Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

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

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

Notagainst

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 Notagainst

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Femkemilene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCC: Climate change

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

Examples of not trying to find consensus

• Talk:Climate_crisis#Can_this_article_be_saved? Notagainst did a big rewrite of the article. Initial objections about POV were ignored and editing continued away from objections even after the discussion was started.
• Talk:Effects_of_global_warming#Sense_of_crisis This pattern continued: Notagainst added a subsection, and continued expanding it (e.g. 1 January) during a discussion on whether it should be removed for being off-topic/POV.
• Talk:Bushfires in Australia#Significant redirection of content? Further continuation, with Notagainst performing some 35 edits after this concern was raised. After tagging them, they continued to ignore the concern about POV and added more information to the section under dispute (12 January).

Examples of failing Wikipedia:Verifiability by misrepresenting sources

• 19 December Inserting statement that climate change is already driving mass migration with four sources, two of which don't talk about the past/current state at all. Also falsely claiming report is from IPCC, when it's instead from IOM.
• 19 December Leaving out important context (worst-case scenario). Removed verification failed tag on December 29 without correcting various mistakes.
• 19 December Inserted five sources, none of which supported statement. Later corrected, but I think still in violation with WP:NPOV.
• 20 December Amended number, but source (UN) still explicitly states this number is guesswork and the report cites works that describe the number as apocalyptic.
• 2 January Other examples of wrongful attribution: not scientific American, but somebody published by them.

Examples of personal attacks

• 24 September Personal attack directed at me: "it seems you just run with the bullies."
• 9 September, 28 September, 6 November, 6 November Personal attack directed at group of editors "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers." and Sounds like you might be a climate crisis denier? and more.
• 12 January Personal attack at me: what kind of person does that?.

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

• 15 July 2019 notified on talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notagainst is a prolific editor of some of the most widely-read pages about climate change. I regret that I feel obliged to ask enforcement instead of working together on improving this important topic. The disruptive editing consists of a persistent refusal to engage seriously in consensus building and objecting to community input. Furthermore, they are editing so much that other editors don't have time to verify, often with a high rate of mistakes. When other editors comment on mistakes or on other content disputes, the editor often continues editing the article in the direction other editors objected to. The editor also frequenty uses personal attacks, even after being called out on them. Frequent editor concerns are about POV pushing. That this type of editing occurs on widely-read pages makes it more urgent in my view.

start of later contribution I'll respond to two of NA's points.

1. This reflects my concerns that NA isn't able yet to distinguish reliable sources from semi-reliable sources. Take the last source in the list, an article in the Foresight magazine. This article makes claims about what the UN forecasts about migration. The magazine doesn't quote the report they take this information from, but the numbers correspond to the 2009 IOM report. This UN report contains contains a literature assessment, in which they discuss these numbers. They make it clear that they have serious doubts about those numbers, so saying that the UN forecasts them is a clear mis-characterisation by the Foresight magazine, making this article, and possibly this source, unsuitable for Wikipedia.

4. Incorrect, I started formulating a request on 22 December. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Notagainst

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 Notagainst

The simple answer as to whether "wikivoice is not a principle" is that WP has a pillar called Neutrality. WP:wikivoice redirects to WP:NPOV. That page does not mention wikivoice in the list of contents. There is a section among the contents called Policies and guidelines. It contains dozens of related policies - but wikivoice is not among them. WP does not have a principle, a guideline or a pillar called wikivoice. This is not my belief. It is a fact. Notagainst (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

1) On her user Page, Femkemilene says she is “a PhD researcher on climate variability and change”. As such, she is required to employ academic standards of accuracy and verifiability to include material in her research. WP does not require the same level of accuracy as academic research and she and I have butted heads because she tries to impose her academic standards on Wikipedia. Other editors follow her lead. In the pursuit of accuracy, they ignore the WP principle requiring neutrality and balance.

For instance, in this discussion on the level of migration attributable to climate change, she says she “deleted two of (my) four sources because they did not support the statement…(which read: ‘Global warming is already driving mass migration in different parts of the world.’) That’s not to say they are wrong, but just that we can’t trust them at face value… Estimates of migration called primarily by environmental factors and specifically by climate change are highly controversial.” There were four citations for the statement in the article.

• Migration and Climate Change, The IPCC

• Climate Change Is Already Driving Mass Migration Around the Globe
• 143 Million People May Soon Become Climate Migrants
• Environmental Migrants: Up To 1 Billion By 2050

These are all reliable sources making somewhat different claims about how many migrants there will be. What they all agree on is that there will be millions and that these are largely attributable to climate change. But Femkemilene refuses to trust them because they don't meet her academic standards.

2) In this discussion, Femkemilene demonstrates that she deletes material she doesn't agree with or which doesn't reach her academic standards, instead of adding other material that would provide balance.

3) In this discussion on Sense of Crisis, she splits academic hairs over the difference between the effects and responses to global warming.

4) As an authority on the subject, Femkemilene seems to take personal offence at being challenged. In this discussion, I pointed out the inconsistency in her claim that she believes there is a climate crisis but that she failed to support this view in discussions on the climate crisis talk page ("what kind of person does that?"). She was clearly offended and initiated this arbitration. Notagainst (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

5) RCraig claims climate crisis is just a value-laden term. And yet 11,000 scientists were happy to do so in a RS which means it meets the criteria for inclusion - but he and his 'half dozen' colleagues deleted it. They use the mythical wikivoice to ignore the principle of balance and neutrality. Notagainst (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

6) In regard to seeking consensus with these editors, that's almost impossible when they consistently ignore basic WP rules about using reliable sources to achieve neutrality and balance - and kid themselves that wikivoice is a real WP principle which justifies their collective deletions.Notagainst (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by RCraig09

I encountered substantial and repeated violations by Notagainst in Talk:Climate crisis, ignoring repeated civil explanations by multiple experienced editors of how Wikipedia must be WP:NEUTRAL in describing climate change and not characterize it in WP:WIKIVOICE as a "crisis". (The Climate crisis article is about the term "climate crisis".)
Notagainst's posts include:

• 22 Sept: "Wikivoice is not a principle - it doesn't exist."
• 28 Sept: "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers"
• 29 Sept: "Your lack of logic is simply astounding"
• 7 Nov: "That's nonsense."
• 21 Nov: "There is no discussion of the climate crisis on the global warming page" — (In fact, Global warming neutrally describes what Notagainst characterize as a crisis, and discusses the term at Global warming#Public opinion and disputes)

I concur with Femkemilene. Notagainst is a prolific, methodologically careless, and stubborn author who plays loose with facts in service of an outside agenda, and engages in incivility in the face of constructive reasoned comments by experienced editors. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Supplemental (21 Jan): Notagainst's comments, including fresh ones on this very AE page, demonstrate an ongoing inability to distinguish between an encyclopedia that describes a topic neutrally (global warming and climate change) versus a personal opinion characterizing the topic using a value-laden term (climate crisis). He even criticizes subject matter expert Femkemilene for taking a properly different approach with respect to that encyclopedia article versus at her university. And to this day (21 Jan 2020), Notagainst continues to dismiss the important distinction between (objective) effects of GW/CC and humans' (subjective chosen) responses to GW/CC. An editor seeing that "half a dozen or so editors" deleted his content, might step back to reassess his own actions in light of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. — 23:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC) and RCraig09 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (Springee)

I had only limited interaction with Notagainst when editing the Climate Crisis page. Like RCraig09 I found they failed to listed to the concerns of others and didn't follow CIVIL in the face of pushback. I'm not surprised they ended up here. I do think they have good intent but they should learn the ropes on less political topics. Ideally I would suggest they get some mentoring as to the best ways to handle topics like those related to climate change. Absent something like that, perhaps a self imposed 1RR restriction? If this comes down to a topic ban I would suggest something like 6 months or a demonstration that they understand the issue and it won't happen again (edit: by or I mean a 6 month tban but the ability to appeal any time so it could be lifted right away). As I think they are essentially acting in good, if misguided, faith, I would suggest any editing restrictions be lifted with minimal effort if/when they can articulate an understanding of the problem. Springee (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Clayoquot

@Notagainst:, I am concerned about your statements regarding the WP:Wikivoice policy. Can you acknowledge that this policy exists, and commit to following it? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC) @Clayoquot, Please provide a link to the policy section on WP where it describes wikivoice. There is a redirect to WP:NPOV. I cannot find anything anywhere which describes wikivoice as a policy. Notagainst (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Notagainst

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

• Notagainst, the editor against whom this request was filed, has not put in a statement but has since edited and was properly notified. Accordingly, I think this request should be reviewed since they have apparently decided not to provide their input. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Seraphimblade that Notagainst needs to understand that a report at this noticeboard is not a routine matter that will go away if ignored. Naturally a volunteer is not required to do anything, but collaboration is particularly important in topics under discretionary sanctions. Perhaps Notagainst could start by responding to a couple of the items raised in the request, and I would like to hear if they still believe that "Wikivoice is not a principle" per the diff above mentioning that text. Continuing to edit in the topic area without responding may lead to a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Notagainst: Thanks for your comment about "wikivoice is not a principle". You have been editing for nine months and it would be highly desirable to ask questions about procedures rather than dictate your own interpretations. WP:WIKIVOICE points to a policy that requires editors to "Avoid stating opinions as facts...opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Also see WP:ASSERT. If you were more familiar with other topics you would know that the community relies on the wiki voice principle in numerous discussions, and policies follow standard procedure, not the reverse. I have not yet examined the evidence or your response (apart from the wiki voice issue)—does your response above address the evidence or is it claiming problems with other editors? If the latter, please be aware that such comments are off-topic here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Notagainst: Editors posting in the #Result concerning Notagainst section of this report are administrators and a good starting point would be to assume that they are experienced and their comments should be carefully examined. For your information, with certain conditions that are satisfied in this case, any uninvolved administrator can issue a topic ban or other sanction without consultation. My posts immediately above raised certain points. Since then you made two edits here (1 + 2) to add your point 6. I also mentioned that claiming problems with other editors is off-topic here—what is wanted is a response to the evidence presented. If you think another editor should be sanctioned, start a new report on them (I would not advise that in this case). Do you want to qualify your above responses? If so, please do it very soon because this has to be closed.
    I have now looked at most of the evidence. The mass migration issue can possibly be excused as enthusiasm backed by enthusiastic sources. Some of the diffs (example) show minor battleground behavior which is not sustainable in an area under discretionary sanctions. @Notagainst: Do you want to make a commitment regarding how you comment in the future? Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras

There was no consensus that the block was invalid. The appeal is moot as the block has already expired. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Appealing user Xenagoras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 31 hour block for WP:1RR violation on article Tulsi Gabbard. Block log. Administrator imposing the sanction Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by Xenagoras This block by @Doug Weller is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption because I did not violate the WP:1RR editing restriction on Tulsi Gabbard with any of my today's 5 edits [2][3][4][5][6] there. These 5 edits are part of one series of consecutive edits that undid MrX actions in part and count as one revert. WP:3RR states, "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The user MrX that I reverted, confirmed to me that my 5 edit-sequence did not violate the WP:1RR restriction [7]. MrX [8] and myself [9] agreed to continue to discuss disputed content on the article talk page. The block also violates the blocking policy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK because the blocking admin did not give reviewable evidence or explain which of my edits violated any policy. Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) MrX, I am sorry if I misinterpreted your statement as "confirmation", "I did not say that violated 1RR. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't in subsequent edits"[10] appeared like confirmation of 1RR not broken so far to me. All of my 5 edits happened in very fast succession to make it obvious that they are part of one editing sequence. I did not revert twice anything you wrote. My edit from 18:57 in section Early life and education that you refer to reverted your edit from 13:15, and you did not revert anything I wrote in that section Early life and education after 13:15, therefore my 18:57 edit was a singular revert of your edit from 13:15 as well as part an editing sequence. Xenagoras (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Moved to editor's section. Please comment only in your section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by Doug Weller It was clearly a 1RR block which I didn't think needed an explanation. Xenagoras made three edits, then MrX made one. Xenagoras made 2 edits after that with the last one being another revert. I have no idea why they still fail to acknowledge that. The issue isn't one of reverting the same edit twice, it's simply that it wasn't a string of five reverts, with a break of 14 minutes between MrX's edit and Xenagoras's fifth edit. That's plenty of time for someone who is editing an article that they clearly know is under 1RR and who has had a previous warning - see User talk:Xenagoras#1RR. Maybe if it had been just a minute or two a free pass with another reminder might have been ok, but that's just too long a gap. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by MrX Xenagoras, you misrpesented what I said. I did not "confirm" that your 5 edit-sequence did not violate the. I wrote that I "did not say" that you violated 1RR. In other words, I was silent on the issue. However, it appear that you did in fact make a second revert [11]. While your 18:44 edit appears to be part of a series of edits, your 18:57 edit raises some doubts. - MrX 🖋 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Xenagoras The block will expire automatically at 04:00 hours UTC. ——SN54129 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Xenagoras This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Xenagoras violated 1RR, as Doug Weller has already explained above, but I'll do it again. I was going to give diffs, but I believe it's really more informative for my readers to look at the article history, here. The relevant edits by Xenagoras (five edits) and MrX (one edit) are currently twelve lines down, running from 18:34 to 18:57 13 January (UTC). Xenagoras's first three edits, 18:34, 18:40 and 18:43, count as one revert. Then comes an edit by MrX at 18:43, not sure whether that's a revert, and it doesn't matter. Xenagoras's fourth edit, at 18:44, is Xenagoras's second revert. But if that was all, I wouldn't sanction it, because they could well have made that fourth edit without being aware of MrX editing in between, both looking at the timestamps and looking at the text that was reverted. However, Xenagoras's fifth edit at 18:52 is definitely a second revert. They're actually reverting what MrX did in between, so they were clearly aware of it, and can't reasonably have thought their five edits were consecutive. (I do not mean to say they're claiming it in bad faith, but that they fail to understand what "consecutive" means.) Xenagoras, you refer to WP:3RR for saying all your edits are consecutive, but that policy actually says "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." My italics. You violated 1RR, and the sanction was proper. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC). PS, no, I misread Xenagoras's fifth edit, and have crossed out what I said about it. Their reverts still weren't consecutive, and I don't believe they could have reasonably missed MrX's intervening edit. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC). Uhm, Doug and Bishonen, given the timeline, and the fact that MrX's intervening edit was to a paragraph other than the one Xenagoras worked on next, I don't think it's reasonable to assume Xenagoras must have been aware of MrX's edit. I'd tend to assume good faith here and consider that Xenagoras was still genuinely thinking of his edits as an unbroken sequence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC) I pointed out that Xenagoras couldn't necessarily be expected to notice MrX's intervening edit when he made his fourth edit, Future. But his fifth edit was 14 minutes after MrX, and I think he should have checked the history in the meantime. But I'm not against assuming good faith here, even though I'm surprised Xenagoras still thinks all his edits were consecutive. I mean, I would have thought he'd at least have looked at the history when he wrote this appeal. But nm, if it depends on me I'll neither oppose nor support granting the appeal. I hope some more admins post before the 31 hours are up. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC). I would sustain the block. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC) The block wasn't the type of clearly incorrect or abuse of discretion action that would necessitate reversal. It was a short block that's already expired. So, I would close this as moot, and Xenagoras should take it as a reminder to be cautious editing articles under 1RR, so as not to even inadvertently cross over that line. Articles under such sanctions are under them for a reason. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arthur Rubin

The topic ban on Arthur Rubin from the area of gun control is replaced by a 1RR restriction on edits within that same topic area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
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 administrators" 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). Appealing user Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from gun control; imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#Arthur Rubin Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161#Arthur Rubin, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2015#Gun control Administrator imposing the sanction HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&diff=935978650&oldid=935855599 Statement by Arthur Rubin I realize that Wikipedia's (possibly consensus) POV on gun control differs from mine, and I have no intention of arguing the point. I would like to be able to discuss factual errors in gun control articles (although I don't intend to seek them out), and whether events (loosely) related to gun control should be in year and decade articles. My previous topic ban on the Tea Party movement has been reduced to a 1RR/week restriction. I'm not appealing for further revision of that because I believe that to be reasonable for most articles, if reversion of vandalism and spam are exempted. I wouldn't mind if this restriction was removed entirely, but I would settle for reduction to a 1RR restriction. This is, I believe, my first appeal of the January 2015 sanction. Link to sanctions now fixed. As to factual errors, I'm afraid there are no correct answers. As I don't intend to seek out the articles, I will only make changes if the "facts" are changed by one of the many vandals who randomly change numbers, dates, and locations. Otherwise, I'll discuss the matter. Statement by HJ Mitchell Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Arthur Rubin Given the length of time which has passed under sanctions without incident, I don't think there's any reason not to go with El_C's proposal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC) I wanted to reply in response to a comment Vanamonde93 made with regards to at least this edit [[12]]. The comment was that this edit ignored sources and were based on personal POV. I'm not sure that is correct. Having worked on this same article, though a few years later, I think you will find the current consensus lead is similar to the one proposed by AR. Additionally what AR proposed is supported by the NYT source both in that the term is largely used by those who want to regulate and objected to by those who don't want to regulate. The phrasing not as neutral as it could be but it's not outright POV pushing. It also appears that, at that time, AR was dealing with an editor, Lightbreather, who was later banned from Wikipedia in large part due to her issues with POV pushing on gun related topics. Regardless, I think the 5 years since this incident and a lack of any current issues should be more than enough to allow a resumption of editing in that topic area. When dealing with a request to lift a tban there are 4 possible scenarios based on two variables. The first variable is will the ban be lifted (Y/N)? The second is if lifted will the editor stay clean? So long as we believe that tbans are not a punishment we should want the outcome of every tban appeal to be "Y-lift + Y-stay clean". If the answer is No-No well we dodged a bullet (forgive the metaphor) but will never know it. If the answer is Yes-lift, No-got dirty the the tban can always come back. However, if the answer is No-lift but in reality the editor would have stayed clean, well we are now just punishing which is against Wp:BP policy. The risk associated with a lift is really not that bit hence why not err on the side of lifting? Springee (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Arthur Rubin This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Arthur Rubin: It seems like you linked to the wrong AE archive page. El_C 02:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Since it has been half a decade, I, for one, don't object to revoking the ban by supplanting it with a 1RR restriction (which, itself, I think, can also be revoked after, say, a year of un-problematic editing in this topic area). This, of course, on condition that if tendentious editing resumes, including on talk pages, the ban is to be re-applied without the need for the same burden of proof as the 2015 case might have demanded. In other words, cautious editing should still permit for Arthur Rubin's perspective to be voiced, again, so long as it adheres to encyclopedic standards. El_C 02:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: I guess my view is that we ultimately risk little in giving the proposal (as worded above) a chance, although indeed I would have liked to hear more from AR in this regards — they seem to be somewhat wary of commenting followups on their own AE appeal, for some reason. El_C 15:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC) I would normally want to wait for a statement from the sanctioning admin, but as HJ Mitchell's activity seems rather sporadic, in this instance we're unlikely to receive one. Given that relaxing the Tea Party topic ban does not seem to have led to a repeat of the problems which led to that sanction, I would support trying the solution proposed by El C, that being relaxing the restriction to 1RR at first, with that to be possibly removed in the future as well if problems don't resurface. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Agreed with Seraphimblade. Seems like a good solution. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Though it's been a while since this sanction was imposed, I find edits like this and this, both cited in the enforcement request that led to this sanction, to be very concerning. The statement above does not directly address my concerns; there's too much wiggle room in the term "factual error". Arthur Rubin in a POV-laden area such as this, how do you intend to determine factual correctness in articles? Yes, that is a leading question, in that there's one correct answer; and I wouldn't be comfortable lifting the TBAN until we have that answer. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC) What concerns me about the diffs presented in the original enforcement request was that AR was, essentially, ignoring sources and arguing from personal authority. He is perfectly entitled to his own opinions on guns, but any material he adds needs to gun-related articles needs to reflect what reliable sources say. In the absence of any acknowledgement of that fact (or to put it another way, in the absence of any acknowledgement of why things went wrong five years ago), I would decline this request. If reverting vandalism is all you need to do, AR, you don't need this lifted; reverting vandalism is an exception to most topic-bans, including this one, as far as I can see. @The Blade of the Northern Lights, Seraphimblade, and El C: I'd appreciate your thoughts. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC) @Springee: There is a world of difference between what the version AR added, and the current version. The language we use matters as much as the factual detail; and it is therefore critical for our language to reflect that of the sources. I don't know if AR read the sources or not. In his appeal, though, he makes no undertaking to adhere to reliable sources, and that's a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC) These are all old edits, and the ones for which the sanction was imposed. I don't see any indication that AR has been involved in current misconduct, including in the Tea Party area for which he was also sanctioned. So, I certainly agree that the original sanction was warranted, but I still think it's time enough we can try loosening it. If problems like that recur, well, it'll be right back in place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC) @Seraphimblade: I guess I'm not willing to assume that someone has learned from something just because it happened a long time ago (we generally ask folks appealing their sanctions to explain what they did wrong, do we not?), but if there is agreement among the rest of you, I won't stand in the way of loosening this. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)