Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jiujitsuguy

Appeal is declined at this time. Jiujitsuguy may file another appeal following further positive editing in no less than three months. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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 Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=503267313&oldid=503208820 Administrator imposing the sanction T. Canens. Notification of that administrator notified Statement by Jiujitsuguy Per the advice and constructive criticism offered by Stifle[1] and concurrence of Cailil [2] I am resubmitting my appeal. In the break between my last appeal and the instant one, I have created articles and added content on a variety of subjects including archeology, orthopedics, military history and weapon systems[3]. I have edited constructively, in a collegial, collaborative and non-confrontational manner. I understand now that my previous editing pattern was abrasive and tendentious. In addition, rather than seeking to reconcile differences with a colleague with whom I was having a dispute, I moved too quickly to AE, which was entirely inappropriate. AE should never be used as a tool to silence anyone and should be avoided when possible. I will try hard not to repeat the past mistakes that have led me to the instant topic ban, now in its 14th month. I also wish to offer my sincerest apologies to T. Canens for misconstruing his disciplinary actions and acting with haste in making groundless accusations against him. I blame my lack of maturity for the tasteless outburst and I am embarrassed by it. I sincerely hope that in light of my constructive editing, the fact that I've expressed contrition and recognize my mistakes, the fact that I’ve embraced the suggestions of the aforementioned syops rather than arguing with them, the fact that I’ve already been banned for a year and two months and the fact that I have zealously adhered to the provisions of the topic ban, that the ban be lifted. Whichever way you decide, I thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal and will of course respect your decision. I do however, hope that you will look favorably upon it. Thank you. Stifle had suggested that I submit an appeal in 2 months after productive editing (I would be minded to consider a further appeal in no less than two months' time). I believed that Cailil offered concurrence. I did what I was told and followed the prescribed course of action. Sandstien was concerned that my previous appeal had not addressed the reasons for the ban and that I did not understand what I did wrong. This appeal does address the reason for the ban and expresses sincere contrition. Yes I had been T-banned before (and not 6 times as had been suggested) but this is the longest T-ban that I’ve been required to serve. I’ve shown evidence of reformation and productive editing, have expressed sincere contrition and acknowledged wrong-doing. The length of the instant ban and the fact that I’ve zealously adhered to the ban’s restrictions should also serve to militate in my favor. I hope you look favorably on this request. Thank you. I Note further that both TDA and RolandR have commented under "uninvolved." That is a bit disingenuous as a brief review of their editing history will show that they are involved up to their necks and their motivations for excluding me should be regarded as suspect. RolandR's mention of the August 2010 ban is also disingenuous because he very well knows that the syop who imposed the sanction undid his action almost immediately following ArbCom involvement and that the ancient matter had been resolved in my favor. I also find it disconcerting that only TDA and RolandR are cited by some commenting syops but editors who expressed support for my position have been ignored. I think that, considering the current length of the T-ban, another year of a T-ban on top of the fourteen months already served, is draconian. You have my word that if you lift the T-ban and following that, I get out of line or revert to tendentiousness, you can ban me infinitely and I won't issue any protest. That's how sincere this request is and that's how confident I am in my belief that I will not engage in any editing that will result in a sanction. As further evidence of the sincerity of my request, should the ban be lifted, I will take it upon myself to voluntarily refrain from editing the topic area for an additional three months and further, will will refrain from partaking in any AE action for a period of 1 year. The days of me locking horns and duking it out with fellow editors are over. I simply wish to edit peacefully and productively. @Cailil I can appreciate your concerns and that is why I proposed the above criteria as an additional safeguard. The request is sincere (some might say groveling) and I have imposed on myself self-constraints. Like I said, if I engage in any purposeful transgression, you can easily ban my ass into oblivion without protest. @Heimstern Läufer I am asking you to please not close this as declined. I am asking you to please consider my request as genuine and sincere. I am asking that in the event that you do decline to please allow me the opportunity to resubmit and considering the fact that the ban is already 14 months long, to please allow me to re-submit within 3 months commencing with August 19. White flag. I give up. Statement by Timotheus Canens Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jiujitsuguy Statement by The Devil's Advocate Jiujitsuguy had appealed the topic ban just two months ago and has only made 113 edits in the past month and made no edits in the month immediately following his appeal. This second appeal seems hasty, especially given the reason for his topic ban from ARPBIA areas. I think this appeal should be declined. Perhaps AE admins should consider giving JJG some strict bounds determining when he can appeal again. Not just a time limit, but strict editing criteria so that he will not be able to appeal until he has truly demonstrated editing that makes a future appeal worthy of some consideration.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC) To be clear, I think the ARBPIA topic area is better served without JJG being able to edit there. I would not rule out the possibility that he could prove himself trustworthy regarding the topic, but a very high bar should be set for him. In the mere eight months I knew of JJG's participation in that topic he had tried to use a tour guide about a mountain ski resort to effectively claim the Golan Heights were Israeli territory, repeatedly added a Nazi flag to the Arab side of the belligerents section of the 1948 War because a handful of former Nazis participated in the conflict, and tried to get an opponent sanctioned for "misrepresenting sources" for attributing a statement to the citation following it when JJG was the one who actually put the statement before that citation in the first place. The levels of blatant bad faith he showed with regards to that topic area, while pushing an extremely obvious POV agenda, and his weak-willed efforts at proving his worth following the topic ban do nothing to inspire confidence.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves 100% in agreement with TDA's statement. Nothing in their actions show substantive changes which are required for appeals - mostly there's no changes because they've done nothing, and thus cannot prove anything ES&L 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by AgadaUrbanit The ban is quite old, from July 2012. AE's aim is not to punish, but try to prevent further disruption. If editors follow guidance of administrators in good faith, the evidence is the constructive contributions, it is reasonable to assume that their ban to be lifted. I doubt that quantity is not sufficient, and clearly it is not a question of quantity, rather a question of quality. I reviewed JJG's latest contributions which beyond doubt improve this tree of knowledge we're growing here. Therefore I would not mind JJG's ban to be lifted. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by Marokwitz Based on past activity, I believe that Jiujitsuguy can be a good and constructive editor. I believe his/her recent statements and edits are good evidence that the editor would conduct himself differently in the future. Therefore I recommend lifting the topic ban. The editor can always be topic banned again, if the need arises, so I see no risk in giving him another chance. Marokwitz (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by RolandR Indeed, "the editor can always be topic banned again". As he has been several times already: indefinitely in August 2010[4], for three months in December 2010[5], six months in March 2011[6] extended for a further two months in July 2011[7], and indefinitely in both January 2012[8]and July 2012[9]. Therre seems very little evidence here of improvement or of learning from experience. RolandR (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Jiujitsuguy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Hmm, this is definitely an improvement on the last appeal, as there's been some editing that appears, at a glance, to have been productive and unproblematic. A month of good editing is good, but it's still only a month. I'm not convinced that's enough of a pattern for a successful appeal just yet, particlularly in an area as conflict-rife as I-P. I do think it's on the right path now (unless I've missed something in Jiujitsuguy's editing), but I'm not convinced it's gone on long enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty much on the same wavelength as Heimstern about this. Jiujitsuguy you're on the right track you just need to keep going like this for a few more months. As Heimstern mentions the I/P area is conflict ridden and a month's progress is not enough for us to make a judgement call on. Again keep up the positive editing and appeal again. To other sysops: I think TDA's point about giving Jiujitsuguy a target for another appeal is a good call I'd suggest: no less than 3 months more consecutive editing - that would mean if he keeps making progress late December 2013. Does any one else have any views on this?--Cailil talk 12:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Three months is reasonable if we want to set a specific recommended time frame. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Though with the rather long history here, as pointed out by RolandR, I now think that's too short. I don't think I'd be ready to consider an appeal without at least six months under these conditions. Even longer would be better. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC) With cognizance of the comments above and below I'd agree. 1 year of consecutive editing without problems. Giving that this ban is the consequence of 5 escalating bans, long term good behaviour would be needed to be evidenced for any sysop to reverse this ban. So I'd suggest declining with a minimum length of 1 year (from August) before appealing again--Cailil talk 20:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC) @Jiujitsuguy: - I agreed with User:Stifle that your last appeal be declined and I also stated clearly that "indef bans can't be waited out". You need to adjust your thinking here - this is not a matter of "I've not broken the ban for 14 months ... therefore lift it", it's a case of showing sustained productive editing outside the I/P area. There were a sum total of 16 name space edits between September 21st 2012 and August 19th 2013. After that you made c. 110 name space edits. This (126) is insufficient evidence of someone with a long track record of second chances as having got the message. While once again I commend your recent editing, I will advise you that it's going to take more of this good behaviour to overturn this ban. Strictly speaking quantity of edits is not the only criteria, consistency, calmness and willingness to focus on other topics is good - but we can only see a major change in attitude within the context of a large number of edits over a long period of time--Cailil talk 12:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I would agree with Heimstern and Cailil. This is definitely the right track, and I commend Jiujitsuguy for taking it, but it's just not quite long enough yet. JJG, if you keep this up for a few months and come back to appeal then to have the restrictions lifted, that appeal would stand a very good chance of being granted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC) RolandR points out that Jiujitsuguy has been topic-banned from this topic area no less than six times by five separate admins (including myself, apparently). That's ... impressive. On the basis of this history, I would decline the appeal and retain the topic ban infinitely. I'm all for second chances, but not so much for seventh chances.  Sandstein  13:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC) "Infinite" is a really long time. I support declining, but oppose making it infinite (how would that be achieved, anyway? An indefinite restriction on appealing?) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry if I was unclear – I just meant we should keep declining any appeals. We shouldn't restrict appeals unless they are made repeatedly without any chance of success.  Sandstein  05:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC) All right, then, at present at least, we are in agreement to close this as declined, and so are all the admins here. I think this thing is pretty much ready to close. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GRuban

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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

GRuban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – GRuban (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Block and topic ban of User:KoshVorlon [10].

Administrator imposing the sanction

Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[11]

Statement by GRuban

From this diff and this explanation it looks like KoshVorlon was blocked for insisting on retaining the justification for his !vote on Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request, specifically: "Bradley Manning is a guy". This is selective enforcement: Fluffernutter writes "The discussion guidelines made clear that comments about what gender you feel Manning is or is allowed to be are off-topic", however you will notice that the justifications "Chelsea Manning is a woman" by User:Georgia guy, "she is a woman", by User:Konveyor Belt, and "Chelsea Manning is a woman", by User:I JethroBT have been allowed to stand. This has been extensively discussed on the Fluffernutter's talk page, and on WP:ANI, where she requested any appeal be made at WP:AE. [12][13] So here it is. (FWIW, I haven't voiced an opinion in the move request itself.) --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to Fluffernutter: It's a heck of a guideline that's only going to be enforced on one side, because not enforcing it on the other doesn't cause ill will (?!?). "Boys shouldn't hit girls and girls shouldn't hit boys, but if girls still hit boys it's all right because the boys won't complain about it?" Trust me, it causes ill will. You see for example, me, right here, an editor, one who was not involved in the discussion itself, feeling ill will, from that very selective enforcement. I'm not going to speculate on your motivations, but I will outright object to the blatant bias evidenced by your actions. Yes, Kosh behaved badly after your initial action. But your initial action was downright wrong, as several people have pointed out to you. That makes all subsequent actions you took stemming from that, also wrong. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Fluffernutter

To excerpt the explanation I gave yesterday about why I redacted part (not all) of Kosh's comment in the RM: "I am attending to the RM solely in an administrative capacity, and my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. In light of that, "[person who identifies as a woman] is a woman" is neither inflammatory (you'll notice that no one from any side of the dispute has objected to comments of that type prior to this) nor a potential BLP violation (a significant portion of the community feels that denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue." I will also note that I have removed similarly problematic commentary from the other "side" of the discussion. Again, my goal here is to not allow the discussion to slide into the type of personalized free-for-all that doomed the last one. Accusations that I am somehow "selectively censoring" users' opinions to sway the vote one way or another because I am somehow "involved" are both perplexing and, honestly, hurtful while I'm trying to do an utterly thankless job that every other admin was too wise to attempt.

As far as Kosh Vorlon's block, it was not because he held a particular opinion, but because he repeatedly reverted a discretionary sanctions action in what appeared to be the heat of anger. Despite my making multiple attempts to explain how discretionary sanctions work and how and where my action could be appealed (and, indeed, allowing that my actions could certainly be mistaken as I'm only one person, so he should feel free to appeal), Kosh instead chose to edit war his commentary back into the RM with comments like "censored by impartial admin because IDON'TLIKEIT works for admins", "Calling bullshit bullshit" (both at [14]), and "Revert me again fluffernutter and I'll revert right back. You have NO RIGHT to revert me per WP:TPO READ IT" ([15]). And indeed, all this reverting was done while Kosh was under a 0RR restriction.

@AutomaticStrikeout: I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it that I use "problematic" in the sense of "problematic to the ability of the community to have this discussion without bloodshed." I'm not somehow judging whether I think "s/he is a woman/man" is right or wrong; I'm reacting to the fact that we have recent past experience that has shown us that commentary like "He is NOT Chelsea, not legally, not biologically, not even reliably. Yes I know, he says he wants to change his gender, but he hasn't done so yet nor is he notable under the name Chelsea assuming he DOES decide to do this anyway ." is perceived by a significant portion of the community as a BLP violation that is potentially harmful to the subject, and that whether or not it is one, it will either way cause the conversation to go off the rails catastrophically.

Statement by AutomaticStrikeout

This is a very clear case of selective enforcement, in my opinion. Furthermore, I would suggest that Fluffernutter's involvement in the dispute over Kosh's original comment was such that Fluffernutter should have felt comfortable issuing a block. Certainly, the topic ban was excessive and should be immediately repealed. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Fluffernutter: If you think it is problematic to !vote on the basis that Manning is not a woman, but then you imply that is not problematic to !vote on the basis that Manning is a woman, haven't you shown that you are biased as to the outcome of the RfC? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Fluffernutter: If it's not possible to state that Manning is not currently a woman without getting into trouble, what is the point of having the RfC? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ I JethroBT: "...implied disbelief that Manning would ever be a woman..." Kosh stated that Manning hasn't changed gender yet. I don't see how that implies that Kosh believes Manning will never change gender. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ EdJohnston: Kosh can't come here and make the appeal himself because he's blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by I JethroBT

While I do not defend Kosh's reverts, I will mention that any instance of pronoun usage (i.e. he or she; his or her) is not substantially different than what I and others (including Kosh) have stated: it expresses an opinion about the gender of the individual, plain and simple. There are many such comments on both sides (and while it is technically it is possible to avoid them, it's not exactly convenient given the nature of the discussion.) I do not believe it is fair to redact comments on that basis, whether editors plainly state Manning as a man or a woman. That said, Kosh's comments did not merely include such a declarative statement of gender, but implied disbelief that Manning would ever be a woman on whatever subjective terms Kosh deems sufficient. I believe fluffernutter's actions were appropriate given prior concern that these statements are needlessly inflammatory. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@AutomaticStrikeout: ...assuming he DOES decide to do this anyway (emphasis from original) is an unnecessary editorialization of intent from where I interpret this disbelief. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

At the risk of muddying the waters, I should point out that the 0RR restriction that Fluffernutter mentions above was an informal agreement between Kosh and me, not something imposed on him by ArbCom or ANI or anything. It was voluntary in the sense that we agreed that if he followed those rules, the problems that were making me consider an RFC/U would go away. And they basically have, until now; those were the real problem areas. The reason I suggested the 0RR restriction was for cases just like this, where he tended to revert in the heat of the moment, seeing only his side of the argument. If he had stuck with the agreement, he wouldn't be blocked right now.

That said, I can't really argue with the block, and haven't got the time to investigate the overarching issue of even-handedness or fairness or what have you. I think the duration could be safely reduced to time served if he agreed to abide by those rules, except that the stupid, childish attack account he created on Meta gives me no reason to bother lobbying for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, one more comment while I'm here: I think a third party request like this should be OK, particularity since the issue is not only the KV block, but also the claim (which I stress again, I am not making, just saying it's there) of selective enforcement. This seems like a reasonable thing for AE to look into. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by GRuban

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

• This is marked as 'arbitration enforcement appeal by GRuban'. But GRuban has not been sanctioned by anyone per the case. GRuban wants to appeal the block and topic ban of User:KoshVorlon. Though it might be harmless to have a bit of a discussion here, we don't normally take action on third-party appeals. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)