Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Supreme Deliciousness
Appeal declined. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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).
Statement by Supreme DeliciousnessI was blocked for 24hours, and on top of that later given a 2 months topic ban from all Arab-Israeli conflict articles as a result of this enforcement: [2] The enforcement is about me doing several reverts at Hezbollah. I'm not saying that all my reverts there were right, they were not, but you have to take into consideration that I was reverting back to the consensus version according to the talkpage where GHcool was the only one who wanted to have the cat, and everyone else did not. This is not an excuse for what I did, but it has to be taken into consideration. I was also active on the talkpage and there was no problem with any of my comments or the content of my edits, only the amount of reverts. Based on my reverts at Hezbollah, I don't believe that a 24 hour block and on top of that a 2 month topic ban from all Arab-Israeli articles are appropriate, the "punishment" does not fit the "crime". It is way out of proportion. So I am suggesting an amendment to the topic ban:
Reply to T. Canens: You don't think my suggestion is more fair?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by HJ MitchellThis is where that WP:IPCOLL "battleground statistics" page could have come in handy, I don't off the top of my head recall how often SD has been found at fault for their approach to editing, this could be selective memory but I don't remember any recent actionable reports against the editor. In light of this I find the 2 month topic ban appearing punitive relative to the posited alternative of 1 revert per week on Arab-Israeli articles. I hope the enforcing admin considers the merits of the alternate sanctions offered above. un☯mi 16:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by GHcoolUpon being blocked for edit warring (admittedly, against me), Supreme Deliciousness responded to the block by quoting the Gospel of Luke: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." In choosing this quote in the context of a dispute with a Jew, Supreme Deliciousness is guilty of not-so-suble anti-Semitism and a monstrous ego. Comparing one's self with Jesus on the cross, comparing Wikipedia administrators to Romans, and virtually calling me a Christ killer should be a disturbing sign of Supreme Deliciousness's lack of sincerity. Supreme Deliciousness's appeal should be denied. --GHcool (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Supreme Deliciousness
|
Xebulon
Xebulon and Tuscumbia are topic-banned for 3 and 6 months respectively. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Xebulon
Discussion concerning XebulonStatement by XebulonUser:Tuscumbia is an abusive account that apparently found a new way of edit warring: reporting his opponents to administrators by falsely accusing them of transgressions that he himself was accused of several times recently. His usual mode of operations include making frivolous and untrue accusations against his opponents [26], and then showcasing these false warnings as a record of purportedly improper conduct. Because of his poor English, User:Tuscumbia does not understand the flow of discussion, and unreasonably considers some remarks as offensive. Most of what User:Tuscumbia does in Wikipedia can be qualified as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and his most common pattern of disruptive behavior is Refusal to "get the point" as described here in the Rules [[27]]. User:Tuscumbia is constantly enveloped in perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation (see here: [28] and here [29]). This irritates good-faith editors, provoking them to engage in controversial conduct. Another characteristic of User:Tuscumbia is Wikipedia:WikiBullying; this also raises the heat in a debate and provokes good-faith editors. I commented on a well-known fact that Azerbaijan is an authoritarian and repressive country as categorized by Freedom House, Amnesty International and Transparency International. Azerbaijani state limits public access to the Internet (see former President Clinton’s remarks here: [30], and its leadership made public statements inviting its citizens to attack Armenians in public Internet-based forums. My remark is not incivility or ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct. However, I regret if it may have sounded that way. In China, which manages and often directs Wikipedia involvement of its citizens, state agents modified an article on a Nigerian poet, see here: [31]. Disturbed by POV-pushing tactics by User:Tuscumbia, I just hypothesized that a similar situation may be in play here too since Azerbaijan evidently censors Wikipedia as well. Despite this, User:Tuscumbia himself makes offensive, ethnically-motivated attacks on his opponents. Talking about Wikipedia editors and Armenian authors, User:Tuscumbia says here [32]: “I am saying they [Armenians] are naturally biased.” Here [33] he says: “And, please, for the love of God, don't refer to Hewsen. Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased.” User:Tuscumbia attacks reputed academics for their alleged (and unconfirmed, by the way) Armenian identity. This is a typical ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct. User:Tuscumbia continuously removes well-sourced, good-faith edits (here: [34]), complementing his acts of vandalism with such uncivil remarks: “what exactly are trying to ionvent?” (see here: [35]). The misspelled word "invent" suggests that User:Tuscumbia undoes the good edits frivolously and mindlessly, simply by "driving-by." User:Tuscumbia was blocked here [36], as early as in March 2010. Here, despite the warning, User:Tuscumbia continued edit warring and was warned more severely here [37]. Shortly thereafter he was topic-banned to edit article on Armenia and Azerbaijan for as many as three months here [38]. Then, User:Tuscumbia when emerged from this ban, went back to his habit of edit warring and blunt refusal to engage in civilized dialogue when invited to do so. User:Tuscumbia’s most widespread type of abuse are unreferenced reverts that he fails to address on talk pages. Here are the examples. When asked in discussions to present evidence from external sources or from stable Wikipedia articles, User:Tuscumbia evades dialogue [39]. The most recent notice of sanctions filed against User:Tuscumbia by a Wikipedia administrator accuses him of refusal to assume good faith (here [40]), after which User:Tuscumbia engaged in a meaningless refutation of his misdeeds. This is not the first time User:Tuscumbia engages in false attacks on his opponents [41]. Not surprising, this and that [42] frivolous reports were both dismissed. However, he then makes yet another frivolous request against me, here: [43], which was likewise naturally dismissed. I suggest to block User:Tuscumbia for a serial lack of compliance with "Assuming Good Faith" requirement since it is evident that he allocates a good portion of his time to frivolously attacking other users. Xebulon (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Xebulon
Result concerning Xebulon
|
AnonMoos
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning AnonMoos
- User requesting enforcement
- ZScarpia 13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- AnonMoos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles - 1RR addendum.
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Between 08:18, 25 January 2011 and 03:19, 26 January 2011, a period of less than twenty-four hours, AnonMoos edited the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article three times. I think that reverts were made in the second and third of these edits.
- [49] : First edit by AnonMoos. No reversion involved. NickCT then reverted AnonMoos.
- [50] : First revert by AnonMoos. Text removed by NickCT re-added.
- [51] : Second revert by AnonMoos. Altered text elsewhere in the article.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Not applicable.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- At arbitrator's discretion.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I alerted AnonMoos on his user talk page and on the article talk page that I thought he had exceeded the 1RR restriction on the article and gave him the opportunity to revert the last edit that he had made. The opportunity was turned down.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notification on user talk page.
Discussion concerning AnonMoos
Statement by AnonMoos
The second revert was technically a violation of 1RR, but ZScarpia himself made it impossible for me to change anything back (and also rendered my edits rather irrelevant) when he completely rewrote the sections in question. The third edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine&action=historysubmit&diff=410100018&oldid=410092551 wasn't a violation of anything, since it concerned text which was not involved in any of the earlier edits, and I really don't understand what ZScarpia is trying to say when it claims that it was a violations of something (what, I don't know, since obviously not 1RR). I also really don't understand why ZScarpia has chosen to escalate to this level of bureaucracy, when he himself took actions which rendered my technical 1RR violation nugatory and otiose, while my third edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine&action=historysubmit&diff=410100018&oldid=410092551 obviously has no relevance to anything in particular here... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning AnonMoos
- Interesting to note that ZScarpia is reporting someone for an edit he has "no problem with" [52]. Way to collaborate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would hold off on actioning this request for at least a further 12 hours, to allow AnonMoos to submit a statement, but I am inclined to sanction the respondent for combative editing by excluding him from this topic area for 7 days (enforceable by block if violated). Looking at the history of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, I see multiple reversions by AnonMoos - including ones with edit summaries such as "I'll find a source within a few days if you really want -- add a citation-needed tag if you must, but do not delete something which is a very important historical detail", which smacks of ownership. It seems to me that AnonMoos does not understand the consensus decision-making model, in that, when other editors disagree with him, his response is to blindly revert in order to preserve the preferred version. He should endeavour to work on this if he does not want to become a negative influence on this and other topic areas.
I have also, further to this complaint, asked ZScarpia to use edit summaries in future. Holding for 12 hours to await comment from AnonMoos. AGK [•] 16:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned about that edit summary. It reads more of WP:PRESERVE than WP:OWN in my mind. I agree with Fut.Perf. on this one. henrik•talk 09:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The third diff is not a revert. Thus I see no violation of 1RR. - BorisG (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Has the word revert gained a special meaning as far as the ARBPIA 1RR limit is concerned? My understanding is that a revert includes anything which changes text previously added. In the case of the 3rd diff, existing text (which had been added shortly beforehand by me) has been reworded. ← ZScarpia 17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, if "anything which changes text previously added" were a revert, then every edit would be a revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking further, I see no grounds for any sanction here. These three edits were his first to this article since one edit in November, and one in July. Only one of the recent edits is a revert, while the one in November (which also happened to be one) was quite obviously and undisputably justified and necessary. I see neither signs of "ownership" here (with five edits in half a year), nor edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- AnonMoos's third edit replaces text that was already present in the article, it doesn't just add new text. ← ZScarpia 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. That's a normal edit. Those never count as reverts. And it was a fairly trivial replacement at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by a normal edit (obviously not all edits replace pre-existing text without adding anything new), but I accept that the third edit didn't change the meaning of what pre-existed. If the replacement of existing text with other text which has the same meaning doesn't count as a revert then I apologise for wasting everybody's time. You say that the change was trivial and you're entitled to your opinion of course. I'll just comment that I've avoided making more trivial changes than that in order to avoid breaching the 1RR restriction.
- A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. The understanding I gained from previous cases was that a reversal meant any modification (that is, removal or replacing) of text that was currently in the article or the replacement of text which had previously been removed.
- ← ZScarpia 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. That's a normal edit. Those never count as reverts. And it was a fairly trivial replacement at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- AnonMoos's third edit replaces text that was already present in the article, it doesn't just add new text. ← ZScarpia 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Has the word revert gained a special meaning as far as the ARBPIA 1RR limit is concerned? My understanding is that a revert includes anything which changes text previously added. In the case of the 3rd diff, existing text (which had been added shortly beforehand by me) has been reworded. ← ZScarpia 17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- At the very least, AnonMoos should be sanctioned for using the words "nugatory and otiose" is his statement or perhaps given a barnstar. One of those 2 options. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the one hand, Sean provides two compelling options. On the other hand, the neutrality policy, which is is non-negotiable, calls us to provide sanctions or barnstars to both parties. C'est moi qui parle ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning AnonMoos
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Not seeing anything actionable here. Suggest close. Courcelles 18:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am concerned about the general approach of AnonMoos to this article, irrespective of the volume of reverts he made. AGK [•] 21:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- AnonMoos is not logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles as having received the required notification for sanctions beyond the 1RR enforcement. If you want to formally notify him, or if he's on that list under a different name, then so be it, but if he's not, then the only sanctions we cna hand out would be for the 1RR, which I maintain saying he violated here is a real stretch. Courcelles 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Such notifications are not required under the terms of the community-imposed sanctions that are being cited in this complaint (see links at start of thread). But a formal notification is more in line with what is deserved here, certainly, so I think I'll impose that on AnonMoos and then allow somebody else to close this complaint as otherwise unactionable. Good thinking :). AGK [•] 12:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Tuscumbia
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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
- Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tuscumbia (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, imposed at [53], logged at [54]
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- [55]
Statement by Tuscumbia
In my understanding, the sanctions were imposed without sufficient review of the diffs/wikilinks provided.
- The statement by admin Sandstein regarding User:Tuscumbia said:
- Tuscumbia: Your comments at [56], "Armenian authors ... are naturally biased ... because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic", and at [57], "Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased", are likewise unacceptable.
- The review of the comments [58] and [59] posted by Sandstein were apparently reviewed only as provided, and not in the context of the discussion at Talk:Caucasian_Albania#WP:CHERRY. The replies by me were only responses to User:MarshallBagramyan's comments:
- [60]: Were I not already acquainted with Brand's habit of surreptitiously removing any notion of Armenia or Armenians in these articles (the line on the partition of Armenia, of Mashots' credit for inventing the alphabet, etc.), I would have been far more indulgent in evaluating the validity of his points. But because I am so familiar with his edits and because his above arguments are so poorly formulated and poorly supported, I'm afraid that assuming good faith will not do us any good here. We all know that the works produced by scholars in Azerbaijan would not have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving a critical review, but to see them posted here in full, as if they're reliable sources, is a waste of time for all us serious editors who actually wish to improve this article.;
- [61]: I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value ...Armenian authors may be biased, yes, to their own side, which is natural. But for a few exceptions, they almost never let that compromise their academic standing;
- [62]: ...The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements. After independence, Azerbaijan's bold claims seem to have been magnified several fold, as they have been making even more grandiose and embarrassing assertions that would have ever been permitted in the USSR. If anything, we should be warier than ever to even consider consulting them for such sensitive topics
- In addition to that, the word "naturally" in comments naturally biased in my statement reviewed by Sandstein is not to be interpreted in this context as "biased by nature" but as "of course" and "surely" as confirmation to MarshallBagramyan's own comment Armenian authors may be biased, yes, to their own side, which is natural at [63]. I know how to be civil and assume good faith regardless what kind of arguments and insults can come from the opposing users ([64], [65], [66]) and my comments were just misinterpreted and misunderstood.
- I am requesting a thorough review of the discussion on Talk:Caucasian_Albania#WP:CHERRY to see a clearer picturer and lifting a topic-ban. I'm an auto-confirmed user by now with 298 created and extensively edited articles (with 267 of them being completely new), creating on an average of 1-3 good articles per day. Please re-consider your decision.
- Response to BorisG: Boris, I agree and while the retraction of statements is a good recommendation, please note that my statements on the talk page provided as links above were replies and not original statements by me. The reason I am stating that is that a special entry needs to be made to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, specifying issues of discreditation and dismissal of authors and sources with the tone seen in Caucasian Albania talk page. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Response to Sandstein: With all due respect, Sandstein, I never use Wikipedia as a battleground. If I ever had, I wouldn't have survived until now. All my statements were in the form of replies. What can you tell to a person who discredits and dismisses authors from one side while crediting all from the other after you first inquire about his views [67]? Yes, it does matter if I said biased by nature or biased as a matter of course because the former represents prejudice, the latter confirmation of the statement by the other user. This detail can't be just overlooked. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
The appeal is unpersuasive and should be declined. Whatever others said may be grounds for sanctions against them, but does not make Tuscumbia's contributions less problematic. Likewise, it does not matter whether Tuscumbia meant to say that Armenians are biased by nature or biased as a matter of course. The problem is more broadly that by arguing about article content on the basis of generalizations rooted in nationalist prejudice rather than on the basis of the individual reliability of individual works, he misuses Wikipedia as a battleground for real-life conflicts. Making good content contributions, while laudable, does not exempt him from the requirement not to misuse Wikipedia as a battleground and is therefore not relevant to the sanction. Sandstein 18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Tuscumbia
I think expressions of prejudice regarding inherent biases of editors of a certain ethnic origin are disturbing. I think editors from both sides should not be allowed to resume editing of articles in the area of conflict until they retract those statements and repudiate those views. In my view, this approach should apply to both sides. - BorisG (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
When three uninvolved admins have agreed to the sanction, it's generally rather unlikely that it will be overturned on appeal at AE immediately afterwards barring some procedural mistake. Just saying... T. Canens (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess this appeal could be closed with no action. Wikipedia is vast, the appealer could still contribute outside their ban area. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tuscumbia: Such statements as "Were I not already acquainted with Brand's habit of surreptitiously removing any notion of Armenia or Armenians in these articles" are so sweeping as to be useless. An appeal must, to be successful, have an evidenced explanation as to why the initial sanction was wrong and/or excessive. (Disclaimer: I supported, though did not implement, the initial sanction.) AGK [•] 12:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Tuscumbia
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.