Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:19, 7 June 2020

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

Chiappoloni

Chiappoloni is blocked from editing George Soros and Talk:George Soros for a period of one year. I am of the opinion that their contributions to the page in all aspects are not benefecial at best and disruptive at worst, including violation of restrictions they were made aware of. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (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 Chiappoloni

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS :

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

23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction
23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction
23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction

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 - [1]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Chiappoloni

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 Chiappoloni

In reference to:

05/23/2020

Political donations for George Soros page

As it appears NorthBySouthBaranof has mentioned in a previous talk page which also applies here, "The material is not questionably or poorly sourced, is not a violation of BLP... You're welcome to discuss the issue on the article talk page or bring more viewpoints to that page, but mere disagreement with cited sources does not justify removal of sourced material."

Removing factual information, that better informs our readers or provides improved access to our readers, is not helpful, especially if it is presented in a data-oriented, fact-focused, manner. Removing facts is doing the opposite for our readers to understand all political donations. Editing or reverting any changes in wording seems understandable if taking a certain viewpoint or interpretation of a paragraph, but removing an entire paragraph, source, or new facts provided to an article, does not appear understandable, or justified. Why are Federal Elections more or less important than local US Elections as mentioned in the Los Angeles Times? These edits are adding factual information to a page and making a section easier-to-read by adding sub-headings and additional source information. Not sure how presenting published news articles and a full data-focused and fact-focused description is being removed or in violation. Legitimate news sources, e.g. Politico, the Los Angeles Times, and the Telegraph, are being referenced or added for readers’ ease-of-access. To remove these sources for referenced articles is decreasing the ease-of-access and factual information for articles.

Contested Edits - Incorrect removal of LA Times and other sourcing articles regarding political donations

I'm not sure how any of these edits are able to be 'contested' by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place? Being that the edits consisted of adding sub-headings for readability, sources for readability and reference-checking, public information, and published articles from news sources such as the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and the relevant and referred to donation funds' websites (- when NorthBySouthBaranof said that the sources were not legitimate? -) surrounding local political investment, without offering opinions on said donations. Specifically, these edits were added to the sub-heading titled, 'Political Involvement,' which appears appropriate. It is surprising that this added information to the said section would not be lauded versus 'contested?' Especially considering that this section appears lacking in organization, readability, comprehensiveness (no US-specific section while there has been substantial amounts of donations in this arena (in the billions of $s), and no separation of or information on the large amounts of local US donations versus federal-election-only US donations), and sourcing material.

Moreover, please can someone clarify, is only one person allowed to contest an article's changes to be considered 'consensus?' Whereas, reverting via an apparent incorrect contesting of an article's edits, out of disagreement with said factual information, is only needed by one person NorthBySouthBaranof?

Lastly, this user, NorthBySouthBaranof, appears to need to perhaps be placed on some sort of restriction themselves? Not only have they removed added sources helpful to our readers, but have also removed history and factual information for our readers. In addition, this user has filed an enforcement request 6 minutes after asking for the reverted edits to be removed. This not only seems overtly 'hasty,' in not giving an appropriate amount of time to myself to make said edits, but the fact that these edits were incorrectly placed by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place, makes it all the more moot.

This next section makes the Statement go over 500 word limit, unfortunately - However, I believe this section is necessary and significant to present a full picture of NorthBySouthBaranof's actions and claims:

User NorthBySouthBaranof has also provided incorrect or false information here on this filing, as I have in fact tried to discuss the issue on NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)'s talk page (as can be seen on their talk page), and they in fact 'snipped' or deleted my response. My now-'snipped' attempt at conversing with them can be seen on their talk page, and which I re-posted on mine after noticing NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) snipped my attempt.

In my initial Wikipedia-user-interface naivete I removed what I thought were notices on my talk page (#notices), but not attempts at conversation, and these appear to be from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I might be naive, as I am a beginner to the user-interface of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is possible to believe that I have 'removed' any conversation attempts, when I believe these were intended as 'notices' versus conversation from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I have recently tried to undo these edits due to me being a beginner, and they appear to be unable to be undone - but please redo them if possible, it will probably be more helpful to this case.

NorthBySouthBaranof, however, is an experienced user that I would imagine should know better than deleting my attempts at conversation on his talk page. He had in fact removed or 'snipped' all attempts at conversation. Hence, it appears surprising that he would then accused me of what he, NorthBySouthBaranof, has in fact done? His (and my) actions can easily be seen on these public webpages, and histories of these pages so I'm not sure why he would provide this false claim? Here is a copy of NorthBySouthBaranof's misdirected claim where not only do they only mention a 'consensus required' provision which refers to their Arbitration Request, but they also do not acknowledge their deletion of the sources and information or relevant and needed rationale therein, and then provide the misdirected, or false, claim regarding the removal of all attempts at communication (which NorthBySouthBaranof did, but I did not, funny enough): "Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)."[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chiappoloni

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

Chiappoloni, just state your case in your own section, please. You do not need a new report for that — a report which was malformed anyway. El_C 19:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiappoloni, rather than ping the complainant almost 20 times (!), you should address the violation itself. Otherwise, you should use diffs as evidence. You appear to be filibustering, which is a problem. This is a volunteer project and the expectation is for you to be concise. Your wall of text, again, is a problem on multiple levels. El_C 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiappoloni, these do indeed appear to be straightforward violations of the "consensus required" restriction, and you were clearly notified of that. I'll wait for a reasonable amount of time to hear what you have to say, but I suggest you respond as soon as you are able. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs provided in the request show two blatant violations of the "consensus required" page restriction on the George Soros article. Despite its length, Chiappoloni's response does not provide any arguments that mitigate or justify these violations. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jugs Rimes

Moot, editor has been blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 4 June 2020 (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 Jugs Rimes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jugs Rimes (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#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

16:51, 12 May 2020 Adds {{cn}} to the Drummuckavall ambush article. While obviously not a violation of anything, I feel it's fair and important to give a full timeline
23:23, 23 May 2020 Adds {{fv}} to the citation that was added following diff#1
21:51, 25 May 2020 Adds {{fv}} again
17:58, 31 May 2020 Adds {{fv}} again
16:42, 4 June 2020 Adds {{fv}} again

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 here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I explained at Talk:Drummuckavall ambush#Multiple editions of Harnden, with wildly differing page numbers on 07:02, 24 May 2020 that there are (at least) two editions of the book with wildly different page numbers (page 159 versus page 116 for the same information), I also explained to the editor on their talk page about this, as well as referring to it in an edit summary and requesting they explain why they feel it isn't referenced. All they do is ignore me. Although obviously not covered by the Troubles discretionary sanctions, the history of Airbus A400M Atlas shows a repeated attempt to add {{fv}} there despite other editors saying it's referenced, and the history of Mauser Model 1893 shows a repeated attempt to add a pointless duplicate link. As the history of their talk page shows, they have no interest in communicating with other editors regarding these problems.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jugs Rimes

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 Jugs Rimes

Statement by Levivich

Thanks to FDW for filing this report. There is more:

1 (combined diff): At Eoin O'Duffy, changing "The book had antisemitic undertones" to "The book had anti-communist undertones" (the cited source, p. 6, says "The book had strongly anti-Semitic undertones"); removing "fascist" and "Franco"; removing "blueshirts" or changing it to "Army Comrades Association"
2, 3, 4: At Antifa (United States), changing "movement" to "terrorist organization".
5, 6: At Killing of George Floyd, removing "Police officer Derek Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck" (or similar)
7, 8, 9: At Austrian Air Force, repeatedly adding {{cn}} tags to infobox parameters where the content is already sourced in the article
They have received a number of warnings and DS templates, all of which they deleted from their UTP with no response.
Never used an edit summary.
Never posted to a talk page (except to delete posts to their talk page).
There may be more; I haven't gone through all of the contribs. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jugs Rimes

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

I am considering indefing them as an admin action. They have been edit warring about rifles, edit warring about American politics, POV editing about Irish history and they have never participated in a discussion. Their first edit makes them look like a sock to me. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And they were Confirmed as a sock of Hasp Sneon via check user --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raghavendrax

Raghavendrax topic banned indefinitely from the IPA topic area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:02, 7 June 2020 (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 Raghavendrax

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

09:03, 6 June 2020: Replaced reliably sourced content in the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article with unverifiable content. The edit replaced "The amendment has been widely criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularity for excluding Muslims" with "The amendment act has been widely misinterpreted as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularity for excluding Muslims", and "The bill has raised concerns among the Indian Muslim as well as poor Indians as they might be rendered stateless that could lead them to detention" with "The bill has raised misunderstandings among the Indian Muslim as they might be rendered stateless that could lead them to detention" in the lead section. The cited sources are consistent with the removed language, and are inconsistent with the added language.
09:06, 6 June 2020: Removed 17,093 net characters from the OpIndia article, replacing the removed content with "OpIndia is widely criticized by Indian left-wing for exposing the fake news spreaded by Indian left-wing." The edit also changed the description of Swarajya from "right-wing" to "popular", deleting the citations attached to the removed word.
09:09, 6 June 2020: Identical to #2, undoing Materialscientist's reversion (Special:Diff/961040282) of the previous edit.

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Raghavendrax has repeatedly violated the verifiability policy in the area of Indian politics.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/961044947

Discussion concerning Raghavendrax

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 Raghavendrax

Statement by (username)

Statement by Symmachus Auxiliarus

Comment This seems pretty clear cut. Endorse T-BAN. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)|

Result concerning Raghavendrax

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

A topic ban from the IPA topic area is probably in order. El_C 09:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with El_C, and unless anyone shortly objects, will do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cement4802

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 Cement4802

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cement4802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

05:27, 1 June 2020 First change of "left-wing" to "far-left"
06:10, 1 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
22:29, 2 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
15:07, 6 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
15:46, 6 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left", and 1RR breach being 29 minutes after the previous revert

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)

Notified here by User:Doug Weller

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There only engagement on the talk page was at 11:08, 1 June 2020 stating Nfitz Please don't bring your political views into Wikipedia. Sentiments like yours are usually the problem and source of conflict itself. And this has nothing to do with Donald Trump regardless. Numerous reliable sources describe ANTIFA as being far left. This was obviously prior to diffs #3-5.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cement4802

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 Cement4802

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cement4802

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

Clear cut 1RR violation. The additional edit warring as well as the failure to communicate, leads me to believe that sanctions will be necessary. El_C 16:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs show two 1RR violations and edit warring across the past week. The correct course of action would have been to participate in the discussions on Talk:Antifa (United States), and obtain consensus before making the change. — Newslinger talk 06:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Aeonx

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Aeonx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed: Two week block (see log)

Administrator imposing the sanction: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: I copied this over myself when they appealed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aeonx

It was wrong to block me because it was done under inaccurate and false pretext, the justification used for my block was based on a clear misinterpretration of my the comment I made. The evidence of which is clearly available on my talkpage. I understand the blocking Administrators concern, and I have already openly admitted and accepted that the edit summary I made on the OANN page was disgraceful. I made the comment out of frustration, whereby I have been trying to boldly identifying issues and then take steps to improve the NPOV aspects of the OANN article and have instead simply had my edits (made in accordance with guidelines) reverts; followed my having warnings on my talkpage. That is the frustration I have which has lead to my less-than-graceful comments. However, I still assert the core reason for the block being unwarranted as a clear misinterpretation of my comments, which were generic in nature describing that POV-pushing is "troll-like conduct"; the comments I made in the two reference locations given in the block, were not in any way targeted at any particular editor.

Statement by TonyBallioni

So, the statement they are defending is not actually why I blocked. I had blocked on these diffs, which are clear battleground issues, with personal attacks and incivility thrown in the mix: [2], [3], [4] (note edit summary). These were all today, but there is also a history of personal attacks in the topic area: [5] (note content and edit summary), [6] (Aspersions and conspiracy theories about other editors), [7]. They had previously been warned for similar behaviour by Doug Weller in April here. I decided that in totality, the behaviour merited a block, and went with two weeks even though it was a first time offense, because looking at their editing from May, they mainly edit on the weekends lately, so a 24 hour block wouldn't do much and a 1 week would would be about the same, and you'd risk someone coming straight back to the same fight on the day they ordinarily edit.

After I blocked, I noticed that Bishonen had warned them over these edits, which is not something I had seen when looking through the block history. I pinged Bish to ask her thoughts, and mentioned that I wasn't particularly impressed by this comment in response to it, where he says that people he's fighting with on the talk page are exhibiting troll-like behaviour, which while not focused on any particular editor, in this topic area is a way of making a personal attack without saying names. It wasn't why I blocked, but it also made me not want to unblock quickly. As I said to Bish after I noticed that she had warned, I would be fine unblocking if she prefers to let the warning stand, but I also think there is enough conduct here for a block, especially as there has been recent history of this behaviour in the topic area, and they had previously been warned within the last two months. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Content disputes are not admin abuse.
Disagreement does not mean everyone else is wrong.
We are not here to WP:RGW.
POV-pushing is not a one-way street.
WP:5P4 appears to have been downgraded.
Poking in on weekends to snipe at other editors is not useful.

AP TBan the editor until there is some response that they truly realize the ongoing issues. (I'm sure I'm involved with this editor.) O3000 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Aeonx

We don't allow shared accounts. Can some admin do something about this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Aeonx

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

No, decline. Even after the warning for the behavior at issue in this block, and after the block, this editor has continued conduct that is inconsistent with the editing environment and that demonstrates that they do not understand why they have been blocked. It is not an acceptable defense to substitute "user:x is a [personal attack]" with "user:x has been engaging in [personal attack]-like conduct"; that would be a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Comments like If you READ CAREFULLY, you will see I did NOT call editors "troll-like", I wrote "troll-like" conduct". There is a big difference. I'm not attacking editors. I'm voicing an opinion as to how I, PERSONALLY, view their conduct; and I'm doing so on MY TALKPAGE. This is the sort of typical MALADMINISTRATION I am concerned about growing within Wikipedia. I will appeal this Block and All I get is more and more baseless threats, built around a misconception that I'm the person in the wrong because I'm overtly standing up against crappy administration and bullying. I am here to build a decent encyclopedia, not one built around abuse, maladministration and bias articles. aren't helping their cause either and don't at all indicate that they won't return to the exact same behavior right after the block; in this light, a two week block is pretty lenient. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief review of the earlier talk page posts is equally unimpressive. In response to a DS alert, the user writes: Thanks for posting, Doug Weller. Now I suggest you go read WP:UNINVOLVED. In characterizing this remark, the user writes: The only thing I said in regard to this standard alert was (1)A Thankyou, and (2)a request for you to review a particular relevant section of WP policy; the reason for which is that I was genuinely concerned based observations I had made from your past conduct that this *may* have been overlooked. Is it wrong for me to thankyou for posting on my talk page and to a make a suggestion?! Not a particularly impressive conversation. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel dirty posting here. But please be aware that this is a shared account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline after reading the above comments. The situation clearly justifies a two-week block. And as noted by User:L235, their user page states that their account is now being operated by two people. ("This account is used by two Freelance Journalists (SD and TR), currently reporting on COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom"). See WP:NOSHARING. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The documentation provided display recent misconduct and aggression which raises pressing concerns. That coupled with a seeming inability to understand the reasons for the block, leads me to decline the appeal. El_C 20:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline appeal. The block was an appropriate response to the misconduct, and the editor's behavior since then gives me no assurance that it is no longer necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azuredivay

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 Azuredivay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

4 June 2020 very many things wrong with this diff. Adds 13kb (!) of content without an edit summary, and with no explanation on the talk page. Includes content about "separatist campaign", much of which the sources do not directly connect to Pakistani nationalism. This is particularly true about the sentences discussing Direct Action Day. The same edit adds a long quotation about Pakistan from M. S. Golwalkar, a leader of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Golwalkar isn't a historian or political scientist, and his views constitute egregious undue weight. In short, edit violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and basic behavioral norms. EDITED: Azuredivay has pointed out that the quote already existed, for which I apologize; the software highlights it when I view that diff the same way new content is highlighted. That doesn't address the rest of the problems with that diff, though.
4 June 2020 same article as above; removes tags without explanation; adds content without a source.
23 May 2020 changes "Pakistani Qawwal" to "Indian Qawwal" without a source and without an edit summary.
4 June 2020 Accuses another user of "revisionism"; refuses to explain himself further.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: No previous sanctions.

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

Given an alert about discretionary sanctions by Newslinger on 15 March 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I find it quite strange that Azuredivay's command of English is far superior in the first two diffs linked above, than it is in discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified.

Discussion concerning Azuredivay

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 Azuredivay

Diff #1 has been misrepresented. Golwarkar's quote had been added by Arslan-San[8] not me. I just combined it with the previous para and you are free to remove it if you want. The same editor also added a large amount regarding how "Sindh" was different from the rest of India, which is not true. All of the citations I added to article are reliable and were taken from other places of Wikipedia like Direct Action Day article itself. What I added actually traces the origins of Pakistani nationalism, as Muslim nationalism that began in British India among the elite class of Muslims of UP and Bihar. The content also cited the Lahore Resolution that called for a separate state in subcontinent for Indian Muslims. Mentioning Direct Action Day is obviously important because it is after that event that communal riots spread to other parts of the subcontinent resulting in partition and the realization of the Pakistani state.

Diff #2: Per WP:ES, I provided edit summary where it was needed. For the rest it is very obvious that I am only adding the content.

Diff #3: Vanamonde93 has apparently ignored in this edit that I removed puffery, unsourced and unreliably sourced content. There was no Pakistan before 1947 so how a person who was born in 1911 could be called "Pakistani"? I planned to resolve this content dispute on talk page for later.

Diff #4 has been also misrepresented because I engaged as much as it was needed and I cited a discussion (see Talk:Channar_revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?) which mentioned the word "revisionism" three times and concluded that those views were revisionist in nature. Azuredivay (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (other involved editor)

Result concerning Azuredivay

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 306: / Line 306: @@
 ; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_nationalism&type=revision&diff=960812809&oldid=953812520 4 June 2020] very many things wrong with this diff. Adds 13kb (!) of content without an edit summary, and with no explanation on the talk page. Includes content about "separatist campaign", much of which the sources do not directly connect to Pakistani nationalism. This is particularly true about the sentences discussing [[Direct Action Day]]. The same edit adds a ''long'' quotation about Pakistan from [[M. S. Golwalkar]], a leader of the Hindu nationalist [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]]. Golwalkar isn't a historian or political scientist, and his views constitute egregious [[WP:DUE|undue weight]]. In short, edit violates [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]], and basic behavioral norms.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_nationalism&type=revision&diff=960812809&oldid=953812520 4 June 2020] very many things wrong with this diff. Adds 13kb (!) of content without an edit summary, and with no explanation on the talk page. Includes content about "separatist campaign", much of which the sources do not directly connect to Pakistani nationalism. This is particularly true about the sentences discussing [[Direct Action Day]]. <s>The same edit adds a ''long'' quotation about Pakistan from [[M. S. Golwalkar]], a leader of the Hindu nationalist [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]]. Golwalkar isn't a historian or political scientist, and his views constitute egregious [[WP:DUE|undue weight]].</s> In short, edit violates [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]], and basic behavioral norms. EDITED: Azuredivay has pointed out that the quote already existed, for which I apologize; the software highlights it when I view that diff the same way new content is highlighted. That doesn't address the rest of the problems with that diff, though.
 #[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=960990711 4 June 2020] same article as above; removes tags without explanation; adds content without a source.
 #[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Munshi_Raziuddin&diff=prev&oldid=958338162 23 May 2020] changes "Pakistani Qawwal" to "Indian Qawwal" without a source and without an edit summary.

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