Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:25, 10 January 2019

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	335	336	337	338	339

DBigXray

No action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2019 (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 DBigXray

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GenuineArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Noting that there is a limit of "20 diffs", I am presenting recent diffs where DBigXray has falsely accused editors of paid editing, socking and violated other forms of WP:NPA/WP:BATTLE:

2 December: WP:ASPERSIONS was violated because DBigXray accuses the discussants of this and this discussion to be engaging in paid editing/COI, despite no editor has been ever reported or ever convicted of paid editing or COI.
2 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: continuing unfounded allegation of paid editing by saying that the "statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum"
5 December: WP:NPA: "Revert mindless tagging by POV Pusher"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots&diff=872127465&oldid=872124942 5 December]: WP:CIVIL: ""Lot of crap has existed for many years on an article" is not a justification to restore crap back to the article."
7 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: continuing unfounded allegation of paid editing by saying "discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts".
7 December: WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE: "your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here"
16 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: Checking the block logs of AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir, there was only 1 user who was a sock out of 19 discussants as of 16 December. But DBigXray makes unfounded allegations that "this AfD was SOCK and MEAT infested"
16 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: Claims an editor to be a "Blocked user now on IP" and to this day this allegation remains unfounded.
18 December: WP:BATTLE, WP:ASPERSIONS: Makes unfounded allegations about 11 editors to be engaging in meat puppetry or sock puppetry by saying "one can see several of these nationalistic editors... cannot possibly participate in these India-Pak deletion discussion, and hence the need to mobilize other editors (or SOCK) from the larger groups who are not (yet) sanctioned by Arbcom"
18 December: WP:BATTLE: Doubles down with the unfounded allegations by saying that he has "responded above with the evidence of clique based voting", however no actual "evidence" has been produced.
18 December: WP:CIVIL: "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you ae forcing your lack of knowledge onto others."
18 December: WP:FOC and WP:CIVIL: "No I cant help you to read"
23 December: WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE: "This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve".
24 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: No blocked users participated in the DRV yet DBigXray claims that "even the DRV has not been spared by the puppet masters."
24 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: Makes unfounded allegation of sock puppetry with the comment "Talk about sock and more socks appear"
29 December: WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLE: In place of filing SPI with proper evidence, DBigXray tries to get rid of an opponent by making unfounded accusations of other user being a sock and demands them to be blocked as soon as possible.
29 December: WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLE: Like above, DBigXray makes unfounded allegation his opponent is a sock of a banned editor and requests a "WP:NOTHERE block".

All of these incidents came after a warning from ANI that this sort of behavior will result in block.

I believe that these diffs qualifies as the clear evidence to establish that there is a recurring pattern of disruption. While there are issues with use of poor sources, wikihounding contributors, copyvio, and other problems, I decided to leave them due to limit of diffs. GenuineArt (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:: DBigXray has been already warned about possibility of topic ban under WP:ARBIPA.[1] Before that he was warned for his 1RR violation.[2] More recently, DBigXray was warned after drawing enough complaints for his overall behavior on ANI from November. This warning was also posted on DBigXray's talk page.[3] The reported misconduct came after all these warnings.

There has not been one editor who was convicted of COI in both of these discussions (1, 2). But DBigXray, just like here, has been adamant with his unsubstantiated claims that both of these discussions involve paid/COI editors. He had been told by Amakuru (an administrator) to stop labelling editors as COI editors without proper investigation on an appropriate noticeboard but DBigXray refused (User talk:DBigXray/Archive2018 2#Jaggi Vasudev).

The claims of sock puppetry against users made by DBigXray have been misleading because there hasn't been any example that was referred as "sock" by DBigXray and they later ended up getting blocked as sock in the cited examples. DBigXray made 7 reverts in only 4 days on Rafale deal controversy against 5 editors in total. Pattern also includes engagement in non-neutral editing and use of very poor sources [4] despite being told to do otherwise.[5] Due to diff limit I can't provide more evidence of problematic editing including misrepresentation of sources, deliberate wikihounding of opponents, but bottom line is that DBigXray behavior has only worsened even after those many warnings by admins. I don't think one more warning will create any difference.

One can also take a clue from this report where AGK asked DBigXray to trim down the statement, yet DBigXray refused to trim. DBigXray only does what he wants and same thing happens everywhere else, no mater what is being said to him. GenuineArt (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I have added the brief explanations now that how those diffs contain violation of conduct policy or guideline. GenuineArt (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning DBigXray

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 DBigXray

Relevant threads for the Dispute at Jaggi Vasudev

diffs have been copied and response inline for ease of reading.

2 December 2018: the PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev [7]

The exact comment was "Note to admin It is clear to me that based on the !voters at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and here, the PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev and the members of the Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev have been mobilised enmasse to filibuster and bludgeon the move process. What is more interesting is that some of them are even tag teaming and edit warring [8][9][10] to hat !votes that are against their POV."

In my comment at MRV I had not taken any names and by the phrase "PR machinery" and "fan club" I was referring to the 3 editors who I had tagged in the RM discussion. In my comment at MRV I had also noted that I was annoyed by the reverts of the other set of 3 editors who were taking turns, to hat and hide an MRV comment, that disagreed with their own opinion. After getting reverted a second time by this set of editors at MRV, I made this comment as a note to the closing editor to not discount the hatted comment, and also made a thread at the MRV talk page to bring this disruptive hatting to the notice of other MRV participants to revert it. After a while another editor Erik, expressed his concern at this biased hatting calling it totally wrong and the hatting was removed by another editor here, Strangely, this time no tag-teamer reverted him to hat it again or protested against unhatting.

My note above at Move review was responded [11] by Rzvas. saying "No one here is paid by Sadhguru."

2 December: "that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum"[12]

The actual comment was my response to Rzvas.

"Although I did not claim so, but your statement that "none of them are paid by Sadhguru" is interesting. I assume that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum that in my opinion, seems to be going on. It would be interesting to know what else is mentioned over there. Knowing that one of these participants on the talk page User:Regstuff has already been site banned for Paid editing."

As I explained above I had given my reasons to believe that "The RM discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts,". Another editor at the MRV discussion had expressed concern at the passionate comments [13] by an MRV participant, who did not disclose it in his first comment but later on admitted on the same thread that he was "influenced" by the teaching of Jaggi Vasudev. I take this admission further vindication of my comment above.

7 December: "Consensus is not counting of the heads but on the weight of the argument. The RM discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts, so the number game should not be used to claim a consensus here.".[14]

I have already explained above why I said this and the three COI/SPA accounts [15] of RM discussion

18 December: "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you are forcing your lack of knowledge onto others."[16]
18 December: "No I cant help you to read"[17]

The relevant thread for this discussion is at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Hatnote

This was a discussion about a hatnote that ErikHaugen had added and B2C had removed. Hatnote = "Sadhguru" redirects here. For other uses, see Satguru, should be restored. The removal of this obviously useful hatnote is non constructive and misleading users (looking for Satguru) and leading them to this page with no alternative route to the article they may be looking for. Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages. a discssion on this B2C stated that "I know nothing about this subject other than what I've learned from looking at usage in English sources." and claimed that he did not believe any reader looking for Satguru would type Sadhguru on english wiki. To this comment I had replied that "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you are forcing your lack of knowledge onto others. A large population of Indian population writes Satguru as Sadhguru in english" After which I gave multiple examples[18] of people using variants of the word Satguru/Sadhguru/Sadguru.

The list of 20 examples was provided, yet B2C asked[19] me to reduce the list to only those using Sadhguru, as well as Notable enough for wikipedia [20]. My response [21] "No, I cant help you to read. Remember, Notability is for Topic, RS is for content, dont mix the two."

5 December: ""Lot of crap has existed for many years on an article" is not a justification to restore crap back to the article."[22]

This is related to the ongoing content dispute at Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots Where Orientls has added [23] controversial content into the infobox of the article that I had objected to. Orientls responded falsely claiming consensus, to quote, [24] "People have reached a consensus here. Show us where was consensus for edit because it existed here for many years "

I responded to his claim of many years and clarified that the dispute was still not resolved.[25]

5 December: "Revert mindless tagging by POV Pusher"[26]
7 December: "your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here"[27]

Relevant thread for context Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots

In my comment responding to the controversial and highly inflated casualty figures in Sikh riots, being added into the infobox with poor sources,

quoting myself from the talk page discussion " it appears as though your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is very poor. In link 1 the author says Sikhs have "said" 20,000 were killed. Here in 2nd link [28] you are quoting the numbers stated by the "president of Khalistan council" as a reliable source. in the third link you are trying to pass the belief of the blogger as fact, to quote the blog "It is widely believed that at least 20,000"... As has been already called what you have been doing here is a clear cherry picking of biased and unreliable source that has printed wild allegations on the numbers, in an obvious attempt to inflate the casualty figures of the infobox and the article lead. This is a blatant disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:RS to push your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here."

16 December: "this AfD was SOCK and MEAT infested"[29]
18 December: "one can see several of these nationalistic editors... cannot possibly participate in these India-Pak deletion discussion, and hence the need to mobilize other editors (or SOCK) from the larger groups who are not (yet) sanctioned by Arbcom"[30]
18 December: "responded above with the evidence of clique based voting"[31]
24 December: "even the DRV has not been spared by the puppet masters."[32] (despite no blocked editor participated here)
24 December: "Talk about sock .."[33]

Relevant thread for context of the above 5 diffs.

At the DRV Cunard had first raised the point about the possibility of nationalistic editors participating in the AfD based on his own observation from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Sockpuppets, and the "India-Pakistan" logs at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. another editor had asked evidence for sock/meat so I responded with the evidence that I had collected that had made me to suspect the sock/meat puppetry in this AfD. I added my own observation and evidence. So I see myself as suspecting an obvious problem and sharing my viewpoint along with the evidence that I collected.

Later on after a few days of the closure of AfD 2 of the AfD participants were blocked as Socks [34] while the DRV was ongoing.

Joe Roe, who had closed the DRV had noted in his closing statement [35] that "The original AfD was affected by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry"

16 December: "Blocked user now on IP"[36]

Special:Contributions/Bassem.gergess was already blocked for the same edits after which he returned with an IP [37]

23 December: "This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve".[38]

Relevant thread for this dispute on Talk:Rafale deal controversy

This topic is currently in the news, I started editing this on 23 December, immediately after my first revert, I joined the talk page discussion, and to resolve the issues if any.

MBlaze Lighting had made blanket reverts of my article improvements without adequately explaining his objections about the content. On the talk page, he added 5 diffs with personal attacks without explaining his real objections to the content he reverted, to this I responded "Instead of having a confrontational attitude against fellow editors that got you banned indefinitely from India pakistan articles by ArbCom [39] why don't you edit in a collaborative manner. This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve. I have explained my edits in the edit summary. you say you have succinctly outlined your concerns, but all I see above is your accusations and my diffs above, I need you to explain what you think is the problem with those edits (with evidence for your position) so that I can respond to it."

29 December: "This is clearly not a new user and a sock of someone....block this account Special:Contributions/FreeKashmiri for disruption and WP:NOTHERE, the sooner the better."[40]

Relevant thread User talk:cyberpower678#DBigXray

This new editor was making disruptive AfD nominations, He was aware of a month old thread at ANI closed by Cyberpower and was asking for my block for that. I noted [41] that this editor was engaging in disruptive edits and based on his edits appeared to me as a sock of someone. I suggested Cyberpower to block this account Special:Contributions/FreeKashmiri for disruption and WP:NOTHERE.

cyberpower agreed with my observation [42] saying this editor indeed appeared as a sock of someone.

29 December: "reminds me of another banned editor User:Towns Hill. recommend a WP:NOTHERE block"[43]

Relevant thread User talk:Kautilya3#Copyvio

This editor had been editing India Pakistan related articles with a Pro Pakistani bias. The editor also noted that they were in touch with others via emails [44] [45], which is an admission of edits based on offline mails. Based on their edit history they made similar edits (that were made previously by a banned editor) and filing complaints against users they did not even interact. Some example diffs diff, diff, diff, diff, so I had noted that there was a similarity in their editing patterns.

To conclude my response on the above allegations, I never had any disputes with GenuineArts so far. He had made a complaint against me few days back at ANI with intentions to get me sanctioned. I am not sure, but based on the recent multiple threads that had been started against me at ANI by a particular set of editors, I see that as a part of a concerted effort by this set of editors with whom I am having ongoing content disputes on articles. All these attacks against me have begun since 29 October when I participated in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and voted oppose against the proposal. I regularly participate at WP:RMT amd WP:RM discussions, I had never edited the page Jaggi Vasudev before my participation at its RM discussion. The content dispute with some of "these editors" are still ongoing at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots. "These editors", I am having disputes currently include Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, D4iNa4, Orientls, I note that 4 of these are also under indefinite India-Pakistan topic ban [46]. This thread at ARE is fifth such attempt (after 4 threads at ANI in a short period) in the ongoing efforts by participants of these content disputes, to bypass these content disputes by getting me sanctioned. --DBig Xrayᗙ 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I have made some more prunings, I have tried my best to be brief, but there are 20 diffs (400+ words) from multiple content disputes that I had to respond to and I also had to copy each diff so as to clarify which diff, I am responding to. 500 words ÷ 20 = 25 words per diff. I cannot possibly explain a diff in just 25 words so I would request the admins to accept this response.--DBig Xrayᗙ 00:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that GenuineArts has now started added six month old difs and the difs/threads that have been already discussed at ANI before. Bbb23 in his closing statement of a recent ANI thread had also noted this dredging up of old threads. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I have participated in close to 500 AfDs, where one can review my contributions. I believe it is unfair to make assumptions on the basis of one or two controversial, sock disrupted AfDs. Regarding the Talk:Rafale deal controversy and Rafale threads 1 , 2, 3, it must be noted that others who participated in talk page are unwilling to even discuss the actual content. The article as it stands still has multiple issues of WP:OVERCITE, source misrepresentation, biased content etc. My contributions at the Rafale deal page had greatly improved the neutrality and content issues and it can be verified. At its talk page, I had made sincere attempts to discuss whatever objections Mblaze and others were having and yet the actual content problems have not been explained till date, in spite of asking several times. These editors were going to great lengths talking about editor but were clearly evading the fruitful discussion of the content. Since the Rafale thread is being mentioned here, I now feel that the comments on Rafale talk page were made more so, with intentions of using it at a report such as this on AE rather than reaching a consensus. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

GArt; do you think your edit-summary over this edit is any conducive to maintaining a collaborative and collegial editorial atmosphere? ∯WBG^converse 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DBigXray

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

@DBigXray: At 2,100+ words, your response is over 4 times the allowed length. Would you please replace it with a clearer, shorter rebuttal of the principal concerns raised by this enforcement request? AGK ■ 23:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. While it's still over, your submission is now more manageable. Thank you. AGK ■ 11:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find a lot of this report underwhelming at first, especially since a lot of the socking / COI claims have since been vindicated. I do see a bit of a problem with DBigXray throwing these accusations around without requesting administrative action; if you're accusing someone of socking, you should really be making use of SPI or not making the accusation at all. And the more I see of DBigXray's TP style, the less I like it. The AfD linked above, the related DRV and various talk page threads I've come across have a distinct element of BLUDGEON to them. And this is a particularly fine example of stonewalling. I'm not sure whether any of this rises to the level of sanctions, but a logged warning here is going to be a minimum, IMO. I'm still thinking on it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not be taking action here because the request does not contain evidence that these were, in fact, false accusations of disruption, or explain how exactly the reported diffs violate any applicable Wikipedia conduct policy or guideline. Sandstein 12:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to recommend any action either here, except to say that we are rapidly approaching the point at which the whole ARBIPA issue possibly needs to be elevated to ArbCom. I'm pretty sure most admins are thoroughly sick of WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:AE/WP:AN3 being flooded with attempts from editors in that arena to have their "opponents" topic-banned or blocked, dealing with IP and registered socks, tag-teaming revert squads, terrible sourcing ... for example there is one report currently at ANI and four in the current archive... it needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

أمين

Blocked for one week. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 4 January 2019 (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 أمين

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: أمين (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_Prohibition :

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

04 Jan Creating article that dealt with the conflict mentioning "Israeli Occupation"
Date Explanation
Date Explanation
Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

30 Dec 2018 Was blocked by User:GoldenRing and unblocked by User:TonyBallioni
Date Explanation

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

Its clear that user can't differentiate what belongs to the conflict and what is not

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[47]

Discussion concerning أمين

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 أمين

Statement by (username)

Result concerning أمين

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

Looks like a pretty clear violation to me. The user has been made aware of the arbitration restriction, continued editing, was blocked, and then got unblocked after they convinced the unblocking admin that they understand the restriction. And then edited in the area again. Now we probably need a longer block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked for a week, with a note. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans

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 Snooganssnoogans

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rajulbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Snooganssnoogans (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_(1932_cutoff)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans: Contains many diffs following a similar pattern of conduct as the one complained of here. Previous AE brought by User:TParis and resulting in the following sanction implemented by User:Dennis Brown on 24 May 2017: Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans (5/24/2017)
12/1/2018 - Inserted ", a pseudoscience," after "Creationism" in violation of WP:SYNTH;
Edit-warred over biased content 12/2/2018 - Edit warred over biased content.
12/2/2018 - edit-warred over non-NPOV phrasing improved by another editor.
12/11/2018 - Edit-warred over removing opinion framed in Wikipedia's voice, saying "No need to attribute."
12/2/2018 - Introduced blatantly non-NPOV language framed in Wikipedia's voice.
12/3/2018 - Agressive instance of WP:OWN.
12/3/2018 - Reverted sourced information added to article with the justification of "...cant access the book but it doesn look like a rs]
12/3/2018 - Insists on non-NPOV language like "X falsely claimed that...." in violation of WP:SYNTH
12/18/2018 - Edit-warred over "white supremacy" language.
12/9/2018 - Inserted non-NPOV language in violation of WP:SYNTH ("falsely claimed...")
12/26/2018 - Edit-warred over clearly non-NPOV language -- calling org "amateur website" as opposed to "fact-checking organization." See article history generally, exercised WP:OWNership.
12/4/2018 - Introduced patently non-NPOV language "alleged reports" -> falsehoods; "reporting false stories"; "false claim"... in violation of WP:SYNTH.
12/6/2018 - Reverted another user's improvement to an article because the sources cited "are by clowns."
12/4/2018 - edit-warred over non-NPOV content.
12/8-12/10/2018 - Edit-warred over non-NPOV content.
12/8/2018 - Introduced 'falsely claimed' in violation of WP:SYNTH
12/9/2018 - Edit-warred, called other user's addition "self-serving nonsense."
12/17-12/17/2018 - Edit-warring over POV.
12/17-12/18/2018 - Edit-warring.

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

Mentioned multiple times by multiple users, including but not limited to, by User:TParis, User:Dennis_Brown, User:Sandstein, and User:Lord Roem at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans (5/24/2017).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Snooganssnoogans primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to overload articles concerning conservative U.S. political figures or topics (examples: Mitch McConnell, Brigitte Gabriel, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Sebastian Gorka, Liberty University, etc.) with a negative slant. I ran into this user at the Mitch McConnell page. I looked up that congressman's article by chance when he was mentioned in the news. In subsequent discussion it became clear that he was only interested in reflecting one point of view. This led me to review his contributions in other articles, which led me to file a complaint at the ANI, where it was suggested that the appropriate venue is here. There have been over 11,000 edits since the last time his conduct was up for review here. His chronic NPOV issue has not been corrected.

@Salvio giuliano: As a means of showing it's not a content dispute, I'm perfectly happy to accept a ban on interacting with this user. His edits are an issue. ~~I'm not going to comb through 11,000 diffs~~ to point out which ones, especially because someone before me had already done that. The issue has been raised. If no one else sees an issue, then I'll just crawl back into my little corner and edit Wikipedia here and there when I get the chance. School's starting back up anyway. I was just horrified by what I saw as a drawn out attack on Wikipedia's neutrality in this particular domain.--Rajulbat (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- ~~I'm fine with you guys closing this~~. @Beyond My Ken: Um, that's not true. Congress is bicameral. But this is not the place to talk about it.--Rajulbat (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  - @Black Kite: ~~I share your opinion regarding time wasted~~.--Rajulbat (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    - Under protest, I have provided 20 or so diffs. His anti-neutral editing practices are readily discernible from his list of contributions, but I'm jumping through the hoops here in the hopes that someone takes action. As for "open[ing] up proceedings investigating [my] edits," @Drmies, go right ahead. I have nothing to hide.--Rajulbat (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

Discussion concerning Snooganssnoogans

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 Snooganssnoogans

Statement by MrX

No evidence of sanctionable conduct has been presented. This seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by dredging up a previous AE filing, casting aspersions, forum shopping and pinging a couple of sympathetic admins. - Mr X 🖋 13:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Beyond My Ken

@Rajulbat: Please note that Mitch McConnell is not a "Congressman", he is a United States Senator. (Only members of the House of Representatives are called "Congressman", "Congresswoman" or "Congressperson".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen 328

Since no evidence of any misconduct has been presented, this should be declined promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

I know the 24 hour wait was suggested in good faith but IMHO evidence should be provided with the case not 24 hours later, This should be closed now and if the OP wants to return then fine. –Davey2010^Talk 17:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomGnome

I can't see how Snoogans has specifically violated the terms of the sanctions currently in place. The OP has additionally failed to provide evidence of other applicable misconduct. In the OP's defense however, I would concur with others who have stated that Snoogans is an editor who walks a very thin line between acceptable behavior and agenda activism. My own opinion is that when that line crossed, any editor needs to be reigned in from pushing POV, and the appropriate policy is applied consistently, no matter where the editor's apparent political sympathies may lie. RandomGnome (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

The filer has indicated they're not going to be providing the evidence requested, so I'd think this could be closed now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Lack of diffs to prove the point makes this mute even though such diffs are readily available. Note to OP: don't go to court armed only with an opinion, even if the opinion is based on facts, as we need evidence in the form of diffs that will ensure a sanction can be determined.--MONGO (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Taking a very brief look, most of the “edit wars” look like minor skirmishes. #20 was clearly an edit war. But, two other experienced editors took Snoog’s “side” in the war against a new user, and then another brand new user joined against the experienced editors and was blocked. Not a good example for a case against Snoog. The claims of SYNTH don’t look very SYNTHy to me. They appear to be sourced either in the respective articles or a linked article. Perhaps Snoog could use a bit more patience with new users at times. But, this looks like a lot of disagreement over content. I’d suggest that the filer withdraw this complaint as it may not go as planned. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Snooganssnoogans

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

There is going to be no action here unless you provide evidence, in the forms of diffs to sanctionable conduct. Otherwise, this is casting aspersions and bordering on boomerang territory. GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GoldenRing; if no evidence is provided within the next 24 hours, I'll be closing this AE with no action. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Sandstein 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see here, the filer opened a complaint at WP:ANI during which at least six admins commented that their editing was more of an issue than Snoogans ... so he then opens an AE with no evidence on the same subject? The phrase "complete waste of everyone's time" springs to mind here. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Black Kite says. Plus, I'm waiting for someone to open up proceedings investigating their edits. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[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 272: / Line 272: @@
 **<s>I'm fine with you guys closing this</s>. {{ping|Beyond My Ken}} Um, that's not true. Congress is bicameral. But this is not the place to talk about it.--[[User:Rajulbat|Rajulbat]] ([[User talk:Rajulbat|talk]]) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
 ***{{ping|Black_Kite}} <s>I share your opinion regarding time wasted</s>.--[[User:Rajulbat|Rajulbat]] ([[User talk:Rajulbat|talk]]) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
+**** Under protest, I have provided 20 or so diffs. His anti-neutral editing practices are readily discernible from his list of contributions, but I'm jumping through the hoops here in the hopes that someone takes action. As for "open[ing] up proceedings investigating [my] edits," {{ping|Drmies|p=,}} go right ahead. I have nothing to hide.--[[User:Rajulbat|Rajulbat]] ([[User talk:Rajulbat|talk]]) 22:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
 ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=877716477&oldid=877631326&diffmode=source]

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