Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:21, 21 May 2020

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

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

JungerMan Chips Ahoy! has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Bishonen | tålk 13:25, 14 May 2020 (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 JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (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: ARBPIA discretionary sanctions

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

At First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House

22:14, 17 April 2020 Deletes half of a quote from US diplomat Wells Stabler, with editnotice "dubious material from a primary source"
01:25, 24 April 2020 repeats edit
02:50, 1 May 2020 repeats
17:00, 2 May 2020 adds primary-source-inline tag to the same material, this time without deleting it
23:17, 11 May 2020 Readds tag
16:17, 13 May 2020 Readds tag

At Wadi Qana

14:59, 10 May 2020 tags Geography and population section
14:37, 11 May 2020 adds FV tag in Geography and population section
17:58, 11 May 2020 adds same tag
13:41, 12 May 2020 tags "altered to Nahal Elkana" in lede (immediately undoes it, with edit comment "undo for now, may have inadvertantly violated 1RR")
16:12, 13 May 2020 re-adds same tag

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Slow running edit war, against consensus at First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House. There has been a long discussion on the talk page, with Shrike in support of JungerMan's arguments. Since Zero0000's comment on 11:51, 17 April 2020 and Selfstudier's comment 12:38, 18 April 2020, there was a 3:2 consensus supporting the inclusion of the material. This moved to 4:2 in support of the quote following Nableezy's comment at 21:25, 12 May 2020. Yet JungerMan has now deleted the content or tagged the content 6 times, of which two occasions have been just after the 24 hour 1RR deadline.

Separately, as has been discussed on the talk page, the nature of the edit appears to be tendentious. This is illustrated by the fact that although JungerMan is arguing that the quote is primary, when he deleted it (first three diffs above) he only removed half of the quote. The rest of the quote is from the same source, and the content is not covered by any other source.

I have not followed the discussion at Wadi Qana in detail, but per the diffs I have put above there seems to be a similar dynamic.

Final note, worth reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy! from 5 days ago in a different subject area, where two administrators predicted that JungerMan will "eventually end up at AE". Here we are. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Foreign_Relations_of_the_United_States_(book_series)_in_First_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House, which will hopefully resolve the content question. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

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 JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

We should flip this around and ask for DS sanctions against Onceinawhile, who is repeatedly introducing contested material into the article w/o consensus, violating WP:ONUS.

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

15:48, 13 April 2020 Introduces a very lengthy quote and an exceptional claim from a primary source, in violation of WP:RSPRIMARY
22:15, 17 April 2020 one minute after the previous edit was partially reverted and contested by me, reinserts it into the article, in violation of WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, while noting in edit summary there is no consensus for this!
16:26, 2 May 2020 removes tags next to the primary source despite the discussion still going on, and declares 'a consensus exist" when no such consensus is apparent on the talkpage, nor has he attempted to demonstrate such consensus via WP:DR or RfC
21:49, 11 May 2020 again removes a tag, this time one validly placed next to a source that failed verification.

I have repeatedly explained to this editors (as have others - [2]) that WP:CONSENSUS is not a numerical vote, and that per WP:ONUS, if he wants to introduce material that has been challenged into the article, he must demonstrate consensus for it, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he merely repeats, time and again, that 3 editors (himself included) support the material, while only 2 oppose it, so 60% majority is a consensus. ([3],[4]). (that ratio is currently 4:3)

Note also, that for all his protestations, the contested material is still in the article now, despite having no consensus. Apparently he is not even content with the disputed material being tagged as the primary source that it is.

As far as the Wadi Qana article goes, this article is currently undergoing a major expansion/revision. In the process, many problems are being introduced, such as unbalanced sections (which I tagged - #1), statements that failed verification (which I tagged - #2,3), and dubious statements (which I tagged, #5). How are articles going to get any better if issues are not called out via tagging? (Note also the dishonesty in the filer's list, where #4 an #5 are one edit, made, then immediately reverted by myself, then added, yet he lists them as if they were two edits).

This is a tendentious request by a tendentious editor, sanctions are to be applied to them. If there is any doubt about this , just check out his final comment, referring to an unrelated AE report involving me - a report which was closed with no sanctions, described as a content dispute that should be resolved on the talkpage, and a call forWP:DR or an RfC (something I've been repeatedly asking the filer to do here, which he refuses). And while one of the admins arguing against me in that AE did write what Onceinawhile chose to quote, he was immediately replied to by another admin who said "at least at the linked article, they're making something resembling a good point.". Somehow that didn't make it into the tendentious filing here.

Finally, this editor has previously been sanctioned - blocked for edit warring and topic banned from this subject area for 3 months, for this exact type of conduct - it seems tht after cooling his heels for a while, he's right back at it.

Yes, In actu, I am going to disengage from that page for now.

Statement by shrike

There were never any consensus.The WP:ONUS was never satisfied for the inclusion of contested material.Those who restored the material without consensus should be sanctioned as violation of WP:ONUS like the filer[5] --Shrike (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I agree with Shrike. In this area, you can't include a Primary Source without satisfying the requirement laid out in policy and that wasn't met. Those editors who included it, violated DS and ONUS by reinserting it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

There's a pattern of edits with this user, seen here and at, for example, The Federalist (website). Slow-motion edit-warring just outside the bright line rules. I also remain convinced that this is NoCa1l00 and should be blocked on that basis. nableezy - 22:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I see a number of users at that page re-inserting material without a clear consensus, violating ONUS. The next proper step should be an RFC, with inserting the material on hold until it concludes. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

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

Can everyone involved here agree to please stop edit warring? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 00:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Father

Final warning issued.Doug Weller talk 10:46, 17 May 2020 (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 Eternal Father

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Eternal Father (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

2020-05-03 Edit to Michael Flynn, clearly in the scope of AP2 and tagged as such with a notice on the Talk page where he left the edit.
[6], [7], [8], 2020-05-08 - edits to Plandemic leading to discussion and a warning that Plandemic is in scope for AP2, article talk page subsequently tagged. These edits are defensible as scope here is a matter of interpretation, but consensus was that the article is in-scope and Eternal Father was then duly warned.
Date See below for the inextricable connection between this and the explicitly in-scope Plandemic.
Date As above, so below...

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2020-05-03 Topic ban from AP2

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2020-05-03 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Eternal Father was topic-banned from AP2 here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265 § Eternal Father Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036 § American Politics and COVID-19 is that the COVID-19 conspiracy video Plandemic falls within the AP2 arena, due to the political nature of COVID-19 generally and COVID-19 conspiracy theories in particular.

Eternal Father was made aware of this on 2020-50-08.

Judy Mikovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is inextricably linked to Plandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mikovits is the "star" of the video and her conspiracy theories around COVID-19 are its subject. The edits serve to promte the legitimacy of Mikovits against a background of the Plandemic video, e.g. adding {{Infobox scientist}} when the point is very much that she is no longer a scientist, having been dismissed during a course of events that included retraction of her most cited paper. I would say that it is difficult if not impossible to argue in good faith that if Plandemic is in scope, Mikovits is not.

I'd like to ask an uninvolved admin to issue a firm and final warning to stick to the spirit of the topic ban and not be tempted to test its limits. Guy (help!) 08:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Eternal Father

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 Eternal Father

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eternal Father

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

I've given them a final warning making it very clear that this applies to every page on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saxestrunk

Saxestrunk was CU Blocked by Ponyo --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:38, 19 May 2020 (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 Saxestrunk

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Saxestrunk (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:ARBAPDS :

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

May 11, 2020 Saxestrunk placed a POV tag at the top of the article. I reverted it four days later since previous discussion had gone stale and the user account Saxestrunk had not participated in it.
May 18, 2020 Saxestrunk placed a POV tag at the top of the article. They did not discuss on the talk page as required by the conspicuous page editing restrictions.
May 11, 2020 Personal attack in an edit summary. (Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.)

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

Discussion concerning Saxestrunk

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 Saxestrunk

Statement by Lurking Shadow

The mention of Snooganssnoogan`s POV is not really concerning because it is indeed obvious that Snooganssnoogans is guided by their POV if you look at their user page. Something I will take somewhere else. What`s clearly supporting a topic ban is, however, this admission of working towards a POV.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Saxestrunk

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

I find it hard to believe that this is a new user and not somebody's throwaway sock account. ~Awilley (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: I thought they were Rambo Apocalypse, but CU data disagrees --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The technical data supports the likelihood that Saxestrunk is User:Architect 134 doing their best to look like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rambo Apocalypse. I've blocked indef.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rk adh

Now moot as the editor has been blocked indefinitely as a normal administrative sanction by Bishonen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 19 May 2020 (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 Rk adh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rk adh (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: ARBIPA

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

02:46, 18 May 2020 Deletion of sourced content without explanation
19:23, 18 May 2020: Repeats the same deletion without explanation
19:50, 18 May 2020: Repeats the third time without explanation
20:09, 18 May 2020: When asked for explanation on the talk page, he quips " I have accepted most of your work."
22:05, 18 May 2020: Resorts to personal attacks: "you may be sofisticated paid agent who can work around the clock. But you are displaying a pattern of spreading propaganda" and "I am not a person with a pseudoname."
23:24, 18 May 2020: "That poor source is not removed". No mention of the source, or what is "poor" about it.
00:08, 19 May 2020 Gives me an WP:NPA warning, with no mention of where I might have done any personal attacks. Also more aspersions.
00:16, 19 May 2020 Supposedly I failed to "justify such poorly sourced content", with no explanation of what was "poorly sourced".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. 19:29, 18 May 2020‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a newish user, dealing with a page on a Nepali village on the Indian border, which has a certain amount of India-related content. It is close to a disputed territory.

It seems fairly clear that the user came around to bulldoze his way through the edits, and to make personal attacks against me and my editing, with no effort at good faith engagement of any sort.

After this spree of edits, a new account called Govinda Paudel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got created, which did the same kind of edits the user would have liked to make.[10][11] Whether it is WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT is hard to say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Rk adh

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 Rk adh

Please see my 'article talk page' how I responded his/her/it questions for real understanding of context. Please also see my 'user talk page' how many times he/she/it intimidated me. I also wrote on his/her/it 'user talk page' about my reasons why he/she/it was not working in wikipedia with good faith.Ram Adhikari (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)rk adh[reply]

What about taking action against User: Kautilya3? Do it need another request for it?

Ram Adhikari (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)rk adh[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rk adh

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

When a new user arrives on Wikipedia and immediately plunges into nationalist editing, I think that a WP:NOTHERE block should be considered instead of the multiple stages of AE sanctions. It does not appear that User:Rk adh has any interest in obeying our sourcing policy or in trying to achieve a neutral article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Ed. I have blocked indefinitely as an ordinary admin action. Bishonen | tålk 04:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Opening the hat to mention that I have blocked Govinda Paudel per WP:DUCK. Bishonen | tålk 04:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

cjwilky

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 cjwilky

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: cjwilky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions :

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

2020-05-18 Removes findings of misleading advertising against Vernon Coleman, whose books advocate homeopathy for a variety of diseases.
2020-04-27 Artemisia annua is a plant used in homeopathy and both pharmacological and homeopathic preparations have been touted as COVID-19 remedies.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2014-04-11 Topic banned from homeopathy broadly construed.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2014-04-11 by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Blocked for violation of the topic ban on 2020-01-20, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cjwilky's edits fall into two classes: Doncaster Rovers, and problematic edits advocating fringe views. Cjwilky has acknowledged on-wiki his work as a homeopath, and his real-world identity is known but not I think linked to Wikipedia explicitly, so I won't give his full name. He is a homeopath in the UK. The content removed from Vernon Coleman concerns the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, which is a well known bête noir of UK homeopaths, having found large numbers of them and their own professional society (of which he is or has been a member) to have advertised misleadingly. In his off-wiki life as a homeopath, cjwilky is subject to rules imposed after the ASA rulings and directly relevant to the content he removed from the Coleman article, adding WP:COI tot he WP:FRINGE.

Coleman is also squarely within the scope of the pseudoscience case.

I'm not asking for a block, but I would ask for (a) a warning and (b) an explicit extension of the TBAN to cover the entire area of fringe/pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning cjwilky

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 cjwilky

Statement by (username)

Result concerning cjwilky

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

Cjwilky's homeopathy topic ban is logged at April 2014 and the 72-hour topic ban violation block is logged at Jan 2020. The first above diff at Vernon Coleman is a good edit (removing repetition) and the second diff at Artemisia annua is supportable. Neither appear to be related to homeopathy but both are clearly close to the fringiness of that topic. It is not reasonable for someone to be free to edit pseudoscience topics while carving out the homeopathy subsection and I would support widening the topic ban to include pseudoscience broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox

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 Bloodofox

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bloodofox (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/Falun_Gong_2#May_2014 :

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

Edits/revert warring

May 19 Changes definition of subject in first sentence, adds new second paragraph (with misspelling of subject) drawing attention to media companies associated with subject. At least one of these sentences contained material not in the source (i.e. that FLG's Shen Yun contains "anti-LGBTQ messaging"). These changes are then discussed on talk page.
May 19 Revert of the above (included misstatement of New Yorker source)
May 19 Revert of above.
May 19 Revert again. Note that dispute less about the categorization of subject as a new religious movement, but about whether there's a scholarly consensus on this (apparently not) and whether it should be the single authoritative definition.
May 19 Revert (4th or more now) of the same content.
May 19 Preempts previous careful/nuanced discussion of the different ways FLG has been categorized with "Scholars overwhelmingly describe Falun Gong as a NRM." Whether this is a consensus seems to be a matter of dispute.
May 19 Coatracking? In any case the New Yorker article does not say The Epoch Times promotes conspiracy theories (other RS say so, I believe; but in the Shen Yun page I think the combination would be original research anyway. Point is it misrepresents the cited source again.)

Aspersions, insults, soapboxing

May 19 Effectively accuses users who disagree of trying to censor wikipedia.
May 19 User who disagrees is "parroting the organization's talking points"
May 19 Implies users who disagree are attempting to promote the subject.
May 19 Accuses users who disagree of attempting to censor wikipedia.
May 19 Again accuses those who disagree with the emphasis that the new religious movement categorization should have in the article of "scrubbing the article to replicate the group's talking points." My read of the discussion on talk page is one of emphasis: some saying NRM is one of the several appellations, Bloodofox saying it is the dominant and should be emphasized above all others, then accusing those who disagree or provide alternate sources of censorship and doing propaganda for the FLG. For instance, another user notes that one of the leading scholars of FLG says it "makes no sense" to call FLG an NRM ; other user also put NRM in the section on categorization [12]. Thus, a question of emphasis, not scrubbing.
May 20 An editor who reverted the disputed changes is described as an adherent. (It does not appear they identify themselves as such.)
May 20 "Adherents crawling out of the woodwork", "another Falun Gong-talking-point-promoting editor". He was called out for this [13] as unfounded and ad hominem.
May 20 Again those who disagree are adherents doing propaganda, not other editors who simply disagree with his personal view of emphasis, weight, etc.
May 20 More.

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 [14] (Note: not clear if before or after the edit warring.)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Bloodofox recently began editing the article Falun Gong, as well as several other related articles that are also subject to discretionary sanctions. This complaint mostly focuses on his edits to Falun Gong, with a few other examples shown to demonstrate the pattern. I watch the page and take some interest in it and related topics.

The user's edits appear to be tendentious. He has violated the 3RR in an attempt to enforce his revisions to the page, even while a (what I found fruitful and interesting) discussion about the merits of those changes was ongoing. The discussion is a bit lengthy, but I felt he often mischaracterized his interlocutors' positions, and by implication seemed to repeatedly claim they were trying to censor him or the encyclopedia.

In terms of content, I think the main problem is neutrality and weight. His edits to the lede of the article seem to be a case of a) WP:coatracking; b) not consistent with requirements for neutrality and WP:WEIGHT, and c) not even supported by the sources given (as another user pointed out[15]. Indeed the excursion to the fringe noticeboard could be seen as an attempt at rather targeted forum shopping.

The user has accused other editors of acting in bad faith, including by interrogating them about their religious beliefs. This is just such an obvious form of ad hominem argument, and it doesn't contribute to a productive editing climate.

The central point of contention appears to be Bloodofox's attempt to give a master definition of Falun Gong as a New Religious Movement. (The previous version of the page, which seems to have been a stable consensus, called it a religious practice). It appears that other editors do not object to noting it has been categorized as a new religious movement, as one of several contested labels and categories that have been used to describe Falun Gong. They appear to disagree that it should be used as the authoritative, master definition, given the disputes among experts on it.

This is a controversial and difficult topic area. It doesn't appear that other editors disagree that the Falun Gong page include info on the media properties and performing troupes operated by adherents, or of discussion of how FLG is categorized by scholars. They seem concerned with weight, neutrality, tone. Bloodofox does not seem capable of or willing to contribute productively to these pages via reasonable discussion with other editors. In just one day or so he has adopted an aggressive approach, made accusations against other editors, repeatedly misrepresented sources, engaged in forum shopping, and edit warred. And anyone who disagrees with him is doing propaganda for the Falun Gong.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=957815891&oldid=957610127

Discussion concerning Bloodofox

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 Bloodofox

This is such a gross misepresentation of the situation and specific targeting of yours truly that it's hard to know where to begin.

But let's start here: First and foremost, @Cleopatran Apocalypse:, the user who has brought this complaint, neglects to mention that she is by no means a neutral party on this subject: She has herself engaging in edit-warring to scrub the article of mention of the phrase new religious movement. For example, before bringing this complaint, she performed this edit, reverting @Helloimahumanbeing: and therefore removing a dozen of the highest possible quality academic sources available on this topic spanning over a decade, all flatly referring to Falung Gong as a new religious movement.

And that is really what this is about. Like most new religious movements, Falun Gong doesn't like to be referred to as a new religious movement, instead preferring to be thought of as an 'ancient spiritual practice', academics be damned.

This complaint is a waste of time. What we really need is more eyes on the Falun Gong article so that it doesn't simply read as a propaganda piece, as it currently does, alongside our Epoch Times and Shen Yun articles (both extensions of the new religious group). For readers unfamiliar with these propaganda extensions of the Falun Gong, read this, this, or this.

Finally, while this really goes without saying, at the fringe theories noticeboard, we talk about fringe theories. I'm a regular. The editor who has brought this complaint has attempted to frame this as lobbying while, I remind you, attempting to scrub the article. She neglects to mention that the Falun Gong extensions consistently and aggressively push fringe theories, such as anti-vaccination propaganda, anti-evolution propaganda anti-LGBTQ propaganda—you name it—all the while spending over a million dollars in promoting the Donald Trump campaign and, for example, extreme right wing groups in Germany.

It ain't a pretty situation, and the aggressive pushback myself and other editors are experiencing here is undoubtedly in no small part due to the presence of certain editors revert-warring to make sure that English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article parrots the new religious movement's talking points, while hiding what its media extensions are up. And therefore scrubbing anything 'controversial' about the group. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this: Notably, when requested to provide more sources (framed above as "misrepresenting") on the Falun Gong's propaganda arms, I did so, eg.:

Hettena, Seth. 2019. "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe". The New Republic. Online.
Junker, Andrew. 2019. Becoming Activists in Global China: Social Movements in the Chinese Diaspora, p. 99. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108655897
Tolentino, Jia. 2019. Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling World of Shen Yun. The New Yorker. March 19, 2019. Online. Last accessed May 18, 2020.
Zadronzy, Brandy & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". Online. Last accessed May 19, 2020.

However, the editor who has summoned us here has neglected to bring that to your attention—and in fact simply removed them. It is quite possible to rewrite this article from scratch with the hundreds of reliable secondary sources on this topic, both from recent media sources and from peer-reviewed academic sources spanning over decade. But then it would look quite different—it wouldn't agree with the organization's narrative.

As as a result, when reasonable and accurate changes with reliable sources are introduced, they're historically reverted or lawyered away with "there's no consensus, people just don't understand the history". The sheer volume of academic sources say quite the opposite: The academics understand the new religious movement very well, and they overwhelmingly don't mince words about that classification, as demonstrated in just this small sample, consisting entirely of sources said editor and others have repeatedly removed from the article:

Barker, Eileen. 2016. Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, cf. 142-143. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317063612
Clarke, Peter. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134499694
Hexham, Irving. 2009. Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements, p. 49 & 71. InterVarsity Press. 9780830876525
Oliver, Paul. 2012. New Religious Movements: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 81-84. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781441125538
Partridge, Christopher. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, 265-266. Lion.

Personally, I write about new religious movements, fringe topics and pseudoscience quite frequently, and these sorts of responses are not at all unusual or even unexpected. But what is unusual here is the sheer volume of new accounts and long-term, specific-issue focused accounts hovering around this specific of articles. It's also worth noting that stuff like this regularly washes up on associated talk pages, as well. I certainly appreciate these articles getting more eyes and attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PackMecEng

It does not appear they violated 3RR on Falun Gong, but they did go right up against it.

1 - (Undid revision 957628151 by TheBlueCanoe (talk) This is fully reference to reliable sources, neutral, and indisputable. Wikipedia isn't censored.)[16]

2 - (- Revert: These are all exceptionally high quality sources, Wikipedia isn't censored)[17]

3 - (Undid revision 957662712 by TheBlueCanoe (talk) Take it to talk. We need discussion of these topics in the article, if not here. Wikipedia isn't censored. Finally, that was your third revert in the past 24 hours: Discuss more, add more quality sources, revert less.)[18]

Just for what it's worth. The forum shopping seems to come from posting it at RSN and FTN. If that qualifies as forum shopping? Eh I dunno. I have not looked into the misrepresenting sources comment yet. PackMecEng (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bstephens393

Oh boy, I had no idea that it would get to this point once again. I recently came back from a long PhD hiatus, but after going through the article's talk page I should probably make a few comments here. I don't wanted to get involved with any mudslinging.

First, I think Bloodofox is right in the sense that the New Religious Movement label is backed up by several reliable sources, and it absolutely needs to be mentioned in the article and given due weight. I have little tolerance for those who're trying to scrub it. The core of the debate is whether the different characterizations and definitions found in the mainstream academic sources ought to be described per WP:NPOV and WP:V, or if we should stick to one "master definition" (whether it's NRM, spiritual practice, or whatever suits your fancy.) Personally I think the former approach is better. Why would it be a bad thing to explain that there are various characterizations in reputable third-party sources? I really haven't seen a lot of opposition to that, with the exception of some random editors who just don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, or who simply don't care.

One thing to keep in mind is that the FLG articles are under discretionary sanctions because there have been several attempts by both sides of this discursive struggle to take control. Several editors were dragged to arbitration and banned over the years for propagandizing either with a pro-FLG/anti-CCP or an anti-FLG/pro-CCP agenda. The status quo of the articles was extensively scrutinized in previous arbitration and mediation cases, and there must be a few books worth of back-and-forth discussions about the complexities involved. From what I was able to tell, everyone (including admins) decided a few years ago that major edits to these articles should be done by obtaining support and having good faith discussions on the talk page, as well as avoiding all ad hominem attacks. The discretionary sanctions were put in place to enforce that. To me it seems that Bloodofox has been quite eager to make a large number of significant changes in a short period of time and wield major definitional power without addressing the substance of some eminent concerns. It is unfortunate that this should escalate into edit warring and such; is it because of impatience or frustration with the discussion process that's inherently involved in these kinds of cases?

Furthermore, there does seem to be some bad faith involved, as a number of people who disagreed with the wordings, placements and structure (but who were basically in agreement about the reliability/notability of the sources) were accused of tendentiousness, and worse. I don't see that as being essentially very different from those crazies who think that everybody who's critical of FLG must be a CCP agent. I've experienced that myself in some situations. Real world doesn't operate like that. Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements. There are legitimate questions to be resolved here, and patience is undoubtedly a virtue when the articles in question have a frustratingly complicated history. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

I took issue with the anti-evolution/anti-LGBT edit, thought the sourcing was weak but it wasn't a "misrepresentation" and Bloodofox was perfectly reasonable[19][20] about taking another look. fiveby(zero) 21:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson

Calling any and all users bringing in Falun Gong's favored version "adherents" is technically aspersions, but let's face it, at least some of them undoubtedly are. It would take a special kind of dedicated ignorance to insist that Falun Gong is not an NRM unless one is a follower who believes as a matter of faith that Li Hongzhi was merely preserving/reviving ancient traditions. On that note, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE but Li's Zhuan Falun promises mystical powers but says that any identical results in any similar movement (e.g. Vajrayana) will be a demonic illusion -- extremely sectarian for a Buddhist-inspired movement. The loose organization parallels Transcendental Meditation movement (which lets casual members pretend they're doing enough while seeking out diehard adherents for more demanding activities) more than the Church of Scientology's hierarchy but The Epoch Times is a clear sign of an organization with a contagiously self-gaslighting membership akin to the CoS. Yes, yes, the Chinese gov't's persectution of them is absolutely unacceptable and should be condemned, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to push even harder in the opposite direction when it comes to propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bloodofox

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

The OP doesn't understand 3RR (admittedly that's not surprising for a user with 337 edits) — consecutive edits count as one edit, so Bloodofox has not violated 3RR that I can see, or even come close. Altogether the OP's diffs (which look pretty harmless) and the accusations they level are curiously separate — for instance, the very serious accusations that Bloodofox has "repeatedly misrepresented sources [and] engaged in forum shopping" don't come with any evidence. Please give diffs for those statements, @Cleopatran Apocalypse: or I'm very inclined towards a boomerang here. The report looks like an attempt to weaponize AE against an opponent. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) On the subject of edit warring, the filer has actually continued doing so even after filing this request ([21]) I'm also seeing some substantial problems with the filer's editing, including with what's presented here. Cleopatran Apocalypse states that Bloodofox misrepresented a reference by stating Shen Yun put forth anti-LGBTQ material, yet the cited source ([22]) clearly states that Shen Yun's performances contain "homophobia", so that particular accusation is flatly false and an aspersion. On the part of Bloodofox, referring to others who disagree with the edits as "adherents" and accusing them of involvement in a conspiracy is also casting aspersions, and that better stop too. Like Bishonen, I'm disposed, in terms of this particular request, to seeing a boomerang in the air here. However, given what I'm seeing on the article itself, there does indeed seem to be a substantial amount of ownership behavior by some editors, and some editors who edit very infrequently seem to pop up awfully conveniently when there's a dispute. I'm inclined to put the article (talk included) under both 30/500 and 1RR, and if that can't resolve those issues, maybe it would then be time for ArbCom to take a fresh look at this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bishonen and Seraphimblade. Also I note that when User:TheBlueCanoe reached 3RR, another editor User:Clara Branch (24 edits) popped up to remove all the materal again, and then when it was restored (not by Bloodofox), there was the OP (337 edits) with their first edit on the article since 2017 to wipe it all out again. ECP might be useful here. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are Unrelated, BK --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't surprise me, but even if they're not the same editor I would say there's a very good chance of off-wiki collusion there. Black Kite (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade and Bishonen. 1RR and ECP are good options --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EE sanctions

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <Čeha>

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: [[User:<Čeha>|<Čeha>]] ([[User talk:<Čeha>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Čeha>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Čeha>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Čeha>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Čeha>|block user]] · block log) – Čeha (razgovor) 06:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: <infinite ban on edits on eastern europe and tslk pagrs>

Administrator imposing the sanction: [[User:<Bradv>|<Bradv>]] ([[User talk:<Bradv>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Bradv>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Bradv>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Bradv>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Bradv>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Bradv>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Bradv>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Bradv>|RfA]])

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by <Čeha>

< moderator sanctioned me for trying to stop deletion of sourced and quoted text>

Statement by <Bradv>

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Čeha>

Result of the appeal by <Čeha>

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 430: / Line 430: @@
 **: That doesn't surprise me, but even if they're not the same editor I would say there's a very good chance of off-wiki collusion there. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 00:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade and Bishonen. 1RR and ECP are good options --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]] 20:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
+== EE sanctions ==
+==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <Čeha>==
+<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
+<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small>
+; Appealing user : {{userlinks|<Čeha>}} – [[User:Ceha|Čeha]] <small>([[User talk:Ceha|razgovor]])</small> 06:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
+; Sanction being appealed : <infinite ban on edits on eastern europe and tslk pagrs>
+; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|<Bradv>}}
+; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
+===Statement by <Čeha>===
+< moderator sanctioned me for trying to stop deletion of sourced and quoted text>
+===Statement by <Bradv>===
+===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
+===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
+===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Čeha> ===
+===Result of the appeal by <Čeha>===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
+*

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