This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Doc9871
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Doc9871 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
On the talk page of Donald Trump
- [1] Personal attack. Particularly strange since it was made right after I agreed with him [2]
- [3] Discussing editors rather than content. Assuming bad faith. Disruptive derailing of discussion. Note edit summary where he "clarifies" his "PA", which is an admittance that he is making personal attacks.
- [4] Again, discussing editors rather than content. States that I "have no business editing this article" (because... he decided so)
- [5] Threats and continued refusal to discuss content rather than editors
- [6] Refusal to address the issue, restatement that he will "challenge" all my edits, pretty much states that they do not plan on abiding by 1RR on the article.
- [7] Another personal attack. False claim.
- [8] "Shut up. Signed: everybody". A very explicit personal attack.
- Note that most of these comments were made AFTER a notification of discretionary sanctions was issued: [9]
On the Donald Trump article itself. Please be aware that the article is under a 1RR restriction:
- 1st revert Note that the edit summary is false - the info is in fact in the source as has been pointed out prior to the edit on the talk page
- 2nd revert Note that the edit summary is false. In fact, it's ridiculously false since the text is in the source almost exactly the same (allowing for paraphrasing). For reference the source is here.
- 3rd revert Note that the edit summary is misleading (and nonconstructive). My source was an improvement over the previous source.
- 4th revert This edit summary makes absolutely no sense. What does "Nah. ..." mean? The claim is that the edit was "too sloppy" because of the use of a singular "period" rather than "periods". This is about as spurious and petty of a revert/edit summary as I've ever seen on Wikipedia.
- Note that all but the first two of these were made AFTER a 1RR notification was issued: [10] (both notifications were removed)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
[11] blocked as part of Arbitration Enforcement on two previous occasions, both fairly recent, for exactly the same article.
- [12] Blocked for violations at the closely related Donald Trump presidential campaign article.
- [13] Blocked for 1RR violation at Donald Trump presidential campaign article article.
In regard to the second diff, in case Doc tries to argue that the above listed edit were not reverts, please note the discussion that followed his May 2016 block [14] where the blocking admin, User:Coffee explains to him precisely what a revert is. So he knew he was doing bad.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
See above. The user has been sanctioned on these articles under DS previously and also received a recent notification (I was not aware he had previous blocks in this area until I started writing this report)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Personally I can't tell if this is some kind of personal grudge (the nature of Doc's comments come off that way) or it's just the topic involved. Either way, it's clear that the user has decided unilaterally that I should not be allowed to edit the article for some reason, and has proceeded to edit war, breaking not just 1RR (which the article is subject to) but even 3RR, making very petty reverts. My edits didn't even change the text, just improved the sourcing so this is clearly a WP:POINT violation, where Doc is basically saying "I will not allow you to make a single edit to this article". Even putting aside the edit warring and the personal attacks, this is disruptive and unacceptable.
In light of the previous blocks the user received on this very article on a very closely related article ("Donald Trump presidential campaign" vs "Donald Trump) I request a two week block from editing as well as a topic ban from anything related to Donald Trump and the ongoing presidential election, broadly construed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also these two previous AN/I threads which document exactly the same problematic behavior in other areas. This means previous warnings have been issued. Repeatedly. [15] a dispute with User:SMcCandlish, closed by User:John, and [16] initiated by User:John (don't know how that ended up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[17]
Statement by (Doc9871)
- Point #7 illustrates the extremely misguided nature of this complaint. "A very explicit personal attack". Yeah, right. This is a complete waste of time. Doc talk 09:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that Volunteer Marek seems to confuse "this very article" with another article, probably because doing research is bothersome. The Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article I admittedly got into a little trouble for. I have never been blocked for editing this article in any way. Doc talk 10:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On the AN/I's - I don't recall having any further issues with that editor, almost a year ago. I didn't get blocked or topic-banned in either case. So it's really a stretch to even bring it up. Doc talk 10:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishonen definitely has an axe to grind here. For the record: I've never socked, never lied about socking, and never supported socking. Doc talk 10:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How can one editor, blatantly biased against me, get to close this that quickly? Is it really that simple? Doc talk 11:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not an uninvolved admin. You are inarguably involved and have an axe to grind with me. I do not trust your decision to be neutral at all. Please note that the thread was not even open more than a few hours before this decision was handed down. This is grounds for immediate appeal. Seriously not in line with due process. Doc talk 11:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SMcCandlish, thanks for another thorough breakdown of my behavior and how it should be effectively addressed. I think it's a little beyond the scope of the Trump stuff though, maybe? Thanks fer stoppin' by. Doc talk 12:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Johnuniq
Would admins please explain to Doc9871 that whacking people with a wet trout is not a substitute for a calm exchange of views, and this diff at User talk:Bishonen#August 2016 is entirely inappropriate. I see several aspersions being cast above, and no evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And this edit at my talk shows that Doc9871 has no idea of what reasonable behavior at a collaborative project would involve. Johnuniq (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SMcCandlish
I'm reluctant to get into any dispute involving Doc9871, but this is the same problem as last year. Volunteer Marek diffed my previous ANI complaint, but there were two; the second also closed without action, despite being about immediate resumption of the same behavior after a warning. No consequences = no impetus for adjustment.
There's no excuse for comments like "You really have no business editing this article", and others diffed by Marek (there is no requirement that editors be neutral, only content must be; are any editors neutral about Trump?). The "Don't challenge me ... You have no chance getting me on a "personal attack'" battlegrounding mirrors the stuff last year (e.g.: "Open an AN/I on me if you want."[18] and several other such 'I'm invincible' challenges, "Ask around if I am one to quarrel with. I will 'Wikilawyer' you, and really good. You don't have to like me: you have to reckon with me."[19], "You're playing with fire. You better know when to recognize this."[20], "I will fight this PC nonsense until the bitter end."[21]). (Actually, I just realized this previous matter really is American-political, an anti-progressivism stance.)
Doc9871 uses others' block logs as weapons, and struts that he is immune to repercussions just because his own block log is [somehow] clean [22], [23], [24], [25] (samples from his months-long, bad-faith-assuming and veiled-threat abuse of a single editor, Ihardlythinkso, in a pattern repeated later with me). WP does not need a gangland kingpin. This behavior has to stop.
I suggest prohibiting Doc9871 from:
- Namecalling or questioning the good faith of other editors
- Menacing other editors on the basis of their administrative enforcement history regarding matters unrelated to the topic
- Trying to hound other editors out of a topic
- Threatening any editor with harassment, battleground, or editwar tactics, or issuing 'you can't do anything about me'-type challenges.
Give escalating blocks for recurrent transgressions. This would nip this battlegrounding problem in the bud. All four of these behaviors are consistently exhibited in Doc's aggressive soapboxing against Ihardlythinkso, myself, and Volunteer Marek in series, over a long time; it's not a fluke or coincidence. AE should put out Doc's "fire", since ANI never results in action due to Doc having a bit of a fan club.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bishonen: I honestly think the approach I outline above, without any initial block or a particular topic ban, would be more effective, because the behavior is not actually localized. I was once subject to a "not questioning good faith" sanction myself, and it markedly changed my approach to other editors, away from my habitual Usenet-style "verbal combat" tactics. (To someone habituated to it, it does not seem wrong, and it takes a while to learn why it is in this environment and how to shift). It's a form of teaching contextual manners and distinction-drawing. I have faith that it would work in Doc's case, while a not-that-short topic ban will probably feel unfair and punitive rather than preventative, and may just increase the angry mastodon mode in the long run. I also speak from experience here, having been twice subjected to short-term TBs, in ways that effectively supervoted in favor of the other party and gave them free reign, leading to a major mess that had to be cleaned up after the TBs expired (and one of those parties has been indeffed; I was right, just being a WP:JERK about it). I think the cases are parallel; there's a good chance that the underlying NPoV issues that Doc is trying, intemperately, to address are legitimate. So a TB rather than some behavioral fencing might negatively affect the content. TBs are a hammer that should only be used on the nails of long-term (or suddenly massively disruptive) patterns of localized disruption, in my view (not as a matter of strict rules, but of what works and what does not). Matters like this are screws, not nails, and need a more subtle tool. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bishonen: It could be a bit fuzzy, but "questioning the good faith of other editors" it not very fuzzy at all, as it directly addresses what the editor writes, in public view, about another editor's motivations. My own restriction of this sort was very fuzzy, reading "prohibited from assuming bad faith about other editors", a matter of mind-reading thoughtcrime, and people did attempt to game it (unsuccessfully). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that we already know the TB will not be effective: "You really think this is going to teach me a lesson?", from Doc's response to the TB [26]. TBs can also lead to cases of myopic "fight the injustice" WP:NOTHERE + WP:GREATWRONGS behavior (which is how and why the aforementioned party got indeffed). I would have concerns in this regard given Doc's followup comment, "What it teaches me is that there is no due process here. I was absolutely railroaded on this issue." [27] The "issue" for him is "censorship" from a particular topic, and he believes the motivation for it is political (see same diff). This would not be happening if the remedy was directly and only targeted at behavior patterns across topics instead of just at his ranting over Trump articles in particular. That's all I'll say about it; I just don't want to be in an "I told you so" position a few months from now, with Doc blocked repeatedly, and sour on WP, instead of being successfully herded into being less verbally hostile (which for me was a difficult and probably still incomplete, but ultimately rewarding transition, with off-WP benefits). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by USERNAME
Result concerning Doc9871
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I saw the edits on the article talkpage, and was just writing up a warning to Doc before this AE report; I've posted it now. As I imply there, I'm quite prepared to topic ban Doc from Donald Trump-related pages if he persists in his aggressive personalized talkpage posting. Perhaps we can await the result of my warning, as well as of the DS alert and this report, before taking any action. Noting, however, the nasty tone of even Doc's response right here ("probably because doing research is bothersome"), which doesn't exactly suggest he's currently taking any criticism to heart. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Adding: Actually, I hadn't realized that some of the worst posts by Doc on Talk:Donald Trump [28][29] were made after the discretionary sanctions alert, which apparently, just like the warnings (including mine), made no impression at all. I've topic banned him for one month from all Donald Trump-related pages. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply to Doc: Yes, it's supposed to be simple. Discretionary sanctions are actually meant to make it simpler to ban disruptive editors from controversial pages; they're not intended to add a layer of bureaucracy. I'm using my admin discretion, as is the intention of the discretionary sanctions. I would have done it without this AE report — as I said above, I was already writing up a warning to you — and it would be a bit paradoxical to let the report prevent me. On the other hand, I haven't "closed" the report. If other admins disapprove of my sanction, they can decide per consensus right here to void it. (Or to extend it, for that matter.) I'm sure there will be more admin input — America by and large isn't awake yet — so I suggest you may consider defending yourself a bit better before they arrive. For instance, if you're serious about me being "blatantly biased", "looking to settle the score,"[30] etc, you may want to offer some evidence. I don't know what you mean by it, for my part. What score? Bishonen | talk 11:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply to @SMcCandlish: you would address Doc's aggressive behaviour specifically, with a ban from questioning the good faith of others. I hear you, but the problem with that is that it has fuzzy borders. It's harder for the user to comply with, and to feel secure that he is complying with it. It's easier for others to play gotcha. A topic ban is a lot 'cleaner': simple to comply with, simple to oversee. That said, Doc can certainly be blocked if he persists in what you call a "Usenet style". I hope he realizes that he's on notice wrt to that now, especially as far as attacking Volunteer Marek is concerned. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- I concur with the sanction applied based on evidence presented here. If the behavior continues after the month, we can revisit an extended TB. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Their response in accusing Bishonen of "having an axe to grind" is both unhelpful and demonstrates they don't understand the problem with their behavior (and are thus likely to do it again). Also, see this on their talk page. Very much agree with the topic ban imposed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully agree with the decision by Bishonen; this is exactly the type of quick action to curb disruption that discretionary sanctions is designed to facilitate, and there was crystal clear cause for action here. Since SMcCandlish has also provided an indication that disruption has occurred outside the area of Donald Trump, I'll also warn in no uncertain terms that if this type of conduct occurs elsewhere in the area of American politics, the topic ban will be substantially broadened, and will be lengthened or made indefinite. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|