|
|
| Line 22: |
Line 22: |
|
:::Thanks much. I will revert the RFC per [[WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits]]. While the article has problems, this RFC does not seem helpful. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
:::Thanks much. I will revert the RFC per [[WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits]]. While the article has problems, this RFC does not seem helpful. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
::::I beat you to it by a few seconds. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
::::I beat you to it by a few seconds. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You do good work. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 20:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] == |
|
== [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] == |
 | Important information
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-en
 wikimedia.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.
| |
Edit this section for new requests
- Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.
- RodentofDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 202.69.172.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anon makes their first edit an RFC "Questioning the accuracy and NPOV" of Human trafficking in Angeles City, and their 2nd re-introducing a personal attack (rape accusation) on Fr. Cullen in PREDA. These edits are characteristic of the tendentious edits for which User:RodentofDeath was banned. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious case of ban evasion. IP shorttime blocked, account block reset to 1 year from today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much. I will revert the RFC per WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. While the article has problems, this RFC does not seem helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I beat you to it by a few seconds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do good work. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- Is That All There Is? Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi restricted Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages.
I would like to call the attention of uninvolved administrators to this particularly provocative comment: [47] where he lectures another Wikipedian who has been around for a long time with some pretty harsh language:
"This is not valid for Wikipedia. Your arguments are completely your POV, and have nothing to do with WP policy. Thus, they are not valid here."
I think this is disruptive. Does anyone else? I'll also point out that this particular page is subject to a probation, and so that he would engage in this behavior is especially disturbing.
Please also note that I'm not the only one who has noticed Martin's disruptive tendencies at homeopathy.
ScienceApologist (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors were rejecting the National Institutes of Health the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education as being POV sources for Homeopathy. They were doing this because "A government agency is a political creature." and because "Generalisations are generally bogus" and "Organizations that use the scientific method to evaluate claims all reject homeopathy," the last as if the NIH, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, and AMA don't use the scientific method. Looks like just their POV to me, and under such circumstances not a harsh criticism. I have recieved no complaints from said editors, but certainly intended no personal offense. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that all? Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tu quoque
- Please consider that just minutes earlier, ScienceApologist - who is under similar restrictions as MartinPhi - called another editor a "POV Pusher". Thus, he's probably not the best person to be reporting anyone for behavioral issues, especially MartinPhi. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I am under civility restrictions, not disruptive editing restrictions. Secondly, I was reverting creationist POV-pushing. I have no reason to believe that the editor in question is a POV-pusher. Regardless, I cannot refactor edit summaries and so apologize. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And when you accused me of POV-pushing what, exactly, was the point of view that you believed me to be pushing with this edit? Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Edit warring on the enforcement page is a really really bad idea. I will look at this report tonight at home. Thatcher 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported User:Dlabtot here: WP:ANI#Continued harassment; User:Levine2112 is also wearing down my patience, but one thing at a time. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that all? I find myself unmoved to take action on either complaint. More hangnails. On the content question which prompted Martin's outburst, both he and the other editors are partly right. The AMA and NIH do say some nice-ish things about homeopathy, and web sites written for consumer use are rarely scientifically rigorous. There is nothing particularly disruptive about the quoted comment. And ScienceApologist did not say "POV pusher" as quoted above, he said "rv creationist POV pushing" which is a slight but subtle difference (although avoidance of the word "pushing" would have helped. Dlabtot and Levine2112 parachuting into the middle of this was thoroughly unhelpful, as was Dlabtot and ScienceApologist edit warring on this page. The admins who cover this page are not potted plants and do a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff. The block of Dlabtot and ScienceApologist seems well-deserved, no action on these hangnails. Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- An arbitrator has clarified that this is only limited to episode-related articles, and shouldn't be taken to implicitly apply to other areas. [48] Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 02:18, 3 February 2008,
TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was
informed of the Arbitration Committee's
injunction in
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, which expressly provides that
For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.
In blatant violation of the purpose and intent of this injunction,
TTN removed most of the content from
List of Wario characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 03:07, 3 February 2008, thereby reducing the article from 49,527 bytes to a mere 14,407 bytes, as shown in the
page history. I request that, pursuant to the injunction, the content removed by
TTN be restored, and that, having previously been
warned of the injunction,
TTN's account be blocked for an adequate period of time.
John254 03:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun to unilaterally blank entire sections and paragraphs of other articles in an apparent attempt to thwart the purpose of the injunction -- see [49] and [50], for example. John254 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He did not violate the injunction, as the injunction only prohibits (un)redirection/(un)deletion. The various loopholes and problems with the injunction were brought up in the talk page, but as it was never amended, apparently the arbitrators were happy with the specific wording, which TTN did not violate. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An injunction which forbids any editor to "redirect or delete any currently existing article" necessary includes a prohibition on attempting to achieve the same effect by unilateral blanking of large portions of article content -- otherwise, TTN could simply stub all episode and character articles. Pursuant to the policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the injunction should be enforced for its intended purpose of preventing edit warring over the inclusion of episode and character content -- TTN should hardly be rewarded for inventing a method to (possibly) adhere to the letter of the injunction while circumventing it. John254 05:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I love the good faith going on here. It's called cleanup. Removing cruft from game related articles is something that is done all of the time, and I'm sure if you ask WP:CVG, not one person there would disagree with the removal of the information on that list. If you look at the edit history, you can see that I was already in the middle of it anyways. The other two are also basic cleanup/information rearrangement. That has nothing to do with trying to bypass the injunction. TTN (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling material "cruft" is not assuming good faith about the editors who added the material. If the article really needs to be cleaned up, someone who is not an involved party in an ongoing arbitration case can do it. --Pixelface (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the removals of content are contentious -- the blanking of most of the content from List of Wario characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was partially reversed, for example. Now, I imagine that if there's a serious dispute as to whether individual characters deserve their own articles, many editors are going to be rather displeased with the unilateral removal of a large number of entries from List of Wario characters. John254 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you explain how any of this involves a episode of a television show or a character from a television show? That's all the injunction pertains to. Different kinds of behaviour with respect to a different class of article.Kww (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a rather hairsplitting distinction, since TTN has recently been edit warring over the redirection of articles related to video games -- see [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. The purpose of the injunction is presumably to actually stop the edit warring, not to move it to a slightly different set of closely related articles. John254 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discus.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should protect some of these articles based on basic wiki edit warring rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That will be protecting every article on fiction. -- Cat chi? 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Page protection is designed as a temporary measure to prevent edit warring on a single article. In cases of persistent edit warring over a large number of articles, page protection is not a viable remedy, since applying full protection to thousands of articles for an extended period of time would be extremely disruptive. If TTN (talk · contribs)'s response to an injunction forbidding him to edit war over the inclusion of television episode characters by means of redirection is to start edit warring over the inclusion of video game characters by blanking large portions of articles -- see [56] and [57] as additional examples of unilateral blankings of content -- believing his activities to be sufficiently removed from the letter of the injunction that he can circumvent its purpose, then the only remedy available to prevent TTN from engaging in further edit warring over a large number of articles is to block TTN's account. John254 15:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly the solution is to interpret the episode redirection injunction as general, and to interpret it broadly for those who aren't parties to the case, but to interpret it strictly for those who are parties to the case. ie. To have TTN and other parties to the case to be asked to stop redirecting/unredirecting on any articles. There is plenty of other work that can be done while they wait for the case to finish. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which again brings up my point - even in the face of an arbcom injunction, he continues to behave as usual. Hence my concern about being a single-purpose account with no interest apart from removing content. QED cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John254, will you stop at nothing to try to get a good and valued contributor blocked? He clearly hasn't violated any arbcom injunction. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: Edit warring on the enforcement page is a really really bad idea. I will look at this report tonight at home. Thatcher 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)