Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 25 April 2017

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Razzieman

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Theadjuster

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JFG

E.M.Gregory

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 E.M.Gregory

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction :

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

1. 24 April 2017 10.49 Full revert
2. 24 April 2017 11.22 Partial revert of same material

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

• ArbPIA reminder at their user talk page on 5 April 2017 (no idea if this was their first reminder or not)
• 21 April 2017 warned on same article by Black Kite about 2RR

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory

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

Statement by E.M.Gregory

I lost my cool and reverted too hastily, forgetting to discuss the deletion first on the talk page. I backed off from brangling over I/P articles ages ago, after finding the discussions in re: Susya endlessly aversive. I now limit editing in I/P to articles that come up for AfD (like this one,) non-controversial topics like art and literature, occassional sourcing, and terrorist attacks - which I create and edit worldwide. This keeps me out of the swamp of deletion wars and personal attacks in which I/P editing is mired. But it also means that I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule. An error on my part. I do want to point out that the information deleted was sourced to an essay was by Itamar Marcus and published in the Times of Israel. It was written in NPOV voice and was deleted without discussion during a tense AfD process with editors arguing delete on the grounds that the Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing attack was a single-news cycle event with no ongoing coverage. Removing this material during an intensely controversial AfD process framed by several editors as an argument that all terrorist attacks in Israel/Jerusalem/Palestinian Territories should be added to lists rather than kept as stand-alone articles. (Because I edit terror attacks, crime, and attacks that may or may not be terrorism worldwide, I was aware that this argument is contrary to our treatment of similar attacks in other parts of the world.) I do not know what Fram's motives ere in deleting this material, although certainly he has been adamant in opposition ot the existence of this article, describing it as lacking ongoing impact , attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable" , but because I work regularly at AfD do that edits removing ongoing news coverage from a page have the effect of are making it appear that coverage of an event has not met the criteria of sustained coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

E.M. Gregory, first read things attentively before making up statements here. I was not "attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable"", that was a quote from now indef blocked user Cyrus the Penner (who was on your side of the debate from the start): they were claiming that mainstream media coverage is unreliable, a statement with which I clearly disagreed, but which showed his POV in editing the article and AfD. Don't attribute statements or opinions I have not made to me please, and certainly don't build a whole flimsy defense on these incorrect starting points.

Considering the ArbPIA reminder of early april, and the 1RR reminder of 21 April, it seems unlikely that "I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule." Your description of as an NPOV source can be judged by uninvolved readers on its merits, but in the end has no bearing on this AE request. Fram (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• You sent me a reminder about this in April?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats, striking our one incorrect reading of statements by me, and now adding a new one. No, I didn't send a reminder in early april or on 21 April, other editors did. You can find the diffs at the very start of this AE request. Perhaps, in a enforcement request about your edits, read the actual request and try to understand what people are saying and what the history is before replying. Fram (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: because E.M. Gregory reverted the same thing twice? I didn't really pay attention to what others did separately, and the two edits by MrX are edits he could have done in one go as well (they are two separate sections, if I looked correctly). But if you feel that these as well broke the restrictions and deserve the same treatment, be my guest (I also don't know whether MrX has had ArbPia warnings and recent warnings about this behaviour, which Gregory certainly had, but again, I have not looked in this in detail). Fram (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: E.M. Gregory self-reverted after you advised them to "Just self revert to be on the safe side"... Why this would put them on the safe side is not really clear, his false statements and allegations in this AE request or his inability to see that an opinion piece is not a reliable source for statements of fact about something that perhaps one day might happen don't give me much confidence that there is any understanding of the problems with his edits in this contentious topic area. Fram (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wordsmith. No opinion on whether this is the time when a first block is needed, or a final warning is sufficient. But the "clean record" of E.M. Gregory is dubious (the lack of archiving makes it hard to research this though). It seems that here they received a one-month topic ban from the Israel-Palestine subject in May 2016. So, while his block log is as of now empty, he doesn't have a clean record, not even in this very topic area. " he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert." Yes, after the discussion on his talk page, the ANI request, and this AE request were started, when another editor advised him to do so "to be on the safe side". Self-reverting to avoid a block is hardly a mitigating factor in my book. "the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping." I was advised at the ANI thread to start an AE request, but apparently following that advise is now "forum shopping"? Not really, no. Forum shopping is getting a negative response at one venue, and then trying again at another: it is not being sent by one venue to another, and then being accused there of forum shopping because you followed that advice. "Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this." AE is the perfect place for people who have already had ARBPIA warnings (which I didn't know for Gregory at the time I filed the ANI request, just like I didn't know about the earlier topic ban until just now), and I felt that the issues were farther reaching than just the 1RR of ARBPIA. Anyway, your fourth point reads "Fram shouldn't have come here, this is forum shopping. Fram should have come here, this is the right place". Please make up you mind. Fram (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: my first post on his talk page asked him to self-revert, but instead he reinserted the opinion piece after another user had again removed it. The situation here is not comparable to yours (which I haven't looked in to). ANI and ARE only came after a request to self-revert was not heeded and a further revert to include the contested material was made. Fram (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

@Fram: Why did you report only Gregory there other users that broke 1RR?For example User:MrX --Shrike (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

MrX self reverted and I think Gregory too.--Shrike (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

and again here with the explanation "I forgot that...." which seems perfectly plausible to me. Lots of us eidt carelessly at times, forgetting stuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean, "and again here"? Or do you consider self-reverting as another revert to be added? In that case, why did you self-revert after this AE request was filed? Please stop throwing accusations and incorrect statements around, it really doesn't make you look any better. Fram (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: The user have self reverted even before first admin comment. @Wordsmith:There are additional user that violated 1rr and self-reverted do you suggest to warn them too?--Shrike (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @El C:Do you suggest same sanction for other user that violated 1RR and self-reverted on the same article?--Shrike (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

I did inadvertently violate 1RR and I have self-reverted. I was making a series of small contiguous edits and did not realize that Icewhiz had made an intervening edit.

E.M. Gregory seems to have strong views in this subject, as evidenced by his willful violation of two of the article editing restrictions, his 37 AfD comments, and suggestion that Fram and I have a political position with regard to the subject (I don't). This discussion and the article edit summaries hint that E.M. Gregory will probably stop at nothing to win disputes in this subject area.

A block would be an unfortunate mar on his clean block record, but I do think a short topic ban would help.- MrX 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dovid

I'm not involved here, as I have not done editing in this article. The request happened to catch my eye. After reading through the editing history of the article and a bit of the editors as well, I decided to comment. Forgive me for barging in.

This seems to be overblown. A minor infraction of 1RR, which the editor has already admitted to and apologized for? The complainant is being more belligerent than the subject. No sanctions should be applied.

A warning might be appropriate, but given that the editor has already owned up, and by his/her own statements appears to be self-policing against this behavior, it would probably be more of a sop to User:Fram than anything else. Perhaps give both of them a warning - User:E.M.Gregory for hasty editing that lead to rules violations, and Fram for i,,ature administrative action (escalating instead of de-escalating, admin shopping). Dovid (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Ok, my 2 cents: I was given my first block after over 10 years in the IP area, 3 minutes after being reported by an obvious sock, without any previous warning, and without any chance to self revert. My second block was also given without any warning, and without any chance to self revert. Do I think E.M.Gregory deserves a block? Absolutely not. The fact that I have been treated like shit by admins, does not mean that I want other editors treated the same way. And, for those of you unfamiliar with the IP area; I’m very much on the "other side of the divide" from E.M.Gregory, in fact, I just AfD one of his latest masterpieces, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis. Actually, I would love to see him topic banned from the IP area...or at least, banned from making any new articles in the IP area. But blocked, when he self reverted? No, that is simply not right, IMO. Huldra (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

E.M.Gregory took full responsibility for his mistake, both here and at WP:ANI, so I recommend minimal action, perhaps even a warning. An editor who has been active in this area and has been able to avoid problems, should receive some credit here. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning E.M.Gregory

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

• Ah, my favorite topic area to see at AE again. Doing some looking into the diffs presented, on the face of things it is fairly obvious that a violation did occur. However, there are several mitigating factors. First, we have a 2+ year old account with a clean record and block log. Second, he's been brought up at AE exactly once in his tenure here, in 2015 where no admin suggested taking any action. Third, he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert. Fourth, the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping. Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this. I'm inclined to resolve this with a warning to E.M.Gregory, but waiting to hear more opinions. The Wordsmith 14:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Fram: My research didn't show the topic ban, so I'll review that thread to see if that changes things. A prior topic ban in the area is often grounds for more severe sanctions. The Wordsmith 15:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• If this was on AN3—which in cases of 1RR is actually more likely than AE or ANI—I'd be blocking for 24 hours (due to previous history of topic ban and prior warnings). I still don't understand why the user didn't simply self-revert, as was suggested to them. What happened there? El_C 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since the user did self-revert after all, I would be willing to consider 0RR for 72 hours in place of a 24-hour block. El_C 21:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know the other user's ARBPIA background to tell whether the warning already extended would suffice here. El_C 22:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't researched the context, so I'm not offering an opinion, merely links for E.M.Gregory's one-month ARBPIA topic ban: . Bishonen | talk 19:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC).
• A one-month topic ban a year ago is hardly grounds for blocking an editor who recognizes their error, fixes it, and where there exists little evidence that the conduct at issue will reoccur. A 0RR restriction would be sufficient, but I don't see the case for anything more severe. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree that a warning is quite sufficient here, and will shortly close as such absent any objection. Seraphimblade 22:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice

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 EJustice

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

EJustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

Prior community discussion of the issues

1. ENI thread: NPOV problem opened 19:30, 6 April 2017 by S. Rich
2. ANI discussion: POV forks being created as school project opened 22:04, 6 April by User: The Wordsmith
3. ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks opened by EJustice 13 April 2017
4. ENI thread: Environmental Justice class project - update from Wiki Ed 15 April opened by User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)
5. Thread at User Talk at Ryan (Wiki Ed) opened 17 April 2017 by User: Seraphimblade
6. ENI thread: Advocacy classes and issues opened 24 April 2017 by Seraphimblade

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

1. Course page with clear BLP violations about Trump (later noted at class liaison page here and removed in this diff) and stating the class agenda: ...in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency. created 18 January 2017. While we have the "neutral, well documented" aspect, the agenda to use WIkipedia to raise the alarm is very clear. Please note that there are 6 sections for this class. Here they are at Wiki Ed: section 101, section 102, section 103, section 104, section 105, section 106. There are 180 students. Some of the articles and their fates have been tracked here.
2. 15 March 2017 Encouraging students to generate POV content, eg I like the bold statements, even more so when supported by articles (like the Mother Jones one about puppy mill lobbyists!) This was made at the Talk page of Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations.
   1. Am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time was in this state and contained OFFTOPIC, POV content like As the most disliked POTUS of the United States in at least 60 years, Donald J. Trump has a highly contentious agricultural platform. and pretty much everything else in that section and other parts of the page.
3. 15 March 2017 comment praising Environmental impacts of pig farming when it was in this state.
   1. I am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time contained content like The Midwest has traditionally been home to many hog CAFOs, but it became particularly populated with them between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s, especially located in the Black Belt region referring to an area where many slaves traditionally worked on plantations, and after emancipation many freed slaves stayed to work in that area as sharecroppers or as tenant farmers. The ref is about North Carolina which is not in the Midwest; the ref makes no mention of a "Black Belt", nor race at all, nor slavery, nor sharecroppers. It is about hog farming in N Carolina. The next sentence does deal with race: To this day, many black residents in the Black Belt region face high levels of poverty, poor standards of housing and low quality of education, employment and health care. This ref does discuss race and poverty but makes no mention of hog farming or CAFOs. It is clear there is WP:SYN going on here, to build an argument. The content that these students generated is shot through with this kind of thing. Not what we do in Misplaced Pages. EJustice has no awareness of this. These kinds of edits were later criticized, and you will see EJustice's response to that.
4. 15 March 2017 Comment on draft of "Farmworkers in California" in a sandbox: An important topic, so work on getting a strong scaffold/outline to make your big points!
5. 6 April 2017 First comment in an AfD, saying article is education program and that it is fine. Article was userified.
6. 10 Apirl 2017: comments on Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama: Additionally, any thoughts on how the Trump Administration's actions will impact this issue? can you find citations to such analysis?
7. 10 April 2017 comment on draft - note that their attitude is hardening now: 1) keep your eyes on the prize -- focus more on strengthening and deepening your citations and evidence on issues of justice than on combatting those who seek to erase any mention of it.
8. 10 April 2017: key comment -- comment on draft: Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article.
9. 13 April 2017 first comment addressing non-students Responding to comments by User:dsprc made in response to questions from students about dsprc's edits, in this section of the Talk page. EJustice cites WP:Systemic bias and doesn't hear dsprc's policy-and-guideline-based objections. They have the "systemic bias" hammer in hand now, and will be responding regularly with that, instead of addressing issues.
10. 13 April 2017 at EJustice talk page, responding to dsprc: Your input above strikes me as gratuitous, meaning unsupported by fact. Feel free to point to actual text that represents non-neutrality or maligning of others. Please also reflect on how much you are violating Misplaced Pages's own expressed guidelines for avoiding systemic bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#What_you_can_do).
11. 13 April 2017 AfD !vote: ...The course, among many other things, aims to help neutrally document the Trump Administration's assault on environmental protection....Finally, please consider this advice about systemic bias from within Misplaced Pages itself
12. 13 April 2017 partially deletes a PROD. See edit note.
13. ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks opened by EJustice 13 April 2017 (linked above).
    1. says in OP for example .... I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with systemic biases. I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on what to do about it. Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct.... (problem is not its "factual correctness" - EJustice is not hearing the problem, and does this typical advocate thing, where the problem must be with other people.)
    2. 14 April 2017 not seeing the problems Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations
    3. diff comment: Their (my students') constructiveness and meekness in the face of hostile editorial responses that seem at times to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class is admirable. Emphasis added. Note responses to that, here and here.
    4. Please also note this series of responses from User:MelanieN, going from at first very sympathetic, to somewhat exasperated and sharp, as their interaction with EJustice unfolds: diff, diff, diff, diff,
14. 03:29, 15 April 2017 at an AfD. key comment I agree with your assessment that the students' work (upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities) has been treated with untoward hostility. I could anticipate this because this work does get regularly attacked in the real world. (Check out Rush Limbaugh, 2004.) And we trained the students to stay calm in the face of such attacks and to do their best and, most importantly to rigorously source their statements. I disagree a bit about the cause of the turmoil. It is a political topic, but more importantly acknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known systemic biases within Misplaced Pages. Many of these topics though are not political, certainly not by the definition of BLP or the discretionary sanction for post-1932 politics. Are the legalities of tribal lands and waterways really about biographies or direct politics? If not, then what might be at play in seeking to eliminate this as a topic for Misplaced Pages? The last question there is rhetorical, and it is clear what Ejustice believes the problem is.
15. 17:52, 17 April 2017 Again, in EJustice's view there is no real problem with specific edits students have actually made, nor with the mission of the class and its agenda; the problem is systemic bias among Wikipedians. ...It's (Environmental justice is) a big deal and has a lot to do with understanding and solving environmental problems. So it's educational content the world needs, provided by people trained to create it. ...My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that.
16. As is extremely common in student editing, copyvios were found, which EJustice doubted and pushed back a bunch of times to have versions restored - no concern that WP cannot host COPYVIO. Diffs: at deleting admin's talk; at ANI, back at admin's talk page; at their own Talk page; at User:Ian (Wiki Ed)'s talk page; diff, etc.
17. here, I tried to call their attention to the underlying problem with the mission of the class via the excellent Misplaced Pages:Beware of the tigers essay. Their response which included I think the key thing that editors are getting wrong is their inability to separate topics that are particularly triggering in today's political environment from good neutral content about things like environmental racism..... But the inability of critics to separate their feelings about the topic from the facts makes some of the feedback less than useful. and My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that.. and later (diff) You strike me as a live tiger This turning things back on people is the same thing they did in the ANI, and is what advocates always do in WIkipedia. They subsequently moved the DS alert I gave them and that discussion to a subpage, User:EJustice/notrelevant. The title of which speaks for itself.
18. comment at AfD, repeated 19 April 2017 here at the article talk page as an instruction to their students: Feedback from instructor: The literature cited shows that more regulation leads to more employment and economic growth in Appalachia. This paradox increases the notability of this subject and the page could be streamlined based on this connection. When I asked what that means exactly, EJustice wrote this. In other words, this instruction to the students was conjecture and advocacy stated as Truth. This is where the class is coming from and where they are being led, in their Misplaced Pages editing. This is not what we do in Misplaced Pages. This is a thesis that someone would argue for in an essay.
19. 23 April 2017 another attack on motivations of me and others.
20. 25 April 2017 as above. Which prompted this filing.

References

1. Denson, Author: Ryan (2017-01-25). "The Numbers Are In: Trump Is The Most Hated Newly Inaugurated President EVER". Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave. Retrieved 2017-03-05. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)
2. Ball, Molly. "Trump's Last Vacant Cabinet Post". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-03-06.
3. Furuseth, Owen J. (November 1997). "Restructuring of Hog Farming in North Carolina: Explosion and Implosion". The Professional Geographer. 49 (4): 391–403. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00086. (nb, citation fixed)
4. Wimberley, Ronald C; Morris, Libby V (2002). "The Regionalization of Poverty: Assistance for the Black Belt South?" (PDF). Southern Rural Sociology. 18 (1): 294–306. (NB, citation fixed)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

(none)

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above and diff on 14 April 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EJustice's trajectory within WP is very typical of advocates who arrive here, mistaking Misplaced Pages for something that it is not. EJustice arrived with a clearly stated agenda, has mostly ignored feedback, and has accused those who raised issues with their content of being blinded by their own biases. No self-awareness, no acknowledgement that a bunch (not all) of the student editing has violated policies on many levels (POV, SYN, failing verification, COPYVIO), nor glimmer of openness to seeing Misplaced Pages for what it is. (It is hard to write about race and class everywhere in the world, including WP - maybe especially in WP with our policies and guidelines and mission, and our community full of messy humans)

EJustice set this POV-editing agenda for a class of 180 people; EJustice is driving (their grade depends on it) and encouraging students to add essay content to Misplaced Pages arguing an environmental justice agenda, against Trump's agenda; this is the WP:Beware of tigers problem. EJustice has demonstrated this in their AfD !votes, their talk page comments, and their responses at various boards.

I feel awful for the students. See this conversation with a student on my Talk page. That student is trapped between what their professor is demanding and Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

EJustice being here under the Education Program has kind of exacerbated the overall problems - pulling out this diff from a volunteer at ANI, already cited above: If it wasn't for the wiki edu connection, User:EJustice would have already been warned, if not blocked, for POV pushing per WP:NOTHERE.

This is.. awkward and unfortunate and is surely something that will be discussed when the semester is over when the Wiki Ed staff are not working like crazy trying to help students complete their assignments.

But EJustice's activities have caused widespread disruption and absorbed a ton of volunteer time, as you can see from the discussion boards cited above. They continue to personalize objections to content created by students, instead of dealing the policy-and-guideline based issues themselves, as shown by the last two diffs above in particular. In the case of EJustice as a Wikipedian, in my view they should be topic banned from contemporary politics, and be informed that this goes for future classes via TAs per MEAT. This is a very bad outcome but I don't see another way. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• shrunk. Acknowledged. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• User: Sandstein I thought about that too. Where I came down is that per the dashboard page cited in the first bullet of diffs, the agenda for this class was driven in reaction to Trump's environmental agenda. The focus of this class is raising awareness of EJ issues and of Trump's "assault" on them. If you control+f this for "assault" and "Trump" and look at the article titles created by the students, you will see that EJustice talked about "assault" not only in syllabus but in an AfD, and that the focus of the class is Trump. At the ANI thread they opened they said The topic of environmental justice is particularly tricky right now. President Trump is on the record... etc. Contemporary politics is every where in this. That is why their behavior falls under these DS, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Sandstein thanks for reply but I struggle with your analysis. The content generated by the students was specifically and generally Trump related, at EJustice's direction. EJustice's comments accuse those objecting to the content of being full of bias -- that we (I am among them) are incapable of editing neutrally about contemporary US politics because of that bias. So the comments are an effort to influence content about contemporary US politics; we do not permit editors to be active in US politics who behave this way. Not to mention, who drive other editors to add this kind of policy-violating content about contemporary US politics. I do appreciate the nod toward AN should you remain with this position and a consensus of admins ends up agreeing with you. That is a valid alternative route. This also prompts me to consider that a community ban might be a more... appropriate solution. But let's see what other admins weigh in with. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning EJustice

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

Statement by EJustice

Statement by The Wordsmith

@Lord Roem: I intend to make a more substantive comment, but I will request that you grant Jytdog a waiver on his statement length. This issue encompasses a massive number of articles involving many editors, and extra space really is necessary to put this issue in context. The only reason I didn't bring it to AE myself is because of the sheer scope of this. And as always, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED on 2016 Election-related articles in general and this Berkeley issue in specific. The Wordsmith 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've been dealing with this nonsense since I happened upon one of the articles while browsing AFD. Upon doing some routine research, I was horrified to find the rest of them. A full list (of the ones in mainspace, anyway) is at User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles. A handful of them, such as Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, are okay, though that only came about through a large effort involving many editors resulting from a note I dropped on Talk:Donald Trump. Prior to that, it was a mess of POV pushing and Original Research and Crystal Ballery. Going by the looks of it, roughly half of them have already been deleted or otherwise removed from article space. And through it all, EJustice has maintained that anyone opposing or criticizing the work being done is doing so because of their own biases. I really think there's a fundamental disconnect between what Professor Gelobter thinks Misplaced Pages is for, and what we actually do here. Many experienced editors and admins have tried to help him understand, but I don't think he's willing to budge. A topic ban for him and his students (many of which have been meatpuppeting on each others' AFDs) is the only way that I know of to end this disruption, short of waiting for the semester to be over and then a massive cleanup. The Wordsmith 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Bri

I'll make this short and sweet.

1. I encountered this group's editing also, and found it beyond problematic.
2. The courses are obviously US politics agenda driven and inherently POV.
3. The 10 April diff is particularly concerning in that it appears to show students being pushed until they conform to the course's agenda. I don't know how this works at UC Berkeley, but this amounts to WP:MEAT in our sphere.
4. Also here he is offering legal advice to his students that are at odds with our norms.
5. The course leader should not be allowed to participate further until they demonstrate that they understand our community processes and norms.

- Bri (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MelanieN

I have been involved to a slight extent with EJustice and his students, primarily at one of the articles: Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. At that article several of us have been working with several of the students, collegially and with good results, and it is a proper encyclopedia article. I have interacted with EJustice himself on only one occasion, the ANI that Jytdog quoted from above. Speaking as a regular editor (not as an admin because of my involvement), I have two points to make.

• "Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration" is a proper subject for Misplaced Pages, comparable to other articles about the various policies of various presidents. I was unaware of all the other articles that have been created (180 students? OMG!), and having looked at a few now I am pretty much appalled. Almost none of them are proper subjects for an encyclopedia article. "Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations"? "Environmental impacts of pig farming"? "Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama" for heavens sake?? At most these subjects could be a paragraph in a related article. These are not articles, these are student term papers, and they should have been assigned and graded as such. From the subject matter, to the format, to the neutrality or lack of it, they are completely unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. This was inherent in the class itself, which is frankly oriented toward a particular political viewpoint. In the future this professor should not assign his students to do their term papers in the form of Misplaced Pages articles, and steps should be taken at the education project to ensure that this does not happen again. Unfortunately, almost all of these inappropriate articles are going to have to be deleted or redirected.

• The user EJustice has been very belligerent about attributing any criticism or deletion to bias, rather than to enforcing the guidelines of an international encyclopedia. That's just a defensive reflex on his part; EJustice knows nothing about the political or social opinions of editors here. That's by design; most of us try to edit in such a way that our own beliefs and attitudes are not reflected in our editing. (I personally have been accused of being everything from a flaming liberal to a Trump apologist.) But EJustice has a fixed belief that anyone who disagrees with his agenda must be doing so because of their own biases. That fixed belief, and the WP:IDHT attitude it generates, are incompatible with being a Misplaced Pages editor. It appears that EJustice is NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to use it to promote his own viewpoint. IMO action needs to be taken on that basis.

I thank Jytdog for this careful research and exposition of this massive problem. Unfortunately AE may not be the proper venue for the problems raised here, and we might have to do it all again at AN in order to take the actions which are called for.--MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lord Roem, Sandstein, and El C: You mentioned a topic ban, presumably of EJustice. To be clear, what topic are you considering banning him from? Also a comment: banning User:EJustice himself from editing does nothing to prevent him from sending 180 students here to post POV term papers. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I'll comment here since I've been rather involved in this issue. I fully agree that this is becoming a major problem. Normally, when I've run into issues with class projects, I've found that instructors and students are quite willing to receive and act on feedback, and it doesn't have to go any farther than giving them some advice and being there if they have questions. Unfortunately, that has not been true here. EJustice has seemed fundamentally unwilling to change the approach they've taken, even after having been told repeatedly that it is unacceptable. At this point, I don't know what else we can do but apply sanctions.

To the question by Sandstein, many of this class's edits are American Politics related, but there have also been issues with BLP. Discretionary sanctions always are applicable to BLP issues. But something needs to change here, because this is reaching a serious level of disruption, and with the instructor being unwilling to change what they're doing, I don't know what else to do. I warned some time ago that it might come to this if it continues, and, well, here we are. Seraphimblade 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning EJustice

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

• I'll review soon, but your request is way too long. Please shrink it to comply to the 500-word limit. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think what's been been presented is more than enough. It's unfortunate that we have to face this with a university course that has the potential to strengthen existing articles w/ better research and sourcing... but the editor in question is very clearly POV-pushing and refusing to listen to feedback. We've sanctioned with less extensive evidence. I believe a topic-ban is appropriate, with the added proviso that the editor should be very wary about asking his students to edit where he can't. They need to understand what WP is for and what's not appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Adding that while I think the above is enough to act on my own, I'd like to hear other admins' thoughts before jumping in. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • The more I think about it, the more I think AN might be best to handle this if only because this isn't just a potential sanction against one editor, but the entire class, as MelanieN mentions above. I'd feel uncomfortable making such a broad decision on my own, especially when we're not unanimous that DS applies. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• At first glance we do seem to have conduct issues here that could justify a sanction, but I would like it to be made more clear how this is about the "politics of the United States" and therefore within scope of discretionary sanctions. Apart from a few Trump-related comments, the diffs in evidence are basically about topics related to environmental justice and environmental protection in the US. This is of course a political matter in a broad sense, but then most controversial public policy issues are. My understanding of the sanctions is that they were enacted to deal with disruption in the topic area of partisan or party politics, such as elections-related content. If they are understood to cover every controversial public issue, they'd cover basically everything related to the U.S., which I don't think was the intention.  Sandstein  20:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Unlike Jytdog, I don't think that, just because EJustice may possibly have had political reasons for their actions, these actions are within the scope of discretionary sanctions about U.S. politics. In my view, it is required that the potentially disruptive edits are themselves related to U.S. politics in order to be sanctionable. I would therefore not take AE action here. However, a request for a community topic ban, which is not limited by topic area, might be made at WP:AN.  Sandstein  20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Jytdog that, due to the focus of the edits (rather than merely the motivation, as Sandstein claims), it can be seen to fall within the scope of ARBAP2—but a topic ban can work just as well to end the disruption. Clearly, something needs to be done, as the statements by several editors above attest. El_C 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)