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}}.
|
Ithinkicahn
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 Ithinkicahn
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Ithinkicahn (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:AA2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- The user engages in a relentless effort to remove any mention of the Armenian Genocide in Wikipedia. It's a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The user's edit-summaries are almost always misleading. They're often entirely irrelevant to what the user's edit actually entails (i.e. 14 August , March 12, and 31 July edits). It's impossible to detect when and where the user has deleted references of the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, all edits must be examined. These are the only ones I happened to come across:
- 15 September
- 26 August
- 20 August
- 18 August
- 16 August
- 15 August
- 14 August
- 31 July
- 29 July
- 15 July
- 24 May
- 21 May
- 12 March
- 2 March
- 2 March
- 22 February
- The user also assumes an overt WP:BADFAITH towards his "opponents". He has openly exclaimed, even after I told him to stop with the badfaith assumptions, that "I have reason to assume bad faith on your part because of my experience with you in the past" (29 July). In an article where I have made only six constructive and harmless edits ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), the user kept hurling accusations at me by calling me a POV pusher and accused me of historical revisionism (here and here). The user continued doing this even after I kindly told him to stop. Apparently, he was not interested in adhering to basic Wikipedia policy either ([7]). Even with third-party users stating that the article was NPOV and reliably sourced ([8][9][10]), Ithinkicahn continued unilaterally placing the POV tag and had edit-warred to get his way ([11][12]).
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 February 2014
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I've tried to work with the user on countless occasions. In the past, I've granted him a barnstar and was always supportive of his edits in Turkey related articles. However, once the user started editing in Armenian related topics, it turned into an entirely different story. His deletion of massive amounts of information (often times sourced) concerning the Armenian Genocide is highly problematic. Most of his edits regarding the Armenian Genocide are driven by his own personal opinions and fall contrary to the general consensus Wikipedia has instilled regarding the subject. Consequently, the deceptive edit-summaries make it necessary to tend and examine each edit. Furthermore, an uncompromising attitude towards those that don't fall into the user's POV makes it almost impossible to work with him. Hence, for the reasons I have mentioned, I suggest that the user be banned from all topics related to Armenia and Turkey.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Ithinkicahn
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 Ithinkicahn
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Ithinkicahn
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- At a glance, the complaint appears to have merit, and there may be a case for sanctions, but I'd be interested to hear from Ithinkicahn and any other editors involved in the topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Ithinkicahn, would you like to comment here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Editor hasn't edited since September 16, according to contribution. Wouldn't say stale, but revisiting this when editor returns may be the way to go. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
SeattliteTungsten
SeattliteTungsten is blocked for 48 hours. Sandstein 09:12, 24 September 2014 (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 SeattliteTungsten
Note that SeattliteTungsten called both edits "reverts" in his/her edit summary.
I didn't want to submit this case, and over a period of 9 hours twice offered to let SeattliteTungsten avoid it by self-reverting. However, he/she just wants to argue so here we are. As Penwhale has already pointed out, SeattliteTungsten's understanding of the rule is defective. It is also defective in terms of what a revert is. If reverts can be sanitised by making some changes to the reverted text, then we can happily revert all day long as long as we remember to change the text a little each time. The 1RR rule would become inoperative. In each case, some text had just been deleted in toto and SeattliteTungsten put it back with some changes. The changes don't alter the fact that SeattliteTungsten reinserted ideas and their sources that another editor had just completely removed. In each case, SeattliteTungsten correctly used the word "revert" in his/her edit summary so it is puzzling that he/she now wants to argue they weren't reverts after all. Zerotalk 06:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Notified Zerotalk 11:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SeattliteTungstenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SeattliteTungstenThe complaintant's contribution to Wikipedia is overall worthwhile and positive. However, the current complaint is frivolous and wholly without merit.
The complaint should be summarily dismissed. Because the complaintant was informed (generally) that the cited examples do not constitute a 1RR violation for the above reasons prior to filing the complaint, the complaintant should sanctioned with a symbolic 1-hour block and a request to type, "I am sorry for wasting other people's time filing a frivilous complaint" one hundred times on the defendant's user page as a sanction for wasting time by filing this frivilous complaint. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SeattliteTungstenThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Neotarf
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 Neotarf
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Neotarf (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/Manning naming dispute :
[[14]]
- Section 4.2 [[15]] violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it, even after being shown and asked to desist Neotarf basically told them to get over it or take it to the correct board.
-
- User:Sandstein, I have corrected my error [[16]] Discretional sanctions which specifically apply to self identifying transgender individuals, in this case Tutelary is a transgendered individual and the comment saying that they are claiming to be a woman does violate that remedy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also if you look at the issue of [[17]] which resulted in a topic ban after findings of fact which noted comments [[18]] identical to what was stated on ANI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I apologize in advance if I did not file this correctly and I ask for help to correct it as I have never made an Arb Enforcement request.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[[19]]
Discussion concerning Neotarf
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 Neotarf
Statement by Callanecc (with arb clerk hat on)
Posting here purely in my capacity as an arbitration clerk as this is related to a current case. For (possible) background see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop#Proposed findings of fact 3 by Neotarf and User talk:Callanecc#Workshop Page. Whether to take these into consideration is up to the admins here and I make no comment on what action I believe should be taken. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Neotarf
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- This request is incomprehensible. The linked-to section of the decision, "Equality and respect", is not a remedy but a non-enforceable principle. It is neither apparent nor explained how Neotarf's edit might violate any remedy. Sandstein 11:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sandstein, I have offered Hell in a Bucket a little advice about their posting. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC).
- The request is still malformed, as it contains no dated diffs, messy formatting and no evidence of awareness of discretionary sanctions. I am having trouble taking any of this seriously. On the merits, it appears that the contention by Hell in a Bucket is that this two weeks-old diff is some sort of personal attack related to transgender issues. Even if that were the case (and it's at least not self-evident), it looks rather stale to me and also does not seem to be covered by the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions, which provides that "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues (...)". The diff at issue does not relate to an article. I would therefore take no action in this case. Sandstein 14:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sandstein, I have offered Hell in a Bucket a little advice about their posting. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC).
- I don't see that this edit by Neotarf (a post at ANI supporting a topic ban of Tutelary) requires action against Neotarf under the discretionary sanctions of the Manning case. In any case, no evidence is given here that Neotarf has been notified of either the Manning or the Sexology discretionary sanctions. This request should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't necessary mean we can't action via normal admin power, but yes, I agree that there's nothing that AE can do with regards to DS. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
SeattliteTungsten (2)
SeattliteTungsten is topic-banned in addition to a block as a normal admin action. Sandstein 08:11, 27 September 2014 (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 SeattliteTungsten
As the result of a recent AE case, SeattliteTungsten was blocked for 48 hours on account of 1RR violation at Israeli West Bank barrier. In response, SeattliteTungsten created at least four (I believe at least seven) sock puppets to continue editing the same article. These accounts were confirmed as socks by CheckUser Ponyo:
I am confident that the following two accounts, which I was too slow to add to SPI before Ponyo checkusered the others, are also socks:
I propose that all these accounts be permanently blocked (some may have been already) and that SeattliteTungsten be indefinitely topic-banned.
As argument against mitigation, I'll mention:
This editor will come back. Can we please have a brief (say, one month) semiprotection of Israeli West Bank barrier and its talk page to give him/her a time to reconsider? Zerotalk 00:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Mike V's block of one month is reasonable for the pure sock puppetry offence, but I think it is inadequate for the AE violation offence. Zerotalk 02:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Also notice this message from SevenOrEleven which basically says the socks will keep coming and we can't do anything about it. Zerotalk 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Notified. Zerotalk 00:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SeattliteTungstenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SeattliteTungstenStatement by (username)Result concerning SeattliteTungstenThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|