Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:00, 17 March 2014

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

Maurice07

Maurice07 topic banned from everything related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts and warned if the disruption does spread to another topic area they will be blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Maurice07

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Removal of Armenian names/Edit-warring

6 March At Erzurum: Repeated removal of Armenian native names in articles even after being told to consult WP:NCGN several times and to participate in the ongoing discussion at the talk page. Edit-wars to maintain its removal ([1][2])
6 March At Divriği: Same as above. Edit-wars again ([3][4][5][6])
8 March At Diyarbakir: Same as above.
8 March At Şanlıurfa: Same as above.
10 March At Erzurum Province: Same as above.
10 March At Iğdır: Same as above.

Disruptive oppose votes at Armenian related WP:FP nominations

28 February Voted Oppose to my FP nomination that was related to the Adana massacre by calling it "Irrational nationalism" and claims that the source is unreliable since it is "Armenian." Maurice07 came out of no where. He is not a regular at WP:FP (see here) and has never voted or participated before. It seems this was a WP:BATTLEGROUND-like move to strike at his supposed "opponents" where it hurts them the most.

Deletion of Armenian related articles in form of a redirect

20 February Prunus armeniaca is not the only sub-species of the Apricot. There are many others (i.e. Prunus brigantina, Prunus mandshurica) which the user appears to be aware of.

Aggressive language and WP:BULLY

9 March "Next vandalistic edit, I will report to admin"
8 March "Next edit war, this issue, along with other Turkish cities will go to the WP:ARB!"
4 March "absurd and extreme nationalism"
28 February "Irrational nationalism"
27 February "I will not let in any "fait accompli" about Sabiha Gökçen like your vandalic edit"
27 February "I have to report this situation to the administrator."
25 February "Next edit war, i will report to administrator."
23 February "Irrational nationalism"

Repeated removal of Sabiha's Armenian ethnic background

Sabiha Gokcen's ethnicity is disputed among those who believe she is Turkish and those who believe she is Armenian. There has been a long consensus to include both claims in the Early Life section of her article.

The user initially removes an entire sourced paragraph of her being Armenian under the edit-summary "Personal effort to impose and deception". I proposed a compromise at the TP of the article by giving more WP:WEIGHT to Maurice07's claim that she is Turkish by placing it as the first paragraph of the section.

After I have warned him over this matter and repeatedly told him to go to the talk page ([7][8][9]), the user continues to edit-war by keeping any notion that she may be of Armenian origin out of the Early Life section ([10][11]).

I opened a section at the talk page to reach a compromise. Maurice07 repeatedly says that "Allegations that are of Armenian descent, too add early life section just absürd and extreme nationalism" and says "All sources one-sided and unreliable" because one is an "Armenian newspaper" and the other is by an "Armenian historian" ([12]).

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 25 February 2014 by EtienneDolet (talk · contribs)
Warned on 15 January 2013 by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user is indefinitely sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC is continuing to conduct a similar WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles. I find that every time he edits an Armenian article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the ARBMAC ban. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. However, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user still displays a belligerent attitude to those he comes across and is willing to edit-war to get his way. This WP:BATTLEFIELD-like demeanor has been the story for the past several years now. In the past, he deleted an entire paragraph stating that Mount Ararat was a historical part of Armenia with an edit-summary saying, "Political opinion can not be included here." His deletion of Greek and Armenian native names of appears to be an obsession stretching back several years (examples include Greek names: [13][14]; Armenian names: [15]). He's almost impossible to work with since all of his "opponents" are either extreme nationalists or deceptive individuals. I have yet to have seen him refer to the talk page to gather a consensus before making such contentious edits or reverts.

For the reasons I have aforementioned, I believe that the user should be banned from editing topics related to Armenia and Turkey.

For past inquiries, please see Maurice07's ARBMAC report: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Maurice07
Also, please see AA2 report: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Maurice07
(Note: the second AE report was unsuccessful because he was already blocked when the report was filed)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning Maurice07

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 Maurice07

Totally unacceptable request by User:EtienneDolet. I did'nt remove Armenian names from the articles of Turkish cities. There are many examples in this regard. Trabzon, Bayburt, Gaziantep..etc. User accusing me, Armenian names impose to cities, just like example of Erzurum. In the section of Name and etymology there are many names of city (Kurdish, Ottoman Turkish, Greek, Latin) but was only interested in the Armenian name. [17]. Another disctrict in Divriği, Armenian name placed by a Armanian user [18] waithout citing any source.

In city of Iğdır, a edit war still continues by another Armenian User:MarshallBagramyan. I've added an information sourced [19] but this title and Kurdish and Azerbaijani names removed by this WP:ARBAA2 [20] user [21]

About the Sabiha Gökçen issue, another Armaniafication effort by Etienne, Bagramyan and Yerevantsi. I have moved the Armenian claims to related section "Controversies" [22]. Because, in this regard, not any certainty. I don't think that User:EtienneDolet per WP:NPOV. As part of this dispute, this user has carried out an intensive effort to intimidate.

22 February 2014 We have already discussed that sabiha gokcen is not Turkish...
22 February 2014 Mimar Kemaleddin would be a good replacement

In parallel, same terrorization effort applied by Proudbolsahye renamed (Etienne) in Wikipedia Commons Sabiha Gökçen's photos deleted and nominated for deletion See:

I think EtienneDolet should be topic banned Turkey-Armenia related articles per, WP:ARBAA2. Maurice07 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Երևանցի It's very poor argument to accuse me. This is my personal opinion, and in no time, i didn't impose this opinion to specific articles like, Armenian Genocide or Genocides in history. Inappropriate language?? Probably, this example should be included in this definition. Maurice07 (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yerevantsi

Maurice's comment speaks for itself. Using inappropriate language is, apparently, OK for him (e.g. "terrorization effort"). I'd like to point out a few more expressions of his attitude towards Armenians. As of January 2014, his userpage had a template saying "This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide"[28] The current version of his userpage declares "This user rejects the so-called Armenian claims and believes that it's a big lie concocted by Armenian diaspora!" --Երևանցի ^talk 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr.K.

For your information, I have informed Callanecc about a possible violation of Maurice07's ban from Greek-Turkish relations broadly construed. Maurice07 added a picture in the Eurozone crisis article showing Greece as the first domino of the crisis. I know this is unrelated to AA2 enforcement but it relates to your thoughts about Maurice07's behaviour spreading to other areas. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maurice07

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

This appears to me to have merit. The most actionable concerns here appear to be Maurice07's edit warring at Divriği and Erzurum, as well as his battleground behaviour, such as calling other users' edits vandalistic. As being topic banned under WP:ARBMAC doesn't seem to have gotten Maurice to edit appropriately, I would consider going straight to a lengthy topic ban.

EtienneDolet has shown some signs of edit warringat Erzurum as well, so I'm not sure his/her hands are totally clean here, either. Nonethless, as the edit warring isn't as extensive and I'm not seeing the same battleground behaviour, I would tend not to sanction. Will wait to hear what other admins think. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the diffs and the pattern of problematic edits, the complaint clearly has merit. There might be a merit in a complaint about the initiator, but I don't see them exhibiting the same sort of battleground mentality as Maurice07. Clearly Maurice07 shouldn't be anywhere near a controversial subject like Armenia/Azerbaijan, but I'm wondering if they're suited to Wikipedia at all. Given that their battleground mentality has spread from one topic to another, it might be time to consider a site ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So at minimum, we ought to indef topic ban from Armenia. At maximum, we could indef block with the first year of that block under AE. Of course, these two are not mutually exclusive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an indef topic ban under discretionary sanctions is appropriate and necessary given the disruption and misunderstanding shown, including in their statement. If we're considering an indef block or ban I'd rather submit it to the community at large (WP:AN) rather than make a decision like that on this board. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't necessarily advocating for an indefinite site ban, just raising the possibility that a block (indefinite or otherwise) could be considered. I suppose it comes down to whether we think the disruption will spread to a third topic area if Maurice07 is topic-banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sign of an AA2 warning for Maurice07. Technically, we need this in order to impose anything... I am notifying now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am informed now of a prior AA2 warning from Jan 15 2013 ( here ), which apparently DQ didn't log in the AA2 notifications page. So, apparently WAS notified, but it wasn't clear to me that it had been done.

I believe that an unlogged notification is still valid. DQ is an administrator, so the notification itself is valid. I believe that means sanctions are available now for actions from this month. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(The warning is linked in the first section). I would suggest that we indef topic ban Maurice07 from all everything related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts. I'd also suggest that we warn Maurice07 that if the disruption does spread to another topic area they will be blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action (at least three admins agreeing on that will hopefully demonstrate the seriousness). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Callanecc on all points. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Callan too. → Call me Hahc21 14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've enacted the topic ban and logged the warning re disruption at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final warnings. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare

Not actionable. Sandstein 09:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Brews ohare

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions #7

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

Insertion of material from two physicists into a Philosophy article

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

previous AE visit, 14 Deb 2013 resulting in 1 week ban
AE visit before that, 18 Dec 2012 resulting in final warning
AE visit June 2013 resulting in a one month block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A clear repitition of the behaviour for which the previous one month block was imposed. Brews has been sailing close to the wind by using 'science' not 'physics on several articles, but this one is specific. We see this in an extended attempt to change the Free Will article which like nearly all his edits on philosophy articles has not gained support. The response to him (see final paragraph of the diff) from the ever patient Pfhorest illustrates a wider issue, similar to that which resulted in the original sanction. This time we have a single incident that he has not attempted to reinsert and I thought for a couple of days before making this request. However given the the prior history and general intransigence someone with experience needs to review this. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question. Happy to accept the advise that this is not actionable. However last time we had the insertion of references from a physicist on a philosophy article and that was considered a breech of the sanction. Is the only difference that the article in question was Philosophy of Science? The insert was on a philosophical question then not a matter of physics. Some guidance would be appreciated for the future on what is the difference this time. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: here

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

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 Brews ohare

Statement by 198.228.200.177

The issue is not so much the content of Brews' edits, which arguably don't run afoul of this particular sanction. It's more that he is repeating the same pattern of tendentious editing and his strategy of wearing down any and all who disagree with his opinions (be they correct or not) by endless RFCs, walls of text, wikilawyering and generally making a nuisance of himself that (eventually) landed him at ArbCom in the first place. The proper venue for those concerns, though, is a user conduct RFC which, to date, no editor has been willing to undertake likely because of the sheer volume of diffs that would be required. 198.228.200.177 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brews ohare

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

I think that this is not actionable. The topic ban in the decision that is asked to be enforced applies to "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". The edit at issue is to the page Mind–body problem, which per its lead is about "the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain." That is not a topic related to physics, but to philosophy and neurobiology. Neither does the text added by Brews ohare refer to physics. The fact that it is a citation by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger and another physicist is by far not enough to make the whole article - as required by the wording of the topic ban - "about" physics. Sandstein 07:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The topic ban imposed on Brews ohare has effect on the pages they edit, not on the nature of the sources they use. Since, as Sandstein outlined above, this article has nothing to do with either physics or physics-related mathematics, I share the thought that this is not actionable. → Call me Hahc21 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: Yes. If I understand correctly, and after taking a look at Philosophy of science, I see that that article has a clear relationship with physics or physics-related mathematics that Mind–body problem lacks. Usually, anything that is related to science has a big chance of being related to physics, unless it explores non-calculus topics like neurobiology or philosophy of logic, for example. → Call me Hahc21 17:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Closed as not actionable. Sandstein 09:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urartu TH

Urartu TH (talk · contribs) blocked by Sandstein for WP:NPA/WP:AGF issues separate from original request which was not actionable. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Urartu TH

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Urartu TH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAA2

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

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on February 21, 2014 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Urartu TH is editing controversial arbitration covered article Khojaly Massacre against consensus and in unnecessarily aggressive manner. I tried to resolve a dispute with this user at WP:DRN, and there was no consensus there for the removal of the death toll provided by the Azerbaijani government (613 dead). This was confirmed by the mediator in his closing summary [29], and in a discussion with Urartu TH at mediator's talk: [30]. While Urartu TH insisted on his unilateral removal of info, the mediator mentioned that "based on the discussions at DRN such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus". [31] Despite the outcome of the discussion at WP:DRN, and the warning of the mediator, Urartu TH removed the info from the article: [32] This is not the only example of aggressive and uncompromising editing by this user. He makes controversial edits and reverts to restore them, while there clearly is no consensus for inclusion, or deletion, for instance here: [33] he restores his edit, which was rolled back by another editor: [34], yet Urartu TH restored it without any attempt at discussion or DR. I believe due to unwillingness to work for the consensus Urartu TH should be restricted from editing AA topics, before the situation around the aforementioned article escalates further. Grandmaster 00:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if the result of the discussion at DRN was no consensus for removal of the information, then removing the information in defiance of the outcome of the discussion is disruptive. Even the mediator warned that "such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus", but this did not deter Urartu TH from making a defiant revert. In my opinion, such behavior should not be acceptable, as it leads to escalation of tensions in an arbitration covered area. At the very least, this deserves a warning. Grandmaster 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[35]

Discussion concerning Urartu TH

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 Urartu TH

I have been harassed by Grandmaster ever since I joined Wikipedia roughly 1 month ago and made some neutral edits that did not satisfy his anti-Armenian POV. I find this "enforcement request" to be a shameful attempt at censorship. One need only read the DRN or the Khojaly tragedy talk page for examples.

To the edits in question:

The first edit, March 14, 2014, was simply to give context to the citation listed. This is paramount because the article in question deals with a highly controversial and divisive topic. I only include a few words which can be found in the citation itself and provide crucial facts necessary in understanding where the information comes from.

The second edit, March 15, 2014, was not even discussed in the DRN and I am truly perplexed as to how Grandmaster could attempt to "enforce" a DRN's conclusion on a topic that was not at all discussed. I merely added the words, "Battle of Khojaly" because that is the event during which the Khojaly tragedy is said to have taken place. This part of Grandmaster's complaint clearly exemplifies his animus towards me.

Grandmaster needs to learn to tolerate differing and/or dissenting opinions instead of attempting to silence them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urartu TH (talk • contribs)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Urartu TH

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

I'm not convinced this has got to the point it's worthy of sanctions. The main argument here seems to be that a user is editing against consensus, but the result at DRN was a lack of consensus. It's true that Urartu TH has been reverting, but there aren't that many reverts, and no more, as far as I can see, than his opponent in the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not actionable based on the reported diffs. "Editing against consensus" does not violate any conduct rule and can't be grounds for sanctions. Aggressive conduct, on the other hand, can be sanctionable (in the sense of WP:BATTLE), but such conduct is not demonstrated in the two reported diffs.

However, it is demonstrated in Urartu TH's statement above, which includes, without evidence, allegations against the complainant such as "harassed by Grandmaster", "anti-Armenian POV" and "shameful attempt at censorship". This violates WP:NPA, WP:AGF and the principles outlined in the Committee's findings in WP:ASPERSIONS. To deter Urartu TH from continuing with such conduct, I am blocking them for 48 hours. Apart from that, I think this request can be closed. Should Urartu TH continue to exhibit a battleground mentality, another enforcement request can be made. Sandstein 09:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PhiChiPsiOmega

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 PhiChiPsiOmega

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions:

PhiChiPsiOmega has engaged in an extended, frivolous discussion in which he asserts that parapsychology is not a pseudoscience, with flimsy references in comparison to those which describe it as a pseudoscience, in violation of WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SOAP:

15:15, 28 February 2014
15:44, 28 February 2014
17:02, 28 February 2014
17:34, 28 February 2014
17:37, 28 February 2014
18:07, 28 February 2014
18:08, 28 February 2014
18:20, 28 February 2014
18:22, 28 February 2014
20:08, 28 February 2014
20:17, 28 February 2014
21:13, 28 February 2014
23:20, 28 February 2014
12:42, 1 March 2014
13:41, 1 March 2014
16:02, 8 March 2014
20:17, 8 March 2014
22:58, 8 March 2014
17:06, 27 February 2014 He tried to alter the parapsychology article to this effect, removing the reference from the previous version and not supplying a source, in violation of WP:VER.

Since being reverted, he has contented himself with interminable talk page posting. See also the AN/I report on this issue, which PhiChiPsiOmega has ironically managed to turn into a constant argument.

Warnings: [36] [37]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

Discussion concerning PhiChiPsiOmega

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 PhiChiPsiOmega

The references are hardly flimsy, but everyone is right -- I'm just pushing everyone's buttons. Let me present my case later when I don't have so much stuff on my plate, and when I've gotten the hang of Wikipedia. OK? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, I have indicated that I will refrain from this behavior until I understand Wikipedia policies better. I'd rather look past this. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning PhiChiPsiOmega

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

I would decline this enforcement request because it does not contain, as requested in the template and instructions, dated diffs of alleged misconduct with a clear explanation of which conduct policy or guideline they allegedly violate. The issue of whether something should be described or not as a pseudoscience in an article is a content issue which the arbitration process cannot address. Sandstein 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[notice] Discretionary sanctions review. Comments welcome on Draft v3

The Arbitration Committee has recently been conducting a review of the discretionary sanctions system. You may wish to comment on the newest (third) draft update to the system, which has just been posted to the review page. Comments are welcome on the review talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 00:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khabboos

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 Khabboos

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smsarmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

15 March 2014 Source falsification and misrepresentation.
11 March 2014 Source misrepresentation/Addition of irrelevant content and then edit warring it into the article (~~[39]~~, [40], [41]). Consider this diff as Diff 2a
11 March 2014 POV editing
15 March 2013 Source misrepresentation

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 14 February 2014 by ErikHaugen (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein I am adding the explanation for each diff below:

For Diff # 1, the sources cited for "President of Pakistan claimed that he must have been sheltered by elements in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and that the Pakistani Government had no hand in it." nowhere says that. Besides this content was added without explaining how it is relevant to the subject of the article. The same is true for "The Pakistani Government eventually, has done a deal with the Taliban to enforce the Sharia in parts of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, because they could not fight the Taliban in that region." that was added in the same set of edits and it nowhere says that the deal was done because Pakistan couldn't fight the Taliban. This diff violates WP:V by source falsification by furthering a POV.

For Diff # 2, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" was added to the article Persecution of Hindus, while through an RFC on the talk page of the same article it was very much clear that there is no consensus to add it and the source didn't described the event as persecution. In the same diff a narration of another incident (about yoga center) was also added, but the sources cited didn't call the burning of the yoga center as "Persecution of Hindus" but Khabboos tried to edit war it into the article.

For Diff # 2a, Again the same article (Persecution of Hindus), where Khabboos added an incident about a Hindu man's killing, but the source no where said that the killing is related to the subject of the article.

For Diff # 3, it is very much clear how Khabboos furthers his POV. And this was done after the discussion on the talk, where he made an appeal that "...include these in this article. Muslims do not live in fear in India and they are hardly persecuted - in fact, they are a pampered lot. Remember, this article could be used by Pakistan to brain-wash people to terrorize India...", besides making similar POV edits [42], [43].

For Diff # 4, Khaboos added "... Pakistan was the worlds 'most active' state sponsor of terrorism including aiding groups which were considered a direct threat to USA." to the article Terrorism in Pakistan, while the source cited said "Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups", completely ignoring that the subject of the article is not "Terrorism by Pakistan". He was reverted but he edit warred here too, reverting it into the article twice ([44], [45]). -- SMS ^Talk 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. -- SMS ^Talk 14:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Khabboos

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 Khabboos

With respect to this edit [46], I copied the matter from Osama bin Laden, along with the references.
With respect to this edit [47], I have cited references, so it doesn't go against the rules.
With respect to this edit [48], I did not restore what I added when it was reverted, because other editors told me to cite references for it (which I could not because of time constraints).
With respect to this edit [49], I copied the matter from State-sponsored terrorism#Pakistan, along with the references.
I haven't even edit warred with Smsarmad and he has not even discussed my edits on the discussion/Talk page of the article. Aren't we supposed to discuss things on the Talk page, then post a Request for comments and then ask for the mediation committee's help before asking for arbitration (that's what an admin told me when I complained about another editor/user)?—Khabboos (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also observed that Smsarmad added complaint no.3 and 4 later. Luckily, I was online and able to reply. If he makes another complaint, please give me the opportunity to reply before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: I never restored the sentence, so I haven't edit warred with you on that sentence, which means I cannot be banned for it. I did not do anything, 'to get past the vote'.—Khabboos (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: I'm logging out now because of other things to do. Please give me a chance to reply to any allegation before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: AcidSnow and you were also warned.—Khabboos (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smsarmad: I did not restore the sentence, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" after the Rfc on the Talk Page.—Khabboos (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddy1

Khabboos had it explained to him/her in February that he/she could not just paste in fake or misrepresented citations - see Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan#Hinduism in Pakistan#Persecution. You will see that he/she was warned on 14 February 2014 about discretionary sanctions at User talk:Khabboos/Archive 1#Discretionary sanctions are applied to articles related to Pakistan.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AcidSnow

This does is not seem to be true since you demanded that I go find citations for them since they are "true statements". Instead, I responded with reasons as to why there is no need for me to do it, but you never responded. AcidSnow (talk)

Edit: Khabbos, nobody said that you were edit warring; these types of edits are not allowed and can still lead you to be sanctioned. I was also merely stating how you constantly play the "novice card" when told to stop your disruptive editing and them demand another user to do the same exact action. AcidSnow (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khabbos has also engaged in forum shopping about the same issue (see here, this is my original ANI report about him were a list a few of them and other problems with this user though almost no admin responded to me). I would give you more diffs on this specific issue, but I don't have the time to do so (maybe later); though there are also other issues that are more problematic. Most of the users that did respond to his request stated that they "oppose" it. Yet, instead of respecting the outcome he went and used sock puppetry (see here for two more, I plan on making an investigation soon) so he can get past the vote. Even after being warned that he was severally risking being banned off Wikipedia he went, instead of responding to it, automatically archived it (he has responded to all other comments on his talk page, but not this?). He would later specifically remove it off his archive, but kept everything else intact. Why would he do that unless he was trying to hid it? I don't see why he is allowed to edit on Wikipedia, let alone these types of articles when he continuously doing the same thing even after being told to stop and being given numerous chances to reform himself. AcidSnow (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Khabboos

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

In my view, diffs 1 and 2 are not actionable because the submitter does not explain, as they are required to, how specifically the edits misrepresent or falsify sources, or constitute edit-warring. Diff 3 is more problematic, especially the parts that read "Moreover, the muslims in India do not live in fear, the way minorities in Pakistan live" and "muslims are pampered as a part of vote Bank politics in India". In addition to the grammatical deficiencies, this is not only unsourced (WP:V) but also it appears intended to make a particular political argument rather than to neutrally inform readers about the variety of opinions that may exist (WP:NPOV). Such content should not be added to articles. If Khabboos does not demonstrate their understanding of this, we should consider a topic ban. Sandstein 16:14, 16 March 2014 (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 349: / Line 349: @@
 ::@AcidSnow: I never restored the sentence, so I haven't edit warred with you on that sentence, which means I cannot be banned for it. I did not do anything, 'to get past the vote'.—[[User:Khabboos|Khabboos]] ([[User talk:Khabboos|talk]]) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 <br><b>Note to administrators:</b> I'm logging out now because of other things to do. Please give me a chance to reply to any allegation before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—[[User:Khabboos|Khabboos]] ([[User talk:Khabboos|talk]]) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
+:::@Toddy1: <Font color=blue>AcidSnow</font> and you were also warned.—[[User:Khabboos|Khabboos]] ([[User talk:Khabboos|talk]]) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
+::::@Smsarmad: I did not restore the sentence, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" after the Rfc on the Talk Page.—[[User:Khabboos|Khabboos]] ([[User talk:Khabboos|talk]]) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Toddy1====

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