR. I am therefore able to read and quote sources when needed to develop or support a position, as in this case. I fully appreciate the ramifications of this topic area but my general position is that we should explore alternatives to deletion so that topics can make progress, rather than being stuck in an unproductive cycle of creation, blanking, reversion and deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Force_Radical now claims that I edit-warred at the page in question. IIRC, I never edited that page at all and so this claim is quite false. Please can an uninvolved admin such as @Sandstein: set the record straight so that such false claims made without proper evidence are stricken from the record. As the original submission was not properly made either and the AfD closed nearly two weeks ago, it's odd that this should have remained open so long rather than being speedily closed. Myself, I long since walked away from this issue and only comment now because of this preposterous new allegation. Andrew D. (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know absolutely nothing about the situations that led to this case, but Andrew's comment about Sitush coming to their talk page to belabour the matter rings a familiar bell. My only interacation with Sitush in the last couple of months was a more or less procedural !vote in an RfD they started, and a deprodding of an article that apparently was on his watchlist [1]. As a result, he came to my talk page with a series of bad-tempered comments (see User talk:Uanfala/Archive 5#Chib). I'm not providing any diffs as none of it is sanctionable, but I don't think occasional minor disagreements should lead to so much drama. We all have better things to do here than endlessly bicker with one another, right? – Uanfala (talk)21:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I don't see how this is actionable. To begin with, the request contains no diffs of edits by Andrew Davidson. As to the caste-related discussions linked to in the request, I don't see anything substantial, at first glance, that might amount to sanctionable misconduct by Andrew Davidson. Even if one assumes with Sitush that Andrew Davidson is mistaken or ill-informed with respect to the questions at issue, that is not a violation of Wikipedia conduct policy. I don't see how this is more than a content dispute coupled with strong disagreement on the inclusionism / deletionism axis. Such disputes should be resolved through normal dispute resolution rather than through arbitration. Sandstein 22:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, AE is a bit strict on policy, evidence, etc for pretty good reasons. To act, we need clear cut diffs that show obvious misconduct. Nebulous patterns of behavior don't fit into WP:AE very well. Keep in mind. AE isn't a consensus board, when an admin acts, they act unilaterally, and they have the authority to ignore everyone else, or take those opinions to heart. We usually work together and often a majority agrees with the outcome, but whichever admin closes and acts, s/he owns those actions, and must be able to articulate the issue via WP:adminaccct. Looking briefly at your case, I don't see a solid case being presented, even while admitting one might exist. My advice is to have actual diffs along with SHORT explanations for each, and take it to ANI, which is better suited for long drawn out ordeals, and allows input from everyone. ARBPIA restrictions can still be issued from there, but if this situation is as you describe, it transcends ARB and would be getting into general policy, which is easier to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't see anything actionable here, I do see some cause for concern. Looking through the edits, it appears that Andrew Davidson, though editing in good faith, doesn't understand the domain. Caste in India is a complex subject, continuously confounded by interest groups, government action, and poor quality judgements made during the Raj era. It is because of this complexity that we have imposed community discretionary sanctions on this area and most uninvolved admins, like myself, issue warnings and blocks solely based on sourcing, i.e., whether edits are sourced or not and, if sourced, whether there is consensus on the reliability of those sources. Editing by googling the way Andrew Davidson is doing is not going to work very well in this area because it invariably pulls up unreliable sources. Insisting on Raj era sources when consensus is against using them is not going to work very well either. But, like I said, there is probably nothing actionable here right now because Andrew Davidson appears to be editing in good faith. However, if this continues, a topic ban from caste related articles is likely in the future. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AndrewDavidson, I don't consider myself involved because I have no opinion on caste matters and an occasional drive by comment doesn't change that. Also, like I state above, I don't think you're editing in bad faith here. Rather, regardless of the quality of access you may or may not have to sources, you seem to be editing with a shallow understanding of the complexity of the topic area, particularly with your "if we build it the sources and content will come" approach which is practically an invitation to the POV editors out there. Also, if I may point out, the three sources you include here are all google books sources which, unfortunately, do give the impression of being found through a google search rather than through visits to the various libraries you list above. That you are editing against consensus is fairly well borne out by comments from other editors such as in this edit summary and this one. Regardless, all I am saying is that when you have a shallow understanding of a topic area, it is generally better to edit with a light touch than with an aggressive one.--regentspark (comment) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since you asked for diffs I looked a little deeper. The AfD in question is a second nomination. In the first nomination, you !voted keep with the same three sources that you've listed in the 2nd nomination and with the same "if we build it the sources will come" rationale but, in the three plus intervening years, you have neither edited the article nor done anything with those sources (nor has anyone else). That, it seems to me, pretty much backs up my "shallow editor" hypothesis. A shallow understanding of the content and an aggressive editing style are not a good combination. --regentspark (comment) 19:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this request, I'm not seeing a consensus for any blocks, topic bans or similar but I am seeing consensus that Andrew should not carry on as they have been doing. So unless there are further comments I suggest closing this with some form of advice to Andrew to gain a deeper understanding of the topic area and review past consensuses about the quality of sources* before commenting (contributing?) further if he wants to avoid a topic ban in future. How should this be phrased? Should it be highlighted as advice, encouragement or a warning? *A summary of these with links to the discussions would be a useful resource for a Wikiproject to collate if they haven't done so already (I haven't found one but didn't look particularly deeply). Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RegentsPark's "shallow editor hypothesis", and with Thryduulf's finding. I think it should be a warning, and preferably logged. My impression is that the editor is too pugnacious to benefit from mere advice. This is an overall impression, but contributory examples are their attempt here to paint RegentsPark as involved, and what I see as a tendency to call everything and nothing "personal attacks" and "aspersions".[2][3]Bishonen | talk15:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen, RegentsPark, Dennis Brown, and Sandstein: (and anyone else) How about "Andrew Davidson is warned that before commenting further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted) they need to (a) gain a deeper understanding of the subject, and (b) review past consensuses about the quality of sources. Failure to do this will result in a topic ban or other sanction."? Additionaly, I think something about only including (or proposing to include) material supported by sources judged to be reliable and of high quality (sources about which there is not a recent consensus should be presented for review first), might be good but I can't think how to phrase this cleanly or concisely at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good warning; it's a bit elaborate, but that's probably needed for it to be effective. (I could almost wish it applied to everybody editing the area.) How about an addition to make it "Andrew Davidson is warned that before commenting or editing further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted), they need to (a) gain a deeper understanding of the subject, (b) review past consensuses about the quality of sources, and (c) only offer material supported by sources judged to be reliable and of high quality. Sources without recent consensus must be presented for review first. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in a topic ban or other sanction."? Bishonen | talk12:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
How do you determine whether someone has "gained a deeper understanding of the subject"? Would a test be set? That seems a very vague requirement, subject to gaming. And the second requirement isn't much better; how can you tell whether someone has "reviewed past consensuses"? It would be better to address the behaviour. Option (c) from Bishonen is a good one, as it is clear and measurable, and addresses behaviour rather than mindset. If you have to have (a) then at least say "demonstrate he has gained a deeper understanding of the subject". Fish+Karate12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fish and karate and Sandstein: Yes, Bishonen's (c) is well written. As for (a) and (b) those are good points - they would work as written for advice as that doesn't imply (or require) any enforcement and (b) is actually kind of redundant to (c) (I can't immediately think of a way of complying with (c) that doesn't involve doing (b)). I suggest therefore a two-pronged resolution: (a) adivice to gain a deeper understanding; (b) a warning regarding sources (i.e. using my (a) as advice, Bishonen's (c) as a warning and dropping my (b)). We could use (a) as a warning with the "demonstrate" modifier, but that I think would be my second choice. I've not been able to come up with a formation for this that reads anything better than 'very badly' though, so someone else will need to do the wordsmithing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Fish. I agree with Thryduulf that it makes sense to divide it into advice and warning. (But certainly with the whole thing to be logged.) So perhaps "Andrew Davidson is advised that before commenting further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted), they need to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. They are warned to only offer comments or article edits supported by directly relevant sources judged to be reliable and of high quality. Sources without recent consensus must be presented for review first. Failure to comply with this warning will result in a topic ban or other sanction."? The "directly relevant" addition comes from Sitush's pertinent new comment.[4] Relevance is indeed one of the problems with sourcing by Google Books, as discussed by RegentsPark above: it tends to throw up sources that merely mention a phrase superficially or in passing. A book being generally "reliable" won't do anybody much good in such a case. And the addition of "comments or article edits" is to make sure it's clear that this warning applies to both talkpages and articles, as wearying insistence on talkpages has clearly been a problem. Bishonen | talk16:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
No, it won't work unless you also start a new line, Thryduulf, see WP:PINGFIX. In other words, there's no end to how fussy and pedantic the system is if you should make a mistake the first time. Room for improvement, perhaps. Bishonen | talk15:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think this proposal is based on a correct analysis of the issue here, but I remain doubtful that it is proper for AE to intervene in what is mostly a content dispute, even if one person involved in the content dispute seems to lack an adequate understanding of the topic. I therefore refrain from supporting or opposing the proposed action. Sandstein 12:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen and RegentsPark:Sitush does make a good point re this thread. Obviously if this warning were in place Andrew could still work on the draft as long as this was based on relevant, reliable sources, and he could offer comments in an MfD related to relialbe sources, however a strict reading would not allow him to comment about his own motivations or intentions (clearly not the intention) nor offer comments about material currently in the article or proposed by others that is not reliably sourced. The first point could be resolved by amending "They are warned to only offer comments or article edits supported by directly relevant sources..." to "...article edits or comments about content supported by...". I can't think of a good way to resolve the second point though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: See Sitush's latest post above.[5] Exempting the specific draft is fine by me. Other than that, I'm afraid I can't face fiddling with the wording of the warning further, sorry. I've lost momentum. You, RegentsPark? Bishonen | talk21:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I'm ok with whatever you all decide. I have a medical issue that makes typing rather painful and need to stay away from wikipedia for a bit. --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've certainly got bogged down. It's only because I'd hate for this to end with no attempt at all to relieve Sitush's and RP's concerns that I'll offer an even longer warning, and then I hope we're done here. I know I will be.
Andrew Davidson is advised that before commenting further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted), they need to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. They are warned to only offer comments or article edits supported by directly relevant sources judged to be reliable and of high quality. Sources without recent consensus must be presented for review first. Failure to comply with this warning will result in a topic ban or other sanction. If the user intends to work on the draft User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes, which has been languishing for five years, that work is to be exempted from the restrictions mentioned, i.e. AD is allowed while it's still in userspace to offer weaker comments and sources, provided this work gradually leads up to acceptable quality and sourcing, before it's offered for mainspace.
See, Fish, that, and a rather odd order, is what I meant by a late-night proposal needing a proof-read. I'll just wait a bit longer for Dennis before I do the deed. Bishonen | talk17:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
There is no valid basis for the block. The admin in question appeals to discretionary sanctions regarding Eastern Europe, yet I have not even edited any articles under those restrictions[8] for years. This is nothing but an obvious attempt to subvert the dispute resolution process, given that all I did was open, first, an ANI case[9] and then an ArbCom case[10] presenting evidence debunking the conspiracy theory in question.
B01010100 knows very well that they're editing on a Ukrainian-related topic as they explicitly acknowledged the connection when they were last active three years ago. [11] Almost the entirety of their contribs has been in this area. An editor returning after three years and posting about conspiracies and time-travel on ANI and making frivolous Arbcom case requests and calling editors a "rabid gang of Russophobic racists" without using article talk pages once since their return is not someone who should be editing in this area. I blocked instead of topic banned because as stated before, almost all their entire edits are in this area and there's little to be gained if the same attitude is brought to other topics, some of which (judging from B01010100's wikilawyering), may fall just outside the Eastern Europe topic area. --NeilNtalk to me21:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done and logged. Someone needs to clear the unblock request. GoldenRing may still want to make a comment so recommend leaving this appeal open until they get a chance to do so. --NeilNtalk to me14:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This editor's request for arbitration has already been dismissed by Arbcom and they're indef blocked. As I stated there [12] this appears to be the resurrection of a gaslighting campaign from 2014 connected with the shootdown of MH 17, to promote Russian assertions that a Ukrainian plane shot down the 777. We've had two editors and an IP appear at Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 with arguments that this is only about technical information, and it's shown up at ANI twice in the past month with no traction. I assume we've got some off-site coordination going on here. I've placed the EE sanctions notice on the talkpage to make the point more clear, right above the links to the articles covering the documented manipulation of the Russian WP. I guess we can expect this to continue for a while. I note that the editor in question is using their talkpage as an alternate forum for their arguments. Acroterion(talk)21:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, I've never had any contact with this editor. It appears that they took it upon themselves to go to ANI, then to arbitration, and now here with their snide "time travel" campaign, and have continued it on their talkpage after being blocked. Given the level of busy vituperation they've displayed in the brief time since they've returned, and their conduct from three years ago, I don't see how they can function constructively if they actually attempt to interact with another editor. For the sake of the bookkeeping, I think a simple NOTHERE rationale is all that's needed. Acroterion(talk)11:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the appeal is denied, as I believe it should be as being groundless, TPA should be removed, as the OP is using their talk page inappropriately.(Please note that even though I NAC-closed the AN/I thread as "Nothing here" -- which makes me, according to the OP, a "conspiracist editor" -- I am, in fact, uninvolved in the underlying dispute. The only conspiracy I'm guilty of believing is the one between hot dog manufacturers -- who sell their product 10 to a package -- and hot dog bun bakers, who package their buns 8 to a pack.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'm not entirely comfortable blocking someone using discretionary sanctions for making an ArbCom case request, even if it was a ridiculous one. The committee or an admin clerk could do that if they found it disruptive. At the same time, I'm not comfortable unblocking because I think that their current edits show they're likely going to be disruptive if unblocked (the animosity towards Acroterion in particular is concerning). I would suggest vacating the AE action while leaving it as a regular indefinite admin block that he is free to appeal through the normal unblock process. Whether or not editing about EE by filing an ArbCom request is technically within the topic area, it just looks bad to block for that using AE actions if the committee itself likely wouldn't have done anything other than decline. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having thought on this again just now, I think the comments about Acroterion, especially the parts highlighted by NeilN would be enough to justify this as an AE action as it shows they want to continue to have battleground behavior in that area. I'll still note my dislike for the fact that this appears to have been immediately caused by a case request (ridiculous though it may have been), but I think the behavior afterwards is enough that requiring appeal through the AE channels is justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This editor did not contribute anything between 2015 and March 2018, when they began making ridiculous accusations against various editors in several fora about a "conspiracy theory with time travelling Russians". This is not the behavior of somebody who is a benefit to this project. I would decline the appeal on this basis. Sandstein 23:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom pages themselves and conduct on them have generally not been subject to AE actions, as it's generally been considered that the arbitrators or clerks will sanction people for inappropriate conduct there if warranted. That being said, I don't see an issue with an indef for general disruptive behavior with the arbitration request as one example of that, so I'm minded to just leave well enough alone. The "time travel" stuff is bizarre and a complete waste of time; so far as I can see, no one ever asserted anything like that at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have some input here but have to run for a meeting now; please leave this section open for the rest of today (UTC). GoldenRing (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, at absolute best convert into an ordinary block if someone feels very strongly about it, but I don't think there's any reason to ever unblock this editor; simply too much bad behaviour. Courcelles (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a block, but I'd prefer it not be made under discretionary sanctions. NeilN, could you consider simply changing this to NOTHERE? I don't see anyone unblocking anytime soon. ~ Rob13Talk11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rob; can we just shift this block to NOTHERE with talk page access revoked? If the user is willing to articulate their content dispute in a rational manner without being extremely pointy, then we can re-visit the issue. Alex Shih (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline the appeal on the basis that I don't see any benefit to the project from that -- based on the behavior before and after the block, but I'm open to converting the block to one for TE/DE if needed. —SpacemanSpiff13:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn as the editor was not aware of DS. Petitic has now been informed of DS and should be expected to follow page restrictions in future. BullRangifer has self-reverted their 1RR violation, so I don't see anything further to be done here. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Striking below as I am NOT requesting sanctions, only an official warning, IOW something beyond placing the normal template on their page. The article should also be returned to a non-DS violating state. Apparently I'm not allowed to do that.
I am requesting leniency for the editor, as they are a newbie. An official warning should probably be enough. I have to leave now, so can't do more myself. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe06:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to GoldenRing on my talk and will withdraw this request on their advice. I apparently misunderstood several things, including unclear instructions.
The fold down instructions, at the bottom of the big template on the article talk page, says this:
Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures:
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
It seems that, even though the talk page contains a big DS warning template, the editor must be allowed a second violation, after a personal warning, before DS sanctions apply to them and a report can be filed here. I thought my personal warning to them counted as their second warning, the one on the article talk page being the first. Dazed and confused.
GoldenRing, I AM FORMALLY WITHDRAWING THIS AND REQUESTING THAT THIS BE CLOSED.
I have self-reverted my edit, so I hope that someone will restore the article to a non-DS violating state, IOW its default state after my first proper reversion of their addition.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
The request provides no evidence that Petitic was aware of discretionary sanctions.
Unless BullRangifer is able to prove that their edit was "made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus" (edit-warring exemption in the remedy instructions), they have violated 1RR: first revert, second revert.
Petitic appears to be a brand new user who had not receive notice of discretionary sanctions per
"Awareness and alerts". prior to the violation. Discretionary sanctions for Petitic would not be appropriate at this time. I agree with GoldenRing that BullRangifer has violated the 1RR ( 1, 2)
restriction under the discretionary sanctions. CBS527Talk09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that Politrukki is correct and Petitic was not formally aware of the DS in place at the time (they have been alerted since). GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language ("comment on the content, not the contributor");
not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions);
not to impede the formation of consensus by repeatedly making the same points;
to acknowledge consensus can change and having external events bring increased scrutiny and change to potential walled gardens of articles can be beneficial and should not be ridiculed.
More generally and not directed towards Thewolfchild, editors editing in this area need to heed how we build consensus: "Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Furthermore guidelines by Wikiprojects are suggestions, not mandates and any consensus achieved on project pages may be changed/overturned by a wider community discussion drawing in more participants from outside the project. Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon. --NeilNtalk to me23:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
The diffs are from Talk:AR-15 style rifle where comments by TWC have created a hostile atmosphere; they were directed at me and other contributors:
06:27, 8 March 2018 Needless personalisation: "I could as the same of you and your wild and false accusations. (...) If someone doesn't agree with what you edit or the way you edit it, do you always take it personally?" (I had posted to TWC's Talk page [13], which he moved to the article's Talk page creating diff #1).
04:07, 8 March 2018 Aspersions: "...the non-stop POV content you and a couple other users have been dumping onto articles like this..." & "You seem to care more about getting a message out (...) Don't preach guidelines and "neutrality" to me until you are willing to follow the policies & guidelines here yourself..."
07:54, 7 March 2018 Belittling: "Didn't you write an RfC about this? How's that going anyway?"
17:01, 5 March 2018 Aspersions (please scroll to the bottom): "Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have issues with ownership you and some others editors here seem to be asserting over this article".
15:44, 5 March 2018 Accusations of bad faith: "That is not "good faith editing', it's not editing by consensus, the content is not neutral, it's disputed and therefore controversial, and yet it's still there, and now the only "discussions" I'm seeing is these editors insisting that even more WEIGHTy content being added."
00:37, 28 February 2018 Accusatons of bias: "...significant content is also being removed as "promotional", by editors such as "K.e.Coffman", who have clearly taken a position on this issue" (I didn't remove content from the page as "promotional"; in fact, I last edited AR-15 style rifle on 22 February).
18:38, 22 February 2018 Aspersions: "K.e.coffman had no business making a controversial page move (and with such POV-ish reasoning)" & "...his needless page-move-warring and combative POV-attitude...".
02:24, 22 February 2018 Accusations of bias: "All your reasoning for moving it is based on your opinion, which is clearly biased".
Prior to the DS notification, TWC showed similar behaviour at WP:GUNS, directed at me and another contributor: permalink: "repetitive, off-topic nonsense"; "Give it a rest. It's these kind of prechy, off-topic comments..."; "anti-gun editors"; "You're still going on about this?"; "disruptive"; etc. I raised my concerns on his Talk page; my comment was removed with "don't preach guidelines to me until you start following them yourself".
Sorry, I'm not buying TWC's statement. For example, on 24 February TWC stated on my Talk page: "I haven't even been active on the WP:GUNS page, AR-15 style page or the Village Pump RfC for awhile now. I've moved on to other things. Maybe you should to (or don't. you can do what you like, just know that I'm not interested in being involved)": [17]
Despite a stated desire of not "being involved", TWC edited the Talk page of AR-15 style rifle 40+ times between Feb 24 and now. (I edited the page 11 times, mostly after March 8. I had purposefully stayed away because of high level of activity by TWC there).
Even while this AE was in process, TWC posted the following the Talk page of AR-15: "TBH, I wasn't planning on posting here for awhile (what else is there to say? either people will keep the article neutral or they won't). But given the your comments here, I will reply (...) What I have said, repeatedly, is that any inclusion of such content should be neutral and keep the article balanced.", in 3000 characters: [18].
What this is telling me is (1) that TWC does not have an intention of abandoning AR-15 and related pages, and (2) he continues to lack self-awareness as to why his editing there may have been problematic. He repeatedly stated his desire for "balance" and for the articles not to get "waaay out of balance", but his actions have been anything but.
TWC continues to bludgeon discussions, now posting possibly mistaken stats to the on-going RfC that's related to this topic: [19]. He's been corrected here:[20]; while his response is not convincing: [21]. TWC's participation in AR-15, firearms and related topics has only sows discord and confusion to this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Regarding prior issues with TWC, I'm not aware of any related to firearms, but ANI discussions show thread related to TWC, where he behaved in an inappropriate manner while at ANI: i am thewolfchild; Ongoing harassment (hostility); Polemical use of sandboxes (holding of grudges). This thread Thewolfchild demonstrates harassment, holding of grudges, and lack of appreciation of severity of his actions. It seems incongruent that someone with this experience at ANI would not be aware of behavioural norms on Wikipedia. The sum of it is that TWC has not been a net positive in the firearms related discussions.
Dennis Brown and @GoldenRing: Several editors in the past have attempted to consel TWC, but that was rebuffed; sample notes of concern / advice to TWC:
19 February 2018: "I'll ask that you moderate your imperious and combative tone when addressing established Wikipedia editors."
23 February 2018: "I think what Drmies is saying is that you are operating on the basis of your personal agenda, but lack the self-awareness to realize it."
23 February 2018: "I would appreciate it if you left those accusations/suggestions/sneers out of your comments."
8 March 2018: "Please stop moving conversations from your user talk page to article talk pages." Etc.
I don't see how another piece of advice is going to change TWC's behaviour.
Pertaining to the RfC, TWC has inappropriately, whether he realised it or not, attempted to sway the opinion in an on-going discussion. Two editors objected, which should have been his clue:
"...tallying votes while a discussion is ongoing is not helpful." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"Creating these [tallies] is patently disruptive and a form of gaming the consensus building process by trying to steer people's !votes. Don't do it." — SMcCandlish ☏ 12:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Here are the RfC tally edits, both on March 13. TWC adding a updated tally, which (per Dlthewave) understated support for the positions he opposed: [22]. He's been corrected by Dlthewave here: [23], while TWC's response is not convincing: [24]. The tally was not needed in the first place, as two other editors had pointed out on 28 Feb and 10 March. I found the actions disruptive, bordering on advocacy, and simply unneeded.
For background, my negative interactions with TWC started when I expressed concerns about the proposed venue (WP:GUNS), while TWC strongly advocated the RfC be held there: Use of AR-15 Style Rifles in Mass Shootings. Please also this discussion in the same venue, which preceded the one where I interacted with TWC on: Addition of crime in firearms-related articles, with TWC having participated several times.
@GoldenRing: thank you for reconsidering your potential close. Re: this being one side of a run-of-the-mill content dispute, I've not had multiple editors, over the span of three weeks, advise me to "keep sneers out of my comments" or "moderate my impervious tone". Nor have I removed my user TP comments with rude edit summaries, or, even better, moved them to *article* TP so that I could use them to bash my opponents with, in a public forum. If "sowing discord and confusion" seems too mild, then let me rephrase: it's disruptive, tendentious editing, bullying of opponents, relentless advocacy, and not adhering to the neutral point of view, all to the detriment of other editors and the project overall, and all covered under DS remedies.
@NeilN: Here's more recent behaviour: User_talk:Sipos111#(moved). This discussion took place on Feb 17, before the DS warning, but shows a similar, aggressive pattern of behaviour towards users who disagree with TWC's position; sample: "Oh my gawwwwd... did you really just trot out the "dying kids" card? (and you don't consider this a crusade?)" Drmies gave TWC an informal warning in the same thread, "You best lay off the personal attacks" on 17 February. In a similar fashion, TWC has posted on my page on Feb 22: "I just don't like to see people who's political ideologies and anti-gun passions, that have been inflamed by the recent shooting, taking that rage and disrupting the project with it" and "...someone needs to look out for the project" permalink.
Another example, 22 February: in this rather bizarre and unnecessary edit to the on-going RfC, TWC changed the section name from "Votes" to "Straw-poll". This is the language that TWC prefers to use for vote sections, and my guess is that he was compelled to assert ownership over the process somehow (?). This was part of a pattern of posting a "poll update" section on 24 February, which nobody had asked for, and then updating it, over other editor's objections. He clearly feels ownership of these topics. In short, I've not seen TWC contribute positively in this subject area; so a topic ban would be a net positive to the project.
Coincidently, there was an interesting piece in Hatewatch about how fringe theories are propagated on Wikipedia and the challenges that editors in such areas face: Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets. It's a good read and hopefully, it shows that editors in these areas need more support from the admin community, not less.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Hello, my first time here, but I’ll my best to help get this resolved. The first thing comes to mind that afaic, this more of content dispute. I’m under the impression that content disputes weren't mediated here, the preferred locations were article talk, Dispute Resolution, AN/I. Anyway, I tried, twice, to pursue resolution with K.e.coffman, which he ignored. When I copied K.e.coffman’s reply to article talk, I did because most of it discussed content, sourcing, supporting guidelines, but as for anything in my comments that have upset him personally, I offered to address that. He didn’t respond so I tried again, specifically;
"…you noted concerns about one of my replies. If you could point out the exact problem, I'm more than willing to make changes, if this will help move things forward. Thanks."
I pinged him to ensure he aware of this, but again, he didn’t reply. Instead, he waited a full day, came here filed this complaint. This has been contentious issue for many, and some may have gotten caught up in it when it started (a month ago), but I don't think anything there, recently, requires this committee's attention. My position's been neither ‘pro- or anti-gun‘, but instead to push for articles to remain neutral, balanced, encyclopaedic, and collaborative, consensus-based editing. That hadn't been happening. I’d been critical of some of the content thats been edited as well as the way it was edited. He may view these criticisms as “personal attacks”, I don’t see that way, but just the same I’ve already stopped the direct editing criticism and instead posted generalized content concerns.
I’m willing to try resolve disputes, and I’ve already shown that; when Dlthewave advised me of a revert summary he thought inadequate, I posted a reply that explained both the revert and edit summary, and included an apology. I posted to article talk because the reply, with guidelines included, was relevant to the content. (supported by; another revert, and similar changes after). When Dlthewave collapsed my post, I disagreed, for the same reason I posted there the first place. I discussed this on their talk and thought it resolved (he made no further replies, but now he’s posting here, so I don't know) Additionally, there was a minor misinterpretation of reply I posted to BullRangifer, but I made a pre-emptive effort to resolve it and we did.
So, as shown above, I’m willing to work toward resolving disputes. Had K.e.coffman responded, I’m sure that we could’ve resolved his issue also. I’ve been mindful of the concerns expressed, as seen in the examples provided, and reflected my most recent replies. The last editor who’s proposal I disagreed with, replied;
"Thank you for the polite and well-reasoned responses."
I'm still willing to discuss K.e.coffman's concerns, as I’ve shown, and in hopes of moving forward I haven't raised any counter-complaints (I'm hoping that won’t be necessary, I don‘t want this to drag on), Or, we can just leave things be and move on altogether. Thank you - theWOLFchild16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have certainly be following this page closely and I want you all to know that, whether I agree with you or not, I have read all your comments thoroughly and with considered attention. The first item I would like to address is the assertion that there is a "lack of awareness" on my part. That's my fault, I should've been more clear in my initial statement. I am aware that at times my comments are sarcastic and blunt but I didn't think I was really breaking any rule. But instead, I should've been considering other people's feelings. I seem to have genuinely hurt some feelings here and for that I apologize. As per NeilN's comment; no, I rarely edit firearms related articles. I can't remember the last time I did, and beyond that, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find an edit of mine to a firearms related article, or post to a related talk page, that is "POV", "pro-gun" or otherwise controversial. As per Bishonen's comment: no rhetoric, I was really hoping to avoid dragging this out more than needed. But I do have responses to K.e.c' diffs and a few to add as well;
K.e.coffman's first diff is deliberately misleading. Taken it it's full context, I was replying to a comment of his, and while I was writing it out, he changed the comment. After I posted, he then accused me of "selectively quoting" him, knowing full well he'd changed his comment while I was editing, hence the "false accusation" comment.
K.e.coffman's second diff is a comment I actually stand behind. While there was still an active RfC at the Village Pump about whether or not to add information about mass-shootings to firearms-related articles, K.e.coffman was doing just that. Adding controversial content, no proposal, no discussion and certainly no consensus. He added a new section to "AR-15 style rifle" titled; "Use in mass-shootings". This became the subject of dispute as noted here
K.e.coffman's third diff; yes I made a comment to Dlthewave about the above noted RfC. I had advised him to let someone else write it since he had already participated in related straw-polls, but he did anyway. I don't think it was particularly well written, as evidenced by the widely varied !votes, the complaints from other editors, and the fact that he added another option, (at K.e.coffman's request btw) a week later, after a couple dozen editors had already contributed. (It's not surprising that Dlthewave posted here and was critical of the fact that I merely posted some (hidden) numbers).
K.e.coffman's fourth diff; of course he wants you to "scroll all the way to the bottom" to see where I "cast aspersions with an ownership accusation". He doesn't want you to see that I'm actually responding to an ownership accusation from BullRangifer. However, instead of making a big deal about it, I chose a tongue-in-cheek reply and then moved on. So did, apparently, BullRangifer.
K.e.coffman's fifth diff; Again is a comment I stand behind. I didn't use the words "bad faith" an it's a pretty weak accusation when I am pointing out facts.
K.e.coffman's sixth diff: has me pointing out that he had removed content as "promotional". He states: I didn't remove content from the page as "promotional". Actually, he did. So now he's caught in a lie, while calling me a liar.
K.e.coffman's seventh diff; Ah... the page move. While the title of the article then known as "Modern sporting rifle" (since it's creation in 2012) was actively being discussed and debated, K.e.coffman suddenly and arbitrarily moved the page to "AR-15 style rifle", without any consensus for doing so, and knowing full well it was a controversial, and likely to be contested page move. (I think it was argued it was allowed as a BOLD move, despite all the reasons not to). I in fact did contest the move and reverted it, (which as a disputed or bold move, it can be reverted), and I then posted to the article talk page about it. However, instead of engaging in discussion, or posting an RM, K.e.coffman moved the page again (that is move-warring) I moved it back and immediately posted an RM myself (as he still hadn't done so), which also resulted in 7-day protection for the page. Over two dozen editors participated in the RM discussion who otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity. I'm not sure why he would want to raise this very bommer-rangy-type incident.
K.e.coffman's eighth and final diff: Yes, I accused him of bias. Still do. He has been very clear with his comments and his edits (and his pages moves) what side of the fence of his opinions are on. But again, that cuts two ways. The reason the RfC was moved to the Village Pump, even though 3 talk pages discussion were closed and directed to the firearms project talk page, where discussion had begun was because because K.e.coffman claimed it wasn't possible to have a neutral discussion at the Firearms Project talk page, basically accusing everyone there of bias because of a single comment. He further went on to claim that I was a "Firearms Project member" when in fact I am not and never have been, and I feel this has lent to the perception that I am "pro-gun".
Now, does this mean I'm looking for sanctions on K.e.coffman? That's up to the admins. Does this mean my apology was wasn't real? Of course not. But, all that aside, I really did want to a balanced article. I actually do support the addition of a linked note regarding a shooting incident on the page of the firearm that was involved. For those of you claiming I'm completely against the inclusion of any mass-shooting info, please re-read my comments and check my straw poll entries. But just the same, I may have pushed so hard for an NPOV, neutral article, that I came across as someone with a POV agenda anyway. I made comments too often, I made comments that were too long, and I made comments that were not as civil as they should of been. For that, I again offer my apologies. I've come to realize that this a learning experience and with these lessons will be taking more away from this than I would with a warning. Sorry about the length. Thanks for hearing me out. - theWOLFchild04:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is my third, and hopefully final post here. I see that it appears NeilN is preparing to "write up a warning" sometime today. I take it this warning is for me, but I have to wonder if any of the other participants here will also be warned for behaviours that have been brought to light? Some other points I'd like to make;
I am disappointed in K.e.coffman's actions and general attitude here. He has completely ignored all overtures made towards settling of differences. I made an effort to resolve this dispute before this report was even filed. It was ignored. I tried to address the concerns here about self-awareness, apologized for any offence given, acknowledged the length, tone and repetition of some of my posts... but again, all ignored or dismissed as lies. In fact, he's gone in the opposite direction, displaying an appalling level of bad faith with more accusations (some on his second list being as questionable as some of the ones on his first).
In regards to K.e.coffman's second list of complaints;
Paragraph one: basically ingratiating himself onto Goldenring while sliding in a whole slew of unproven accusations.
Paragraph two: pointing out (as "recent", but actually from over a month ago, and weeks before this report was even filed) the talk page of a SPA who started POV edit-warring right on day one with his first edits, then went on to state he's only here to educate the public about evil guns makers, fully admitted he has no interest in actually being an editor here and has nor edited since. Here, K.e.coffman points out Drmies response to me as a "warning", but fails to mention that shortly after Drmies retracted his comments and apologized. Drmies also warned the SPA. I'd since forgotten about this, I'm sure Drmies has as well, or would like to, and I'm sure he appreciates K.e.coffman dragging it all up again as a misrepresentation to serve his own ends. This is the same kind of disingenuous "interpretation" used to create this report.
Paragraph three: A long, drawn out, confused and confusing, accusation of "ownership", among other things, all based on my changing a sub-heading from "Votes" to "Straw poll". Seriously?
Paragraph four: Brings up something about "Hatewatch". "fringe theories", "vandalism" and "sock-puppetry"... none of which has anything to do with me in the slightest. These are some very thinly-veiled accusations that I'd like to see further explained on how it relates to me, with proof, or retracted entirely.
Paragraph five: Bringing up the "media controversy" surrounding the AR-15, as if this is all somehow my fault. What does this have to do with this report?
Along with all this "piling on" and "padding", he has also made a significant push to have Dennis Brown "recuse" himself as "involved". Well, heaven forbid any poor admin who doesn't immediately bow-down and agree with K.e.coffman. This action is grossly out of line and K.e.coffman owes Dennis an immediate and unequivocal apology.
If we're going to raise the issue of admins that might be "involved", then look no further than MastCell, who has not once, but twice, linked to an actual dispute between us, very recently and on this very subject, on K.e.coffman's talk page. No surprise he's been the most vocal admin here pushing for sanctions, and if he had his way, I'm sure it would be more than a topic ban. He so adamantly claims to know what I think, feel and believe, and yet has it so wrong. How is this "uninvolved"...?
With all due respect to Drmies, he has been very involved in this subject, and with me, since the beginning, and while I believe his comments aren't personal, I also believe they are in the wrong section.
Lastly, I'm not sure how to take Bishonen's comments, with repeated references to "Americans", "American culture", "American gun culture", etc., etc.,... does he think I'm American? That I don't know, but I do know that he think's I'm a "gun nut" (which I find offensive) and considering the tone of his comments, how can any administrative decisions or suggestions be considered neutral?
Meanwhile I've been accused of "edit-warring" by BullRangifer (but no diffs), and repeatedly accused of being "pro-gun" and trying to "hide any mention of mass-shootings in any firearm article" which is completely and utterly wrong. I'm on record as calling for the inclusion of notations of mass-shootings, but also for limitations to keep articles balanced.
I even suggested the creation of an article about the AR-15 and it's prominent use in mass-shootings (in my !vote in the RfC "straw poll" at WP:VP, where I clearly supported the inclusion on mass-shooting info). The kind of article that could include any and all possible, notable, details, as well related laws, passed or proposed, gun-control efforts, a detailed listing of every mass-shooting, and any other related, notable content. That way, the articles about firearms can be about the subject, not it's mis-use and subjective political turmoil. That suggestion was also ignored.
For some-reason, we have an RfC on the inclusion of mass-shooting content, and before that's even complete, such content is continually being added anyway by K.e.coffman, BullRangifer, Dlthwwave et al. I asked that we wait for the RfC to conclude, and that's somehow considered "disruptive", "POV" or "pro-gun"?
I'd also like to point out that not all my comments were requests to wait for the RfC to conclude. Some were about the very politically weighty and hotly debated term "assault-rifle", (and "assault-weapon", and K.e.coffman's proposed "assault-style-rifle"). Some of my posts were about adding content regarding the legitimate use of these rifles (also largely ignored), and some of my posts were replies to comments addressed directly to me. There needs to be some context injected into this whole drama.
As it is, I've basically left the Talk:AR-15 style rifle page and all firearms related articles since the beginning of this report. Mostly because I've said what I needed to say and I don't typically edit that area of the project anyway. But I see in the meantime, that very talk page, and article, are now a hot-bed of activity, with numerous posts and edits being made by K.e.coffman, BullRangifer, et al. (but I suppose that's somehow ok now...?)
Lastly, as I write this, I see BullRangifer has just added his huge post about the "pro-gun cabal" here on Wikipedia. I think such nonsense needs to be supported by clear cut proof, or removed. My posting history at all firearms related projects speaks for itself. I barely touched any articles and kept most of my posts to a couple talk pages, mostly Talk:AR-15 style rifle, where I admittedly got caught up in the debate, just like several other editors. I have since disengaged. It's an area I rarely edit anyway, so I don't have any intentions of returning to any full on debates. As for the "cabal", check the user-interaction tool, I don't even know those guys. I have a vague recollection of discussing a military equipment list with "Niteshift36" years ago. I don't think I've ever interacted with "Springee" before this. I've seen "Trekphiler" post in the same area, but I don't recall any direct interaction and I've never heard of "Limpcash". This is more piling on and padding in an effort to get rid of any vocal opponents to BullRangifer's and K.e.coffman's somewhat pov-ish editing. Which in the end makes this all largely a content dispute.
NeilN Hi, can I ask some questions? (I'm gonna ask some questions) But first, I would like to thank you for your moderate, and I dare say, professional responses and attitude here thus far. Now, abut this "warning";
What does "proposed" mean?
Point number #1 is acknowledged and accepted, but as to point #2, can you clarify what you mean by "clerk[ing] a... discussion" ?
Point number #3 appears to be a repeat of point #2, (though I do take your meaning about repetitive posts), was this deliberate?
Point number #4, can you clarify... all of it? (sorry, I don't see where conflict with consensus or the ridicule of external events or scrutiny became issues)
I appreciate your remarks about acknowledging a consensus, or lack thereof, of contributing admins. That said, I see that of the seven admins that posted here; one was clearly involved, one was clearly involved and biased, one has questionable neutrality and open hostility to the subject of the report, one recused himself, and of the three remaining admins that were free and clear of any controversy here, there was by all appearances a distinct consensus of "close with no action". How much impact does all this have on your final decision?
My understanding of this process was that;
Content disputes are not dealt with here, and seeing just how much of this involved a content dispute, how much impact will that have on your final decision?
The behaviour of all named and/or contributing parties is subject to scrutiny and action. As the behavior of at least two parties to this report, (aside from the subject), clearly violated not just DS, but WP P&G, will there be any other warnings issued or, other administrative action taken?
@NeilN: Thank you for your reply. It answers some questions, but not others, and I would like to clarify a couple points;
I didn't realize you were referring to the RfC, I thought you meant the "AR-15 style rifle" talk page. My intention was not to sway or otherwise interfere with consensus at the RfC, but to show how difficult it may be to form consensus in the first place with such widely varied, and even vague, responses. I didn't realize there was a policy against this (is there?) and had seen it done before without any controversy. Once an objection was raised and the summary collapsed, I didn't dispute it.
My last update there was actually to accommodate the request of another editor, but once it was contested, accusations made and the issue brought here to pile on to the existing complaint, you'll note I stopped posting at both the RfC, and it's talk page, completely.
You said; "If discussion needs to be cleaned up or reformatted somehow, leave it to someone else". Who? And either "clean up and reformatting" is allowed or it isn't, so I'm not entirely clear on what this part of the warning is about. (not necessarily contesting it, just not clear)
I'm still not sure why a point in your warning was duplicated. (but the point is taken) (Nevermind. I get it now. wolf23:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for at least acknowledging that some admins here were in some way "involved". While some of the admin responses are not compatible with the posted advisory; "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.", I won't contest them at this point, as I'm satisfied you are aware of them.
Re: your added comment; - I didn't contend that any admins here were involved based on their responses here, but on their actions outside of here, nor claim any bias based solely on recommendations made here, but other comments, as I (thought I had) demonstrated in my previous posts. I also said of the uninvolved admins, there was an "appearance of a consensus", but I'm not attributing any specific comments to anyone that they didn't actually make. If any of this has been interpreted as otherwise, I will accept responsibility for that, please accept my apologies for not being clear on either of these points.
My concern regarding other parties here is that several items posted in support of this complaint were shown to be deliberately and patently false, and were clearly added to intentionally mislead responding admins and any other unaware parties. While I have acknowledged, and accept, that lengthy, repetitive and/or churlish talk page posts are not the best way to contribute to a discussion, nor conducive to forming consensus, and would not dispute any warning regarding such posts, I wouldn't think it to be appropriate for there be a perception that posting false allegations, in violation of policy, is tolerated.
Sorry, like I said, I've never been to one of these things before. I've seen other reports here, even filed after this one, that have since been closed and collapsed. So I'm just curious about what's next? Thanks (NeilN, Dennis Brown, GoldenRing) - theWOLFchild02:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the "other contributors" mentioned above I agree with K.e.coffman's description of the situation. I would also add that Thewolfchild's unnecessarily long comments are disruptive to the discussion process. Two particular examples are [#1] and [#2] from the list of diffs. Although he does arguably address a previous comment, he goes off on so many tangents that the discussion is no longer focused on a specific ways to improve the article. These comments can be seen in context at permalink. –dlthewave☎04:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should also be seen in light of press reports discussing how a "group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors tried to hide the true number of mass shootings associated with the AR-15 rifle." (Newsweek) There is extensive wikilawyering and gaming the sytem going on. It's persistent, extremely aggressive and personal, and violates policies. Refusal to allow mention of mass shootings using the AR-15 in the AR-15 article is an obvious one. The very existence of that lack proves there is a serious problem and requires no further evidence or diffs. Just look. Something needs to be done. Here are some articles. It started with The Verge:
NeilN, you get exactly what I was trying to say, especially in light of the content I added above. Maybe a bit too emotionally, but that was the gist of my intent. ("...there is not a lot of difference for me between BullRangifer's comment and an experienced editor telling a SPA editing a politician's bio, "I don't think your boss would thank you for drawing community attention to and possible media interest in your whitewashing of his biography.")
Dennis Brown, I would consider it an honor to get a trout from you. I'm sure I have deserved many throughout my years here. All kidding aside, when one considers my entry above, my emotional (yes, it was deep frustration) comment should be seen in that light. The gun articles, especially the AR-15 one, are under observation and scrutiny by the press, public, and NRA. This fire must be extinguished firmly. I have no idea if there are any paid NRA editors here, but there are several, especially Thewolfchild, who defend the article tooth and nail, and try to keep out the very mention of mass shootings using the AR-15. Those editors carry water for the NRA and use specious arguments to keep any such mention out or to a minimum. It's a miracle that there is any content on the subject now, and it is in danger all the time. When one considers due weight among RS, that section should be larger and better.
The AR-15 style rifle article is the main article on the subject, so, per WP:SPINOFF, the section on mass shootings should have a "main" link and a summary of how the AR-15 is used in mass shootings, not just a short listing of the shootings.
Thewolfchild's idea of due weight on the subject is evident in these comments:
This one (their first on that talk page) closes the door for such content, because, apparently to them, even a morsel on the subject is somehow undue weight, so better to violate NPOV by banning such content. That (mistaken) attitude means the article on Mass shootings is a forbidden POV fork, because that's the essence of a POV fork...banishing unwanted content to "somewhere else than here":
After a lot about statistics and other stuff in several comments, this gem shows their attitude toward the proper weight of any mass shooting related content. They fail to recognize that due weight is determined by RS coverage, not by number of guns used legally vs illegally. The few mosquitoes that bite get attention, not the millions that remain unnoticed.:
The log for the AR-15 article shows Thewolfchild edit warring in favor of a title that is an advertising slogan/marketing term (a form of whitewashing), thus setting the tone that this is a peaceful tool, not "the favorite weapon for mass shootings". I'm not going to analyze whether the moves were done properly or not, but the title "Modern sporting rifle" is in fact a marketing slogan deliberately chosen by manufacturers to rebrand the unfortunate image of the AR-15. Editors should not be party to such rebranding efforts. The slogan is mentioned in the article, and that's enough.
SUMMARY: The article should have a better section on the use of the AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings, and some editors are blocking that strongly enough that I quickly abandoned the thought of trying. That's my concern. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe06:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, I'm not sure what you're referring to here ("YOU may feel that those edits should be made,..."), because I'm not asking for any edits to be made. Neither is this about "hash[ing] out controversial topics". Neither of those subjects belong here.
No, this is about something much more principle and basic. It's about total failure to understand NPOV and due weight, to the point of controlling an article so much that news media noticed it. That kind of control must not be allowed, and normal editing procedures and "hashing it out" apparently hasn't worked very well. A topic block, even a shorter one, would send a needed signal to all editors involved in this type of ownership behavior.
As far as my behavior in that one instance, you have either not read what has been written by NeilN and myself (see above), or you are not AGF. I trust it is the first and you'll amend your comment, because I doubt you are deliberately trying to offend me. We both explained what was going on. Under the circumstances, with media looking over our shoulders, a reminder needed to be given, and that's all I was doing (I was totally new to that article). (The edit at the time ended up getting sorted out and has not been brought up here BY ME as an issue. I was surprised someone brought it up and tried to make something out of it that it wasn't.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe02:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Thewolfchild clearly opposes inclusion of information on the use of AR-15-style weapons in mass shootings on that page; that is not an unreasonable position for an editor to take (and certainly not a sanctionable one); there is, after all, an RfC currently open on this very question."
Actually it is a VERY "unreasonable position for an editor". Period. That situation should only exist with a newbie. It's an attitude which openly violates NPOV and due weight by refusing to let RS determine content. It's gross censorship. An RfC to decide that question shouldn't be necessary. (FYI, I haven' looked at it.)
The "degree" and "amount" to which one allows such content can be discussed, but not "whether" it's included, and that's where TWC goes so wrong.
TWC isn't even denying that there is a huge amount of RS coverage of exactly that intersection of AR-15s used in mass shootings, and yet, in the face of that fact, has been blocking attempts to include mention. I'm amazed we're even discussing this on a page where admins speak out and sets a bad precedence. Such ideas should be blasted out of the water without further reflection, and the door to such thinking immediately and firmly shut. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe15:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, this isn't about having a POV or minority POV. That's okay. It actually IS about "editing warring to only present one side in an article." That's exactly what TWC has been doing and is advocating. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe16:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the same vein as my initial comments here. It directly involves TWC and several other editors not part of this procedure. Their basic behavioral problem is the same - an organized cabal of editors violating policies to further a political goal. Consider it "further information". The project and cabal needs to be officially warned, broken up, censured, held under observation....whatever it takes to minimize this organized effort.
Wikipedia gun buffs in the news
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia has been getting some embarrassing coverage because of the gross policy violations of a real cabal of pro-gun Wikipedia editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms who edit gun-related articles. Newsweek discusses how this "group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors tried to hide the true number of mass shootings associated with the AR-15 rifle," and certain editors are named and/or quoted:
There is extensive wikilawyering and gaming the sytem going on. It's persistent, extremely aggressive and personal, and violates policies. Refusal to allow mention of mass shootings using the AR-15 in the AR-15 style rifle and Mass shootings in the United States articles has been obvious. The very existence of that lack proves there is a serious problem and requires no further evidence or diffs.
Only recently (March 16) has it been grudgingly allowed in the Mass shootings and AR-15 style rifle articles after considerable pressure, warnings, and threats of topic bans from some courageous administrators. That should not have been necessary. Springee has been part of a collaborative effort to include proper material, so they should, in all fairness, get credit for that.
"WP: Firearms members coordinated their opposition to the inclusion of any mass-shooting coverage, instead limiting information to the technical details of the weapon."
"Research suggests it's largely because they're anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears."
Russell Brandom (March 6, 2018). "How gun buffs took over Wikipedia's AR-15 page". The Verge. Retrieved March 18, 2018. For months before Parkland, information on generic AR-15 models was relegated to the Modern Sporting Rifles entry, which detailed various models and after-market additions, but made no mention of mass shootings or other gun control efforts.
Matthew Walther (November 7, 2017). "The adolescent cult of the AR-15". The Week. Retrieved March 18, 2018. (An extensive description of one named editor's efforts to skew content.)
PackMecEng, you make a very good point about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (RGW), because that really lies at the bottom of this. RGW refers to editors who misuse Wikipedia to fix problems and injustices ("wrongs") they see in the real world, outside of Wikipedia. That's exactly what this cabal of editors has been doing. They have sought to control and tailor the messaging in gun-related articles to ensure that Wikipedia's "message to the world" was never unfavorable to the NRA or AR-15 types rifles. That's not what editors are supposed to do, and the media has noticed what's been happening here. I hope we won't see anymore of this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe03:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am uninvolved in the content issues, but on 19 February I somehow ran across behavior that I felt needed to be called out, and I did so. I think I'm the "another contributor" mentioned at "Additional comments" and my one comment can be seen at that "permalink". I believe that my characterization "imperious and combative tone" is supported by that brief exchange. Beyond saying that I feel that tolerance of such behavior is bad for the project, I have nothing to add. ―Mandruss☎16:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: - a little friction is sometimes beneficial to hash out controversial topics. - I would be very interested to see an example of how misapplication of WP:AGF against a debate opponent while violating AGF oneself, or how language like do you even know that means? ... This discussion has barely begun and you're already derailing it with repetitive, off-topic nonsense. ... Stop this already. ... Oh puh-leeeze. ... you and your companion ... blah, blah. blah. Give it a rest. It's these kind of prechy, off-topic comments that constantly derail any meaningful discussion. You've contributed nothing to the topic at hand and the only purpose of this, your sole contribution here, is to scold me. has ever helped to hash out a controversial topic. In my view it has the opposite effect. This is quite different from healthy and constructive heated debate—it's about common respect for fellow established editors. Excuse, minimize, and forgive if you must, but please don't call this in any way "beneficial" to this project. ―Mandruss☎03:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start with a disclaimer: I'm involved with the topics and from an editorial/content POV largely agree with Thewolfchild. That also means I've largely disagreed with most of the other involved editors. I think TWC is frustrated with the deluge of edits that seem to be POV driven. I generally agree with the scope concerns that TWC seems to have. There is definitely a content dispute element here. BUT... I think all the editors here, are only pushing what they view as good improvements and pushing to increase the part of the content they feel is most significant with respect to the topic. I've seen some failures to AGF on both sides with claims of tarring, white washing, advocacy etc. I'm sure much of that comes down to this being a topic that means different things to different people. A shooting enthusiast is far more likely to see the technical and mechanical details etc as the significant part of the article. The criminal use part is something that should be mentioned then directed off to the primary articles on that subject. Others feel the significant information is the criminal use, the rest is just stuff only the gun nuts care about. Both simply reflect the editor's honest POV. It also doesn't help that the articles have been subject to many edits that are little more than vandalism. We also have the inflammatory yet factually questionable article in the Verge (mentioned by @MastCell: ). I suspect most involved editors were, as I was, asked by the author a nebulous question just 24 hours before the article went out. I didn't reply. The resulting article was just a poor as I expected it would be and gets the fundamentals wrong in a way that allows for a good conspiracy tail rather than something that represents a series of editorial discussions that go back perhaps 2 years. In the end we have an editing environment that is ripe for discontent. I think TWC needs to tone it down but I don't think this is something that needs more than a warning. Again, disclaimer, I'm an involved editor and have generally agreed with TWC's POV on the articles. Springee (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Springee and Dennis Brown have it right. This dispute is between editors advocating a technical focus and a political focus. The majority of Ford Bronco coverage in RS is in the context of the O.J. Simpson chase, which only constitutes a small portion of our Bronco article. In fact that article follows the guidelines established at WikiProject Firearms: In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance [...] if its notoriety greatly increased. Whether we should follow that guidance here is debatable but it's a reasonable debate and editors should not be topic-banned for advocating either position. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since one of my reverts was brought up here by BullRangifer for some reason and subsequently warned about a topic ban by Bishonen for tendentious editing I should probably respond.
My revert here was in relation to undue weight for that specific type of gun in mass shootings which was in keeping with the discussion on that talk page Talk:Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Type_of_guns_used_in_mass_shootings here. With BullRangifer opening a discussion right after my revert to talk about the issue, it is rather insulting to be labeled tendentious for going by previous talk discussions and participating in a new discussion after it was challenged. PackMecEng (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To add on my comment, looking at the subsequent edit history of BullRangifer the tendentious charge becomes a little absurd.
First the badgering on my talk page after the warning, and things like this "Let's face it, any RfCs, essays, and local consensus among the usual editors there which say otherwise are against policies and should be ignored" are a real issues and not conclusive to collaborative work.
Then off to the other person who agreed the edit was bad, head to their page and threaten them as well here. "That means the warning above is a freebie. You are dancing on very thin ice."
I also like on the talk page pinging anyone they think might be sympathetic to force their pov here.
Finally canvasing the issue on another other talk page here and this page as well.
This kind of bludgeoning, threats, and badgering are at best unhelpful and disruptive to collaborative editing. Also just to give a little closure someone came by with a decent rewrite everyone agreed with based on the talk page discussions so content matter is settled. PackMecEng (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really acceptable in an enforcement request for someone to refer to other users as "Wikipedia gun nuts," using even stronger language against Wikipedians than the sources he's discussing? 137.71.23.54 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I just don't see a reason to swing the ban hammer here. In a perfect world, Wolf would be more concise and bit less excited, and perhaps they would be a little more polite sometimes, but being passionate about something isn't ban-worthy. If I were the other editors, yes, I might be a little annoyed at times but that is true on any hot topic page. Looking the diffs in their full context, I see spirited debate on both sides, maybe a little boundary pushing but I don't see any bright lines crossed. The long block log and the magazine articles don't really apply here. Looking at Talk:AR-15 style rifle, I see that Wolff had replied about twice as much as K.e.coffman, which really isn't enough to be considered bludgeoning. As he seems to be in the minority on that page, that makes me more understanding of the extra edits, and less prone to just banhammer him without clear evidence of disruption. Controversial topics are going to have friction on the talk page, this can't be avoided, even if it can be managed. I recommend closing with no action, other than to recommend that Wolf pull back a bit and go the extra mile here to avoid rambling on so much, and to avoid incivility. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Dennis, but I can't agree with you about closing with no action. There is a real problem here. The diffs and discussions linked by K.e. coffman show a pretty evident battleground attitude. Thewolfchild's actions (and, to a lesser extent, those of other WikiProject members) have been described as an effort to subvert WP:NPOV by downplaying material linking AR-15-style weapons to mass shootings. That description seems entirely plausible, having reviewed the editing in question. External reliable sources have already come to the same conclusion (see BullRangifer's statement). So these actions not only subvert fundamental content policies (by stonewalling appropriately sourced content in the service of an evident political agenda), but also have brought Wikipedia into disrepute. (I don't attach a lot of weight to DailyKos, any more than I would to a partisan website from the other end of the political spectrum, but the pieces in the other two sources are concerning).
If this were an isolated incident, then I think a warning would be appropriate. But it looks like Thewolfchild has been blocked 6 previous times, for various combinations of edit-warring, personal attacks, "incendiary" and combative behavior, and so on. He was indefinitely blocked, in fact, and let off with the promise of good behavior, in 2012. In other words, he used up his last chance six years ago, and some more last chances after that. So I don't see this as an opportunity to give him one more last chance.
There's a well-documented active conduct issue here, and a well-documented pattern of similar behavior stretching back at least 6 years. There's also absolutely zero evidence that Thewolfchild has any insight into the problem, and thus zero reason to expect improvement in his conduct. (His responses in this discussion were particularly disappointing in this regard.
When an article is under discretionary sanctions, we should be trying to raise the bar and hold editors to appropriate standards, not finding reasons to give disruptive editors a 7th "last chance". I don't think "no action" is acceptable. Given the track record here, a warning is meaningless, and tantamount to "no action". I would favor an indefinite topic ban from firearms-related material, which could be appealed in 6 months. MastCellTalk22:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a history of problem behavior, but what I don't see is recent behavior that is ban-worthy. It isn't about giving another chance, it's about accepting there is going to be some disagreement on the talk pages. I don't see edit warring, I don't see personal attacks, so I am not so likely to get involved. There is a fine line between protecting the integrity of the process, and being a school marm. I don't think using DS tools for relatively minor issues is helping the encyclopedia. And an indef topic block ban where someone has never been topic blocked banned seems excessive, to say the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢02:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild has been blocked 6 times already, including an indefinite block. An indefinite topic ban would be neither the first sanction he’s received, nor the harshest. I therefore don’t see it as “excessive”. As for being a “school marm”, I can tell you first-hand—as someone with extensive experience editing contentious topics—that this sort of behavior is far more damaging than you seem to realize when you dismiss it as “minor”. MastCellTalk21:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But in the issue at hand, with the diffs provided, there isn't a major issue. Some minor incivility but no worse than the others, and an obvious POV but haven't opinions on social issues isn't against against policies, bad editing is, and even that isn't being called into question here, just his behavior. GoldenRing sums it up well below. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: We don't have anything called "topic blocks", but we do have topic bans. – My view is somewhere in between the two opinions above. While I agree that systematic tendentious editing to make Wikipedia non-neutral is sanctionable, that's not what the evidence concerning Thewolfchild before us establishes, and any AE cases on such a basis need to be very clear-cut to prevent AE from interfering in content disputes. But what is before us is evidence of confrontative, battleground-like conduct by Thewolfchild. Still, it is less serious than many other cases we see here at AE, many of the diffs do seem to be related to content issues rather than purely personal disagreements, and Thewolfchild's response is, while noncommittal and overlong, at least indicative of some recognition that their conduct might not be perfect. I would close this with a logged warning to Thewolfchild to observe WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and related conduct policies. Sandstein 09:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having read about 4/5 of the linked talk page, I'm not seeing a case for sanctions here. Yes, Thewolfchild has a clear POV but much of their frustration is with editors who make edits to the article and ignore the ongoing discussions about the same or similar material. It's a fair point. They do sometimes tread the edges of personalising the discussion but, IMO, only at the very mildest end of things. At the other end, sections such as this are IMO examples of very good editor behaviour. The only real problem I'm seeing is the voluminous and tangential nature of some of Thewolfchild's comments and I'd advise them to keep more on-track, but again it's not sanction-worthy at this point.On a side note, the worst thing I'm seeing on that TP is this comment by User:BullRangifer and I'd like to hear what they have to say about it. It looks pretty unacceptable to me. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with Sandstein - Thewolfchild needs to tone it down a bit. I don't see anything sanctionable or warning-worthy about BullRangifer's comment. --NeilNtalk to me13:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I, unless one considers the invocation of the NRA's wrath a legal or physical threat, but this seems far-fetched to me. Sandstein 14:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any way of interpreting that comment that doesn't amount to, "Let my edit stand or else!" It's clearly intended to have a chilling effect on other editors. And yes, if someone threatened me with the NRA I'd take it as a physical threat. GoldenRing (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see BullRangifer's comment as actionable by itself, but I do see it as unnecessarily combative and " I fear for the poor editor who is responsible, because the NRA won't be happy that they have drawn attention to the issue." as particularly trout-worthy. Worse than what I was seeing from Wolf, but it was one comment only, so I tend to let a singular fit of emotionalism slide. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying anyone is shilling for the NRA but there is not a lot of difference for me between BullRangifer's comment and an experienced editor telling a SPA editing a politician's bio, "I don't think your boss would thank you for drawing community attention to and possible media interest in your whitewashing of his biography." --NeilNtalk to me19:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
← It seems that consensus is leaning toward either a logged warning or an informal word-to-the-wise to Thewolfchild, so I'm not going to continue pushing for a more substantial sanction. I do remain concerned by a few things:
Constructive editors familiar with the situation (Mandruss and dlthewave) are telling us that Thewolfchild's behavior is disruptive; and
I see zero insight on Thewolfchild's part (see this discussion, or his statement here at AE, where he closes by vicariously praising his own manners and reasoning skills).
Sorry to be slow, but I do want to comment too. I find it difficult, because it concerns an aspect of American culture that's baffling to me as a non-American. But I'm still reading, so please don't close just yet. Bishonen | talk09:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Continued. Yes, the U.S. gun culture is baffling to me, and likely to most Europeans, and seemingly to increasing numbers of Americans as well. I found this opinion piece, America Is the Gun, with its historical perspective ("We have venerated the gun and valorized its usage") somewhat enlightening. Anyway, despite the fact that we have a 2014 RFAR case about gun control, and consequently have discretionary sanctions, it's apparently very difficult to sanction editors who work to keep our gun articles purely technical, and to keep societal issues out of them (seemingly on the argument that only the technical is neutral). This effort is harming Wikipedia's reputation IMO, compare BullRangifer's links. I'm not saying that Thewolfchild is a kingpin in this effort, but I do regard them as part of it, and their claim of strict neutrality is unconvincing. I agree with MastCell about noting zero insight on Thewolfchild's part, and for that reason I'm in favour of either a topic ban (first choice) or a strongly-worded, and definitely logged, warning. Specifically, I'm unimpressed by their post on this board. Superficially Thewolfchild comes here with conciliation, offering concern lest they have "upset" K.e.coffman; but a reading of the diffs they offer as proof that they love to be nice, if only K.e.coffman wasn't so unreasonable, says something else.[25][26]. And to further prove how neutral they are, they showcase a polite response from another editor ("Thank you for the polite and well-reasoned responses.") about a comparatively minor matter, namely that the article is US-centric — not exactly one of the hot-button issues. No, I don't see Thewolfchild showing awareness or doing any introspecting, I see them digging in, and arranging their countenance pleasantly when so many admins are watching. As for being nice enough not to raise any counter-complaints against K.e.coffman, Thewolfchild, if you have any complaints against K.e.coffman, why not raise them? Saying that you won't, "in hopes of moving forward", thereby implying that you could, is a rhetorical device that doesn't convince me. This conflict — the whole gun control conflict, I mean — is too important to be hurried off the AE board merely in the interest of 'moving on' and 'not dragging things out'. Please raise any complaints you may have against K.e.coffman.
P.S. Going to post, I noticed K.e.coffman has now posted an update, right at the end of the "Discussion concerning Thewolfchild", just above the Results section. Possibly not the best place for it, but nm, it's interesting. I agree with K.e.coffman that the new diffs, representing recent posts by Thewolfchild, do show that they continue to lack self-awareness as to why their editing on gun-related pages is problematic. Example: here's one long comment they posted on Talk:AR-15 style rifle only about an hour after posting their self-praising defence on this board. I quote: "But basically, they're not intended for killing people. They're based on a Mil/LE design that is, but the civilian variant is not. That said, of course it's lethal. So are cars. And Bic lighters (literally and figuratively). And a staggeringly long list of other items that can be used to kill a person. So what?" Reading that gun nut trope about the cars and the Bic lighters, posted just an hour after Thewolfchild posted here that "My position's been neither 'pro- or anti-gun', but instead to push for articles to remain neutral, balanced, encyclopaedic", it's my opinion that there's just no self-awareness or introspection at all in the Thewolfchild's defence here. Would the uninvolved admins please take a look at K.e.coffman's new diffs? I now feel more strongly that a topic ban is the way to go. Bishonen | talk18:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think I should recuse myself from acting or proposing action with respect to K.e.coffman's diffs, because they appear to relate, in part, to an RfC in which I expressed an opinion. Sandstein 23:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted he has a bit too much zeal at time, and I can see why a warning might be a good idea, but my original observations are still pretty much the same as I feel now. These are very controversial topics, there is going to be friction. I would even argue a little friction can be helpful. Wolf does need to post less often and be more concise when he posts, but if it is a matter of "good faith", I'm not convinced his faith is an issue, even if his style is less than desirable. I get it that this is AE, and this is a politically charged topic, but if this was a normal topic at ANI, it would be closed quickly without action. The threshold is a bit different here, but I don't support strong sanctions. I would say that if a month or two down the line, he hasn't learned to trim down the comments, then we have a pattern of mild distruption due to being too verbose. That is a pretty weak place to stand, but that is what it would be, and maybe it would be actionable. What I would like to see is for Wolf to agree to pull back some. Again, he is active on the page, but I wouldn't call that WP:BLUDGEONing (and I wrote that essay, I know bludgeoning when I see it). He can be overly verbose, but that isn't the same thing. Finally, anyone who disagrees with anyone on these highly charged topics is going to piss off the other side, so complaints have to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't see a lot of name calling or personal attacks, and in fact, most of the time his comments are proportionate and reasoned. I just don't feel right swinging the ban hammer in a case like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Holding until a possible further reply from Thewolfchild. I may be jaded from adminning in the American Politics area but I've seen similar voluminous postings from some of the editors in that area (with the personalization toned down since many articles now have a civility restriction in effect) and life goes on there. Have there been other issues with this editor and the gun area prior to Stoneman Douglas? --NeilNtalk to me00:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer, YOU may feel that those edits should be made, but that isn't an issue for WP:AE, that is a content issue. Not everyone will agree with you on that, and we can't really decide that as an administrative function. We can only deal with behavior, and the behavior here (and by others, even yourself in at least one edit) is less than stellar but not sanctionable. That's ok, as I said, a little friction is sometimes beneficial to hash out controversial topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dennis. Thewolfchild clearly opposes inclusion of information on the use of AR-15-style weapons in mass shootings on that page; that is not an unreasonable position for an editor to take (and certainly not a sanctionable one); there is, after all, an RfC currently open on this very question. If and when the RfC closes with a definite consensus to include such material and Thewolfchild continues to argue against its inclusion, then we are looking at editing against established consensus and that can become disruptive; right now we are being asked to sanction an editor for "sowing discord and confusion" - and it feels like this is just another way of saying "someone who disagrees with me on a subject I feel very strongly about." We shouldn't be sanctioning one side of a run-of-the-mill content dispute based on a very thin accusation of personalising the dispute and (as far as I can tell) completely unproved accusations of off-site collusion. Unless something much more persuasive is brought forward, I intend to close this today with some advice to Thewolfchild. GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: Perhaps my view is informed by my experience as an editor on contentious topics, but I think you're missing the mark. This isn't a content dispute. It's a behavioral issue of stonewalling, and refusing to acknowledge or reflect the content of reliable sources. It's beyond dispute that dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources clearly link AR-15-style rifles to mass shootings in the US. That's not a partisan or "POV" position; it's a statement of objective reality. Therefore, by definition and according to our fundamental content policies, this linkage is a relevant aspect of such weapons which needs to be reflected in our article.
Now, how to phrase the material, and how much prominence to give it—those are content disputes to be resolved by involved editors on the talkpages or through RfCs. But what I see in these discussions is different: it's a blanket refusal (since softened, but only under threat of a topic ban) to even mention the linkage, reliable sources be damned. That is textbook tendentious editing—it's an effort to categorically exclude appropriately sourced material, plausibly motivated by a personal political agenda. There is no justification for that position, which goes directly against fundamental content policies and best practices.
You point out the ongoing RfC. First of all, anyone can open an RfC, so the presence of absence of one has little bearing on the validity of the question being asked. In fact, the RfC is a perfect demonstration of the problem: apparently, the stonewalling on this subject is so bad that an actual RfC is required in order to uphold basic content policies. Think about it: why do we need an RfC to decide whether we should or shouldn't convey the content of dozens of reliable sources? That's not a content dispute. It's a sign of an editing environment that has drifted badly off course and is in need of correction.
Again, I think I'm in the minority here and I don't think I'm convincing anyone, so I'm not going to oppose the closure, but I do think it's worth going on record here. MastCellTalk16:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer, your reply to GoldenRing demonstrates the problem. You both have POVs. Everyone has a POV and is entitled to it. That is not the same as editing warring to only present one side in an article. So yes, his position is one that many would have, even if they would constitute a minority. You are essentially saying someone should be sanctioned for having a minority view, and that is not acceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: I realize there's no consensus for a topic ban, but I could wish you don't take it on yourself to decide what input from other uninvolved admins is and is not persuasive here, and don't close according to your own opinion, i.e. with "some advice to Thewolfchild" (as opposed to a logged warning), per your comment above. You have expressed a strong opinion here, as have I (and I shouldn't be the one to close either). I haven't counted, but I have the impression you have been closing quite a lot of AE filings, including controversial ones, since you became an admin less than a year ago. Please let someone more experienced do this one, considering how divisive it is. It would be ideal if someone who has not yet commented wandered by, but barring that happy occurrence, I suggest NeilN as closer. Bishonen | talk01:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I want to be brief here, since this thread is already long enough. I've had some dealings on and off-wiki with TWC and I have no doubt we would get along fine; I think his heart is in the right place. But, and I am sorry to say this, it is probably best if they stay away from this page and maybe the topic. I don't want to get in too much detail cause I feel I'm already mean enough, but this isn't just two POVs clashing (pace Dennis and others); TWC is just better off not editing this article/topic because--well, really because what MastCell said, for instance. And that would be better for the article too. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
I'm not seeing a consensus for a topic ban here but neither am I seeing consensus for taking no AE action. A logged warning seems to be the best compromise.
K.e.coffman, I've reviewed your new evidence. I acknowledge Thewolfchild has had interaction issues in the past as well as what has been presented recently but I tend to give diffs that are 4-5 years old less weight if there's a significant gap between incidents. Also, your diffs regarding the poll don't seem to be consistent with your claims. Please recheck your dates and if you wish present diffs of Thewolfchild's poll edits, preferably those made after this request was opened. --NeilNtalk to me02:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: I'm not sure how relevant your complaint, currently right at the end of your section, about this removal is to an AE report about Thewolfchild. But I understand your point about the general problem, and agree that that edit was tendentious and poorly explained (here on the talkpage). I've alerted the user to discretionary sanctions for gun control-related articles and warned them against further tendentious editing. Bishonen | talk18:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't "recuse" myself, this isn't a consensus board. Whomever acts, does so unilaterally and is free to ignore everyone else. Policy dictates this. I've given my opinions and frankly, I'm swamped at work and just didn't have anything new or interesting to say that I haven't already said. My opinion hasn't changed. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this some more and wanted to draw together some of the thinking that's been going on, though I don't see it affecting NeilN's proposed closure below.This dispute is, at its base, about whether to include material about mass shootings in articles about specific firearms, and in particular the article on the AR-15-style rifle. On the one hand, we have editors who contend that information on mass shootings belongs in articles about mass shootings, while other editors contend that a large number of RS connect the two and so both shootings and rifles should be mentioned in articles about both. In one direction we have editors who accuse others of being apologists for the gun lobby, while in the other direction editors accuse others of pushing a gun control agenda.This is fundamentally a content dispute and settling it is outside the purview of discretionary sanctions. The committee imposing discretionary sanctions on a subject is not to forbid disagreement over article content; it is to forbid carrying on that disagreement in a way that is disruptive. It is clear evidence that Thewolfchild has been carrying on this dispute in a disruptive way that is lacking in this report.The editors who favour inclusion of the disputed material contend that the large number of reliable sources which connect the two take the matter past dispute and make any attempt at carrying on the dispute necessarily disruptive. But whether that preponderance of reliable sources exists and whether it justifies a hard rule of including this material is itself a content question that must be resolved by the community through consensus building; we don't resolve these types of questions by admin fiat. There has been no evidence presented that any sort of explicit consensus for inclusion of the material exists, or even that there has been an attempt to establish one (bar the ongoing RfC). We are left, then, with the mere assertion by some editors that the content question is beyond dispute. Inclusion of this material may very well be the consensus view of the community; if so, those in favour of it need to build that consensus. But it may also not be the consensus view of the community, and that would make any sanctions for carrying on the dispute equivalent to admins deciding content questions by fiat. That editors can support sanctions here while declaring they haven't even looked at the RfC on the content question is, to my mind, rather disappointing and indicates a certain contempt for the community's consensus-building process. Yes, sometimes it's arduous and tiresome,
but nonetheless it's how we do things.Once the community's consensus-building processes have been followed through and there is a clear consensus to include the material (supposing for the minute that that is the outcome of that process), then carrying on the dispute can become disruptive. Until then, sanctions here should be issued based on how the dispute is carried on, not the mere fact of its being carried on, and should not be used to blast another's ideas out of the water. GoldenRing (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-reviewed all the evidence and administrator comments. Two major points:
I see a lot of diffs pointing to talk page posts editors and admins see as problematic. What I don't see are diffs pointing to articlespace edits. There's no evidence that an articlespace ban is needed.
There is no consensus among admins as to what action to take and some posts seemed to stray into voicing an opinion on content matters. As Dennis Brown says, this technically isn't a consensus board but I do believe an admin needs to take a lack of consensus into account when formulating a close.
We do not stop editors from voicing unpopular or minority opinions as long as the opinions are expressed with a minimum of politeness and stop short of bludgeoning. These opinions are part of the consensus-building process and should be be given the appropriate weight by other editors and closers of any discussions. This current dispute was triggered by Stoneman Douglas bringing increased scrutiny to an area with potential existing content issues. Thewolfchild cannot be held responsible for these issues as they have not been active in this area previously. We also don't hop, skip, and jump every time our content makes the news - we figure out how to address potential issues by having appropriate discussions. To facilitate smooth operation of these particular discussions Thewolfchild is warned:
not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language ("comment on the content, not the contributor");
not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions);
not to impede the formation of consensus by repeatedly making the same points;
to acknowledge consensus can change and having external events bring increased scrutiny and change to potential walled gardens of articles can be beneficial and should not be ridiculed.
This looks good to me as regards Thewolfchild. I do wonder if a gentle reminder to all editors to advance by building consensus would also be in order, given some of the comments made here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good God, what a mess. I think the warning as written is fine (and just as a reminder, everyone editing in this area would do well to follow that advice, not just Thewolfchild.) Whether informally or otherwise, I think one of the other issues here has been almost a notion of ownership by Wikiproject Firearms over articles. It's not the first time that happened, but I think we should issue a reminder that editors are not required to follow any terms or guidelines set by Wikiprojects, nor do Wikiprojects have any special authority over articles within their covered area. Guidelines by Wikiprojects are suggestions, not mandates, and I think a reminder of that might be in order here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wording I'm proposing. Feedback from other admins and editors is welcomed but I don't think I'll be dramatically strengthening or weakening the wording.
Do not summarize discussions like what you did with your vote tally. If discussion needs to be cleaned up or reformatted somehow, leave it to someone else.
"I just don't like to see people who's political ideologies and anti-gun passions, that have been inflamed by the recent shooting, taking that rage and disrupting the project with it. They need to check that shit at the door."
"Too many people have a personal agenda here, someone needs to look out for the project." - editors self-appointing themselves champions of the project rarely ends well.
Not much. The positions of semi-involved admins were all over the place.
Add: Your analysis of the opinions of uninvolved admins is also incorrect. Obvious counter-example: me. I have never called for a close with no action. And calling for sanctions to be levied does not automatically make an admin biased or have questionable neutrality any more than calling for no action to be taken would. This is more of the same thinking that landed you here in the first place. --NeilNtalk to me18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content disputes involving the violation of editing restrictions are dealt with here but this case involves how content disputes are being resolved and these situations fall firmly under arbitration enforcement requests. I assume that other admins are following the case and aside from GoldenRing's concern with one of BullRangifer's comment, I see little inclination to warn/sanction other editors. Any uninvolved admin is free to take action, either within this case or outside of it. GoldenRing's suggestion above might be worthwhile taking up by crafting some appropriate wording or by reiterating a sentence from WP:CONSENSUS: "Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." --NeilNtalk to me15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 08:19, March 29, 2018, deleted by the editor in question: 09:42, March 29, 2018
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The editor does not seem to fully comprehend how discretionary sanctions work, despite explanations and warnings from many different editors.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
