Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) →User:ScratchMarshal: new section |
|||
Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
*Closing as withdrawn since no other admins seem to be interested in this and arbitrators at ARCA seem to agree that an individual notification is necessary. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
*Closing as withdrawn since no other admins seem to be interested in this and arbitrators at ARCA seem to agree that an individual notification is necessary. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== [[User:ScratchMarshal]] == |
|||
==ScratchMarshall== |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning ScratchMarshall=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|K.e.coffman}} 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|ScratchMarshall}}<p>{{ds/log|ScratchMarshall}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2]] : |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&type=revision&diff=817511202&oldid=817498505] At 21:47, editor inserted contentious material about a recently living person against '''Consensus required''' clause on the Talk page. Several editors had previously objected to this material [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnite_the_Right_rally&type=revision&diff=817506831&oldid=817506676] at 21:14; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnite_the_Right_rally&type=revision&diff=817499023&oldid=817487157] at 20:05, etc. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&type=revision&diff=817497032&oldid=817496708] This revert appears to violate '''1RR''' clause, as it's in addition to the edit above that the editor knew was contentious. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
The editor was alerted in August 2017 about the DS sanctions on the same article here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScratchMarshall&type=revision&diff=797772479&oldid=796258874].--[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning ScratchMarshall=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by ScratchMarshall==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning ScratchMarshall=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- 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. --> |
|||
* |
Revision as of 22:31, 28 December 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}}.
|
KA$HMIR
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning KA$HMIR
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- KA$HMIR (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 enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2:
A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 17:11, 19 December 2017 1st revert
- 17:19, 19 December 2017 2nd revert
- 17:26, 19 December 2017 3rd revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Blocked indefinitely on 19 October 2017 by Alex Shih (talk · contribs) for not disclosing his "old account". Still hasn't declared it publicly presumably to avoid scrutiny.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [1]
- See also Talk:Kashmir conflict#Sanctions_reminder
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a clear violation of the editing sanctions placed on this page by this WP:SPA. And I'd add that this is not the first time that this guy has violated those sanctions.[2][3] —MBL Talk 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NadirAli: If you think that those "stray IPs" are someone's sock, then file an WP:SPI. Throwing around groundless accusation of socking against established editors is not acceptable. Please watch your step. —MBL Talk 08:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- And I think it's worth mentioning that NadirAli was warned "to focus on content, not nationality" last month (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive221#NadirAli), yet he has continued to make comments like, "The older text whose value Hindu POV pushers want to dilute.."[4], "There is a case here that Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors through these frivolous reports and when they fail they start to IP sock.."[5] Surely some administrative action is warranted here. —MBL Talk 08:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark and Lankiveil: I believe that KA$HMIR is in clear violation of WP:CLEANSTART and WP:SCRUTINY policies and therefore he should be topic banned or blocked. This makes it clear that Fahaddar65 (talk · contribs) is KA$HMIR's former account. KA$HMIR has used his former account as recently as December, 10.[6]
- KA$HMIR was registered on 23 September 2017, by this time he had already received multiple warnings, and an ARBIPA sanctions notice on his former account's talk page. He has engaged in similar disruptive editing with his new account and has received multiple warnings on his talk page too. KA$HMIR has also used his former account to make POV edits on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Pakistan, History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, History of Sindh, and for restoring edits of a disruptive sock, Towns Hill (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_10 for diffs.
- On Dhar (surname) Fahaddar65 removed "
mostly in India
" (which was sourced) and used Wikipedia as a source.[7] Fahaddar65 also made POV edit on Ethnic groups in Pakistan,[8] (that also violated WP:V, WP:OR, among other policies) similar to those made by KA$HMIR,[9][10][11][12] for which he received a yet another Level 3 warning on his talk page.[13] - Dishonest editors like KA$HMIR shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. —MBL Talk 12:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning KA$HMIR
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by (KA$HMIR)
Well I will make my simple case here but will abide by whatever is the board's final decision, whatever it will be, though this looks like a bad faith report. As far as I know regentspark [removed] the 1RR restriction from all Kashmir Conflict articles, if this is indeed one of them. Besides, there is an exemption from 3RR to remove content which is copyright and or added by blocked users, as anyone can see, I consistently removed the page's content on the basis that it has clear copyright violations which other users Josephus and Danish agree with me on. There is also a talkpage discussion ongoing and I am still compiling the evidence for those users who had requested it. Also a lot, if not most, of the article's content was written by a blocked sockmaster TylerDurden, who was recently caught socking again.
- Apologies if I have unwittingly violated any sanction. Will be extra careful in future. KA$HMIR (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: as an example see this sentence in the first section's first paragraph.
" From then on, Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of State troops
It's source said this
"But from this time onwards Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of J&K State troops."
This is very closely paraphrased. There are more examples especially in the sentences which cite Saraf's Kashmiris road to freedom Volume 2 and other obscure primary sources which are not available online. Overall the wording in the article differs little from the sources.
This [15] also shows the article with a 60%+ similarity. Article needs to be rewritten from scratch. We can not trust a sockmaster TylerDurden to have written this article properly. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by WBG
His being a SPA and Alex's block are not much of a problem at their respective individual merits. Functionary Yunshui knows his alt-accs and AFAIK, the use of such accounts are permitted by our legit-socks criterion.Obviously, cases of 3RR and/or violation of ArbCom decisions needs to be looked at, though! Winged BladesGodric 04:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwiki
A link to the copyvio tool: [16]. The top two matches are caused by properly-cited blockquotes. I don't see anything that justifies blanking the entire article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Capitals00
But problem remains that KA$HMIR is edit warring against consensus on multiple articles and often engaged in WP:BLUDGEONING. At least 3 articles (Violence against women during the partition of India, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Kashmir conflict) have been provided extended protection because of his edit warring. Capitals00 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comments of Mblaze needs serious consideration. Despite the siteban+topicban by Arbitration Committee,[17] recent warning by BU Rob13, NadirAli continues to attack editors by commenting on race/nationalities by saying "Hindu POV pushers,"[18] "Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors"[19] and now "I am referring to Indians involved".[20] When other editors get topic banned for such attitude, there should be no exception for an all-time disruptive editor like NadirAli. Capitals00 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Mblaze is right about KA$HMIR that the account is suspicious and should be blocked since it is frequently engaging in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. You are not allowed to continue edit wars and disruption that you did with your previous account. Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3
The edit warring that occurred at the 1947 Poonch Rebellion is the most shocking I have seen in my three years of editing, not only for the spuriousness of the rationale but also the bombast with which it was carried out. Note the edit summaries:
- There were massive copyright violations in the article's old version. Admins please suppress [21]
- stop restoring copyvio else it could lead to you getting a block [22]
- whole article is copied from the sources used [23]
Yet, when I quizzed it on the talk page, no evidence was forthcoming. KA$HMIR was certainly aware of the edit restrictions placed on Kashmir conflict articles because RegentsPark recently reminded every one of their existence. This is the apex of all the tendentiousness that the user has been displaying ever since he came on board. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Let us also note the obvious Tag teaming that has occurred in this edit war. These are the first ever edits by any of these editors on this page. Pure coincidence? But such coincidences are now occurring with increasing frequency all over the India-Pakistan space: Talk:Violence against women during the Partition of India, Talk:Annexation of Junagadh etc. At Talk:Kashmir conflict, a group of editors have repeated each other's RfC comments [24]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, after five days of continuous prodding, user KA$HMIR was able to produce one sentence of poor phrasing in a Background section, which is not particularly egregious and in no way justifies blanking an entire article. This is clearly shoot-first-and-think-later battleground editing, precisely what the ARBIPA sanctions are meant to control. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by User:EdJohnston
For clarity, the current restrictions in effect for this article (from WP:DSLOG) appear to be:
Kashmir conflict and all articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir (initially posted here. Modified Sept 2016: 1RR restriction removed and a first revert does not need to be explained on the talk page.):
A 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.- A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
- A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.
- An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.
- --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Quoted from DSLOG by EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Dilpa kaur
Looks like a bad faith report by a user who has been obsessed with maligning this user through hook or crook. I guess this request is another frustrated attempt after previous failures to rid the encyclopedia of this constructive editor. Previously MBlaze Lightning joyously joined in a ridiculous SPI against KA$HMIR, only to be confronted with the establishment of KA$HMIR's innocence. He also brought him up in a spurious ANI case which was based on such weak evidence (such as MBlaze' Lightnings mixup of my IP address and Danish Mehraj's) that even MBlaze Lightning had to withdraw it. The encyclopedia has also been recently hit by malicious IPs [25] [26], located in different Indian cities,[27] [28] looking to malign this user as a sockpuppet (the different locations of these obvious IP socks suggest collaboration and their knowledge of old SPIs indicate that these are older users IP socking to harass without getting their accounts sanctioned). I suspect a link between these reports and the malicious IPs who are obviously not new strays but old Indian editors who have a beef with KA$HMIR and Owais Khursheed and are IP socking to harass the Kashmiri editors.
Overall this request is nothing more than the latest attempt to get rid of another good user who is a headache for the POV pushers. 223.225.246.200 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by NadirAli
I'll have to agree with Dilpa here. The frequency with which these reports are getting filed show desperation that some of the mud flung will stick. Mar4d previously expressed the same concern in another frivolous AE request, that time against me, about Kautilya3 desperately trying to get rid of editors with another frame of mind. Since this looks like KA$HMIR's first mistake I would advise to go easy on him. We can all rest in peace that Yunshui has confirmed that KA$HMIR was not under any sanctions on their previous account. So a warning should suffice this time. As far as copyvio is concerned I am more concerned at the speed with which this is being used as a reason by not just KA$HMIR but several editors to delete content which no one can check afterwards was really copyvio or not, especially when the users getting the diffs suppressed have themselves restored copyvio content.
Instead I call for a WP:BOOMERANG. The evidence Dilpa has shown has startled me. It is just not possible that stray IPs are able to link to old SPIs. There is a case here that Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors through these frivolous reports and when they fail they start to IP sock to frame these responsible users for sockpuppetry.
The messages left by these IPs are quite telling.
KA$HMIR - about me - Am an old user (Owais Khurseed) :D I hope indians you have not forgotten me am still doing edits for my friends TalhaZubair Butt. ha ha Indians can never catch me. #gayhind
To Indians: User:KA$HMIR is me - ha ha - am doing edits for my friends Talha Zubair Butt a k a User:Towns Hill. Me and my friends has dozens of wikipedia. accounts cunning Indian Kautilya can never catch . HA H A HA Kashmir Banega Pakistan. I N S H A L L A H
The case of collaboration is quite strong, not least because of the different IP locations within India of the users messaging with the same motive. I just recently expressed my concern at how some editors with no contributions to articles are suddenly arriving on the articles' talkpages as if they were requested by an invisible hand. This is part of a more extensive phenomenon of a particular set of users who participate in the same SPI, ANI and AE requests concerning editors in the India-Pakistan topic area and support each other on the talkpages on articles in the India-Pakistan project.
I call for a warning to user:KA$HMIR to be more careful in future and a full investigation of the accounts frequently filing such bad faith reports and their links to these malicious IPs.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- To editor MBlaze Lightning:, I should file an SPI against anyone I think is in violation. Obviously I am referring to the Indians involved. Do you want me to specify that every single time on every single thread related to this case? It would take up a lot of my time and space here. It was also a cruel thing to do in filing an SPI against me for the sheer sake of getting me and one other opposing user blocked, but you are just doing it again here by distorting my statements. Take care to refrain from such behavior in the future.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Yunshui
Since I got pinged above, I'm just dropping by to confirm that KA$HMIR has indeed disclosed their original account to me and I'm satisfied that they are complying with the requirements at WP:SOCK. However, per an email conversation yesterday, they have advised me that they intend to abandon their former account entirely, in order to ensure that no accidental violations occur. I do not believe the former account is relevant to this case. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Mar4d
I see nothing actionable here. Agree with RegentsPark that a warning, and a note to be careful in the future, is sufficient. Mar4d (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93
In the absence of any evidence provided by KA$HMIR, I would concur that an AE block of a week would normally be in order. Given the time that has elapsed, I'm disinclined to place such a block myself, and would much rather give them an explicit warning. Copyright violations are an exception to 3RR, but for that very reason, crying wold over copyright should not be treated lightly. Vanamonde (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Result concerning KA$HMIR
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Looking over the evidence provided by MBlaze Lightning, I see that KA$HMIR was repeatedly asked for evidence of the copyvio but failed to provide it. I suggest they provide specific evidence above otherwise these will be viewed as bad faith deletions of sourced material and a violation of the 2RR without a talk page post sanction placed on these articles. If there is evidence forthcoming, then a warning to be more careful in the future is probably all that is required.--regentspark (comment) 16:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @KA$HMIR:. Still waiting for evidence of the copyvio. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't see evidence that would justify repeatedly reverting 64K plus bytes of material without responding to requests or using the talk page as required by the - clearly stated - restrictions that are in place. I suggest a 1 week arb enforcement block but will let someone else decide whether to apply it or not. --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @KA$HMIR:. Still waiting for evidence of the copyvio. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I too would like to see the evidence that RegentsPark has requested. If such evidence can't be presented, I'll assume it doesn't exist. If the evidence doesn't exist, this is 2RR and that would be unfortunate for KA$HMIR. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC).
Block appeal from 68.132.68.52
User unblocked. Sandstein 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Posted per the user's request, via the unblock template. SQLQuery me! 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Drmies
Result concerning 68.132.68.52
|
MickPhil
Withdrawn. Sandstein 19:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning MickPhil
None
User engaged in large amounts of content removal, apparently attempting to whitewash the BLP. This article is under active remedies. The user continued even after these active remedies were pointed out to them. Note that this user has engaged in other disruptive behavior, including REVDELed edits. @DHeyward and Sandstein: arb case we mentioned a minute later in this diff. The last edit by the user occurred after the warnings. Further, since the warning is on the talk page, I'm under the impression a formal warning is not required for active remedies. Has this practice changed? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I see this issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_Sanctions. This is very clearly a 1RR violation though so I'm not sure how why Sandstein there's been no conduct violations. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: I mentioned "
Discussion concerning MickPhilStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MickPhilStatement by DHeywardAll the diffs for evidence appear to be before the AE DS warning notice. The warning diff provided doesn't seem to mention the arbitration case, either. --DHeyward (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MickPhil
|
ScratchMarshall
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 ScratchMarshall
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ScratchMarshall (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 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- [31] At 21:47, editor inserted contentious material about a recently living person against Consensus required clause on the Talk page. Several editors had previously objected to this material [32] at 21:14; [33] at 20:05, etc.
- [34] This revert appears to violate 1RR clause, as it's in addition to the edit above that the editor knew was contentious.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
The editor was alerted in August 2017 about the DS sanctions on the same article here: [35].--K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning ScratchMarshall
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 ScratchMarshall
Statement by (username)
Result concerning ScratchMarshall
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.