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}}.
|
Senkaku Islands
User:Oda Mari and User:Lvhis are topic-banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for a period of 3 months. User:Shrigley is formally warned regarding discretionary sanctions in this topic area--Cailil talk 12:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Lvhis and Shrigley
A newbie User:SummerRat has been topic banned. See User talk:SummerRat#Topic ban because of [4], [5]. Two regular editors have done the similar edits. They should be topic banned too. Especially user Lvhis, as he was an involved party of the Arbitration case. Looking at his contributions after the Arbitration, he's been a SPA. Shrigley was not an involved party, but he is familiar with Senkaku-related matter. [6] Oda Mari (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Notified. This issue began when SummerRat came to en:WP. When I first noticed SummerRat's tendentious edits was on May 15 by his these edits. [9]and [10] and I undid them. I checked his contributions and found his 8 tendentious edits on Vassal state. See the revision history and Talk:Vassal state. I was not the only one who thought his edits were POV. I saw this edit and that brought me to the China Marine Surveillance after I checked the image file. My first edit was this and I noticed Lvhis's edit. I checked the history of the page. This is SummerRat's first edit on China Marine Surveillance. Any islands names was not in the article. This is the first time he added the name Diaoyu Islands. User Widefox undid SummerRat's edits twice. [11] and [12]. Then came Lvhis's edit I noticed. Discussion concerning LvhisStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lvhis
Statement by ShrigleyThis SummerRat business is a red herring. User:Oda Mari first disrupted longstanding text in China Marine Surveillance to engage in an aggressive, weeklong campaign to change a Chinese-origin name to a Japanese-origin name,[36][37] on grounds of "POV". This pattern has been repeated all over Wikipedia, where Oda Mari has been systematically removing one of the two widely used English-language names for the islands.[38][39][40][41][42][43] These links are all to China-related articles, where the removed name is especially relevant to direct quotes and the names of organizations. Oda Mari's intolerance about including the alternate name is matched by his intolerance for discussion and compromise. AE is not a substitute for normal dispute resolution.
Discussion concerning ShrigleyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by QwyrxianEdJohnston asked for my input on this matter. This is a tricky point, and one that I think is probably better solves as a content matter, rather than an AE matter. Edit warring, by anyone, is bad, and is grounds for sanctions. The problem is that here I think that both sides honestly believe that they are the ones making the articles neutral, and there is currently no guidance or established community consensus about how to name these islands. There were, as we know, multiple RfCs held, each of which upheld the current title of the article Senkaku Islands and it's closely related articles. However, per general policy, just because an certain article title has been chosen by community consensus does not mean that said name has to be used throughout Wikipedia in running text (if that were true, we could never use piped links). I think that, in general, it's best to match the article title, but there may be sound reasons for exceptions, including in a case like this. I can honestly see the arguments in favor of standardizing the name "Senkaku Islands" across Wikipedia, but I can also see the arguments in favor of keeping "Diaoyu Islands" on articles specifically related to the Chinese POV. Personally, I think that what we need is the equivalent of WP:NC-SoJ for the Senkaku Islands. I have an idea for what I think those rules should be (in short, similar to but more lenient to the CPOV than NC-SoJ), but deciding on said rules is a content discussion, probably best held at WT:NCGN (with notifications to related articles and Wikiprojects). I think the reason for the recent kerfuffle is because of some attempts to push around the edges of the ArbCom decision without coming directly at the meat of the matter; in the absence of a ruleset, it's easy for well-meaning but ultimately biased participants to end up edit warring to support their own POV, each believing the other side is "obviously" violating the sanctions and NPOV. Rules (discussed, then agree upon via RfC) should essentially remove the need for established editors to "fight" for the naming they feel is appropriate. In the meantime, however, I think that established editors should stop making any changes to the use of the terms anywhere in Wikipedia, except to revert changes by IPs (i.e., the above-mentioned SummerRat, who has vowed to keep socking to support his POV) or other new users. That is, lets have a moratorium on changes, and then work out the rules together. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnstonProcedural note: I asked Qwyrxian if he would give his opinion here since he is an admin who seems to have some background knowledge of the dispute. He had previously commented in the amendment request at WP:ARCA, which User:Oda Mari withdrew in favor of this AE discussion. I will come back later to leave my own comment on this AE complaint. It would assist us in closing this if anyone who knows where the past discussions are about the naming of the Senkaku Islands if they can provide links. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Widefox
A naming convention would help. I can see the argument for standardising on "Senkaku Islands", and the argument for proper nouns using other alternatives in context, with the proviso that articles should be NPOV even if the topic is about one party, to prevent POV forks. Statement by (username)Result concerning Lvhis and ShrigleyThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
@Oda Mari, I am not going to debate content with you Oda. That's not the purpose of this board. The WP:NC-SoJ has nothing to do with this issue. WP:NC-SoJ is not mandated by the Senaku Islands RfAr or anything else to allow change the names of these islands from one form to another. WP:NC-SoJ is not a precedent. You made mass changes based on your opinion. Not on sources. Not on policy. You then engaged in reverting to maintain your preferred wording. You then asked ArbCom to rule in your favour. You then came here to remove your opponents who although are guilty of disruption, are no more guilty than yourself. There is a warning in the big red box above about the consequences of coming here with "unclean hands"--Cailil talk 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Bobby fletcher
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 Bobby fletcher
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- —Zujine|talk 12:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Bobby fletcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBFLG#Principles
Articles under the falungong topic area are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which state that the space is not to be used as a "soapbox for propaganda or activist editing" or for ideological struggle. But that is precisely what this user does. Few is any of his edits are genuinely constructive, and he has a checkered history of violating content and behavioral policies.
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Conflict of interest and activist editing
Bobby fletcher is a prolific online activist whose two main preoccupations include propagandising against falungong (which is suppressed by the Chinese government) and defending the Chinese government's actions in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. He also seeks to discredit human rights activists, including those who have attached themselves to the falungong cause on the issue of the Chinese government's alleged organ harvesting from political prisoners.
- He has several personal blogs[54][55] through which he carries out this activism. To quote a news profile from the Western Standard magazine, “he posts his messages everywhere under several different names on Internet blogs and discussion groups. He writes letters to the editor anywhere and sends e-mails to anyone…[his] actions mirror disinformation campaigns waged by the Chinese government”.
- His edits to these topics on Wikipedia are an extension of his activism, and he does not edit from any other point of view: [56][57][ [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]
- News articles have been written on Bobby fletcher's online activism. This one is illuminating[66] (it notes that Bobby fletcher is an alternate handle of Charles Liu). One of the most troubling parts of this article is at the end. Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas (who works on the Falungong issue) says that Bobby fletcher/Charles Liu would email the offices of political staffers just before Matas was scheduled to meet with them. Matas notes "The only people who would have that information [on the meetings] would potentially be the Chinese government. I can't imagine how Liu would know we were meeting with those people."
- Bobby spends more time on talk pages than on article space. His contributions to talk appear to be tendentious attempts to soapbox and promote non-mainstream views, which I don’t think is the purpose of the COI guideline.
BLP violation
- [67] – User suggests that the article on falungong’s founder Li Hongzhi should describe him as a “wanted fellon” (sic). This is a BLP violation, since Li has never been convicted of any crime, let alone any felony. This sort of casual misrepresentation of sources is common(another example[68])
NPA / Outing violations
- [69][70][71][72] – regularly makes out-of-context accusations that other editors are pov-pushing falungong members. I'm not sure if NPA violations need to have a specific target, but it’s not constructive either way.
- [73] Sometimes he names the editors he doesn’t like by real names. This looks to be a WP:OUTING violation, and not for the first time (see below). [Diff should probably be oversighted]
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
User was previously blocked for edit warring[74] and received numerous warnings for making personal attacks[75], for reposting private or oversighted personal information about other editors[76][77][78], copyright violations[79], and ongoing edit warring[80][81][82]. He was also warned about COI guidelines and advised not to edit in article space[83], but he didn’t seem to improve.
I first took this case to the COI noticeboard, but it didn't get admin attention there. Bobby’s mocking and indecipherable response to that filing[84] indicates he doesn’t understand the problem.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
If a lengthy debate ensures here, I suggest admins be on the lookout for red herrings.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Bobby fletcher
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 Bobby fletcher
Admins, here are three most recent artices I tried to add, please tell me if they belong on Wikipedia, and/or how best to edit to avoid objection:
- An article from London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html
- An article from San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php
- An annoncement form the Chinese embassy: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36563.htm
If you have time please, please look at the other articles I've tried to add as well, and let me know the level of objection I've received/currently receiving is warranted.
Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
I would note that the embassy document (press release) is a "primary source" under Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARY) and is not usable as a result. The article saying there was no massacre in the square is interesting as the defense is that most of the killings were in Beijing but outside the square - which is a matter of "precise location" rather than of whether bloodshed occurred that day. I suggest many would find it a trivial cavil. The third source proffered is one about am anti-cult convention where one expects all the groups named to be defined as "cults" by the convention organizers. With regard to any comments about a person being a "felon", Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP) is very strong and appears not to be on Bf's side here. Collect (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Bobby fletcher
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
There is clear evidence of a sustained programme of tendentious editing on the part of Bobby fletcher. I would propose a one-year topic ban from everything Falun-gong-related. To the extent that the Tiananmen issue is considered not directly covered by the discretionary sanctions rule, I'd be willing to additionally impose a "normal admin action" block for disruptive editing for some shorter period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Brews ohare
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 Brews ohare
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions #7
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 26 June 2013 Adding physics related content
- 26 June 2013 Re-adding it after it was removed (for reasons unrelated to the above ban)
- 26 June 2013 Discussing said physics related content on the talk page
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- previous AE visit, 14 Deb 2013 resulting in 1 week ban
- AE visit before that, 18 Dec 2012 resulting in final warning
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Brews ohare
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 Brews ohare
Statement by Snowded
There are several other cases. In particular material from Hawkins has been introduced into several philosophy articles, and Brews has been happy to edit war to restore the material. There are several of these but here are three, maybe four, I was able to find quickly.
- Insertion into Metaontology
- Insertion into Model Dependent Realism
- Diff of edit warring to reinstate Hawkins - its right at the bottom
- A recent border line case, edit warring again with personal attacks. Reverted by two editors
There have now been 3/4 RfCs called by Brews each time other editors have rejected his material but he just keeps telling them they are wrong. Its late at night, but I can find the diffs if needed.
Statement by Collect
Brews definitely edited about Physics "broadly construed" if one uses "broadly" broadly enough. Using such links as "length" is Physics-related, as would be "height", "elevation" "size", "mass" and "weight" In short, the ban seems to indicate a huge area, and I suggest it now be given a more reasonable and sharply defined ambit. Collect (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Brews ohare
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.