Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:44, 27 August 2021

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 information

Shortcuts

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334

Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič

There seem to be little interest in reviewing this complaint, which seems to have migrated to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič, anyway — and boy, is its OP long (kinda per usual, Pofka, which again, I think hurts your case more than helps it). Anyway, this appears to be a broader dispute among Belorussian and Lithuanians (or something). I've ARBEE-protected several pages pertaining to it since this report was filed (two at ECP level). Anyway anyway, not sure having this AE report remain open as a sort of placeholder is that useful of a thing to do right now. I'd give it a couple more weeks if I thought anything would come of it, but that seems doubtful. Dispute participants: please don't come to my talk page again with WP:TLDRs. I don't read these, anyway, and I've also reached my quota of suppressed revisions for the year. El_C 10:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hugo.arg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Kazimier Lachnovič (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: Dispute resolution noticeboard case Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 207#Pahonia which resulted in Talk:Pahonia#RFC: Pahonia (closing statement of the RFC by an administrator) and WP:CONS

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

1: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Hugo.arg
2: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič
3: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič
4: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

User Kazimier Lachnovič is already well known for his national hatred against Lithuania and Lithuanians, so it is not surprising that he continues to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian topics. Here are his edits in which he called the Lithuanians as rubbish in a discussion concerning with Pahonia (1, 2, 3). He also recently performed an intensive edit warring before the Wikipedia:Consensus was reached (see edit history of article Pahonia from 3 April 2021).

Also, Kazimier Lachnovič previously was warned that he is a full-time edit warrior already in 2010, and was even blocked for edit warring in Lithuanian topics (blocking message by an administrator ; report).

Moreover, Kazimier Lachnovič was also blocked multiple times in the Lithuanian Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior (Kazimier's blocking history). Same with user Hugo.arg (see his blocking history).

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

For his disruptive behavior, Kazimier Lachnovič is already placed under the discretionary sanctions by two administrators: firstly by Barkeep49, then by Ymblanter, but he continues to perform edits which are incompatible with the Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle, thus constantly aggressively violates the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
Article Pahonia is under the discretionary sanctions since 23 April 2021 (statement by an administrator El_C).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I request to permanently lock article Pahonia in order to ensure the Wikipedia:Consensus reached by the Wikipedia community as nobody should be able to continue edit warring in the future in this disruptive article. WP:LISTEN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič

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 Cukrakalnis

One of the two nominated users, Kazimier Lachnovič, is a notoriously problematic user, whose behaviour has not changed an inkling following the DS applied to him. Instead of learning from them, he continues pushing his POV and personally insults those disagreeing. Instances of this are this, this and this, among many others. Looking at the evidence, it is clear that Kazimier Lachnovič should be issued a global block. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I am deeply uninvolved with this dispute and just have some housekeeping comments. I believe that the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" should be Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. If that is the case at hand, then Kazimier Lachnovič is formally "aware", having been alerted in this April edit. I do not believe Hugo.arg is aware, because:

There are no logged alerts in their user talk history
They have never alerted others, as shown in their contributions
They have not participated in any Arb cases/requests in this topic area, as shown in their Wikipedia: namespace contributions

I hope this has been helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kazimier Lachnovič

First of all, as Belarusian I obviously have more important things to do now that to fight obvious absurd here. The deletion of the article about the national emblem of Belarusians is obvious vandalism and a clear manifestation of supporting the terroristic pro-Russian Lukashenko's regime by the English Wikipedia. So, many Belarusians are arrested and tortured by the regime for using Pahonia, that according to the English Wikipedia is just the emblem of the foreign state (Lietuva). Calling these people "traitors" is exactly what the regime does in its propaganda. So, thanks a lot for helping the Lukashenko's propaganda! Be sure, Belarusians will never forget such "help". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jc37

Talk:Pahonia#RFC:_Pahonia

Besides merely closing the RfC, to my knowledge, I have no interaction with any of this.

As of coming my online just now, it doesn't appear that Kazimier Lachnovič has continued reverting. If they had, I would have issued an immediate preventative block.

As I don't regularly handle Arbitration enforcement requests, I am fine with leaving that with whomever addresses this here. For whatever it may be worth, please consider me notified and having given my "explicit prior affirmative consent", per the top of this page.

(Though of course if I see continued WP:DE, I may sanction (block/protect/etc) as any uninvolved admin might, to help prevent disruption, etc.) - jc37 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, I support User:El C's protection of the page [1]. Extended confirmed editors may be able to bypass it, but hopefully the fact that it is potected even in this way, will act as a preventative measure. - jc37 04:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading User:Ymblanter's comments, I think this looks like a pretty straightforward case of WP:NOTHERE. - jc37 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič - case opened by User:Pofka - jc37 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

I will only be making a statement concerning the behavior of Kazimier Lachnovič, since Hugo.arg apparently have not been notified of discretionary sanctions, and also did not demonstrate long-term disruptive behavior. Concerning Kazimier Lachnovič, most of their recent contribution on the English Wikipedia is changing names of the files they have renamed on Commons, work a bot usually does, and outside of this activity they do not have so many contributions, therefore I will sometimes provide diffs from Commons, where their behavior is equally problematic. First, their statement, just above mine, clearly demonstrated battleground mentality. They participated in the edit-warring, leaving this edit summary (Vandalism based on illegal RfC closure, clear national discrimination of Belarusians), whereas the RfC was closed by a perfectly neutral administrator, and reverts were legitimate; this was their message at the talk page of the administrator. Indeed, in my observations, Kazimier Lachnovič only knows two methods of dispute resolutions: reverting forever (see this as an additional example to what is being discussed in this AE request) and insulting their opponents. Note them calling me Nazi in this Commons thread. When challenged against these insults, they first double down (like with this Nazi accusation), and then typically say that they only would be discussing anything with "reasonable users" (thus implying their opponents are unreasonable) and disappear, You can find the examples in the threads presenting by Cukrakalnis above. In the same threads, there is evidence of off-wiki coordination they participated in (which resulted in coordinated reverts on en.wiki). I have no opinion whether Pahonia must be an article or a redirect, but I know that this attitude is not compatible with the technical ability to edit the English Wikipedia, which, in my opinion, should be revoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be to clarify my personal position, before I get a new portion of accusations: I am no fan of Lukashenko, and I am all for support of Belarusian language. I am in fact an opponent of Lithuanian nationalism, and I really dislike the fact that they portray Nazi criminals as national heroes. However, here we have an example how a good cause is being pursued by completely inappropriate methods.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent automatic archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pofka (Kazimier Lachnovič sock puppetry investigation case)

As already mentioned by jc37, following this report, Kazimier Lachnovič used sock puppetry to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian articles: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič. -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič

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

jc37, as I noted on my talk page (diff), I didn't realize that EC users were also circumventing the RFC's consensus by fiat when I imposed the indef ECP (by way of RfPP), but as mentioned, now that I do, I'd deem any further such reverts to be a cause for sanctions (including but not limited to revoking said EC rights). Sorry, I have not reviewed this report otherwise to comment further on it at this time, one way or the other. El_C 05:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears no one wants. El_C 10:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olden Creed

Olden Creed blocked one week for topic ban violation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Olden Creed

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DanCherek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Olden Creed (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

18 August 2021 — reverted six and a half years of edits on the Brahmin article, restoring a version from 18 January 2015 that had most recently been edited by Tapasya Dev, who was later blocked as the sockpuppet of a serial POV-pusher in the IPA topic area.
9 August 2021 — this was 17 minutes after the topic ban was imposed. Olden Creed was notified of the violation by Doug Weller on 10 August and asked to self-revert; the self-revert did not happen and someone else reverted it four days later, despite Olden Creed having edited in the intervening period.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

9 August 2021 — indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, by Doug Weller following this ANI discussion.

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 (diff of notification).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pretty clear-cut violation of a DS topic ban. Olden Creed did not acknowledge the ANI thread or topic ban and apparently has no intention of stopping their behavior in this topic area that led to the sanctions in the first place. DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I definitely think that's a possibility, especially since their two edits in the Talk namespace are (1) a page move and (2) an ECP edit request from last year. In this edit summary they told another user that they can't just delete material without first discussing it on the talk page, so there at least seems to be some understanding of the existence and purpose of talk pages. DanCherek (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Olden Creed

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 Olden Creed

Statement by Vanamonde93

This is a pretty blatant violation, but I'm also wondering if there's a serious communication issue here; I see they have made exactly 2 talk page edits, and 0 user talk edits, thus far. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Olden Creed

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

Olden Creed was created on 16 June 2019. The barnstar on their user page was added 14 July 2019 by a now-indeffed sock. They have 657 edits but have never engaged in a discussion. They were topic banned on 9 August 2021 and the tban violation was on 19 August 2021 at Brahmin when they used an edit summary of "‘it’s’ not ‘it’s’" in an edit which exactly reverted the article to its state at at 18 January 2015. They have not edited since the violation and have never been blocked. I suspect that something more permanent will be needed but am issuing a short block in the expectation that the existing topic ban will minimize future problems. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanlister

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 Vanlister

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Vanlister (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:A/I/PIA

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

18:00, 19 August 2021 Rm the fact that Israel Defense Forces was behind the group Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners from the lead
22:23, 19 August 2021 The same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

6 April 2021 blocked for his editing of Kenneth Roth#Israel.

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

Given IP alert 19:38, 2 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I asked them to undo their last edit here, or they would be reported. Alas, they seem not to want to undo it, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that you clearly broke the 1RR, you also misrepresent the underlying issue; there is no controversy over that fact that it was people inside the Israeli military who set up and ran the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners. Even now, you write "According to Ronen Bergman" in order to weaken the undisputed fact. It is not only "according to Ronen Bergman"; it is according to everyone else, too. You ought too be topicbanned for misrepresenting sources. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanlister claims that what Bergman writes about the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners is "controversial".

It isn't. At least I haven't seen anyone stating that it is (apart from some anon Wikipedia-editors.) When you claim that Bergmans' writing here is "controversial", then you should at least manage to point to one WP:RS that says so? But you have not done that. Q.E.D. Huldra (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Note; Vanlister's first removal was not undoing an IP; (then the edit-line would have been [2]); instead Vanlister simply rm the stuff offending to them. (I somehow doubt that Vanlister knew who added the stuff that they removed.) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Vanlister

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 Vanlister

I did revert one time, the first time was not reverting anyone prior. Huldra use of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement requests is done instead of collaboration and in practice to bypass dialogue which is highly prejudicial, and a provocation (sending a message without letting the time to answer, etc). My modification was essentially to remove a highly controversial statement from the lead that wasn't presented as such ( but was presented as such in the text), Huldra should therefore justify his agressive revert instead of reverting other's without expressing motivations. (Also my past block was linked to a dispute concerning Chomsky views and antisemitism in UK not about Kenneth Roth) --Vanlister (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't leave me time to answer guys.--Vanlister (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question does not support your point of view in this comment. You didn't provide a source proving that there is a consensus as well. I solely moved a paragraph from the lead to where it was already in the article in a "controversy" section. Mouse and cat play. --Vanlister (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to receive messages from you. You made your point. I disagree. Done. I am not interested in your dispute, it was written as a controversy period. And it is obviously a controversial statement, and apparently you didn't manage to find other materials than what Bergman, a journalist, says. I am done with this. Not interested in your campaign. --Vanlister (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I have just recently come across this editor in a different context.Diff which was followed by a message on my talk page which message was repeated verbatim at the pages of two other editors whose pages are on my watchlist. Ordinarily I would hesitate to be unduly critical of a newish editor but looking at the editor's talk page and recent contributions makes one wonder if it is only a question of when the hammer falls rather than if. I think it needs to be made clear that productive editing is the right way to go not the current unproductive back and forth.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hippeus

@HighInBC:, Vanlister's first edit removed something that was added three years prior on 5 March 2018. Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169.

This complaint is vexatious and without merit, Huldra should know that reverting IP editors (from three years ago!) does not fall under the 1RR restriction that says: "Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion".

As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here.--Hippeus (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: the 500/30 restriction was in place from 2015 or 2016. It was just streamlined in the Palestine-Israel-4 page, but it existed from the Palestine-Israel-3 page. Huldra is all over the Palestine-Israel-3 page, Huldra presented evidence that led the committee to state that "The one revert rule that was added via a motion on March 10 2012 has been gamed. (Huldra's Evidence)". So Huldra should know that IP edits after 2015-6 are exempt from the 1RR rule.--Hippeus (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs by ZScarpia show some attribution being added and removed between 2018 and 2021 in front of the sentence. However, as far as I can tell, when Vanlister made their edit the sentence stood without attribution phrased almost identically to the blurb the IP added ([3] vs. [4]). I did not find any removal of this blurb prior to Vanlister's removal, so if this was a revert (of ages old material), it was a revert of the IP and no one else.--Hippeus (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Hippeus's point would be more persuasive if Vanlister had used an edit summary noting that his revert was exempt on this basis. As things stand, it just looks like a removal of sourced material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

Hippeus: "Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169."

Between being added by an IP editor and removed by Vanlister, the text in question has been edited by registered users (for example: [5][6][7]).

Like Selfstudier, I don't want to seem to be seeking the sanctioning of a relatively new editor. However, I think it would be best to ensure that Vanlister understands that the first edit does count as a revert.

Hippeus: "This complaint is vexatious and without merit. ... As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here." Incorrect and hyper-exagerrated.

← ZScarpia 16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shike

Its frivolous filing.Its long time practice that we don't count removal of long standing material as revert but an edit[8] --Shrike (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Vanlister

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

@Vanlister: I have moved your comments to your section—see "Statements must be made in separate sections". Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vanlister, any edit that reverses the action of another editor is considered a revert. Removing part of the article is a revert because it is reversing the addition of that content to the article. I understand that this may not be intuitive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hippeus. Given that the edit being reverted took place prior to the arbcom ruling, and that the arbcom ruling exempts the edits in violating of the 500/30 rule I think it is reasonable to say that he did not violated the spirit of the 1RR ruling. A stickler would point out that the IP edit was not in violation of the 500/30 rule because it was made before the the arcom ruling went into effect, but I don't think such an interpretation would be in the spirit of the rules. I support closing this case without action. I have no opinion on the motives of the user filing this case. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plebian-scribe

Plebian-scribe blocked one week for topic ban violation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Plebian-scribe

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Plebian-scribe (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#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

02:01, 20 August 2021 Edits Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, in violation of topic ban
02:05, 20 August 2021 Further edit to Capitol Hill Occupied Protest
10:31, 20 August 2021 Reinstates their edit, despite my edit summary saying WP:BANREVERT and despite being notified of this enforcement request

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18:29, 28 April 2021 Indefinitely topic-banned from American politics

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

Notified of topic ban on 28 April

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Plebian-scribe

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 Plebian-scribe

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Plebian-scribe

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

Plebian-scribe has not commented despite having made six edits after receiving notification of this report. The violation is clear. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW

Appeal declined. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appealing user: TillermanJimW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Gadfium (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notified: [9] HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TillermanJimW

For being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances.

While I will freely admit to having transgressed 3RR – mea culpa, shoot me at dawn – and will promise not to do so again (cross my heart and hope to die), I also think there are a number of extenuating circumstances that the blocking administrator neglected to consider.

And first and foremost is that in the “notice of edit warring” posted by Crosstalk, he said “the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification”. While, as WP:GAB notes, two wrongs don’t make a right, those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts which seems rather unfair right out of the chute.

But more importantly, the crux of the discussion – which was removed by those other editors including the blocking administrator – is that I had posted, as per WP:NPOVD, the requisite tag [POV] on the main page – which was reverted within 3 or 4 minutes before I’d even had time to complete the posting of the required explanatory section in the talk page called for in that NPOVD document.

Which raises the question, regardless of my 3RR transgression, to what extent any of the editors who reverted my posts addressing the issue, including the blocking administrator himself, are justified in removing that NPOV tag. At least without some evidence of addressing the points presented – which did not happen at all. And particularly where Crosstalk himself acknowledged that “His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM."

Had kinda thought – on some evidence (Five Pillars) – that the NPOV policy was more or less trump and that it would have been sufficient to at least temper the application of that sanction – as I had said. But I hadn’t even realized a sanction was in force as Crosstalk’s post only talked about “a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring” – not that a sanction had been applied. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but it should count for something.

In any case, when or if you rescind my block – sooner would be better as there are other edits I have in mind on less controversial issues – I’ll look into the possibility of taking that NPOV dispute re the Hubbard article to the NPOV noticeboard.

However, as the putative POV transgression took place in the Hubbard article that seems to be where the discussion should take place. To that end, it might expedite things if you were to revert that POV tag and my justifications for it - if that is at all possible. Maybe even add a page block or protections or whatever else you might think is appropriate in the circumstances.

But I think that issue has to be addressed in one place or another. So would appreciate the earliest rescinding of my block so I can proceed as soon as possible accordingly.

Thanks for addressing these points.

--TillermanJimW (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gadfium

I blocked under the WP:ARBGENDER discretionary sanctions because TillermanJimW is tendentiously arguing about the difference between sex and gender at an article about an individual. The issue here that TillermanJimW takes issue with is that the article Laurel Hubbard says "she transitioned to female". This is the accepted way to express a gender transition. If they want to persuade the community to change the usual terminology, they need to do so on an appropriate WikiProject or policy talk page.

My involvement here is as an editor on New Zealand topics, and Hubbard is a moderately prominent New Zealander especially because of the recent Summer Olympics. I'm not involved in transgender issues as such, so I'm not sure which would be the best place for TillermanJimW to express their views; perhaps one of the talk pages of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject LGBT studies, or WikiProject Gender studies. I'm sure a brief and polite question on any of those talk pages would get a response advising of the most appropriate venue. The appeal does not give me any confidence that they understand the reason why they were blocked or that they intend to change their behaviour.-gadfium 08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

I am involved in some sense, yes, but not in the reverts that led to Tillerman's 3RR. And I'm not weighing in here, either, except to offer convenient links for this editor's WP:IDONTHEARTHAT comments on their user Talk page after requesting this appeal: [10], [11], [12]. This doesn't seem promising. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TillermanJimW

Result of the appeal by TillermanJimW

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

I have posted this at the request of TillermanJimW. I will give my opinion on the matter later. I believe they are a little over the 500 word limit. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing very a forceful attitude from this editor at Talk:Laurel Hubbard. This includes edit warring, but also justifying it by saying "NPOV is trump". This seems to show that they think they are neutral and that as such they can edit war. Their unblock request uses the language "those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts" which gives the impression that they think 3RR is an allowance of reverts that can be used up.

This combination of having ideas that are fairly different from the existing consensus, and the attitude that they are right and that justifies a forceful attitude is problematic.

I feel that this appeal should be declined as accepting it would send a very bad message. I also think that if there is more disruption from this user in this area that a topic ban may be required. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a decline is required. Trying to force a tag onto an article in a contested area is a favorite battle tactic but it's very disruptive in a topic under discretionary sanctions. The text of the appeal suggests a longer break from the topic might be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an appeal, it's a rant. Decline. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't like the "used up two of my reverts" bit. I want to make clear here that the distinction is "If you go over 3RR, you will get in trouble", but is not "If you don't go over 3RR, you won't get in trouble." If it becomes clear other editors disagree, take it to talk and lay off the revert button. I don't see any reason in the appeal to believe that the block is not still necessary, and if this continues a topic ban might become so as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The edits in question were disruptive anyway and they violated 3RR. It definitely looks like TillermanJimW believes that 3RR is an entitlement [13] which is not the case at all - edit warring is always disruptive, 3RR just exists as a bright line which unambigously means that a block is needed. It's still edit warring if you believe that you're right or if you believe your have the neutrality policy on your side. Hut 8.5 18:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum

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 Solavirum

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Solavirum (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: Armenia Azerbaijan 2

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

25 July 2021 Breaching their tban on Armenia / Azerbaijan articles, broadly construed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Solavirum has violated their topic ban for the 3rd of 4th time now.[1] The tban was from pages relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed. A historic ruler of an Azerbaijani province falls under the ban area. Previously, in one of their tban violation blocks, the enforcing admin Drmies blocked them for 2 weeks saying that “many will consider that relatively mild”.[2]

Arb enforcement log of their blocks.[3] Previous ANI cases involving Solavirum’s tban violations.[4], [5]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Abbās-qoli Khan, known for his wealth and opulence, had served as beglarbeg of Ganja" diff

Reminder that Solavirum was told not to test the boundaries of WP:BROADLY multiple times by El_C, one of the tban and subsequent violations enforcing admins. [1] [2] [3] [4]

And they edited the ruler of Ganja, Azerbaijan. It is even wikilinked in the article itself Abbas Qoli-Khan. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum the mentioned Ganja, Azerbaijan in Abbas Qoli-Khan as per its wiki article, is Azerbaijan's third largest city. After the dissolution of the Russian Empire and the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, it became part of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the Azerbaijan SSR of the Soviet Union and since 1991, the Republic of Azerbaijan. With the realities of Azerbaijan emerging as a country only in 20th century but Azerbaijani nationalist historiography extending its history to the depths of Iran, Armenia and Caucasian Albania, your edit is apparently violating the rule you’ve been kindly asked to adhere: not editing anything related to Azerbaijan, so the community could see that you are able to stay away from topics you have conflict of interest with for some time. But you keep editing tangentially around Azerbaijan, apparently thinking that if you don’t touch the modern republic of Azerbaijan then that’s ok… ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc. if you aren't 100% confident it can't be construed as directly related to Azerbaijan or Armenia." - MJL

Solavirum, user MJL actually suggested for you to make sure if said articles can't be construed to be related to Azerbaijan. The if part seems to be very hard for you, some might even say impossible. And I think it wouldn't be entirely unfair for the community to see a certain problematic pattern here, especially given your previous violations. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, "Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc." That actually seems reasonable. I will take the advice and act upon it. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear MJL, this was Solavirum's response to you, which didn't include your followup about broadly in that quote. Hence the clarification and full quote shown to them in my reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Solavirum

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 Solavirum

ZaniGiovanni, I don't understand, why is this violation of the topic ban exactly? The article's topic is about an Iranian statesman. I don't have a topic ban on Iran related articles. There was no "Azerbaijani province" back in the 1600s. The Turkic Azerbaijan in the north of Aras only emerged in the early 20th century, before that the only "Azerbaijan" was in north of Iran (see Iranica). The topic is also about a non-Azerbaijani. The article itself isn't even in Wikiproject Azerbaijan, and to prove the contrary, please provide some WP:RS, because what you're doing is WP:OR. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, most RS agree that Republic of Azerbaijan is called Azerbaijan since 1918. Before that, especially the 17th-century developments, nothing lies within the history of Turkic Azerbaijan. The topic itself lies within Iran and Georgia (country) topics, not Azerbaijan. There is well-established consensus over this in Wikipedia. A broad example would be this --► Sincerely: Sola virum 21:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, in all honesty, I'm well aware of this. The reality is I should've be more careful here. What I did was just to remove macrons (like in here; see title). I've been far away from Armenia and Azerbaijan related articles if you take a look at my contributions and GA nominations. I was just doing some cleanup routine, and that was one of the articles that I stomped upon. With that in mind, I really don't think that this violates the topic ban as there is a well-established consensus in Wikipedia on pre-20th century developments on the territory of the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan not being related to it. Though I will ask about it to the more experienced editors working in this topic. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 09:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, "Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc." That actually seems reasonable. I will take the advice and act upon it. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, yeah sadly whenever I work on non-Armenia/Azerbaijan related topics I seem to be getting stomped upon it. Like when promoting Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan to GA I technically violated the topic ban for mentioning a local Armenian ruler in Cappadocia in a single sentence. Taking MJL's advice, I will step off of Turkey, Iran, Caucasus (and so on) related articles until the topic ban is off just to be sure to not violate it again. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 14:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

@Solavirum: Abbas Qoli-Khan was a beglerbeg of Ganǰa according to [14]. He's listed under Category:Safavid governors of Ganja. I agree that it is a bit silly that figures like Abbas Qoli-Khan (who's connection to the topic of the modern nation of Azerbaijan is rather incidental), but you really should've learned by now to be really careful regarding this kind of stuff.
If you ever hope to have a chance of appealing this topic ban, then stay as far away from Azerbaijan and Armenia as possible while on enwiki. Contribute here positively for a while, and then your topic ban could eventually be revisited. Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc. if you aren't 100% confident it can't be construed as directly related to Azerbaijan or Armenia.
Does that make sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I think if Abbas Qoli-Khan had not been a leader of Ganja, Azerbaijan, then this edit would have been fine. Beyond that, let's keep in mind that the violation occurred more than a month ago. It isn't like that Solavirum isn't capable of contributing positively to Wikipedia (see these edits to Castle Wolfenstein for example), but this user quite hasn't figured out a good method for interacting with his topic ban (I don't think they have those on azwiki). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: Yes, but then Solavirum took it one step further by saying he "..will step off of Turkey, Iran, Caucasus (and so on) related articles until the topic ban is off just to be sure to not violate it again."
That is more than I asked for, but it certainly is welcomed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Solavirum

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

Solavirum, I'm concerned that you keep finding a way to skirt the boundaries of WP:BROADLY (as I expressly phrased it at the time). You were warned for it, you were blocked for it. How is this time going to be any different? El_C 14:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay

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 GoodDay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GoodDay (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/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions

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

GoodDay has left notices at seven talk pages of articles that use Template:Infobox officeholder, asking editors to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#MoS_RfC_closure_challenge:_job_title_capitalization_in_infoboxes, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that I opened. GoodDay has made clear they strongly object to the challenge ([15], [16], [17], [18]). Given that this template is transcluded on over 183,000 pages, I'm suspicious of how these articles were selected. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says: Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP, so it is clear extra care is expected of users participating in these discussions. I believe these messages constitute WP:CANVASSING.

GoodDay says in the discussion that they know of a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes' of their respective country's political offices. I suspect that those are the articles they targeted with these messages.

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

[19]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I reached out to GoodDay on their talk page to inform them of my concern and ask them to revert. They have refused to do so. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: Thanks for this. GoodDay has said they expect editors at Australian and American bios to object to lowercasing. That covers most of the articles they left these messages on: Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Kathy Hochul. WP:CANVASS doesn't require that the editors canvassed actually take the position the canvasser expects, only that the canvasser expects them to take a certain position. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning GoodDay

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 GoodDay

I've left neutral notices on seven highly profile bio article talkpages, concerning an WP:AN discussion which may affect them. There's absolutely 'no way', I can know which side of the argument, editors who frequent those bios, will chose. I'm not a mind reader. TBH, I find by filing this report, Tartan357 is over-reacting & breaching WP:AGF. PS - Why am I being reported here anyway? I'm not under any sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I must confess. I don't appreciate Tartan357's hostile attitude, towards me. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove the notices (which don't breach WP:CANVASS), would Tartan357 withdraw this report? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed @Shibbolethink:, those supposed pro-capitalize editors can easily turn out to be pro-lower case editors. Tartan357, might be killing a chance that he'll get support from editors at those seven bios. He's the one who's apparently assuming that they'll all chose 'capitalization'. Not me. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: Tartan357 has 'mis-linked' my so-called refusal at my talkpage. My response was "Doubt it, as I have absolutely no way of knowing 'which' side those editors will take. I left a 'neutral' message on those 'seven' bios". If one's going to link to comments, they should do so correctly. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Tartan357 gets it wrong. He's suggesting that I'm a mind-reader. If I were to say that "Donald Duck is going to get fired by Walt Disney Studios". How would I know that? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW @Tartan357:, you're suppose to respond to other editors in your own statement section. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I have no involvement in this dispute, and haven't interacted much with either of these editors, and have not participated in the RfC. However, I would like to lay out a concern I have after reading this discussion casually...

The filing editor (Tartan357) states the following:

GoodDay is opposed to the RfC question (reading the RfC, this is true). Y

GoodDay has posted on several (7) talk pages with the discussed infobox (true) Y

[There are] a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes (a statement that GoodDay indeed made, but that has not been actually verified as true). N

GoodDay has posted on those articles, and only those articles, which have local editors who fight against lowercasing. (unverified) N

Tartan357, your argument has a hole in it. It would serve you well, in my humble opinion, to provide evidence of discussions on at least several of these 7 talk pages demonstrating such users who are en masse against lowercased professions in infoboxes, and thereby showing that this was actually CANVASSING.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not the packaging.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99

I'm not involved in this incident but am generally dismayed that these disputes are still with us all these years on. There are unsurprisingly a heck of a lot of US and Australian biographies in the English Wikipedia. If there is a systematic preference among the editors of those articles to capitalize office names one way while the MOS says to capitalize another way, then it cannot be said that the MOS documents sitewide consensus on the matter. The "local consensus" being whined about is in fact local to the MOS, while the observable approaches of 1000s of articles all over the site are what is actually sitewide.

Therefore, if the bias that Good Day supposedly imputes to the contributors of those biographies really exists, then he has found an error or misrepresentation in the MOS that should be fixed, with our thanks. If the bias doesn't exist then he hasn't canvassed. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GoodDay

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 279: / Line 279: @@
 ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW==
+{{hat|result=Appeal declined. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)}}
-<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
-<small>''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]]).''</small>
 ; Appealing user : {{userlinks|TillermanJimW}}
@@ Line 339: / Line 335: @@
 *I also don't like the "used up two of my reverts" bit. I want to make clear here that the distinction is "If you go over 3RR, you will get in trouble", but is not "If you don't go over 3RR, you won't get in trouble." If it becomes clear other editors disagree, take it to talk and lay off the revert button. I don't see any reason in the appeal to believe that the block is not still necessary, and if this continues a topic ban might become so as well. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 *Decline. The edits in question were disruptive anyway and they violated 3RR. It definitely looks like TillermanJimW believes that 3RR is an entitlement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TillermanJimW&diff=prev&oldid=1040196060] which is not the case at all - edit warring is always disruptive, 3RR just exists as a bright line which unambigously means that a block is needed. It's still edit warring if you believe that you're right or if you believe your have the neutrality policy on your side. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 18:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 ==Solavirum==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards