Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Result concerning Oncenawhile: what was restored without consensus was an infobox with no map |
|||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*The provision-that-keeps-on-giving strikes again. Looks like it was violated, though. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
*The provision-that-keeps-on-giving strikes again. Looks like it was violated, though. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:*Zero, what was restored without consensus as a ''result'' of the edit was, in effect, an infobox with no map. Subtle, I know. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I would '''block for 48 hours'''. This is a clear breach. Oncenawhile removed an image from the infobox that has been used in the article for a number of years, and replaced it with another image from the article. That action was reverted. The onus was on Oncenawhile to then engage in discussion. Instead he repeated the removal of the image from the infobox. Although he did not restore his preferred image, he still repeated a reverted action (removal of the longstanding image from the infobox) without consensus. Waiting for Oncenawhile to respond, but this looks like a clear breach. Edit warring over longstanding content of an article seems to me like exactly the sort of thing ArbCom had in mind these sanctions preventing. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
*I would '''block for 48 hours'''. This is a clear breach. Oncenawhile removed an image from the infobox that has been used in the article for a number of years, and replaced it with another image from the article. That action was reverted. The onus was on Oncenawhile to then engage in discussion. Instead he repeated the removal of the image from the infobox. Although he did not restore his preferred image, he still repeated a reverted action (removal of the longstanding image from the infobox) without consensus. Waiting for Oncenawhile to respond, but this looks like a clear breach. Edit warring over longstanding content of an article seems to me like exactly the sort of thing ArbCom had in mind these sanctions preventing. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:36, 21 March 2017
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Capriaf
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Capriaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- 48 hour block for violation of 1RR/consensus required on United States presidential election, 2020
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Statement by Capriaf
1RR/consensus required restriction on the page is meant to prevent vandalism. I was making a genuine edit and I was taking into consideration the sources that were recommended by the people who reverted my edits. They removed it and blocked me for 48 hours.
Copied from their talk page per email request. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Ks0stm
Original edit, revert one, DS notification, revert two. I am open to reconsidering the block if others think that it should be lifted due to the edit being improved with each re-addition and being subsequently accepted after the second revert; however, I think at face value it was a violation of the 1RR/consensus required restriction and that they should have taken to the talk page to discuss improvements to the edit, rather than re-instating the material and litigating over the sourcing via reverts. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Capriaf
Result of the appeal by Capriaf
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- "1RR/consensus required restriction on the page is meant to prevent vandalism" is totally untrue; the sanctions are to prevent precisely the situation which appears to have arisen here. Capriaf was notified of the "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged" sanction, blanked them thus confirming they were aware of the notification, and immediately restored the disputed content; meanwhile, I'm noting a complete absence of Capriaf's name from Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. This is the system working exactly as intended, although iff Capriaf undertakes not to restore the disputed content without a consensus on the talkpage I wouldn't be averse to unblocking early. ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Decline - Block looks consistent with the relevant DS to me, and isn't over the top in length. I believe it should stand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ach, this is one of those edge cases. The user was clearly trying to improve the edit with the subsequent revert; yes, technically they were in violation but it appears they understand what the problem is - agree with Iridescent, if they agree not to restore the material then an unblock is fine and it appears that the blocking admin agrees. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Would decline. The block for 1RR was technically justified even if the editor might have had good intentions. Since the 48-hour block has expired, the appeal has no further urgency. I would close this as declined without waiting for any further negotiation either with the user or the blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- If there are no more comments, I am planning to close this as declined. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Decline. This was a valid block. It perhaps was on the severe side, but well within Ks0stm's discretion. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Oncenawhile
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 Oncenawhile
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Oncenawhile (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :
Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 21 March 2017 Restoring of reverted edit without a consensus on talk page.
- 19 Martch 2017 WP:CANVASS another user similar to his POV in middle of disagreement.
@Zero He has pinged me only becouse I reverted him.Its not like I was unaware of Oncenawhile edits--Shrike (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC) @Zero In two cases the map was removed.Hence it considered restoring a reverted edit.--Shrike (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 April 2016 [1]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- As far as I read the talk page [2] at the moment of the revert there was no consensus to remove the map once again after I restored it [3]
- The user pinged another user with similar POV When we started discuss the proper name of the article.Though he pinged it in another thread it was obvious that he will support Onceawhile POV and that what he did [4]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Oncenawhile
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 Oncenawhile
Statement by Zero0000
The claim of CANVASSing is ridiculous. Oncenawhile asked a resourceful editor a reasonable question about maps and sources before there was any discussion of maps or any edits involving maps to the article. The discussion which was actually in progress started with Oncenawhile pinging the complainant! Zerotalk 12:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the other charge, note that Once didn't actually restore a reverted edit. Once's original edit replaced one map A in the infobox by another map B. Shrike reverted the edit, putting map A back, then Once removed the map (leaving no maps). The result of Once's second edit is different from the result of the first. It is an important difference because (as you can see by reading Shrike's talk page comments) Shrike doesn't believe map B satisfies NPOV. If Once restored map B that would be a violation, but Once did not restore map B. So this does not match the letter of the rule. Admins can consider whether it matches the spirit; I'm dubious. Zerotalk 12:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Drsmoo
To start with, I'm not involved with this current dispute, but I am currently involved in a different dispute here involving both Oncenawhile and Shrike in which Oncenawhile continues to disregard consensus. This includes referring to my contributions as "bullshit", referring to another editor as "close minded" while calling Shrike "a fraud" who "should be ashamed." (Note that Oncenawhile struck this comment over a month later after he falsely claimed that Shrike was somehow on his side of the dispute). Despite consensus having been established months ago, including on the reliable sources noticeboard, and despite multiple editors excoriating him for his uncivil edits, Oncenawhile has continued to revert against consensus, waiting weeks between edits before popping up and reverting, in a way that appears to be designed to be as disruptive as possible. He stated in response to the clear consensus that "wikipedia is not about votes" and that he has no intention to abide by it. Even coming onto my talk page last night to state that he will continue until he gets an answer to his "challenge". Not to mention him coming onto my talk page to try to troll me by childishly comparing my edits to Milli Vanilli. He is a disruptive, uncivil editor who has no respect for Wikipedia or consensus-based editing. He tries to bully other users through personal attacks and disruptive editing and his behavior should not be tolerated. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Result concerning Oncenawhile
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The provision-that-keeps-on-giving strikes again. Looks like it was violated, though. El_C 09:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Zero, what was restored without consensus as a result of the edit was, in effect, an infobox with no map. Subtle, I know. El_C 13:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would block for 48 hours. This is a clear breach. Oncenawhile removed an image from the infobox that has been used in the article for a number of years, and replaced it with another image from the article. That action was reverted. The onus was on Oncenawhile to then engage in discussion. Instead he repeated the removal of the image from the infobox. Although he did not restore his preferred image, he still repeated a reverted action (removal of the longstanding image from the infobox) without consensus. Waiting for Oncenawhile to respond, but this looks like a clear breach. Edit warring over longstanding content of an article seems to me like exactly the sort of thing ArbCom had in mind these sanctions preventing. WJBscribe (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)