Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:03, 7 February 2020

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Adrummond67

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 Adrummond67

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Adrummond67 (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/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

18:39, 29 January 2020 Adds monarch field to someone who held one of the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Editor was specifically pointed here to Talk:Martin McGuinness/Archive 2#Monarch/ appointed by, regarding the consensus regarding FM and dFMs not being appointed by the monarch.
18:39, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:41, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:43, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:43, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:44, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:45, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices

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)

Notified here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Based on articles edited and the edits made, they also edited as Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AB9C:F100:C592:536:29F4:4D2F prior to creating an account. They are a single-purpose account dedicated to adding "monarch" fields to infoboxes. They were requested here to stop edit-warring and discuss their proposed changes on the relevant talk page of the articles concerned. They ignored this and made the edits noted above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Adrummond67

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 Adrummond67

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Adrummond67

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

As Adrummond67 has continued editing after being notified of this request but has said nothing here, I believe we should proceed on evaluating this request without their input (though they are, of course, still welcome to provide it now if they wish to do so). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Ymblanter, and also find myself rather skeptical that this is someone's first account. Jumping directly into a contentious topic like this is relatively common for sockpuppets of those previously excluded from those topics, or from the project entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user only made 33 edits, and one of the last edits, already after the request was filed, is [1]. I conclude that they are not net positive to the English Wikipedia. My first choice would be an indefinite block; the second choice would be a topic ban on everything related to Ireland (note that they have zero edits in topics not related to Ireland).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru

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 QuackGuru

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Beland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: QuackGuru (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/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles :

I started a section on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#QuackGuru and was informed about the arbitration case and advised that was the wrong forum and this was the correct one. The discussion there is still ongoing, so apologies if this is inappropriate duplication.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Talk:2019–20_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#Removal_of_update_section_tag - removing problem tags on excessively narrow grounds
2020-02-03 Removal of problem tags without consensus even though discussions are underway on talk page
Talk:Nicotine_pouch#Alarming_amount_of_Ownership_and_unreliable_source_about_Kenya - editors are complaining about ownership; appears to be wikilawyering by applying the requirement for citations in a way that ignores the common-sense meanings of words and collections of words
Talk:2019–20_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#Predicting_the_future_in_a_scary_way - wikilawyering to argue WP:CRYSTAL allows any speculative claim because it only prohibits "unverifiable speculation", and willfully obtuse semantic arguments ignoring common-sense meanings of words, grammatical tense, and neighboring sentences
Talk:Hospitalized_cases_in_the_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#NPOV_issues - Started out constructive, but devolved into arguments that are overly narrowly focused on particular sentences and ignore the meaning of the word "some".
Talk:Hospitalized_cases_in_the_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#Vaping_among_teenagers - exhibits strong anti-vaping POV, which is a theme - having a personal POV is welcome, and I happen to agree with this one, but combining that with obstructionism seems to have resulted in this article being far from neutral (rather than balancing out pro-vaping commercial interests, as some QuackGuru supporters are hoping); also exhibits the "try every conceivable argument even if obviously wrong to wear down the opponent" strategy, which in this case defending a claim as neutral on the grounds that it is factual (which is true but it should be glaringly obvious that a fact that people were advocating for one point of view could be considered non-neutral; a constructive discussion would focus on whether this anti-vaping fact is or should be balanced by pro-vaping advocacy facts, or how context affects neutrality).
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_boomerang_topic_ban_for_Beland which responding admins have complained is disruptive and illustrative of the "try every argument even if obviously wrong" strategy

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Interactions with QuackGuru appear to have contributed to the departure of User:Mfernflower from this topic. While looking into the reasons for their dissatisfaction with the resolution of previous disputes, I found a long discussion in case starting in September 2019 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods which I'll let speak for itself. The closure on that also suggests taking up the issue here.

QuackGuru is clearly smart and some interactions have been constructive—it often takes experienced editors from different perspectives to polish a text to be well-referenced and neutral. But sometimes they will veer from constructive to what appears to be deliberately obstructive. I would hate to lose the useful contributions of this editor, but I also hate to lose the contributions of other editors who don't have the patience to argue past the obstructionism or rope in third editors or start dispute resolution proceedings.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done, 2020-02-06

Discussion concerning QuackGuru

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 QuackGuru

Statement by Levivich

I clicked, at random, on the third link, to Talk:Nicotine_pouch#Alarming_amount_of_Ownership_and_unreliable_source_about_Kenya

Article text at issue: "The Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance objected to the entrance of nicotine pouches in Kenya.[citation needed] They are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, and reproductive or developmental harms.[failed verification] They also[failed verification] stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes.[1]"
What the cited source says: "Lobbies have raised an alarm, saying the pouches could result in increased risk for cancer, heart disease and reproductive or developmental effects. Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance (Ketca) protested the introduction of nicotine pouches, saying there is no adequate data to show the smokeless pouches were a less risky alternative to cigarettes. Ketca Chairman Joel Gitali said tobacco pouches, illegal in parts of Europe, could have lower levels of some potentially harmful chemicals compared to cigarettes. He said the pouches contained higher amounts of arsenic, cadmium and nicotine. 'The US Food and Drug Administration said there is not enough data to prove they are safer than cigarettes and, therefore, we call upon the government not to license these products that are a threat to public health,' he said."
In the talk page discussion, QG argues that the text fails verification because It is "Organizations in Kenya" not "They" and The word "Lobbies" does not mean "Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance". Maybe it's a language issue or just not reading carefully enough, but I can see how this sort of argumentatoin would prompt editors to raise WP:TE or WP:CIR concerns. – Levivich 00:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnuniq: I ec'd with your comment rewriting my statement; it now includes the relevant text from the source. The source says that Ketca is one of 'the lobbies" that has concerns about pouches raising the risk of cancer, etc. Levivich 06:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnuniq: The Kenyan Tobacco Control Alliance is, as the name suggests, an alliance of tobacco control groups. They are the "lobbies" that are being referred to in this passage: "Lobbies have raised an alarm, saying the pouches could result in increased risk for cancer, heart disease and reproductive or developmental effects. Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance (Ketca) protested the introduction of nicotine pouches, saying there is no adequate data to show the smokeless pouches were a less risky alternative to cigarettes." Also, Ketca is the only group that is mentioned in the entire article. The entire article only puts forward two points of view: that of the tobacco companies, given by the managing director of a tobacco company, and that of the anti-tobacco lobby, given by the chairman of Ketco. The article does not mean lobbies other than Ketco are concerned about the pouches. Ketca is speaking on behalf of "the lobbies" – they are "the lobbies". Maybe this is an engvar thing? Levivich 07:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc James

And than we have the tagging issue on the other side. User:Beland requests that an "update" tag not be removed as the that section ONLY has sources from September 2019.[2] Was tagged in this edit.[3] Seriously if you have newer sources than add them. September is only a couple of months ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN

I’ll chime in here to share my own experience with QuackGuru. I was also driven away from an article by his relentless ownership. Last September I went to the Electronic cigarette article, intending to see that the coverage of the vaping-related lung illness was being reported accurately. I made six edits over a three-day period, most of which were immediately reverted by QuackGuru. His resistance to anything not contributed by him was total. One battle that I lost was his insistence on retaining a lot of outmoded information in the lede; see the second paragraph in the lede, which to this to this day consists mostly of outmoded studies from years ago indicating that vaping is pretty harmless, with a single sentence at the end of the paragraph mentioning the vaping-related illness outbreak in the U.S. last summer. Another example: he totally rejected my attempts to insert the warnings issued by the CDC and AMA, insisting that warnings couldn’t be in the lede, or had to go in a different article entirely, or were non-neutral, or were silly, or were WP:NEWS, or whatever other argument he could think of. In this talk page exchange you can see my fruitless attempts to bring the article up to date and put the relevant information in the lead. I summoned Doc James to the article’s talk page, but his recommendations were also rejected. I don’t really know what can be done about this situation, because the entire article, and its multiple spinoffs, are totally QC's creation, and the articles are written in his almost unreadable style, which consists of dozens or hundreds of single sentences, each summarizing a report and sourced to that report, with no context or summarizing allowed. Trying to rewrite the article to make it more readable would be an enormous job even if it wasn’t fought by him at every turn. Trying to do any editing at all is pretty much impossible. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to El C's question about whether QG has continued to behave as I describe here: The issues I described were in early September. The ANI thread was closed October 24. So I checked to see if he is still doing what I described - “owning” the article and refusing to accept any editing or input from anyone else. Answer: yes, he is. Most recent activity:

Jan 30: User:KristofferR pointed out on the talk page a new report from the CDDC, saying it should be added to the article. QG disagreed. [4]
Over the next few days: KristofferR repeatedly added information to the article from the new CDC report and QG repeatedly removed it (in fairness, two other editors including Doc James also removed it).[5]
Feb 2: KristofferR posted at the talk page with additional references, and he and QG argued.[6]
Feb. 5: Another user, User:Sunline09, added sourced content to the article page.[7] QG immediately tagged all three additions “failed verification” and asked Sunline to “post all the new sources here on the talk page.”[8]

My conclusion: yes, he is still behaving as I described. He is still “owning” the articles and challenging everything anyone else tries to do. I should also note that electronic cigarettes and spinoff articles (Category:Electronic cigarettes lists 56 articles on the subject, virtually all created by QG) are pretty much the only things he is editing about. In his past 500 edits I found only three or four on any other subject. This is not just ownership; this borders on obsession. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I had considered the course of action of an AE filing myself, based upon what I've seen of QuackGuru at Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak. I will first say that I believe QG has the best of intentions in keeping the encyclopedia free of pseudoscience and woo, and I have often myself seen QG do good work in those areas. However, in this area, QG has been a problem there as well. QuackGuru has the habit of, rather than participating in discussion, continuing to repeat himself with claims like "failed verification", even after being shown the specific portion of the reference which confirms the article text, as here. QuackGuru's conduct can have the effect of driving other good-faith contributors away entirely as well [9]. While I see that Thryduulf has proposed sanctions related to tags and reverts, those are not in my view the primary issues. Rather, the core issue is ownership of articles and I didn't hear that during discussions, as well as reverts with a simple statement of "failed verification" without any explanation of what QG believes failed verification and why, which make interaction with QuackGuru, especially in this area, a phenomenally frustrating experience. 1RR and a prohibition on tag removal will not solve those problems. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning QuackGuru

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

@Beland: Sorry to overwhelm with you with bureaucracy (similar to my response at ANI) but those links show a lot of comments which are difficult to disentangle. Please pick one point which best illustrates the issue and outline what edits or comments are a problem and why. Personally, I can't get excited about a battle over tags—are there edits or comments that show QG to be repeatedly incorrect about an article assertion or that show QG pushing a "strong anti-vaping POV"? Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Levivich: I know that QG's style and rigidity frustrates other editors but QG is often right about sources. Please correct me if I'm missing something but the key point in your example concerns QG's failed verification on "They are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer...". In context, "They" refers to a specific organization and the article does not say that organization is concerned about an increased risk of cancer etc. The article reports that the organization said "there is no adequate data to show the smokeless pouches were a less risky alternative". That is a long way from the assertion and unless there is other text that I can't see, the source fails verification. The article says that (unspecified) Lobbies are concerned that pouches may raise the risk of cancer etc. Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Levivich: I'm afraid the changed comments confuse me. Please spell out what text in the source verifies that a specific organization (Ketca) is concerned that nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer. The source has two mentions of Ketca and two of cancer. The subheading (probably not written by the author of the article) is "Lobby has raised an alarm, saying the introduction of pouches could result in increased risk for cancer" but the article does not assert that Ketca is the lobby in question. One might infer that but it's a stretch and "failed verification" is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Levivich: That's a big stretch. It might be right but that conclusion is not in the source, aka failed verification. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If what MelanieN says is representative of overall interactions, then it's probably time other editors got a chance to also edit the article without effectively being restricted by QG. A topic ban for a few months, or more leniently, a 1RR restriction, could prove worthwhile. At any rate, this request is actionable. El_C 07:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could see how Awilley's suggestion of a personal "consensus required" sanction could serve as an effective middle way between a full topic ban and 1RR/0RR. El_C 19:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: noted. Note that if QuackGuru fails to submit a (any) statement in response to this request, that would sway me more toward the topic ban end of the sanction spectrum. I would like to get a sense that they understand and are willing to work toward resolving the critical input here. As for their "borderline obsession," I'm fine with them having a narrow focus for significant duration — but, if they get so attached to their own works to the point that it hinders editorial collaboration, then indeed that is a problem this request ought to address. El_C 21:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in October there was a lengthy AN/I thread about QG engaging in exactly the same behaviour as lead to this request, and his conduct was significantly criticised by the Arbitration Committee who warned him "that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions." It is evident from the above that he is continuing to disrupt the topic area so further sanctions are necessary. I would suggest a standard 1RR and a prohibition on adding or removing any tag disputed by any other editor (excluding editors blocked as a sock or meat puppet), unless there is a clear consensus to do so on the talk page of the article concerned. "Disputed" defined as (a) added or removed by another editor acting in good faith, and/or (b) subject to discussion on the article talk page. "Tag" applying to both inline tags (e.g. failed verification) and banner tags (e.g. needs additional citations) that apply to articles and/or sections. Both restrictions applying to the e-cigs topic area broadly interpreted and subject to appeal (together or individually) after 6 months. There would be no restriction on him starting or contributing to discussions about tags he or another user disputes, as long as he does so in good faith. I would also issue a warning that if these restrictions are not abided by or there is further disruption that a topic ban will very likely be the result.
Indeed having said all that, while I don't think a topic ban is required now, I will support one as a second choice if that is the consensus of other admins. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't engaged with QuackGuru for a couple of years now at least, but it looks to me like things haven't changed much since then. I think at the root of the problem is extreme OWNership of a topic area. Every battle, no matter how small, is fought to the bitter end. Every talk page comment is responded to. Every edit is reverted. Every nit is picked. In trying to mitigate behavior like this in the past I tried a 0RR rule, but quickly found that was being cleverly gamed. (This was back in 2015.) I think the previous topic ban from E-cigarettes and the ArbCom warning is probably enough that the next sanction should be a topic ban. But I would prefer to start with an attempt to throttle the most disruptive tendencies in a way that still allows constructive editing. My first thought would be something like a personal "consensus required" sanction (if an edit you make is reverted you may not reinstate that edit without consensus on the talk page). In my mind that would force a person to either become successful in building consensus or to drop disputes and move on. (And yes, I realize there are people in the topic area who will never agree with QG no matter how much they discuss, but I don't think those types of editors are in the majority.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls

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 SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SashiRolls (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:ARBAPDS#Behavioral standards:

5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Assumption of bad faiths, WP:ASPERSIONS

February 7, 2020 - "It is obviously impossible to contribute to this entry as it has been taken over by Snoogans, MrX, WSMR, O3000 & Slywriter. Cf. WP:OWN"
February 1, 2020 - "The way to show intractable problems is to document them. That is what I have done. MrX is watching, if they feel like reverting I'm sure they will. WMSR is watching too. I'm sure they'll be quick to respond."
January 30, 2020 - "A quick fact-check shows that WMSR has added zero reliable sources to the article, has been criticized for edit warring on 13-14 January at AN/I (1RR page) and has removed about a dozen sources." (link omitted)
January 29, 2020 - "[Tell us about your involvement] with MrX's causes, WMSR.
January 22, 2020 - "Speaking of your behavioural problems WMSR, why do you revert edits (images) and then refuse to discuss when sections are opened about your revert on the talk page, preferring to rant about others rather than to explain your slashing? Smells like typical tag-team WP:GAMING to me..."
January 22, 2020 - "Team "Notherethere" has deleted multiple RS in their crusade against having too much front-facing information about Brock in this entry."
January 15, 2020 (logged out - see [10]) - " Usually it is not unemployed or underemployed Wikipedia contributors like yourself who are the best judges of the quality of content, so to show you are not just some random Snoog you need to actually argue, not just yell out your opinion louder than everyone else using words like "brazen", "absurd", "tedious", "indiscriminate", etc. Do you have any real world qualifications to compare with these authors, journalists, editors, and publishers whose work you are calling "absurd CTR content"? You're not fooling anyone..."
January 15, 2020 - "I see that Objective3000 has now made their third edit to the article: the first was to remove the inaccurate word "slightly" a couple minutes after MrX filed an ANEW report about the word, following WMSR's similar reversion without having studied the source."
January 7, 2020 - "Regardless, the claims made by Snoog above are not policy compliant: feel free to reread WP:ASPERSIONS concerning evidence-less claims. And saying an editor is "obsessed" is just a little poisonous, too. But I'm used to MrX and Snoog's methods."
January 5, 2020 - "Perhaps Team X could instead add the relevant reports on Russki Meddling in Homespun spinner-space, so we can see the bigger picture, rather than deleting reliably sourced information. "
December 31, 2020 - "Things always have a tendency to heat up when you talk about Brock for some reason. :)"
January 5, 2020 - "Also, why do I get the feeling you two are following me around? Granted I pinged you at RSN MrX after you followed my recent contribs to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. And I don't know why Snoog is getting involved over there. ^^"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

November 10, 2019 - Topic ban; interaction ban; cautioned.
May 27, 2019 - No personal comments restriction
May 19, 2019 - Interaction ban
June 23, 2017 - Indefinite block
September 3, 2016 - Topic ban

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on May 28, 2019 by Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The behavior documented here is unabated. At least four users: (MrX, Snooganssnoogans, Objective3000, and WMSR) are now the target of baseless accusations of being members of a cabal. This bellicose behavior damages reputations, disrupts discussions, and erodes trust and collaboration. - Mr X 🖋 14:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a specious accusation of tag teaming, which according to the essay is "a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." I am asking Pudeo to substantiate that accusation with ANY evidence of "coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus". and if they are unable or unwilling to, I request that the accusation be stricken. - Mr X 🖋 20:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

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 SashiRolls

Statement by Snooganssnoogans

I will try to be brief:

(1) The editor has repeatedly insinuated that I'm hired by David Brock (a largely disreputable figure in US politics) to edit Wikipedia: (a)[12] the "for some reason" line is the insinuation I'm working for him. (b)[13] SR asks me if I know of headshots of David Brock that he can use, which is a clear insinuation that I'm working for him. (c) I've sent an email to the Arb Committee where SR explicitly names two other editors: Calton and Neutrality as working for David Brock.
(2) SR brazenly edit-wars on the page in question (I listed some of the many many clear-cut BRD violations here: [14]). The editor bullies changes into the article and attacks every other editor who challenges his edits, and has over time largely driven other editors from the page. The edit-warring, coupled with the personal attacks and the conspiracy theories about other editors, suggests at the very least that this editor is incapable of editing American Politics. He sees himself as the only pure editor whereas all who disagrees with any of his edits are editing for hire and coordinating against him.
(3) SR will inevitably respond with a Gish Gallop. If you don't understand what he's talking about and if you don't have time to chase down all the vague spurious accusations and irrelevant links he throws up, don't assume that there is something to it. Ask him to be clear and concise, and to actually provide evidence.
(4) When SR's ban was rescinded in Nov 2018, it was on the condition that he be kept on a tight leash. Additionally, when he was unblocked, many editors and admins voiced strong opposition to unblocking him, knowing from their past interactions with him that he would inevitably cause problems again. Since the unblocking, he has on three separate occasions by two administrators (El C and Awilley) been blocked for harassment, personal attacks and battleground behavior, and been warned countless times by both administrators and editors. This editor will be indefinitely banned at some point or another: it's just a question of how much time that Wikipedia editors and admins are going to have to spend dealing with him before that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo argues that SR's civility violations and non-stop conspiracy theorizing about other editors is excusable because the conspiracy theories are true (!). The only evidence in support of the claim that I am tag-teaming with two other editors is that we happen to have edited many of the same articles. However, if you were to put in the names of all other active editors in American Politics who have been as active as MrX, Objective and I in the last few years, the editor interaction analyzer would show the exact same thing. If we happened to have edited the same very obscure American Politics pages or completely unrelated Wikipedia pages, then yes, that would indicate tag-teaming. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WMSR

To be frank, the diffs cited by MrX and Snooganssnoogans don't even begin to scratch the surface of SashiRolls's constant incivility on talk pages and with regard to edit warring. Looking purely at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders and Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign Sashi demonstrates pretty clearly their belief that WP:FOC to everyone except them. I recently raised issues about personal attacks at WP:ANI, but they were not addressed. That complaint contains several more diffs. --WMSR (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

6 February 2020 [15] – “One does wonder why this entry is so important to the 'no there there' folks.”
5 February 2020 [16] – "Here the 'digging' I'm referring to is reading the article and seeing what it says (and proving with wikiblame that Snoog was not telling the truth). Feel free to try it, rather than making comments vacated of any substance..”
1 February 2020 [17] – “Thank you for teaching me that your point of view is that the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page should not contain any actual media coverage of Bernie Sanders' campaign. I feel so much wiser now!”

Sashi’s last comment this morning: It is obviously impossible to contribute to this entry as it has been taken over by Snoogans, MrX, WSMR, O3000 & Slywriter. Cf. WP:OWN is breathtaking. Sashi made 256 of the last 500 edits to the article with a great deal of resistance from at least five other editors. Sashi’s conclusion: those five editors are exhibiting ownership behavior, not Sashi.

If you attempt to engage Sashi in discussion, you can be certain of two things. Sashi will demand that you focus on content. Sashi will focus on you. Often both in the same edit.

Sashi has racked up an array of blocks from an impressive number of admins and arbcom for personal attacks, harassment, uncollaborative editing, aspersions, battelground, intimidation, nothere, disruptive editing and Wikihounding; has lost talk page access three times, and lost email access. Clearly there is a problem with behavior towards other editors. Blocks haven’t worked. Perhaps an indef TBan from AP2 and BLP to see if this is a problem dealing with controversial arenas. Or will that just shove the problem elsewhere? O3000 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo: You stated: After Snooganssnoogans recently brought up SashiRolls on Awilley's talkpage, MrX and Objective3000 commented there within an hour. You neglected to mention that SashiRolls called both MrX and me multipliers of negative energy just before we responded. How on Earth is it tag-teaming for each of us to respond to accusations against oneself? I would suggest that this is not a good venue for casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond in more detail to Pudeo’s accusation/rationale for Sashi's behavior. They did not click “Pages edited by all users” when using the interaction tool. When you use the tool for three people without this option, it does not mean all three are in each interaction. It sums three interaction pairs. Clicking the option drops results from 93 to 39. Secondly, the results aren’t surprising as we all have been editing the AP2 articles for years, and talk page discussions can be very long and intense with constant minute to minute interaction. As an example, if I replace Snoog with MelanieN and run the same tool, there are 87 interactions.[18] Does this mean that admin MelanieN is a meatpuppet of MrX and me? O3000 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

It seems that all the editors who SashiRolls says are tag-teaming have already submitted statements. SashiRolls' general position in the contentious topic (Media coverage of Bernie Sanders) has decent acceptance, as the article survived two well-participated AfDs as "no consensus".

It is evident without a doubt that there is tag-teaming at play here. After Snooganssnoogans recently brought up SashiRolls on Awilley's talkpage, MrX and Objective3000 commented there within an hour[19]. I noticed this as well in an AN/I thread last month. In two comments I posted there, both were replied to by MrX and Objective3000. Based on the editor interaction tool with Objective3000 and MrX, it's fairly obvious they are following each other's edits to give back-up. They sometimes even reply for users on behalf of the other person:[20]. O3000 further states: I nearly always agree with MrX.

The editor interaction tool can yield results for three different users combined: Snooganssnoogans, MrX & Objective3000. Can you believe that! SashiRolls has every right to complain about tag-teaming. Whether those complaints need to be tone-policed, is up the administators. But please do not reward tag-teaming in a POV fight. It is understandble that being tag-teamed against is strenous, and can't really be acted against, so I'm afraid SR has been put in a difficult position. --Pudeo (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

I don't wish to elaborate, as it's difficult to pin down. But, it's frustrating to edit or discuss topics concerning the corporate-centrist -vs- progressive divide in the US Democratic Party. My experiences have left me feeling it's difficult to point out the DNC's & MSM's bias against progressives. Thus why I don't hang around these disputes, very often. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GMG

If I'm being honest, we have a user twice indeffed, and now subject to a one way IBAN, a two way IBAN, a TBAN, and a conduct restriction. Where exactly is the area where this user has contributed productively and collaboratively? Who is it this user has interacted with that hasn't been part of the cabal (myself included, four some odd years ago, which is exactly why I continue to generally avoid them, and most any article they're active on)? GMG ^talk 22:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SashiRolls

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

I'd suggest a topic ban from American politics and some sort of block to go with it. These edits blatantly breach the "no personal comments" restriction imposed here, which is still in effect. They're also way below what we expect from editor conduct and it looks like they're making the article a miserable place for everyone else to work. Hut 8.5 19:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a topic ban. Something needs to change and it's clear my "no personal comments" sanction didn't work here. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 217: / Line 217: @@
 Sashi has racked up an array of blocks from an impressive number of admins and arbcom for personal attacks, harassment, uncollaborative editing, aspersions, battelground, intimidation, nothere, disruptive editing and Wikihounding; has lost talk page access three times, and lost email access. Clearly there is a problem with behavior towards other editors. Blocks haven’t worked. Perhaps an indef TBan from AP2 and BLP to see if this is a problem dealing with controversial arenas. Or will that just shove the problem elsewhere? [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 :{{yo|Pudeo}} You stated: {{tq|After Snooganssnoogans recently brought up SashiRolls on Awilley's talkpage, MrX and Objective3000 commented there within an hour}}. You neglected to mention that SashiRolls called both MrX and me {{tq|multipliers of negative energy}} just before we responded. How on Earth is it tag-teaming for each of us to respond to accusations against oneself? I would suggest that this is not a good venue for casting aspersions. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 20:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
+::I would like to respond in more detail to Pudeo’s accusation/rationale for Sashi's behavior. They did not click “Pages edited by all users” when using the interaction tool. When you use the tool for three people without this option, it does not mean all three are in each interaction. It sums three interaction pairs. Clicking the option drops results from 93 to 39. Secondly, the results aren’t surprising as we all have been editing the AP2 articles for years, and talk page discussions can be very long and intense with constant minute to minute interaction. As an example, if I replace Snoog with MelanieN and run the same tool, there are 87 interactions.[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Objective3000&users=MrX&users=MelanieN&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] Does this mean that admin MelanieN is a meatpuppet of MrX and me? [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 23:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Pudeo====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards