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}}.
|
Chiappoloni
Chiappoloni is blocked from editing George Soros and Talk:George Soros for a period of one year. I am of the opinion that their contributions to the page in all aspects are not benefecial at best and disruptive at worst, including violation of restrictions they were made aware of. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (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 Chiappoloni
Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ChiappoloniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ChiappoloniIn reference to: Political donations for George Soros page As it appears NorthBySouthBaranof has mentioned in a previous talk page which also applies here, "The material is not questionably or poorly sourced, is not a violation of BLP... You're welcome to discuss the issue on the article talk page or bring more viewpoints to that page, but mere disagreement with cited sources does not justify removal of sourced material." Removing factual information, that better informs our readers or provides improved access to our readers, is not helpful, especially if it is presented in a data-oriented, fact-focused, manner. Removing facts is doing the opposite for our readers to understand all political donations. Editing or reverting any changes in wording seems understandable if taking a certain viewpoint or interpretation of a paragraph, but removing an entire paragraph, source, or new facts provided to an article, does not appear understandable, or justified. Why are Federal Elections more or less important than local US Elections as mentioned in the Los Angeles Times? These edits are adding factual information to a page and making a section easier-to-read by adding sub-headings and additional source information. Not sure how presenting published news articles and a full data-focused and fact-focused description is being removed or in violation. Legitimate news sources, e.g. Politico, the Los Angeles Times, and the Telegraph, are being referenced or added for readers’ ease-of-access. To remove these sources for referenced articles is decreasing the ease-of-access and factual information for articles. Contested Edits - Incorrect removal of LA Times and other sourcing articles regarding political donations I'm not sure how any of these edits are able to be 'contested' by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place? Being that the edits consisted of adding sub-headings for readability, sources for readability and reference-checking, public information, and published articles from news sources such as the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and the relevant and referred to donation funds' websites (- when NorthBySouthBaranof said that the sources were not legitimate? -) surrounding local political investment, without offering opinions on said donations. Specifically, these edits were added to the sub-heading titled, 'Political Involvement,' which appears appropriate. It is surprising that this added information to the said section would not be lauded versus 'contested?' Especially considering that this section appears lacking in organization, readability, comprehensiveness (no US-specific section while there has been substantial amounts of donations in this arena (in the billions of $s), and no separation of or information on the large amounts of local US donations versus federal-election-only US donations), and sourcing material. Moreover, please can someone clarify, is only one person allowed to contest an article's changes to be considered 'consensus?' Whereas, reverting via an apparent incorrect contesting of an article's edits, out of disagreement with said factual information, is only needed by one person NorthBySouthBaranof? Lastly, this user, NorthBySouthBaranof, appears to need to perhaps be placed on some sort of restriction themselves? Not only have they removed added sources helpful to our readers, but have also removed history and factual information for our readers. In addition, this user has filed an enforcement request 6 minutes after asking for the reverted edits to be removed. This not only seems overtly 'hasty,' in not giving an appropriate amount of time to myself to make said edits, but the fact that these edits were incorrectly placed by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place, makes it all the more moot.
User NorthBySouthBaranof has also provided incorrect or false information here on this filing, as I have in fact tried to discuss the issue on NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)'s talk page (as can be seen on their talk page), and they in fact 'snipped' or deleted my response. My now-'snipped' attempt at conversing with them can be seen on their talk page, and which I re-posted on mine after noticing NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) snipped my attempt. In my initial Wikipedia-user-interface naivete I removed what I thought were notices on my talk page (#notices), but not attempts at conversation, and these appear to be from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I might be naive, as I am a beginner to the user-interface of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is possible to believe that I have 'removed' any conversation attempts, when I believe these were intended as 'notices' versus conversation from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I have recently tried to undo these edits due to me being a beginner, and they appear to be unable to be undone - but please redo them if possible, it will probably be more helpful to this case. NorthBySouthBaranof, however, is an experienced user that I would imagine should know better than deleting my attempts at conversation on his talk page. He had in fact removed or 'snipped' all attempts at conversation. Hence, it appears surprising that he would then accused me of what he, NorthBySouthBaranof, has in fact done? His (and my) actions can easily be seen on these public webpages, and histories of these pages so I'm not sure why he would provide this false claim? Here is a copy of NorthBySouthBaranof's misdirected claim where not only do they only mention a 'consensus required' provision which refers to their Arbitration Request, but they also do not acknowledge their deletion of the sources and information or relevant and needed rationale therein, and then provide the misdirected, or false, claim regarding the removal of all attempts at communication (which NorthBySouthBaranof did, but I did not, funny enough): "Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)." Statement by (username)Result concerning Chiappoloni
|
Jugs Rimes
Moot, editor has been blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:34, 4 June 2020 (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 Jugs Rimes
Alerted here.
I explained at Talk:Drummuckavall ambush#Multiple editions of Harnden, with wildly differing page numbers on 07:02, 24 May 2020 that there are (at least) two editions of the book with wildly different page numbers (page 159 versus page 116 for the same information), I also explained to the editor on their talk page about this, as well as referring to it in an edit summary and requesting they explain why they feel it isn't referenced. All they do is ignore me. Although obviously not covered by the Troubles discretionary sanctions, the history of Airbus A400M Atlas shows a repeated attempt to add {{fv}} there despite other editors saying it's referenced, and the history of Mauser Model 1893 shows a repeated attempt to add a pointless duplicate link. As the history of their talk page shows, they have no interest in communicating with other editors regarding these problems.
Discussion concerning Jugs RimesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jugs RimesStatement by LevivichThanks to FDW for filing this report. There is more:
Statement by (username)Result concerning Jugs Rimes
|
Raghavendrax
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 Raghavendrax
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Raghavendrax (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/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 09:03, 6 June 2020: Replaced reliably sourced content in the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article with unverifiable content. The edit replaced "The amendment has been widely criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularity for excluding Muslims" with "The amendment act has been widely misinterpreted as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularity for excluding Muslims", and "The bill has raised concerns among the Indian Muslim as well as poor Indians as they might be rendered stateless that could lead them to detention" with "The bill has raised misunderstandings among the Indian Muslim as they might be rendered stateless that could lead them to detention" in the lead section. The cited sources are consistent with the removed language, and are inconsistent with the added language.
- 09:06, 6 June 2020: Removed 17,093 net characters from the OpIndia article, replacing the removed content with "OpIndia is widely criticized by Indian left-wing for exposing the fake news spreaded by Indian left-wing." The edit also changed the description of Swarajya from "right-wing" to "popular", deleting the citations attached to the removed word.
- 09:09, 6 June 2020: Identical to #2, undoing Materialscientist's reversion (Special:Diff/961040282) of the previous edit.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 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
Raghavendrax has repeatedly violated the verifiability policy in the area of Indian politics.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Raghavendrax
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 Raghavendrax
Statement by (username)
Statement by Symmachus Auxiliarus
- Comment This seems pretty clear cut. Endorse T-BAN. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)|
Result concerning Raghavendrax
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- A topic ban from the IPA topic area is probably in order. El_C 09:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with El_C, and unless anyone shortly objects, will do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Cement4802
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 Cement4802
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Cement4802 (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
- 05:27, 1 June 2020 First change of "left-wing" to "far-left"
- 06:10, 1 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
- 22:29, 2 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
- 15:07, 6 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
- 15:46, 6 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left", and 1RR breach being 29 minutes after the previous revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 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
There only engagement on the talk page was at 11:08, 1 June 2020 stating Nfitz Please don't bring your political views into Wikipedia. Sentiments like yours are usually the problem and source of conflict itself. And this has nothing to do with Donald Trump regardless. Numerous reliable sources describe ANTIFA as being far left
. This was obviously prior to diffs #3-5.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Cement4802
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 Cement4802
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Cement4802
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Clear cut 1RR violation. The additional edit warring as well as the failure to communicate, leads me to believe that sanctions will be necessary. El_C 16:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Aeonx
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
- Aeonx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction being appealed
- Two week block (see log)
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- I copied this over myself when they appealed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Aeonx
It was wrong to block me because it was done under inaccurate and false pretext, the justification used for my block was based on a clear misinterpretration of my the comment I made. The evidence of which is clearly available on my talkpage. I understand the blocking Administrators concern, and I have already openly admitted and accepted that the edit summary I made on the OANN page was disgraceful. I made the comment out of frustration, whereby I have been trying to boldly identifying issues and then take steps to improve the NPOV aspects of the OANN article and have instead simply had my edits (made in accordance with guidelines) reverts; followed my having warnings on my talkpage. That is the frustration I have which has lead to my less-than-graceful comments. However, I still assert the core reason for the block being unwarranted as a clear misinterpretation of my comments, which were generic in nature describing that POV-pushing is "troll-like conduct"; the comments I made in the two reference locations given in the block, were not in any way targeted at any particular editor.
Statement by TonyBallioni
So, the statement they are defending is not actually why I blocked. I had blocked on these diffs, which are clear battleground issues, with personal attacks and incivility thrown in the mix: [2], [3], [4] (note edit summary). These were all today, but there is also a history of personal attacks in the topic area: [5] (note content and edit summary), [6] (Aspersions and conspiracy theories about other editors), [7]. They had previously been warned for similar behaviour by Doug Weller in April here. I decided that in totality, the behaviour merited a block, and went with two weeks even though it was a first time offense, because looking at their editing from May, they mainly edit on the weekends lately, so a 24 hour block wouldn't do much and a 1 week would would be about the same, and you'd risk someone coming straight back to the same fight on the day they ordinarily edit.
After I blocked, I noticed that Bishonen had warned them over these edits, which is not something I had seen when looking through the block history. I pinged Bish to ask her thoughts, and mentioned that I wasn't particularly impressed by this comment in response to it, where he says that people he's fighting with on the talk page are exhibiting troll-like behaviour, which while not focused on any particular editor, in this topic area is a way of making a personal attack without saying names. It wasn't why I blocked, but it also made me not want to unblock quickly. As I said to Bish after I noticed that she had warned, I would be fine unblocking if she prefers to let the warning stand, but I also think there is enough conduct here for a block, especially as there has been recent history of this behaviour in the topic area, and they had previously been warned within the last two months. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Aeonx
Result of the appeal by Aeonx
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- No, decline. Even after the warning for the behavior at issue in this block, and after the block, this editor has continued conduct that is inconsistent with the editing environment and that demonstrates that they do not understand why they have been blocked. It is not an acceptable defense to substitute "user:x is a [personal attack]" with "user:x has been engaging in [personal attack]-like conduct"; that would be a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Comments like
If you READ CAREFULLY, you will see I did NOT call editors "troll-like", I wrote "troll-like" conduct". There is a big difference. I'm not attacking editors. I'm voicing an opinion as to how I, PERSONALLY, view their conduct; and I'm doing so on MY TALKPAGE. This is the sort of typical MALADMINISTRATION I am concerned about growing within Wikipedia. I will appeal this Block
andAll I get is more and more baseless threats, built around a misconception that I'm the person in the wrong because I'm overtly standing up against crappy administration and bullying. I am here to build a decent encyclopedia, not one built around abuse, maladministration and bias articles.
aren't helping their cause either and don't at all indicate that they won't return to the exact same behavior right after the block; in this light, a two week block is pretty lenient. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)- A brief review of the earlier talk page posts is equally unimpressive. In response to a DS alert, the user writes:
Thanks for posting, Doug Weller. Now I suggest you go read WP:UNINVOLVED.
In characterizing this remark, the user writes:The only thing I said in regard to this standard alert was (1)A Thankyou, and (2)a request for you to review a particular relevant section of WP policy; the reason for which is that I was genuinely concerned based observations I had made from your past conduct that this *may* have been overlooked. Is it wrong for me to thankyou for posting on my talk page and to a make a suggestion?!
Not a particularly impressive conversation. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- A brief review of the earlier talk page posts is equally unimpressive. In response to a DS alert, the user writes:
- I feel dirty posting here. But please be aware that this is a shared account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Decline after reading the above comments. The situation clearly justifies a two-week block. And as noted by User:L235, their user page states that their account is now being operated by two people. ("This account is used by two Freelance Journalists (SD and TR), currently reporting on COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom"). See WP:NOSHARING. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Decline. The documentation provided display recent misconduct and aggression which raises pressing concerns. That coupled with a seeming inability to understand the reasons for the block, leads me to decline the appeal. El_C 20:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Decline appeal. The block was an appropriate response to the misconduct, and the editor's behavior since then gives me no assurance that it is no longer necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)