Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:20, 22 June 2017

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

Ryanfoster99

Blocked one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 16 June 2017 (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 Ryanfoster99

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ryanfoster99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS

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

June 15, 2017 Added original research to Presidency of Donald Trump

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See users talk page

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning Ryanfoster99

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 Ryanfoster99

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ryanfoster99

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

I'm confused. The claims made in the edit are completely consistent with what the sources are claiming in the references used in that diff. Whether or not it should be included would be a matter of editorial discretion, something for the talk page of the article, but I'm confused as to how this is a violation of the Arb restrictions, or how it is original research. Maybe I'm missing something, so please explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, he is under a topic ban and he violated that. Jeez MrX, ya gotta help us out. It looked like the complaint was original research, not a topic ban violation. Blocked one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat

Blocked for two weeks and User:FreeatlastChitchat/sandbox deleted. GoldenRing (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2017 (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 FreeatlastChitchat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan : Violation of indefinite topic ban on Pakistan, India, Afghanistan.[2][3] Even after few blocks and final warning last month[4]

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: [5] blocked before after ARE.

Indefinite topic ban on Pakistan, India, Afghanistan.[6]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [7]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear violation of topic ban. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [8]

Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

Statement by Rhoark

Some refs added to a sandbox page? seriously? Rhoark (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

Have to agree here with Dennis Brown and GoldenRing. Wouldn't normally think so for sandbox, but after the warning given by Lord Roem, makes sense in this particular case.

Suggestion: Unless you want to talk with the user and make an allowance per {{2nd chance}}, to edit within userspace for express purpose of suggested improvements to articles for trial period, perhaps with a mentor or two. Sagecandor (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphim System

Can someone explain how adding refs to a sandbox page is disruptive? It seems a little unhealthy to file an AE complaint over something like this. Can the editor who filed the complaint explain why he felt it was necessary? Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Thanks. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

Unambiguous violation. If this was the first problem since the topic ban was put into place, I could see fit to just warn, however, Lord Roem gave a very clear warning just a month ago.[9]. I'm thinking a block is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He was blocked a week for the initial problem, although that was a year ago. I think anything in the 1 week to 1 month range is acceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To those asking, when someone is topic banned, that means all pages on Wikipedia, period. Articles, talk pages, templates, categories, and of course user space. For the purpose of enforcement, their own sandbox is hardly different than their user page or user talk page. If someone has a short term ban and hasn't violated it before, then it is typically easier to let them off with a warning. That isn't the case here. FreeatlastChitchat is topic banned for an indefinite period of time, meaning it is very possible they will NEVER be able to edit that topic again. There are two goals with a topic ban: 1. To remove that editor from any editing in any way that approaches a particular topic. (this is for the benefit of all other editors, so they may edit in peace) 2. Allow them to edit everything else, with the goal of eventually demonstrating that the tban is no longer needed. Editors that violate it with stuff like this [10] usually get warned, and that is exactly what happened, so he has already been given a length of rope, barely a month ago. The AE discussion a month ago [11] was closed as stale, but it showed clear violations. In short, GoldenRing expresses it properly when he says this is an editor who hasn't got the message to stay away from the topic. When enforcing at AE, we often look at more than just the diffs on the page and instead look at patterns, and in this case, there is one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Yes, it's in user space, yes it's in a sandbox. This is still clearly an editor who hasn't got the message to stay away from the topic. A week? GoldenRing (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though mere editing of a sandbox might seem unimportant, the problem has been going on for a long time. If Freeatlastchitchat is sincerely going to stay out of the ARBIPA topic area, what does he need a sandbox about Pakistan for? He won't be able to use it. Endorse the proposed one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a one week block for the obvious violation. I also think the sandbox should be deleted as an AE action. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

Withdrawn by the submitter, Davidbena. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: nableezy (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/Enforcement#Nableezy :

(supervised editing)

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

[12] On 26 December 2016, WP:ARCA ratified a new amendment affecting all articles broadly construed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, making all newly deleted content subject to consensus before it can be restored. But, as you can see by my edit made on 18 June 2017, which brought down a more complete picture of disturbances in Urif, as reported by the local media, the editor in question deliberately caused valid sources to be deleted, those sources which showed that, by one account, no Israeli had set fire to a field, and that it had been set ablaze by somebody else, perhaps even unintentionally. In other words, he maliciously construes the facts, or at least altered what was clearly "balanced" reporting, to make Israelis appear as the sole culprits, and with the full knowledge that once these changes have been made, they cannot be restored without consensus. In short, the editor in question has infringed upon the policy WP:Gaming the system. It is my view that discretionary sanctions should be taken against this phenomenon, to assure that we continue to maintain a basis of cordial collaborative editing, and that he and others might take heed not to abuse the system in the future.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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 14 June 2017. As shown by Nableezy's statement, he is well-aware of Wikipedia's policy of not "Gaming the system," which he, himself, is guilty of doing.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Actually, I'm kind of new at this. Never before submitted a WP:AE. Nevertheless, I have since added the requested disciplinary measures to be taken, if administrators should think that our co-editor was actually "Gaming the system."Davidbena (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it were only to read this, it was worth submitting this WP:AE, as I had no idea that "consensus" had been dropped. I am much relieved. Now, the rest involves "burden of proof" or WP:ONUS. I appreciate your taking the time to show me this.Davidbena (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry. As I said, I'm new at this. Anyway, for me the issue is resolved. My worries were unfounded.Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

Discussion concerning nableezy

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 nableezy

Statement by Kingsindian

The "consensus required" provision has been dropped in a more recent ARCA. The normal rules about WP:ONUS and edit-warring etc. still apply.

In any case, consensus is usually achieved on the talk page, not at AE. I see no attempt at a talk page discussion. If you feel the earlier phrasing was better, create a section on the talkpage and make your argument there. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

(edit conflict) I recommend dismissing this complaint, perhaps with a warning to the complainant. He fails to cite a sanction or remedy he would like enforced, and he doesn't know the difference between a policy and a guideline. I don't see any problem with the diff he cites -- replacing a POV-pushing passive-voice account with one that uses the active voice to place blame where, according to the reliable sources, it belongs. "There was a struggle between X and Y, and a fire erupted" is almost always inferior to "X attacked Y and set fire to his fields" if that's what the sources say. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions appears blank. Complaint gives one (1) diff. Probably not enough prior steps of dispute resolution taken here yet. Maybe try WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment. Sagecandor (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning nableezy

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

Kingsindian and MShabazz obviously have a good bead on this. After reading the diffs and sources, it seems clear this is a legitimate content dispute. Both versions have reliable sources, so this is an editorial matter, not a policy violation issue. Dispute resolution has not been attempted but should so a consensus can be reached. I recommend dismissal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Davidbena, please only put comments in your own section. I've moved your two comments to that area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who may be wondering what this is about, it seems to be about the Husan article. Anyway, there is nothing more to resolve, so the report should be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls

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

Request concerning SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29, requesting:

Interaction ban
Indefinite block for continuing same exact behavior after expiration of prior six (6) month block. [14]
NOTE about Interaction ban: Trouble with one-user-interaction-ban is user has history of WIKIHOUNDING against multiple editors and admins.
- Examples: NuclearWarfare after getting sanctioned [15] [16] [17], and Neutrality [18], and myself [19] [20].

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

Summary: Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem, and (self-admitted) WP:WIKIHOUNDING. [21] [22]

20 June 2017 - Block expires after blocked six (6) months for Disruptive editing and Wikihounding by Dennis Brown — block expired two (2) days ago. [23]
00:11, 21 June 2017 - As noted, below, by Timothyjosephwood, casting WP:ASPERSIONS about me without even notifying me. Admits to working on unfounded "story" about me based solely on my high-quality new article creations.
11:56, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls shows up at page BullRangifer acknowledged that I had greatly improved, Bibliography of Donald Trump [24]. User has never edited this page, prior to my improvement work on it [25].
13:06, 22 June 2017 - Same pattern as noted in prior AE report [26] -- WP:NPA, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on talk page of article, disrupting formal dispute resolution RFC with irrelevant commentary about one individual editor: "Given the recent creations of categories" -- user links to categories I created. Comments about new articles I created. Nothing to do with the ongoing RFC about a different issue. Uses an ongoing RFC dispute resolution process to disrupt and inject commentary about one single editor.
13:46, 22 June 2017 -- Again, same behavior. Separate comment, same talk page, same casting WP:ASPERSIONS, irrelevant comment about new articles I've created recently. "Congratulations on the 18 book reviews you've added in the last 20 days (430K)." User seemingly has taken the time to add up all the kilobytes and calculate how much content was generated from my new article creation work. Sarcastic. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Same exact behavior as prior block.
14:30, 22 June 2017 - Again at Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump - Sarcastic. Irrelevant commentary focusing on one individual editor. User takes time to post huge tabulated index of my new article creation work. [27]. Removed by Salvidrim! with this page is for discussion of improvements to Bibliography of Donald Trump, not for listing other contributions of other editors
15:10, 22 June 2017 -- SashiRolls admits: "I have indeed decided to follow his contributions to the encylopedia." Admits his edits to page Bibliography of Donald Trump, after I had greatly improved the page, was his, "first ever intervention on a Trump page unless I'm mistaken". Note that his "table" uses the word "below" 7 times. He appears to have copied this data from an off-wiki attack harassment site.
16:39, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls admits to "sifting through the diffs" spending an inordinate amount of time going through my edits. SashiRolls seems unable to comprehend working on a new article in a text file naturally means taking more than "10 minutes to prepare". SashiRolls says, "I have not sought to identify anyone working through the Sagecandor account as a RW person." and yet he has harassed me offsite including in at least three (3) separate websites including apparently his own personal website where he created an entire harassment page about me.
16:58, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls changes header level names at Arbitration Enforcement to say "Defendant" and refers disparagingly to me as "Prosecutor" and "special prosecutor". Header level removed by Floquenbeam at DIFF.

Prior behavior with multiple editors

September 2016 - Topic banned by NuclearWarfare, then goes and WIKIHOUNDS admin NuclearWarfare as noted at [28] and [29]
Admin Neutrality prior exasperation with the WIKIHOUNDING: SashiRolls: I've basically tried to avoid interacting with you, given your past conduct, but you continue to draw my name into your constantly grievance-laden posts. The fact that you bear these incredible grudges and follow editors around is extremely off-putting. [30]
Note that user has previously admitted the WIKIHOUNDING with comment: Yes, I am keeping an eye on you from afar [31]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

19:28, 3 September 2016 Topic ban from politics related topic on a living person by NuclearWarfare.
21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.
December 2016 - blocked by Dennis Brown for six (6) months for Disruptive editing and Wikihounding after AE report with consensus from admins Laser brain DIFF, Peacemaker67 DIFF, and Timotheus Canens DIFF.

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

12:59, 30 August 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by MrX.
16:08, 6 November 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by Doug Weller.
19:38, 14 December 2016 Reminder by Jytdog about American Politics 2. Specifically by engaging in personal attacks through use of ad hominem.
21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.
December 2016 - block notice from Dennis Brown.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The comments made by Power~enwiki are themselves entirely in bad-faith. Case in point my copyedits were just that: copyedits. I was adding links to another Wikipedia article which I had greatly improved recently: [32] [33]. To suggest any other intention on my part than simply adding local links within Wikipedia itself is the very definition of assuming bad faith by Power~enwiki. The ANI thread started by Power~enwiki was closed without incident by admin Black Kite DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by SashiRolls

I agree that after having been accused of WP:WIKIHOUNDING without evidence, and having noticed that Sage accuses a lot of people of this, I have indeed decided to follow his contributions to the encyclopedia. I would remind Salvidrim! that linking off-wiki is frowned upon based on WP:LINKLOVE. This behavioral guideline contains the root "harass" 26 times and the word "critic" once (as legitimate "critique" contained in a table heading).

In no way do I think my behavior at Bibliography of Donald Trump or at Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump (my first ever intervention on a Trump page unless I'm mistaken) wer inappropriate. Wikipedia users who are readers far outnumber Wikipedia contributors. The reader should always be kept in mind. It is therefore important to make readers aware of who the authors of many of the book review entries mentioned on the page are:

Disinformation: 2 June 2017 | history | 16K | 27K | (DYK nomination), self-nominated it for GA (awaiting review)
The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: 3 June 2017 | history | 18K | 18K
Dezinformatsia: 3 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (review pending)
The Case for Impeachment: 5 June 2017 | history | 28K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA, which it failed.
The Plot to Hack America: 7 June 2017 | history | 26K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA (review not yet undertaken), discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
Defeating ISIS: 8 June 2017 | history | 25K | 24K | AFD nomination, failed/withdrawn from GA, discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
Final Report of the Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel: 10 Jun 2017 | history | 28K | 29K |
The Terrorists of Iraq: 9 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
An End to al-Qaeda: 9 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
Terrorist Recognition Handbook: 10 June 2017| history | 22K | 22K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
Trump: The Kremlin Connection: 11 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K
Think Big and Kick Ass: 13 June 2017 | history | 38K | 38K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
Why You Want to be Rich: 14 June 2017 | history | 20K | 22K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
Midas Touch: 15 June 2017 | history | 23K | 24K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
Insane Clown President: 16 June 2017 | history | 30K | 30K | DYK nomination
Time to Get Tough: 17 June 2017 | history | 31K | 30K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review)
Trump Tower: A Novel: 20 June 2017 | history | 18K | 21K | DYK nomination, indefinite full move protect request
Trump 101: 22 June 2017 | history | 23K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), DYK nomination

I would suggest that administrators kindly but forcefully suggest Sagecandor employ their skills on topics other than US-Russian relations and Donald Trump, as they have already done their work here. As for an I-Ban, if it is two-way, no problem. I'm not looking for conflict with Sagecandor. I want the community to be aware of what they are doing. SashiRolls (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing creepy about sifting through the diffs that are publicly available by design in order to make our readers aware of "on whose authority" our articles have been compiled. There is absolutely nothing personal in the list above. I have not called it creepy that each book review entry took about 10 minutes to prepare and occupied a tiny part of a very long day editing elsewhere. I have not sought to identify anyone working through the Sagecandor account as a RW person. They are obviously very motivated having created all sorts of categories critical of DT (Music, Books, Films, Works, Parodies) as I mentioned on the talk page.

An I-Ban has the effect of preventing a reasonably good copy-editor from paring the text down to size a bit, but that's OK. I'm not very interested in Donald Trump.

What is creepy: TimothyJosephWood's satirical outing of me in December. (A schoolyard play on my real name + that of my mother) sort of a "we know who you are" type edit". I will be happy to provide evidence to Arbcom should that be necessary, but I think we need to move on. I did not start this AE drama; Prosecutor Sagecandor did. (once again: they have appeared in 17 AE cases now in their 80 days in the project, 7 as special prosecutor.) Though they have been taken to ANI several times, I've never sought to prosecute them. (Though on the page in question Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump, they are guilty of restoring contested content without consensus, though I gather that rule has been recently overruled.) SashiRolls (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is also creepy: Statements with no evidence from (very) involved editors... such as several below, including Neutrality full diff corresponding to what he added from last year, VM, TJW, Objective 3000 (ps: the case is about my right to assemble publicly available diffs to show our readers who has authored encyclopedic entries and categories of entries, nothing more. If it gets to be a big thing I'll add more evidence of astroturfing). With regard to being here to build an encyclopedia my most recent contribution was a translation to French of an English article I added to English Wikipedia. It involves a trade union in Haiti. There is enough time since the events involved that it is WP:NOTNEWS. The overwhelming emphasis of a lot of editors on news, especially partisan issues, is unfortunate. SashiRolls (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki I encourage you to check out the previous cases so you'll be able to determine whether they too were mostly puffery or not. In any case, time has been served for those alleged sins (I was not permitted to appeal the 6-month block, in fact)... I was denied all talk-page access for 6 months, which suggests to me hat Wikipedia prefers that all healthy criticism occur off-wiki. Of course if we prefer having power-users who call themselves contributors but others (like you) as depersonalized "users", well that's the way the psy-ops work these days...

A couple AfDs Sagecandor initiated for two books in February 2017, to give you an idea of how this all got started:
- Snakes in Suits | result: keep (6-0)
- Psychopathy in the workplace | result: keep (5-0)

An example of how links to SC's book reviews have been included willy-nilly on pages that are completely unrelated: here is an example of such astro-turfing on Tulsi Gabbard. I gather it was one of a dozen such edits. I mention this because the contributor involved was active in both of the delete discussions above. SashiRolls (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer

This is an especially egregious demonstration of NOTHERE. Support sanctions. SashiRolls has no right to suggest another editor change editing areas. Subject experts are welcome here, and if an editor adds good content, without creating disruption, then they are welcome to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after reading the link provided below, I support an INDEF from Wikipedia. Creepy indeed! -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timothyjosephwood

Well... I'm not going to have any hurt feelings over an indef. The above is just creepy AF, and this is starting to get into actual real life stalking. If there's a compelling reason to keep Sashi around I'm not seeing it... not now... all of 48 hours after their block expired. The time other editors have spent on this exact shit right here outweighs their positive contributions tenfold. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyJosephWood's satirical outing of me in December. ...Wut? I'm sure this will be good. TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one am anxiously awaiting finding out how I managed to figure out their real name, plus that of their mother, plus somehow gave enough of a damn to go to all that trouble. Because... you know... I may need to have myself evaluated to see if I had a major stroke some time in December. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I did the last block and not technically involved but think it best that other eyes review. For the record, the last block was for 6 months, had a strong consensus at WP:AE, and was done as a NON-Arb Enforcement block. It can be found here. There was some confusion on his talk page about whether it was an AE block or not, but it absolutely was a traditional block, just done at AE because it seemed unnecessary to move the case to a new venue once it has already started. As for the merits herein, I have no comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

@GoldenRing: Topic ban can be indefinie and also an indefinite AE block can be made too, but this kind of block can be overturned by any admin after 1 year and 1 second, but not before 1 year. Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutrality

I'll keep this short. I am involved as to SashiRolls. Suffice it to say this user has demonstrated that he or she is not here to build an encyclopedia, has had multiple opportunities to change behavior, and has refused to do so. My comment here is illustrative of what we are looking at here.

I support an indefinite ban. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Power~enwiki

I agree that SashiRolls made several edits out of line immediately after a 6-month ban, and should probably be blocked completely. I disagree strongly with an interaction-ban.

I have had disputes with Sagecandor in the past (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Sagecandor). I find these "Hounding" accusations misguided. Sagecandor has edited or created almost all the Donald Trump-related book pages. An interaction ban is inappropriate due to it being equivalent to a topic-ban, possibly with political implications.

Sagecandor's case for an IBAN is full of puffery. He is exceedingly quick to file unnecessary [34] escalations in response to any comments [35] . Sagecandor also recently made a series of trivial edits [36] in quick succession [37], behavior I often take suspiciously. Some of this is Sagecandor's tendency to make bold statements and later word them more cautiously. [38].

This request was appropriate, but the forum may not have been. I am worried that Sagecandor may continue his trend of escalating disagreements more often than is necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC) (amended Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Stalking and harassing editors - which is what we definitely have here - isn't just IBAN worthy, it's sufficient for an indef ban, especially since SashiRolls appears to have no intention of stopping. IBAN will just result in more drama as people start to try to Wiki-lawyer it or tiptoe on the edges of it just enough to be irritating but observing "the letter" of it. You can look forward to numerous future WP:AE request if you do just an IBAN. Furthermore, as evidenced by other users' comments, SashiRolls' problematic behavior isn't limited to just their interactions with Sagecandor - it's basically one big WP:NOTHERE which also makes an indef ban more appropriate. Enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

There seems to be a pattern in SashiRoll’s reactions to sanctions, requested and applied. It’s always about other editors. This request is supposed to be about SashiRolls. But, the response was a long list of articles by the filer. Changing Statement by to Defendant’s and using the word prosecutor illustrates SashiRoll’s attitude toward any corrective action. Six months doesn’t seem to have been enough time for an attitude change, even after a ban from their own Talk Page. Objective3000 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

It boggles my mind that we are back here so quickly after the previous block expired. I agree with all the other editors who say that this is in NOTHERE territory, something that I have been seeing since a long time ago with this user. I think that an IBAN will just mean that we will be back here again, very soon. It's not enough. There is no reason that I know of why AE cannot consider an indefinite block, and an enacting administrator could issue it. Please do not kick the can down the road. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SashiRolls

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

Sashirolls went right back to hounding Sagecandor hours after his latest block expires, (and has been involved in off-wiki harassment I can't link to). I absolutely support an immediate IBAN between Sagecandor and Sashirolls, at the very least. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor requests an IBAN, and SashiRolls says he's fine with it, so I suggest we quick-close this AE with an enforceable IBAN for today. It may not solve the entirety of issues but it's an immediate solution to an immediate problem. Small steps and all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tending to agree that this user is not a net positive to the encyclopaedia and should just be indeffed - but that can't be done as an AE action. I guess an admin could do it under their ordinary discretion, or otherwise this should probably go to WP:AN for community discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2017 (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 288: / Line 288: @@
 ** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Snakes_in_Suits Snakes in Suits] | result: keep (6-0)
 ** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace Psychopathy in the workplace] | result: keep (5-0)
+An example of how links to SC's book reviews have been included willy-nilly on pages that are completely unrelated:  here is an example of such astro-turfing on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&type=revision&diff=784896961&oldid=784288422 Tulsi Gabbard].  I gather it was one of a dozen such edits. I mention this because the contributor involved was active in both of  the delete discussions above. [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 21:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 ====Statement by BullRangifer====

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