Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:50, 4 December 2018

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

יניב הורון

יניב הורון is warned that future attempts to game their topic ban, engaging in personal attacks, or any other form of disruption or failure to meet the behavioral norms of the English Wikipedia in any topic area, is likely to result in a lengthy block. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2018 (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 יניב הורון

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: יניב הורון (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:ARBPIA topic ban

Today I received an email from יניב הורון which consisted solely of a link to the Six-Day War article history, where there has recently been some disagreements between the usual suspects in this topic area. My interpretation of this is that due to their topic ban in this area, they were seeking some kind of assistance – i.e. trying to recruit me as a meatpuppet.

After I responded on his talk page, it was reverted with the edit summary "That wasn't my intention, dear moser. But thanks for answering me in private."

A moser is a term for a Jew who reports a fellow Jew to authority. This infers that יניב feels betrayed by someone who they had thought was on their side, which I see as further suggestion that they were hoping I would help them out in some way. And I'm not even Jewish.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

I don't find Yaniv's explanation convincing. If the email was sent by mistake, why wasn't there a follow up a few minutes later explaining the previous one? My comment on his talk page was 15 minutes after the original email. Also, why would he need to contact me by email about this topic rather than write on my talk page. Number 5 7 15:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning יניב הורון

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 יניב הורון

I sent an email to Number57 because of his expertise in Israeli politicians' infoboxes and elections. Mordechai Gur, for example, is in the Six Day War infobox, but does not have his political career in his bio's infobox (MK, minister without portfolio, health minister, etc). As far as I understand, his political career is not ARBPIA related. However, I hit "SEND" prior to filling the content. I was going to explain myself to him but I was miffed by Number57's post on my talk page instead of asking me in private what do I want, or simply telling me he's not interested in having a conversation in private, hence my rash and impolite response. As far as the Jewish term "moser", I understand it was received the wrong way, but it's a general thing to say when someone takes something private and makes it public. In Israel that's something students say to one another on outing stuff to an instructor or a GF. In any case, I won't bother Number57 anymore, although a "no thank you" as email response would have been enough.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regentspark: The prohibition of sending emails is not explicity mentioned in the topic ban. However, I won't send emails anymore. For the record, I didn't ask anyone to be my "meatpuppet" or do my edits like Number 57 claims.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: I agree my edit summary was disrespectful and I apologize for it.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think Sandstein raises a good point. The BAN applies to pages and articles, and it seems to me the page is pretty explicit on what it includes. If we also want emails to be included that should be up to the community perhaps to decide if that should be under the scope of a BAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Regarding precedent, in this AE request I filed against Captain Occam the primary evidence I provided were e-mails sent to me by CO. The case ended with CO being indef blocked by TonyBallioni, but not as an AE enforcement action, as an individual admin action. Nevertheless, the discussions and statements in the case request may be pertinent here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Yaniv has repeatedly skirted the boundaries of his topic ban. And yes, this looks like trying to get a proxy edit. But, his editing when it has actually been outside of the topic area hasnt been so bad to say that he should be indefinitely blocked. Tony, taking into account both the email and the response in the edit summary, with the response being the bigger thing imo, a NPA/CIV block and another stern reminder to stay away from the topic area would suffice. And honestly, I very much doubt an indefinite block will accomplish what you are hoping, I see that more likely leading to an alienated editor who comes back however he can. An outcome I rank as the worst. nableezy - 06:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, attempting to violate WP:MEAT on an article in the topic area is without question a violation. Its just silly to argue otherwise. nableezy - 07:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I actually do hold several things against Yaniv to be honest, I very much disliked his editing style when he was active in the topic area. It was my request that resulted in this current topic ban. But, each time Yaniv has been blocked or banned for something he has adjusted, at least ever so slightly, to not continue doing the same thing that resulted in his being blocked or banned. So my view is at the very least he has shown a willingness to attempt to correlate his actions with our policies when he suffers some consequence to breaking them. Now is that enough? Idk, nobody would ever give me admin rights here so it isnt something I really even have to think that much about. But I do think that if indefinitely blocked that breaks that progress, and I dont think that is in anybodys interest. Including my own, as somebody who both disagreed with his editing style and his actual edits for the most part. nableezy - 17:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

WP:TBAN clearly does not include private communication, such as e-mails, and regulating off-wiki conversation (dinner table as well?) is a slippery slope. Yaniv offered an explanation that he intended to send something else - and his explanation has some credibility in that sending an e-mail "consisted solely of a link to the Six-Day War article history" to someone is a really odd way of approaching someone for the first time (no hello? no introduction? no explanation?). Yaniv's use of "Moser" - on his own talk page - was inadvisable, however this is in colloquial speech (in some circles) something akin to saying "snitch" - in such colloquial use there is no Jew/non-Jew distinction. Saying "dear moser [snitch]" (one one's own talk page) is mild incivility - but it is not a TBAN violation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

As much as we'd like banned editors to stay out of the editing cycle completely, I agree with Sandstein that private emails don't violate the letter of a topic ban. So I think this is not actionable even though it was a clear violation in spirit. Zero^talk 11:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

While I agree that contacting anyone off wiki is a borderline violation at best (hence, I would be willing to ignore that)...calling someone a moser is way beyond behaviour that Wikipedia should accept.

Just to recap: the killer of Yitzhak Rabin "justified" his deed by the fact that West Bank rabbis had called Rabin a moser and a rodef (see eg ‘Killing a King’ Examines Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, New York Times). And it is argued that that the law of the moser "is far more serious and deadly than the law of rodef. (link Haaretz)

We don't accept that editors call other editors by the n−word (and it doesn't matter whether the target is Afro–American or not). Nor should we ever allow anyone to call another editor "a moser", Huldra (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

Methinks some editors should apply a healthy dose of skin-thickening lotion.^[FBDB] But thanks for teaching me some Jewish slang. No violation, no action. — JFG ^talk 21:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning יניב הורון

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

I'd welcome any input about whether there is any precedent as to whether using the Wikipedia e-mail function is within the scope of a ban. As a matter of first impression, I doubt it, because WP:BAN only mentions edits to pages, not e-mails. Sandstein 21:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes, emailing an administrator regarding an editing conflict on a page which one is banned from constitutes a violation of the ban. If Yaniv had posted at ANI requesting attention to the article, we would consider it a violation; I don't think attempting to do so privately protects the intent to violate the ban. If that was the intent, I don't know if that is established. However, I cannot cite precedent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the wording of WP:BAN, it is not sufficiently clear to me that Wikipedia e-mail is within the scope of a ban. The "moser" is incivil, but not a topic ban violation. I therefore decline to take action here. This does not preclude any other admin who sees things differently from taking action. Sandstein 10:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ivanvector, I can't cite a precedent but I agree that this is a violation of the tban. We could be pedantic and ask if the email was sent by clicking on the send this user an email button (on wiki-ish) or directly (off wiki) but that wouldn't change the fact that this was an attempt to influence the editing of the article. --regentspark (comment) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this rises to the level of an indef block. In essence, we have a link to an article sent over email and a single snide comment in response to a protest against that email. That's not really egregious enough for a long block, let alone an indef one. --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the revert and insult directed at Number57 on the talk page. I agree that this is an attempt to skirt the TBAN, and even if it’s not a technical TBAN violation, the response to it, including the wikilink accusing someone of being a Jew who reports other Jews to non-Jewish authorities is simply unacceptable on a collaborative project. This response would in my view fall under DS in the topic area as it was in response to an editor raising concerns about their behavior there. Given the scheer length of the block log and past TBAN violations, I think we’re at the point of an indefinite block: first year AE, regular block after that. If people want to nitpick on it, then it can be as a regular admin action for the response on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nableezy, I think my point is that at some point after having three TBAN blocks and 2 other AE blocks before that, he should know to tread lightly. Increasing the block durations by a week every time until we hit 52 seems impractical. I like Yaniv and hold nothing against him, but his talk page for a while was basically a noticeboard for ARBPIA conflicts. If others don’t want to block this time, I’m not opposed to that, but I think that this should at the very least be closed with a logged warning letting him know that any future violations or misconduct in the area will likely result in a long block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to encourage another editor to edit on one's behalf where one cannot edit oneself because of a topic ban is an attempt to evade the topic ban. How one goes about trying to get that other editor to do so is irrelevant: email may not be covered by the topic ban, but the Wikipedia editing which the email implicitly solicited is. As Ivanvector has pointed out, "If Yaniv had posted at ANI requesting attention to the article, we would consider it a violation": likewise if it had been a post to a user talk page, or anywhere else. It would make no sense at all if we were to take the line that attempting to obtain proxy editing to evade a ban were somehow more acceptable if done secretly than if done openly and visibly; if anything, the attempt to hide what was being done makes it less acceptable. There is nothing to be gained by wikilawyering about whether the particular method employed to try to evade the ban is explicitly covered by some written wording (whether in the the ban, in some "precedent" or anywhere else) when we all know that what happened was an attempt to evade a ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given this user's history, a significant block is appropriate. Not for the email, which may well be outside our scope, but for edit summary. Jonathunder (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go against the grain here, and say that we should not be blocking. We would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent if we blocked for an email, because we are then by extension obligated to sanction other individuals for emails about things which (due to site-bans or t-bans) they are required not to discuss. This obviously isn't happening. If Number57 had edited the article in response to the email, they would still be completely responsible for the edits, and as such Yaniv cannot also be responsible. I don't think we should be implementing sanctions for any off-wiki behavior that isn't harassment. The edit-summary is blockable, but given the apology above, I think a block might be punitive at this point. I would recommend a logged warning about personal attacks and attempting to circumvent the t-ban. Vanamonde (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I strongly disagree that clear attempts to influence the editing of an article covered by a topic ban are dependent on the manner of communicating the attempt, nor on the recruited editor actually making an edit. The attempt itself is the violation: that a topic-banned editor contacted another editor for the purpose of influencing editing in the topic from which they're banned. The method of contact is irrelevant - the ban means the editor may not participate, and asking another editor to do something for you is indeed participating. We don't say that canvassing is okay if you do it off-site, for example. Again, I can't be certain that that's what happened here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I agree that it's not okay in principle; I don't think we have the jurisdiction to sanction for it. See, for instance, the ARBCOM case about the East Europe mailing list: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list. The Principle about off-wiki conduct says "A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct." (emphasis mine). We can warn Yaniv because Number 57 clearly found the email undesirable; but we can't sanction it as a t-ban violation, in my view. Tony, this is in reply to your point, too. Vanamonde (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, Vanamonde93, Jonathunder, JamesBWatson, and Sandstein: While I think linking to an article that describes the death penalty being applied to snitches is worth a long block, I’m sympathetic to Vanamonde’s point of view i.r.t. the EE mailing list finding. I also personally don’t want to be the admin at ARCA over a block here, which is where this would end up: I think the current committee may rule differently, but I also don’t think it’s worth the hassle. Unless another admin prefers to block, which I don’t oppose, I propose logging the following warning: יניב הורון is warned that future attempts to game their topic ban, as well as other forms of disruption or failures to meet the behavioral norms of the English Wikipedia in any topic area, is likely to result in a lengthy block. comments are welcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I would explicitly add "engaging in personal attacks": otherwise, I am fine with that, or the equivalent. Vanamonde (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Let's ignore the email, either because it's hearsay, outside our remit, or otherwise inadmissible. Looking just at the edit summary and the existing block log, a strong final warning is warranted, if not a block. Jonathunder (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec2)@TonyBallioni: I don't have any objection to you applying a civility block here. In fact, I may be one of the few civility blocks enthusiasts left on Wikipedia. But I recommend that it be placed as a normal admin block rather than as an AE block, because the "moser" comment doesn't seem to be related to the Israeli-Arab conflict topic, for which AE sanctions are authorized. - Edit: Or failing that, I'm ok with the warning as well. Sandstein 21:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I've said a couple times here, I generally disagree that we cannot sanction a Wikipedia editor for actions that occur elsewhere when those actions specifically relate to a conflict on Wikipedia. That is a very bad precedent to set. As for what to do here, I tend to believe Yaniv's explanation about the "moeser" comment, at least in the way it was intended, and otherwise I'm really not familiar enough with this topic area nor with Yaniv to recommend a course of action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog

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 Jytdog

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jytdog (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Jytdog_topic_banned

Jytdog violating GMO topic ban and harassing users

First, User:Jytdog was, other incidents, topic banned in December 2015 by Arbcom:

"Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted."

This lifetime ban appears to stand since I can find no information on the Arbcom page about an appeal or it being lifted.

Since then, he has repeatedly deleted content from He Jiankui, AfDed 'designer baby', edited Assisted reproductive technology/Mitochondrial replacement therapy/Human germline engineering/Gene therapy/Synthetic lethality/CRISPR/genetic engineering/Lulu and Nana - and that's in just the past week! (I have not tried to review all 3 years, but I suspect he has edited many other off-limits articles.)

These are clearly GMO-related articles, narrowly interpreted; for example, the FDA has regulatory power over human gene therapy and germline engineering (such as He Jiankui's CRISPR babies) precisely because the results are legally defined as GMOs, and the main application of CRISPR currently is making agricultural GMOs. 'Broadly interpreted', they are even more clearly GMO-related. In addition, someone who has earned a lifetime topic ban should go above and beyond in avoiding the behavior that resulted in the Arbcom case and strive to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety.

Jytdog's response was to deflect and redefine his topic ban as narrowly as possible, double down on his behavior, and dare me to take it here:

"Please play the ball, not the man. My TBAN is on ag biotech, not this sort of thing...The locus of the case was ag biotech. I have been regularly editing human gene therapy and related topics and you are the first person to make drama over this. In any case, WP:AE is thataway. What you are doing here, is really inappropriate. I won't be responding to you further."

Second, Jytdog has engaged in unacceptable harassing behavior.

Jytdog and I have never interacted before and have no history, but when I criticized the justifications he made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer baby (2nd nomination) of designer babies being 'sci fi' which don't exist and so not worthy of an article (pointing out the existence not just of He Jiankui's CRISPR babies but a long history of selection on optional traits, ongoing contemporary applied & research projects, and many imminent technologies widely expected in the future, all of which he appears to be ignorant of), his response was to look at my contributions and AfD not one but two of my articles, which I have worked on for years, on the grounds that they are too good for WP. His response?

"I am sorry you feel that it is hostile."

This is an unacceptable way to respond to criticism, and it is especially unacceptable as it is done while flagrantly breaking a lifetime topic ban.

Jytdog has announced his retirement (after apparently yet another, unrelated to this case, instance of poor judgment), but I feel his past behavior still deserves some scrutiny. --Gwern (contribs) 17:17 4 December 2018 (GMT)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [2]

Discussion concerning Jytdog

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 Jytdog

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jytdog

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

[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 96: / Line 96: @@
 {{hatb}}
+==Jytdog==
-==Jytdog violating GMO topic ban and harassing users==
+<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 Jytdog===
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Excelse}} 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jytdog}}<p>{{ds/log|Jytdog}}
+<!--- 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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Jytdog_topic_banned]]
+<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+;Jytdog violating GMO topic ban and harassing users
 First, [[User:Jytdog]] was, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jytdog|among other incidents], [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Jytdog_topic_banned|topic banned]] in December 2015 by Arbcom:
@@ Line 121: / Line 133: @@
 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=871816286 Jytdog] has announced his retirement (after apparently yet another, unrelated to this case, instance of poor judgment), but I feel his past behavior still deserves some scrutiny. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 17:17 4 December 2018 (GMT)
-::Human cases of genetic modification I would view separately from the GMO topic. But at this point it is really mute. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
+; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=871996832]
+<!-- 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 Jytdog===
+<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 Jytdog====
+====Statement by (username)====
+<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+===Result concerning Jytdog===
+:''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. -->
+*

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