Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:07, 10 December 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

AmirahBreen 2

AmirahBreen blocked for a week and banned from the article Gaza flotilla raid for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning AmirahBreen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: AmirahBreen (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: [[1]]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

22:58, 1 December 2021 First Revert
11:53, 2 December 2021 Second Revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

26 November 2021 Block for 72 hours for edit warring

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Right after returning from the user have edit warred again This content was previously removed by him as part of big revert "Five of the activists who were killed had previously declared their desire to become shaheeds (martyrs)" [2]

The original diff are linked above. The user started edit warring right after returning from his last block. What more could be done and he was engaged in the talk page [3] by other user and seeing his response here he doesn't underhand what WP:1RR means --Shrike (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning AmirahBreen

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 AmirahBreen

I made one reversion today and one yesterday. I am not clear is a 24 hour period counted from midnight to midnight or from one reversion to the next? I have made no further edits to the page today. I have opened discussions about it on the article talk page and am participating in those discussions to reach consensus.

Please also consider that the information which I removed was defamatory and original research. The sources were clear that their primary motive was to bring aid to Gaza and to cherry pick from the sources what they said may happen as an alternative if they failed and to place that in the text with the implication that it was their primary motive is defamatory. Although this is not a BLP and those people are not still alive, there are still people alive who were part of this aid mission who it can effect 'by association'.

GizzyCatBella wouldn't it be clearer if the warning said 'editors who revert this article should seek consensus before further reverts, and must refrain from from reverting the article again for at least 24 hours'?

IMO there should also be warning there that if Wikipedia policies are not followed it could also lead to a block due to discretionary sanctions. I am not one to go straight for arbitration, but reverting my edit in a rollback with no explanation in the edit summary as to why, as was done here [5] and then reverting it again for no other reason than that the editor considered it a 1RR violation as was done here [6] despite the fact that I had still not been given any explanation either in edit summary or on talk pages as to why it had been reverted in the first place, is that really in line with Wikipedia policy? If there was more emphasis on adhering to Wikipedia policies in the warnings then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. Editors should give clear edit summaries and particularly when making reverts on an article which is under discretionary sanctions. You are enforcing 1RR yet you are not enforcing Wikipedia policies.

What is more Daveout actually contravened the 1RR in one fowl swoop with a rollback of two completely separate edits with an edit summary which explained only one of them, but did you see me running straight to AE? He's also made a 3rd revert which is only just outside the 24hr mark and he's had talk page warnings for similar behaviour.

Daveout also broke the 1RR by doing this [7] and this [8] which resulted in me getting blocked after being reported by a sock-puppet of a banned editor. I warned him about edit warring on his talk page. [9] and yesterday morning he went straight back and started another edit war, by reverting my edit with no explanation or edit summary, immediately followed by reverting another editors edit, for which he gave an edit summary but it turned out to be invalid. I've certainly learned a thing or two in all of this myself, but has Daveout learned anything at all? Has his username even been mentioned in this or the previous discussion in which I was not allowed to take part?

When he reverted my edit yesterday with no explanation in the edit summary I actually thought he'd probably made two reverts, one immediately following the next, by mistake, being that his edit summary only covered his second revert. I reverted back asking him to provide an edit summary (or discuss on the talk page), not with the intention of starting an edit war, but because I thought he had mistakenly rolled two reverts into one, and the edit he'd provided an edit summary for had absolutely nothing to do with my edit as far as I could see. I hadn't even questioned the reliability of the source, I had questioned the way in which the source had been cherry picked.

WP:WAR Referring to 3RR - 'Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring.' Is this any different for 1RR? According to WP:1RR it isn't.

WP:1RR also says that 24 hours may be replaced by 'a week', 'a month' etc. If it's talking about the time between one revert and the next then why not arbitrary figures such as 6 hours, 18 hours etc. If a revert was made this month then it implies that a revert made next month would not be within the month, even if it were made on an earlier day of the month. A month is not a set number of days, so how can you count from revert to revert if a month could be 31, 30 or even 29 or 28 days. How do you know which length of month to choose? The length of this month or next month? I'm not saying that I don't understand now what has already been explained to me, what I am saying is I still feel that the policy pages don't explain clearly enough and that I should be believed when I say I did not fully understand if it meant 24 hours from the time the first revert was made or if it meant 'on the same day'.

WP:3RRNO Point 7. also says under exemptions 'Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.' Due to the comma after 'unsourced' but no comma after 'poorly sourced', I would read this to say that libelous, biased, and unsourced, may also refer to articles other than BLPs. I still maintain that the text I removed was libelous and biased in the context it was placed and in the way it was picked from the source which distorted it's meaning, it also turned out to be poorly sourced. If I am not reading this correctly, then a comma should be placed after 'poorly sourced' in point 7 to make it clearer.

Cullen328 I don't even understand your comment, at the start of this discussion I was not asking if 24 meant 24, I was asking 'is it counted from midnight to midnight or from edit to edit'.

Anyway, I have exceeded my wordcount now. Perhaps you will take into account that I was not allowed to make a statement in the last discussion, if you are counting the results of the last discussion against me too.

Amirah talk 02:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Extended content

@Shrike, these don’t work: (?)

Date Explanation

Date Explanation - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what do you mean? Shrike (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links are dead - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the dummy links Shrike (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Okay, so that was nothing) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:力 --> I'm not sure how several of the regulars don't understand the dummy links - One regular didn't understand the dummy links who thought the filing person wished to explain something - not several regulars (I'm sorry, I don't appreciate your remark) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a 1RR violation is obvious ~~but I agree with Nableezy that the filing party could (and most likely should) ask for self-revert first. This resembles an "I got you now!" approach. (sorry Shrike, that's my humble opinion)~~ (this [10] changed my mind.) One also should keep in mind that the initial report, that resulted in 72 hours block above, was produced by a sock-puppet of a banned user. I definitely would not agree with a topic ban proposed, not yet. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen

The warning was posted and visible here --> [11]

WARNING In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.

Please comment only in your own section and do not start threaded discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 revert per 24h - it's clear. There is nothing there about "day". - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say when the 24 hours starts and finishes. In my understanding a 24 hour time span means a day. Amirah talk 22:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you know now, correct? So please keep this in mind going forward. (As I said before, I don't agree with the topic ban at this point, but I’ll not argue if the administrative team concludes a short block is required as a reminder that one needs to be very careful around that topic area) - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that now, and there is no reason to suspect that if I know the rules I won't abide by them. It's been explained to me, not in a simply clear and understanding way as it could have been, but it's been explained to me. <-- unsigned User:AmirahBreen comment moved down

Statement by Nableezy

Whats the first a revert of? Did anybody ask the user to self-revert? Did you try to engage on the talk page? With the user on the user talk page? Curious. nableezy - 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting a user who goes around telling others to review ONUS and start an RFC for challenged material reverts on the basis of a supposed 1RR without identifying the original revert too. This numbers game thing leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. The whole escalating the reporting without engaging the user at all on their talk page, when they have at the very least already stopped reverting, was unable to self-revert because they had already been reverted, and was never even asked to self-revert makes that bad taste more intense. nableezy - 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here Shrike, I tried to help you out with the whole not using AE as a weapon thing. Maybe see for example User_talk:Bob_drobbs#1rr for how a user might try to engage another and ask that they correct their actions prior to escalating things here even if they oppose their edits. nableezy - 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inappropriate to report a user for a 1RR violation without ever asking for a self-revert. We always ask for a self-revert. I dont think its appropriate that the initial report was made by a sock of a banned user and now an admin is escalating this report without any attempt to engage the user for a topic-ban. I think the users who lecture others on ONUS while violating it left and right themselves should be looked at as well. nableezy - 21:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ, nobody has tried to engage this person with anything besides threats at all. This was the sequence of the first block. Notice. AE report (by a since blocked sock). Sanction. Those are consecutive edits to their talk page, and not one person stopped in between to give her (I think from username?) even one chance at learning how to correct the issues. And here, again, no request to self-revert. You have one user reverting their edit so they could not self-revert, and another reporting them, and nobody offering a chance at a self-revert. And all the while, users are violating WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:ONUS. That is, um, sub-par. nableezy - 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:力

Nobody is covering themselves with glory here. I'm not sure how several of the regulars don't understand the dummy links ("difflink3") in the reporting template. I'm not sure I believe that AmirahBreen doesn't understand the 1RR rule after being blocked over it a week ago. I'm not sure why Nableezy thinks this filing is inappropriate after that block and after this talk page disucssion that suggests AmirahBreen thinks they did nothing wrong.

As far as what should be done, a week-long page ban from Gaza flotilla raid (but not the talk page) seems to me to be both gentle and justified. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I was blocked it was for edits which were done on the same day. This arbitration request is for two edits which I made on two separate days. In my understanding a day is another word for a '24 hour period', or is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirahBreen (talk • contribs)

@AmirahBreen: Multiple editors are telling you that you are wrong about the policy, and that 24 hours means 24 hours, not a calendar day wherever you are. If you refuse to acknowledge this, you are certainly looking at a longer block to prevent you from continuing to violate that policy. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bob Drobbs

1. A polite notice of 1RR violation was put on AmirahBreen's talk page.[12]. There was no request to self-revert because someone else did it for them. AmirahBreen didn't accept this, but instead doubled-down with seeming annoyance and frustration. And this was immediately after a 72 hour ban for the same violation.

It would appear that for whatever reason, AmirahBreen is unable or unwilling to follow the rules.

2. Digging a deeper hole. In the latest edit[13] AmirahBreen tries to argue that we should excuse this additional violation of 1RR, because it was their opinion that this text was problematic. That's not how 1RR works. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. While I appreciate the wide variety of human experience, the simple fact is that we all have to work together abiding by the same set of rules. AmirahBreen hasn't just slightly exceeded the 500 word limit in here, they've more than doubled that. It's another example, that at this point in time, this user isn't following the rules. They pointed out their own rule violation, yet they did not correct it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AmirahBreen

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

This is a clear 1RR violation, and, since it is coming immediately after the user has been to this noticeboard last week, I am afraid we need a PIA topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a clear 1RR violation (the first revert was restoring content that was subject to the edit war they were blocked for previously), and some form of sanction is inevitable. I think a broad topic ban is overkill at this point. I'm more inclined toward a short-term sitewide block (of around a week) for the 1RR violation, and a longer-term ban from the article Gaza flotilla raid (but not its talk page). Obviously if their editing continues to cause problems, a topic ban from all of ARBPIA is the next step. I can see why Nableezy has a bad taste in his mouth wrt weaponisation of AE, but the easiest way to avoid having AE used against you is to avoid violating bright-line rules. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~The user has been around long enough that the "I don't understand what 24 hours refers to" doesn't hold water. However,~~ I agree with H J Mitchell that an escalating block (1 week) may be more appropriate than a topic ban. Enough time for that down the road if it becomes necessary. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with HJ Mitchell, a week block, and I would say a short-ish page block/ban of 30 days for the article, but not the talk page. That should be seen as the last chance before full blown topic bans come to play. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AmirahBreen, firstly, please write any comments in your own section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE, nor are comments anywhere but in your section. That aside, if coming off an edit warring block to immediately start edit warring again doesn't merit a topic ban, I'm not sure what does. But if the consensus is for a "last chance" type block, one hopes this time will be more effective. I would remind AmirahBreen that the 24 hour cycle is a limit, not an entitlement—edit warring is not good in general, and if you get the idea that you should just wait a little longer between repeated reverts next time, you're rather missing the point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unconvinced by any claim of failing to understand that 24 hours means the period of time right between 23 hours and 59 minutes and 24 hours and one minute. I endorse Seraphimblade's request to take on board the spririt rather than just the letter of the policy against edit warring. I am not prepared to support a PIA topic ban at this time but will advise the editor that they are on the brink of such a ban. Support a one week block and a pageblock from the article in question though not its talkpage, with an instruction to be productive not argumentative on that talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inf-in MD

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 Inf-in MD

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Inf-in MD (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:ARBPIA4#ARBPIA General Sanctions (standard discretionary sanctions)

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

01:10, 10 December 2021 accusing an editor of lacking competence (this was just struck, the others remain)
00:23, 10 December 2021 same
01:00, 10 December 2021 same
01:31, 10 December 2021 same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Notified of DS on 13 August 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Inf-in MD, after having previously accused me pompous ignorance only to redact it when told he would be reported, has several times now accused me of lacking competence to edit here. The basis of this is my saying that a group known as "Jewish Human Rights Watch" There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing. Inf-in MD did indeed find that it was a registered corporation in the UK under a slightly different name, but has claimed that I what I wrote "is completely false, nonsense by an editor who hasn't done even minimal research on the topic". One part of what I wrote was incorrect, that it does not have a board. The rest remains completely true. Regardless, claiming that I lack competence is inflammatory and uncivil, and if Inf-in MD feels I lack competence to edit here then the correct thing to do is raise the issue on an administrative board. Not drop a CIR link, four times, in article talk pages. As I had previously asked Inf-in MD to not make such personal attacks, and they have seen fit to ratchet that up substantially, I ask that he be restricted from participating in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions.

The first diff was later struck. nableezy - 01:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty blatant misreading of my question, I was asking if it was a competence issue for me that I did not find the group listed under Jewish Rights Watch. Because I looked for Jewish Human Rights Watch and came up with zilch. I was asking that if I did not find it under a different name does that mean I lack competence. Not turning the question around. nableezy - 02:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Im a little confused as to how an account with 2k edits and registered on July 16 of 2021 has any idea what I have a habit of doing. I haven't made a single request for enforcement here the entire time he has been active with this account as far as I can recall. nableezy - 02:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Inf-in MD

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 Inf-in MD

As I explained on that page, WP:CIR says "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." - that seems to be the case here. I don't doubt the editor's good intentions but he's simply not up to the task as demonstrated by his editing. He did not perform the most basic of research that would have shown that what they claimed ("this is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It is a Facebook group and a Twitter feed. There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing.") is false. As the links I gave him show , it is a registered corporation (a PLC) in the UK, with a board that is named, with an address etc.. He further did not understand that 'Jewish Rights Watch' is the legal name for "Jewish Human Right Watch" (and seems to still not understand this, per his comment above), despite the fact that I gave him a link that made that connection explicit (and then he had the audacity to accuse me of failing CIR for confusing these entities which he incorrectly assumed were different ones - [14] "your link to the UK company information services is to "JEWISH RIGHTS WATCH", not Jewish Human Rights Watch. Is that a competence issue?" the same thing he's accusing me of doing here!).

He thus created work for other editors (me) who had to do this basic research , and more work to explain this basic stuff to them and clean up the wrong and misleading stuff they posted. This user has a habit of trying to weaponize discussion boards like this one (or even Afd! -[15] "sanction the creator" , or this, same AfD [16] "you should be blocked and topic banned per WP:POINT and WP:TE") to sanction people who disagree with him. It's time someone put a stop to this behavior. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:力 , I provided links to their corporate registration and filings. There have been 3-4 employees, since 2014. Not that it really matters, many organizations are sole proprietorships or two partners, that does not make them any less of a real organization. But I take your point about invoking WP:CIR not being a good idea. Inf-in MD (talk)

User:力, Oh I agree, if the article is to include it, it is because the report was covered by reliable sources, not because of the number of employees the commissioning organization has. but let's not turn this into a debate about what the article should say, that's what the article's talk page is for. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that invoking CIR was wrong , and have struck those references out .Inf-in MD (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:力

Bringing up WP:CIR on an article talk page is almost never a good idea, especially with editors who aren't new. Also, I'm not convinced that "Jewish Human Rights Watch" is anything more than a doing-business-as for an individual activist or two, based on the talk page discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inf-in MD: I agree that it is more serious than "some guy who had a whim one night". That doesn't mean it's necessary to include something (I'm not exactly sure what diff the dispute is about) in the article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Accusing a 14-year-old veteran of lacking competence is a bad, bad, bad idea. Particularly when it comes from somebody who initiated a journey with Wikipedia 4 months ago Let's study it all a bit closer... - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inf-in MD opened an account on July 16th, 2021 editing an area entirely unrelated to WP:ARBPIA. One month later, on August 22, 2021, Inf-in MD reached 500/30 status with this edits and immediately (within 9 minutes) proceeds to WP:ARBPIA area with this edit.

Since that time, Inf-in MD remains in the WP:ARBPIA topic area participating in AE reports, here too, noticeborards, here too, warns editors of possible topic bans breaches or 1 RR violations

On October 14, 2021, Inf-in MD is investigated for possible sockpuppetry -->[17]

On November 27, 2021, Inf-in MD knowledgeably commented at the Holocaust in Poland topic area (WP:APL) regarding the banned editor's report to Haaretz -->[18] and WP:COI issue.-->[19], [20],[21] despite never editing that topic area before.

In my humble opinion Inf-in MD is not a 4 months old user. They are remarkably familiar with both WP:ARBPIA and WP:APL (Holocaust in Poland) issues. They target their likely prior rivals selectively with the intention of eliminating them from editing. The examples are this report where Inf-in MD accused his potential rival of WP:CIR and others (User:Piotrus and User:Volunteer Marek) of WP:COI. I don't think it is worthwhile to file another SPI at this time since WP:ARBPIA topic ban is on the table. If implemented, that should be sufficient. If I'm mistaken and Inf-in MD is indeed a new user (is it?) who accidentally stumbled into both topic areas, they may edit other subjects and appeal the ban at a later time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

First, per WP:ONUS, nobody is required to do your research for you. That means that even if nableezy had been completely and unequivocally wrong, it still wouldn't have been appropriate to accuse him of WP:CIR issues - he's entirely within his rights to evaluate a source based solely on what has been presented by the people who want to include it. Inf-in MD's complaint that nableezy made them do the work of researching the source that Inf-in MD presented is not appropriate, because that work was always Inf-in MD's responsibility. But on top of that, nableezy's argument wasn't even obviously wrong! Arguing that the source is WP:UNDUE because this is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It is a Facebook group and a Twitter feed is an entirely defensible position to take, and trying to argue that it also having a registered corporation drastically changes this is, at best, a bog-standard sourcing or content dispute, not something so glaringly right or wrong that it justifies repeatedly accusing an editor of competence issues. If Inf-in MD had dropped it after the first time, it wouldn't be a big deal, but it seems like he keeps fixating on it (to the point of doubling down on it above!) That, at least, needs to stop. Inf-in MD accuses nableezy of trying to remove them, but surely they are aware that WP:CIR is a policy intended to be used as a threshold for the removal of editors; constantly accusing someone of lacking competence to that degree across multiple forums seems reflective of both WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

Nableezy complain that editors weaponize AE but he doing the same such filing were at AE multiple times and maximum what happened is mild warning that editor comments are not "ideal". It would be strange if there would be different outcome --Shrike (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq You said you didn't check the report but you already think that indef tban is needed it that what are you saying? It would be very strange if any sanction will come as there were no personal attacks in any of the diffs in the past users were sanctioned for filing such reports Shrike (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor Shrike: Counting has never been my strong suit, so apologies if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell this filing brings Nableezy's count for 2021 up to 3. In the same time period, your count is 4. Maybe you should withdraw your "multiple times" remark. Zero^talk 08:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Inf-in MD

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

I confirmed the comments above regarding Inf-in_MD's account. It was created on 16 July 2021 and has made 2208 edits. I'll look at the details of this report later but the drama makes me suspect that an indefinite topic ban is required because a new account pulling CIR against one of the regulars on the other side looks like an attempt to prompt an over-reaction that might lead to that regular being sanctioned. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I've checked the report and confirmed that the reported user is using a new account and has used WP:CIR in what looks like an attempt to provoke an over-reaction. I have not yet checked details such as all the diffs in the report or the background to the dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd say that someone who uses an accusation of CIR against a 14-year-old account - four times in an hour, no less - probably has CIR issues themselves. However, there's a familiar pattern here. New account, gnomes its way to extended confirmed, immediately dives into ARBPIA issues, has a remarkable knowledge of that and related issues pre-dating their account creation, ends up at AE... we've been here a number of times. Topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalCathayan

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 RoyalCathayan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AlexEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RoyalCathayan (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: Discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBAPDS

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

Today
1. Added unsourced statement and photo about a supporter of Hong Kong's independence to the Trump Rally section. Appears to be an attempt to link the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests with the 2021 United States Capitol attack
2. Added aggrandizing claim regarding the streets being filled with the vehicles of Trump supporters as a caption to a photo of one car bearing pro-Trump stickers and paraphernalia. Appears to be aggrandizing the scale of the protest using vague exaggerated and unsourced claims.
3. Added photo of the US Capitol in darkness after the attack (Metadata shows it was taken at 5:33pm) and labeled it as Patriots look on the Capitol just before the attack. Appears to be elevating attackers to status of "patriots". Not really sure about the motivation for the incorrect description of the timeline; maybe just a simple mistake.
4. Added claim that US Capitol Police allowed attackers into the building, sourced to a youtube video rather than secondary source analysis. Appears to be POV pushing diminishment of attackers' actions.
Today
1. Removal of "false" descriptor surrounding Trump's claims of fraud in several places; this is well-sourced throughout the article body.
2. Addition of WP:COATRACK section of various isolated incidents of small-scale fraud or processing issues. Appears to be POV pushing electoral fraud narrative.
Today Aggrandizing scale of Trump supporter crowds with obvious WP:PUFFERY.
Today
1. Removal of well-sourced "false" descriptor of claims again.
2. Modification of "allies" to "supporters." "Allies" implies public figures rather than crowds of supporters. Not really sure what the motivation was, but this is a pattern of POV pushing.
3. Removal of well-sourced big lie statement and the word "lie" in another place in the article.
4. Addition of descriptor "in America and abroad" to a sentence about Trump supporters. Appears to again be aggrandizing scale of Trump support by adding irrelevant factoid about foreign support.

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.

[22]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor launched into a foray of POV-pushing in articles about post-1920 American politics today. Worse, all of these substantial edits were marked as "minor," which may be an attempt to game the system by reducing the visibility of controversial edits on watchlists. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [23]

Discussion concerning RoyalCathayan

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 RoyalCathayan

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RoyalCathayan

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 194: / Line 194: @@
 :[[User:力]], Oh I agree, if the article is to include it, it is because the report was covered by reliable sources,  not because of the number of employees the commissioning organization has. but let's not turn this into a debate about what the article should say, that's what the article's talk page is for. [[User:Inf-in MD|Inf-in MD]] ([[User talk:Inf-in MD|talk]]) 02:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
+I accept that invoking  CIR was wrong , and have struck those  references out .[[User:Inf-in MD|Inf-in MD]] ([[User talk:Inf-in MD|talk]]) 13:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 ====Statement by User:力====

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