Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:35, 24 December 2019

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

Edit5001

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 Edit5001

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Edit5001 (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 : Post-1932 American politics

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

19 December Argues that a source published in October 2018 supports Dobbs' claim that "many" undocumented immigrants committed voter fraud in November 2018 and then says that it is insulting to everyone's intelligence to note that a source published before the 2018 elections is not valid to support claims about the outcome of the elections.
19 December Edit-wars these changes, and others (removes well-sourced "falsely", etc.) after they're objected to on the talk page, declaring Consensus isn't necessary for every single edit. Stop lying.
19 December Uses weasel words to portray Lou Dobbs' false claim about voter fraud in 2018 as possibly true, claiming in the edit summary that it is "NPOV"
19 December Uses weasel words to weaken the clear factual description of Lou Dobbs' statements as relating to anti-Semitism.
19 December Weakens reliably-sourced description of Dobbs' use of conspiracy theories about George Soros.
19 December Describes Vox and USA Today as "obviously biased sources" in removing a description of a white supremacist rally as a "pathetic failure."
19 December Uses source which says nothing about the article subject to make a claim about the article subject.
13 December Removes statement that There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race in an attempt to portray the white genocide conspiracy theory as true.

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 by Doug Weller: [1].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user is making tendentious edits to a wide array of American politics-related articles, editing them to remove and/or weaken reliably-sourced statements about people, misuse sources, depict conspiracy theories as potentially true. When their edits are challenged and they are asked to discuss these contentious changes as per WP:BRD, they have made the statement that Consensus isn't necessary for every single edit, which flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS - indeed, by policy, contentious edits require consensus when challenged. In this case, I would ask for an enforced 0RR/BRD sanction - that if any of their edits are reverted by anyone, they are not allowed to reinstate them unless consensus is developed on the talk page (or the reverter refuses/fails to engage in discussion after a reasonable time). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the arbitrator on Wikipedia of whether a claim is fit to be labeled "false"? If sources contest something, it's a contested claim. indicates a failure to understand how Wikipedia works. In this case, reliable sources and fact-checkers essentially unanimously reject Dobbs' claim that voter fraud by undocumented immigrants was responsible for the outcome of the 2018 elections - it is a false statement. We do not give equal validity to unequal sources and uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. The statement that Dobbs' claims are false is uncontroversial and uncontested among reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Discussion concerning Edit5001

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 Edit5001

NorthbySouthBaronOf has essentially sat on several political related articles and turned them into partisan political hit pieces for or against subjects as meet his political ends. He refuses to consider any opinions other than this own and declares that each and every modification to articles he's involved with require consensus to the point of needing an RFC for most changes.

I'll respond to each and every case he cites;

1. None of my edits were contested on the Talk page. I also only reverted a single edit, which itself was a revert of several of my edits by NorthbySouthBaronOf with zero explanation other than "get consensus", so that's hardly an "edit war". NorthbySouthBaronOf is simply totally wrong about what he's claiming here.

2. Who is the arbitrator on Wikipedia of whether a claim is fit to be labeled "false"? If sources contest something, it's a contested claim. Outright calling people whose articles he's editing liars spreading falsehoods, as NorthBySouthBaronOf commonly does on politically charged pages of those he edits, isn't constructive or neutral.

3. It's extremely contested at best to say Dobbs was intending to be anti-Semitic with those remarks. Criticism of George Soros is extremely common and much of it has absolutely nothing to do with his ethnic background. To flatly label criticism of Soros as anti-Jewish is outrageous.

4. See above. Soros is well known as an international political activist. Further, the source itself calls him a "liberal" philanthropist - wording that NorthbySouthBaronOf completely left out.

5. Vox is described as a politically partisan source here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The USA Today article, meanwhile, is an opinion piece. That's why I refer to these two sources being cited in the example in question as biased.

6. As I wrote in the edit there - Horowitz stated "It doesn’t vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership,” This directly covers Strzok, as he was one of the leading FBI agents involved and "touched" the issue thoroughly.

7. I removed that sentence because I felt it wasn't adequately backed by the sources included. Not much beyond it than that. Edit5001 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

1. Team red
2. Team blue
3. Using AE to solve a content dispute

Yup, it's AP2!

Looking at those diffs, I agree with NSBF on some, with Edit5001 on others. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through dispute resolution, not AE enforcement. Having a difference of opinion is not disruptive. – Levivich 17:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

Content disputes; nothing actionable here. Go back to talk pages and seek consensus. — JFG ^talk 16:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson

If you look at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory, you'll see that Edit5001 is a civil POV pusher -- he wants us to "enforce the rules" so stringently on any source that correctly labels the CT as indisputably false but completely ignore multiple editors explaining that we can't just throw in tangentially related sources that supporters would view as evidence for the CT. When directly asked multiple times if he realizes that the CT is false, he dodges the question or refuses to answer. I did figure that if Edit5001 continued to edit in the same manner, they would end up either here or ANI sooner or later but that said, I think this filing was premature and lacks focus. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Edit5001

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

People really need to start using the talk page and discussing contentious changes. I don't see a strong reason to sanction anyone here. If we do, I would move to place both of you under the 1RR for American Politics to force you both to discuss things. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samp4ngeles

Editor self-reverted. TFD (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (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 Samp4ngeles

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Samp4ngeles (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: Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

23:23, 19 December 2019 (→‎Early life and education: Took out multireligious reference, from this one citation, as it is vague and unsupported (the most reliable sources indicate that she grew up in a household with one religion, perhaps with her conversion to HInduism at some point). This topic should be addressed more precisely elsewhere in the article.)
00:53, 20 December 2019 (Undid revision 931609649 by Xenagoras (talk) Apologies for not explaining in more detail on my previous edit, but I've created a section on the talk page to explain further. There are multiple sources parroting this "multireligious" statement, but they are not RS. It all stems from something Gabbard claimed in an interview in 2012.)

Violation of 1RR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18:26, 12 December 2019 (→‎Edit warring at Tulsi Gabbard: new section) Blocked 24 hrs.

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, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tulsi Gabbard is under 1RR. The editor was already recently blocked for violating 1RR. I notified them after they exceeded 1RR in this case and asked them to self-revert or I would report them to AE.[2] They replied, "I think you need to count it again. It was only one revert, of the @Xenagoras revert. If you notice, I went on to explain the revert in further by creating a new topic in Talk. That should eliminate any confusion. This is not "edit warring," but I would perhaps agree with you if I were to revert it a second time." However, in both cases they removed the words "and multireligious" in the sentence "Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household."

Based on the comments of original blocking administrator, the quickness with which the editor reverted to edit-warring and their apparent lack of appreciation of what edit-warring is, I would recommend a topic ban on Tulsi Gabbard and related articles.

TFD (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since after a posting by an administrator on the editor's talk page, they have self-reverted, I am collapsing this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [3] 03:46, 20 December 2019

Discussion concerning Samp4ngeles

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 Samp4ngeles

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Samp4ngeles

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

Fifth Harmony Fanboy

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 Fifth Harmony Fanboy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am deeply concerned by this user's pattern of source manipulation on a BLP, including edit-warring to re-add unquestionably deceptive text undercut by the sources.

00:56, December 15, 2019 - adds claim that "Violent crime, however, has trended up during Pete Buttigieg's tenure, with 2018 as the most violent year in South Bend in at least 20 years" cited to the right-wing website Washington Free Beacon
21:40, December 17, 2019 - makes claim in edit summary that "Aggravated assaults also up in a significant way (230% of previous!)" and re-adds the deceptive claim that violent crime in South Bend went up from 2012 to 2018 (the implication being the city became more dangerous during Buttigieg's tenure).

This text is directly undercut by the New York Times article that FHF himself/herself added. That source—which is literally entitled "South Bend and St. Louis, Where Crime Statistics Can Mislead"—states:

[A] criticism of Mayor Pete Buttigieg doesn’t hold up...a deeper dig into South Bend’s crime statistics shows a change in reporting practices rather than a rise in violent crime. In fact, the F.B.I.’s U.C.R. report for 2016 (which USA Today used) includes a footnote for South Bend that says “figures are not comparable to previous years’ data” because of reporting practice changes....In other words, the evidence is telling us that South Bend didn’t become more violent; it simply changed how it counted assaults.

The deceptive use of this source was pointed out in my edit summary removing this content, an article talk page edit, and a detailed comment on FHF's user talk page. FHF did not respond either to this article talk page comment, or to this user talk page comment.

00:14, December 18, 2019 - Re-adds (with no edit summary) deceptive claim that "Aggravated assaults also increased 130% from 2015 to 2017," cited to the same NYT source that directly/extensively explains how that figure is misleading.
23:34, December 19, 2019 - Re-adds deceptive claim that "Violent crime has also trended upward during Buttigieg's tenure, with 2018 the most violent year in South Bend in at least 20 years." Cites to the same Washington Free Beacon article previously objected to. Incorrectly claims, in edit summary, that "it's false to say that's misleading/deceptive."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None known, but FHF has stated that he/she "started a new account because I couldn't remember my old account info." I do not know FHF's previous username, so cannot check that old account).

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

Given courtesy DS alerts for both AMPOL and BLP on 23:42, December 17, 2019‎
- Given detailed, polite explanation of "Consensus, edit warring, BLP and deceptive use of sources" on 10:28, December 18, 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm alarmed by FHF's behavior here, especially (1) the continuous use of an undeniably misleading or deceptive claim (in violation of our BLP principle); (2) attempting to strong-arm the material into a BLP (edit-warring); and (3) a disregard for WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. There is other problematic behavior by FHF on the same article, but the clear manipulation of sources bothers me the most. A topic ban from BLP/AMPOL, or at least from the Buttigieg article and related articles, would be appropriate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Fifth Harmony Fanboy

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 Fifth Harmony Fanboy

Statement by MrX

The evidence of POV pushing and edit warring by Fifth Harmony Fanboy is compelling. Notably, Fifth Harmony Fanboy is promoting the same type of material and with similar behavior as sock puppets DouggCousins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and GooodHousekeeping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did a few days before he created his account. {{Checkuser needed}} - Mr X 🖋 20:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a good case on behavioral evidence alone that these are the same user, but I'm not particularly interested in investing the time only to have the user spawn new socks. The contribution history alone makes it clear that this is a SPA set on denigrating a BLP subject. Hopefully that will be addressed soon.- Mr X 🖋 03:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement (Checkuser results) by Ivanvector

Per MrX's request, I checked the accounts and found them Unrelated. I clarified after their follow-up comment that they're editing from different continents. I realize these comments should be in my own section, so I'm self-clerking. In my opinion, the technical results show that Fifth Harmony Fanboy cannot be the same operator as the sockpuppeteer behind DouggCousins and GooodHousekeeping, but I cannot rule out some kind of off-wiki coordination between the two sets of accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Fifth Harmony Fanboy

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

I'll discuss Neutrality's diffs in the same (chronological) order as they listed them:

00:56, December 15, 2019 can possibly be taken as a good-faith edit (even though Washington Free Beacon is a pretty poor source), as FHF may not have been aware of other sources showing the upward trend in violent crime to be an artefact of a change in reporting practices.
FHF's abuse of a source here, 21:40, December 17, 2019 is scandalous, and defies all attempts to assume good faith.
Brute-force edit warring with no edit summary at 00:14, December 18, 2019 to keep the same text and the same source in the article is rampant bad faith.
And finally, restoring yet again the same text at 04:34, December 20, 2019 with Washington Free Beacon as the source, is a terrible idea, since now the user is undeniably aware the figures are misleading (though their edit summary suggests they're setting up their own acumen against NYT's).

FHF has been sufficiently warned, to apparently no effect. Unless another admin/respectable user objects and explains how I have misunderstood these edits, I plan to topic ban FHF from post-1932 American politics for egregious POV-pushing and edit warring, or, as MrX puts it, for being "an SPA set on denigrating a BLP subject" — a BLP subject running for high political office. Bishonen | talk 04:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Oh dear. This diff (#2 in Bishonen's list) is bad. Using a source that says in the headline that the raw statistic is misleading to support the insertion of the misleading statistic. I support a topic ban at minimum. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with topic ban, indeed at the very least, per Bishonen and Awilley. El_C 05:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, an AP2 indefinite topic ban is needed. More could follow later if a misuse of sources is repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The misconduct is egregious and shows an intent to deceive. An indefinite AP2 topic ban is definitely in order, with an indefinite block called for if similar bad behavior crops up in other topic areas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‎98.221.136.220

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 ‎98.221.136.220

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ‎98.221.136.220 (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/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case and/or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Amendment (February 2019):

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

20:24, 20 December 2019 "And I use the word objectionable because you have given no reason why, if it's in the second sentence, the "part of WW1" part can never ever be part of the infobox". Pure "I didn't hear that" on the talk page. As the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section below shows, before this post five editors had given a reason, the exact same reason no less, objecting to the change.
22:18, 20 December 2019 "You haven't offered a reason why it positively can't be included". As above, with the addition of it being after my talk page edit (diff also included below) pointing out everyone had offered a reason
19:40, 21 December 2019 "Well, with no actual reason given to deny inclusion". As above
00:07, 19 December 2019 First revert
00:17, 19 December 2019 Second revert
01:17, 19 December 2019 Third revert, made after receiving the 1RR and DS notification. As the editor seemed to have stopped edit warring in favour of discussion, I did not think it would be helpful to report at the time. However since they are now continuing to edit war, included for the sake of thoroughness.
20:08, 21 December 2019 Fourth revert, using a source that has been repeatedly pointed out doesn't support the claim to start with
20:13, 21 December 2019 Fifth revert, made five minutes after the fourth so clearly a 1RR breach
20:41, 21 December 2019 Sixth revert, made 33 minutes after the fourth so another 1RR breach

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Notified at 00:21, 19 December 2019 of discretionary sanctions and 1RR rule.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Multiple editors have made the same objection to the change on the article's talk page, yet as the evidence shows the IP persistently claims nobody has provided a reason why and repeatedly tries to use references that, while certainly talking about the Easter Rising in the context of World War 1 (as every book written about the Rising will do) don't say it's part of World War 1 (as every book written about the Rising doesn't do).

Myself at 00:23, 19 December 2019 "It happened during the war, but was not part of it. Do any reliable references claim different?"
@The Banner: at 02:04, 19 December 2019 "That fact that the uprising happened during World War 1 does not make it part of World War 1"
@Scolaire: at 00:01, 20 December 2019 " I don't know of any other historian of all the many who have written about the war who has said that the Rising was part of WW1. And I have read just about every book on the Rising – including two by Fearghal McGarry, who wrote the article you linked to on the 1914–1918 website – and none of them say that the Rising was part of WW1, although they do place it in the context of the war, as well as in the context of the Home Rule Crisis, the Volunteer split, the formation of the coalition government, etc. etc. "Best understood within the wider context of" does not mean "was a part of". It just means that there was a war going on that had a bearing on the actions of the IRB, Volunteers and Citizen Army. The Easter Rising was part of the Irish revolutionary period, and that is what should go in the "part of" field of the infobox"
@Guliolopez: at 00:18, 20 December 2019 "I don't agree with the assertion/inclusion either. The Easter Rising was not "part of" World War I. None of the extensive sources (Coogan, Townshend, Foy and Barton, McNamara or others) support a claim that it was. While these works discuss the Rising in the context of WWI (including in an "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" context), none describe it as being "part" of the war. Multiple other editors have noted the lack of reliable, external or academic sources to support such a claim"
@R. fiend: at 17:53, 20 December 2019 "That the Rising has a connection to the First World War is clear, and is covered in the article (the second sentence mentions it, no less), but to call it part of the war is a bit of a stretch, and doesn't seem to be backed up by reliable sources"

I even summarised this for the editor at 21:06, 20 December 2019 "The same objection has been made by multiple editors, and contrary to the assertion it is not a case of people objecting without giving a reason. The reason stated to the inclusion of the phrase "Part of World War 1" has consistently been that the Rising is NOT "Part of World War 1""

The editor's refusal to listen has led to Scolaire, The Banner and Guliolopez to all say we should not even bother replying any more.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning ‎98.221.136.220

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 ‎98.221.136.220

I support the inclusion of the Easter Rising as part of the Great War for a variety of reasons. For starters, I believe that the fact that WW1 significantly influenced the timing, conduct, and outcome of the Rising, it should be naturally included as part of WW1, (meaning it cannot be adequately understood without WW1). This matches the Ireland and World War I page, which mentions the Rising in its text, ostensibly because the Easter Rising was part of the First World War. I have provided numerous sources (see the Easter Rising talk page at the bottom), which show that WW1 played a heavy hand in the rising, and that the rising would have developed differently if it were otherwise. These sources, the majority from RS sites, not only back up my claims, but show that my belief is in fact common and widespread among scholars of the conflict. User Keith-264, who is part of the Military History project, agreed with my position. If you check my contributions, I have notified other members of the MilHistory project to contribute to the discussion, because I believe their opinion was more relevant to the discussion (most haven't responded yet). The other editors who opposed my edits never really explained why significant influence over timing, conduct, and outcome don't warrant inclusion. Moreover, they alluded to "historians" who agree with them but never gave any sources at all that stated explicitly that the Rising wasn't part of WW1 (meaning they named names but gave no quotes justifying their name-dropping). I gave sources, they didn't. Perhaps my editing was bothersome, but at least it was factual. The Banner tried stalking my contributions on the Central Asian revolt of 1916 page and tried to edit war (without providing any reason, once again I provided a source in response) but ceased. In summary, the above editors adamantly disagreed with my position simply because they felt so, not because they provided any source or reason; I provided sources and reasons. Finally, the above editors reverted to attacking a straw man, saying that I was mistaking the uprising for a time coincidence, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I provided examples to prove that we were on the same page (another example, the First Caco War during the United States occupation of Haiti occurred in Haiti in 1915 while an influential German population was there, but I disagree with any assessment stating that the Caco War was part of WW1 because no sources have made any substantial connection of influence). That pretty much sums up my position. Why doesn't significant influence by the Great War, particularly to the point where it determined the Rising's timing, conduct, and outcome, make the Rising not part of WW1? I gave reasons, they did not.

Personally, for the record, I prefer some dispute resolution to mindless bickering. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keith-264

That the Germans had a policy of encouraging insurrection in British and French colonies and supported Irish nationalists indubitably makes the Rising part of the Great War and this should be reflected in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guliolopez

In terms of content, while it is clear, acknowledged and already covered that the Easter Rising occurred during (and at least partially within the context of) the Great War, that it was "part of" the war is not supported by the available references. (That the anon editor implies that these references do not exist because it is so obviously self-evident and therefore unnecessary for a historian to state as much, simply isn't the case. And isn't how references work anyway.) Five other editors have pointed this out on the relevant talk page.

In terms of editing patterns, while ‎98.221.136.220 has received several advisories against warring and contra-consensus editing (both on user talk page, article talk page and otherwise), the editor took it upon themselves to engage in a series of warring reverts to push a single POV. As here: [4][5][6]. (Justifying doing based on partial support from one other editor who was declared an expert by virtue of participating in a WikiProject and therefore more important "than the 'consensus'").

In terms of user behaviour, that the related talk-page thread is now approaching 6,000 words (in an argument with 5 other editors about adding TWO WORDS to the infobox) would seem, to me, to be evidence of a type of WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NOTLISTENING that is not helpful to the project. It is pretty clear to me that this anon is treating the project (and the article and its talk page) as a battleground, has little interest in collaborative editing, and is generally WP:NOTHERE for the purposes of expanding the project constructively and collaboratively or for the benefit of the reader.

I'm not sure what action to suggest. But the warring (and near trolling IMO) might warrant at least a temporary block. Guliolopez (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SN54129

I'm not sure I see the need to bring a dynamic IP AE. How will it be enforced? ——SN 54129 14:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ‎98.221.136.220

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

@Serial Number 54129:, that is a sticky IP and the editor has been on it since Feb. 12 so it may be treated as static. His previous IP was 98.221.128.208.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11

Request concerning Jweiss11

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jweiss11 (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:BLOCKEVADE

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

[7] has a tban that applies to this article
[8] has a tban that applies to this article
[9] has a tban that applies to this article
[10] xhas a tban that applies to this article
[11] has a tban that applies to this article
[12] has a tban that applies to this article
[13] has a tban that applies to this article
[14] has a tban that applies to this article
[15] has a tban that applies to this article
[16] has a tban that applies to this article
[17] xhas a tban that applies to this article

And this list could go on and on.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[18] Explanation

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

Jweiss was well aware that Ngo and Quillette are connected, he personally added Ngo's work at Quillette to the lede of Ngo's article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quillette&diff=prev&oldid=930921808

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jweiss11 has been editing the Quillette article,[19] edited by Andy Ngo in contravention of an indefinite topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo [20]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

Discussion concerning Jweiss11

Statement by Jweiss11

As I stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jweiss11, based on my discussion with with Bishonen on my talk page in the wake of the sanction, in particular her comment, "...Or maybe appeal the ban if you think it's worth it (it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject)" on September 11, it was my judgement that that ban would not apply to Quillette. None of my edits there or elsewhere since then have been related to the sanctioned topic. See also comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jweiss11 from Loksmythe, Springee, and Paulmcdonald to that effect. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

See this edit at Talk:Quillette, in which Bacondrum strikes several of Jweiss11's comments. In the edit summary, Bacondrum justifies their action by citing a policy that allows for the striking of comments made by sockpuppets. Unless Bacondrum wishes to suggest that Jweiss11 is a sockpuppet, there was no justification for striking those posts. In the ANI thread, Bacondrum has also come across as overeager to get Jweiss in trouble. It's time to back off and let cooler heads weigh in. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bacondrum has rage quit Wikipedia after being criticized for repeatedly posting his comments on this page in the wrong section. So much for cooler heads prevailing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Three points:

Regardinging Bacondrum's striking or reversion of Jweiss11's comments, assuming the topic ban does apply to that article, those would probably be justified under WP:BANREVERT (which applies to violations of topic-bans, not merely sockpuppetry); Bacondrum merely linked to the wrong policy.
Regarding the scope of the topic ban, the sanction itself is clearly worded as applying to all pages connected with Andy Ngo, not just the page Andy Ngo specifically.
Regarding whether Quillette is connected to Andy Ngo (or closely connected enough), Ngo was well-known and widely-reported on as a somewhat infamous editor at Quillette before he quit or was let go (under somewhat controversial circumstances, which have a paragraph devoted to them on Ngo's page); Jweiss11 is aware of this, here and here (it looks like Bacondrum got the wrong link above.) Whether that connection is enough to be a topic-ban violation is another question, but it seems at least worth clarifying.

Those seem to be the important points. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement SN54129

Here from ANEW, so will repeat myself—with a couple of tweaks for context—particularly regarding the matter of blocks n' bans.

It would seem as if Bacondrum was reverting in line with policy; after all, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. It may be that other parties were unintentionally enabling a breach of the topic ban—covered as it is by WP:BMB—and that is not something they deserve criticism for, just education. However, warning Bacondrum for edit warring over something explicitly covered by WP:3RRNO (#3) seems rather undeserved also.

Regarding doubts raised as to whether the page is within scope (It is your claim that the article Quillette is covered by the Andy Ngo topic ban. However, that has not been established), they are unfounded. As noted, Bishonen quite explicitly T-banned Jweiss11 from from all pages connected with Andy Ngo; I find it unlikely that, on consideration, anyone is really suggesting that the talk page of an article in which the subject is directly discussed multiple times (as on T:Quillette) is not a page connected to the article. If, of course, they believe that the Tban is unfair, then the usual routes of appeal are open to them. But I don't think anyone argues that ignoring a topic ban is an effective way to contest it. ——SN 54129 11:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised User:Aquillion has said much of this, with more brevity and much improvement, apologies. But I'd also add that Bacondrum has received an "official" warning for edit-warring, which should probably be expunged. ——SN 54129 11:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

As I said at the ANI discussion, I see this as a bad faith accusation by the filing editor. They recently went on a bit of a warpath removing Jweiss11's comments from the Quillette talk page [[22]]. As I've read topic bans enforced in the past, if an editor is banned from topic X then they cannot post to that article (or talk page) nor can they discuss that topic at other articles. So if you are Tbanned from Trump articles you can't edit Trump's personal BLP article, his presidential article, articles about his business etc. You also can't edit Trump Casino related materiel in say the Las Vegas strip article. It doesn't mean you can't edit an article about Las Vegas or the strip just because Trump has a casino on the strip. If you were editing the Las Vegas strip article to discuss the Caesars Palace you haven't violated the Tban. The claim that a Tban related to Andy Ngo is effectively a Tban from the Quillette article is laughable. It comes from the same type of common sense that thought it was reasonable to delete another editor's talk page comments... 5 times despite those edits being restored by two other editors. Would we also say the Wall Street Journal article is off limits because one of Ngo's early, controversies involved work for the WSJ?

Jweiss11's edits to the Quillette article were totally unrelated to the topic of Andy Ngo's employment by the site. They also were well within the scope of good editing practice and respectful disagreement. The behavior of Bacondrum is really that which needs review. Not just for the edit warring but for failing to understand basic concepts that help to prevent talk page animosity. Questioning if the Andy Ngo tban applied to the Quillette page was reasonable. The disruptive behavior before and after are not. I would suggest closing with a clear warning that Bacondrun needs to review policies related to CIVIL and CONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jweiss11

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

This request seems to be incomplete at this time. El_C 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: I'm not sure, but in any case, you need to inform Jweiss11 on their user talk page that this report exists. El_C 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Jweiss11's talk page, but there seems to be no notification there concerning this AE report. El_C 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: I'm beginning to question your level of competence here. Why do you continue to comment in this section (four times already!)?El_C 04:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little concerned that some editors seem to assume a level of stupidity on the behalf of administrators. Jweiss11 was quite aware that the Quilette article was related to Ngo - how could they not be when they'd already been topic-banned from Ngo and Quillette is mentioned in a significant part of Ngo's article? Phil Bridger at the ANI performed a remarkable feat of AGF by saying "The scope of the topic ban is clear from the user talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo." If Jweiss wasn't aware that Ngo was connected to Quillette before then he does now.". But they were quite aware of the link. Yes, Bacondrum's editing was sub-par here - being right (and he was) doesn't give you the right to edit-war. Incidentally, I am somewhat concerned by this comment from a sysop (User:Paulmcdonald) - "It's evident to me that Jweiss11 was not consciously aware of any connection (based on talk comments end editor history) and the connection to the banned topic is not obvious--in fact, it seems to be quite a stretch to say they are related." when there's a whole paragraph about Quillette in Ngo's article which Jweiss is very familiar with and topic-banned from. This is actually quite disturbing, to be honest. Other admin's comments welcome. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2019 (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 369: / Line 369: @@
 ::*I'm looking at Jweiss11's talk page, but there seems to be no notification there concerning this AE report. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 :::*{{re|Bacondrum}} I'm beginning to question your level of [[WP:CIR|competence]] here. Why do you continue to comment in this section (four times already!)?[[User:El_C|El_C]] 04:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' I'm a little concerned that some editors seem to assume a level of stupidity on the behalf of administrators. Jweiss11 was quite aware that the Quilette article was related to Ngo - how could they not be when they'd already been topic-banned from Ngo and Quillette is mentioned in a significant part of Ngo's article?  Phil Bridger at the ANI performed a remarkable feat of AGF by saying "''The scope of the topic ban is clear from the user talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo." If Jweiss wasn't aware that Ngo was connected to Quillette before then he does now.''".  But they were quite aware of the link.  Yes, Bacondrum's editing was sub-par here - being ''right'' (and he was) doesn't give you the right to edit-war.  Incidentally, I am somewhat concerned by this comment from a sysop ([[User:Paulmcdonald]]) - "''It's evident to me that Jweiss11 was not consciously aware of any connection (based on talk comments end editor history) and the connection to the banned topic is not obvious--in fact, it seems to be quite a stretch to say they are related.''" when there's a ''whole paragraph about Quillette in Ngo's article which Jweiss is very familiar with and topic-banned from''.  This is actually quite disturbing, to be honest.  Other admin's comments welcome. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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