Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Gillcv

The consensus here is that the partial block which has already been applied is appropriate. Gillcv is warned that further disruptive editing may result in a topic ban from the pseudoscience and/or CAM areas, or other additional sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 3 September 2022 (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 Gillcv

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gillcv (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:ARBCAM WP:ARBPS

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

[1] 29 August 2022, 15:34 UTC—edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source
[2] 29 August 2022, 16:11 UTC—obstinate edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source
[3] 31 August 2022, 02:21 UTC—they still think they were right
[4] 31 August 2022, 03:11 UTC—refuses to apologize, they think they were right

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.

[5] 29 August 2022, 15:22 UTC

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

About from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful: sorry, that's not knowledge (Greek episteme), that's opinion (Greek doxa). It's just a testimonial. Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenRing. You have misread the time. They were warned at 15:22 UTC, not 16:22 UTC. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gillcv: See law of holes. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [6]

Discussion concerning Gillcv

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 Gillcv

I the wikipedia entry "Cupping therapy" I introduced the following paragraph;

However, this is not the first situation when folk medicine is unjustly blamed by "scientific" medicine. The negative effects of suction cup therapy may also be due to improper handling of the suction cups. It is true that there are also negative effects of suction cup therapy, but which "scientifically" designed drug does not? But there are also scientific studies that rehabilitate this therapy.^[1]

This paragraph was deleted twice. On the second re-introduction, in the motivation, I wrote that, from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful. The last deletion was motivated as follows: the source is not reliable. In other words, the author of the second deletion allows himself to make me a liar. In addition, without documenting himself, he says that the journal is not reliable! Here is the journal information: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-acupuncture-and-meridian-studies.

Gillcv (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu

Mi statement is what: is an opinion?! So, according to your knowledge of logic and language, is a testimony an opinion?

If it is not an opinion, then it is the testimony of many own experiences (with positive results).

quote @Tgeorgescu : Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. Well:

1) logic, again! This is not a statement is an affirmation.

2) This affirmation was not inserted in the body of the paragraph in the Wikipedia article, but in the motivation for reintroducing that paragraph.

3) The scientific truth is supported by the citation of an article from scientific journal (not crap!) Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies.

Finally, did you read something about this journal? There!

1) Quote: The Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed, open access journal. (my emphasys).

2) Quote: It includes new a paradigm of integrative research, covering East and West, and traditional and modern medicine. (my emphasys).

3) Quote: The journal is indexed in MedLine/PubMed/Index Medicus, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, DOI/Crossref, Korea Citation Index(KCI), SHERPA/RoMEO, EZB, and Research Bible. Gillcv (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing Nevertheless please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to continue this argument endlessly. Maybe only if you recommend me to the Dutch Commune Zwolle so that I can also receive some money. Gillcv (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Aboushanab, Tamer S.; AlSanad, Saud (June 2018). "Cupping Therapy: An Overview from a Modern Medicine Perspective". Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies. 11 (3): 83–87. doi:10.1016/j.jams.2018.02.001.

Statement by GoldenRing

As far as I can tell in the mishmash of timezones the site presents me with, the DS notification (at 16:22) comes after the diffs (15:34 and 16:11), so this request is not actionable no matter what the merits of it might be. On a very quick glance it looks like it would have merit, but pseudoscience is not my bag. @Gillcv: I'd take this as your warning to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

~~PS I'd close this myself but I forget what the propriety is of doing this kind of admin action where I don't actually hold the bit. GoldenRing (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: you are right, my bad. I'll go figure out how to get wiki to always give me times in UTC. GoldenRing (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gillcv

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

I have just seen this. I had already partial blocked Gillcv from Cupping therapy for disruptive editing - not as an AE action. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for discretionary sanctions, the article talk page isn't tagged with DS notice, although I don't think that is required. Not sure which area would be best, as tagging them isn't what I normally do. In all events, I think BK's block was the right move, under the right authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is disruptive and I agree with the partial block. The same end could be achieved with a topic ban. Hut 8.5 18:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pranesh Ravikumar

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 Pranesh Ravikumar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Pranesh Ravikumar (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:ARBIPA

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

04:17, 28 August 2022 Removes a reliably sourced addition claiming it's RGW. (1st revert)
Follows it up with this intimidation/accusatory message to the editor who added it over what's essentially a comment dispute at this stage. Warned for disruption. They copypaste the warning message, claim that I'm hounding them and other things in retaliation (diff).
05:13, 30 August 2022 Removes it again. (2nd revert) Warned for edit warring.
[13:28, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Removes it again and replaces it with a cherrypicked copypaste while citing a different source. (3rd revert)
[15:39, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Same as above but this time they cite the real source. (4th revert) Warned for copyright violation.
In the meantime we have a long winded discussion on my talk page which ends with them insisting on a personal standard that for "verification doesn't guarantee inclusion" to apply, one must present a refutation to the source.
13:10, 2 September 2022‎ Partial restoration of their addition which includes similar close paraphrasing (Compare with source) and without any attempts to gain consensus through a third opinion or an RFC for it. They are well aware of ONUS due to the above discussion but they simply dismiss the dispute by claiming that it "wasn't sensibly disputed". (5th revert)

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 on 15:43, 29 August 2022 and 13:01, 27 May 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discussing something with them itself is a pain due to the fact that they just tend to double down whenever a mistake is pointed out, argue against straw men and it's ultimately fruitless when they just go IDHT. In addition note that this behavior may be motivated by the nature of the content itself, the initial addition reflected negatively on the Premiership of Narendra Modi which they first tried to remove and then tried to minimise/distract from by adding tangential material. They have also previously been blocked for POV pushing and warned for copyright violations.

Overall a particularly frustrating combination of uncollaborative combative behavior, edit warring, copyright violations and a general refusal and/or inability to understand and follow policies and guidelines. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just lying. I didn't admit to anything, all I accepted was that there was minor error, a difference between "15 out of 16" and "16 out of 16". The content you were trying to remove is much more than that. Neither Libreravi nor TrangaBellam who introduced and restored the section seem to agree that it included "misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims". No one else supported your position, you clearly didn't have a consensus and you were arguing against things no one said. Case in point saying that "Claims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo would require peer-reviewed scholarly sources" (diff) when there was no mention of any gestapo in the addition.

And the objection against your addition is simple, that it deviates from the subject of the article. You can't wish that away by claiming that "there can be no sensible objection". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning Pranesh Ravikumar

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 Pranesh Ravikumar

Why this report is being filed when the content dispute has been already resolved? I am saying this in the sense that there can be no sensible objection to the content that exists in the present version.

The content which I had removed included misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims.

But the content which I wrote was in fact expansion and was based on quality sources like Christophe Jaffrelot.

I admit I had to focus more on rewriting, but I haven't breached copyrights since.

Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources.[8]

After this, I discussed reliably sourced content backed with multiple sources with Tayi Arajakte on their talk page, but only to see them failing to provide a sensible reason to remove the reliably sourced information. After nearly 3 days of discussion I restored the content.[9]

I was following WP:BRD here and gave every opportunity to Tayi Arajakte to provide a good explanation behind the removal of the content backed with quality sources. I also told Tayi Arajakte how they can justify the removal.

If the community was consulted over this content then I am sure it will favor my position that the reliably sourced content should not be removed. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Depends on the claims that are being made but scholarly sources are more ideal supporting the text which is exceptional, though the dispute was not just about the use of news sources but also the misrepresentation of the existing sources. I had 3 DS alerts this year, 1 was about ARBIPA, 1 was about BLP and 1 was about South Asian social groups. But that is clearly not indicative of any 'disruption' because alerts are notifications, not warnings, the message box of DS alert clearly notes "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: I wanted to address the reverts and warning on my talk page this is why I made the message on user's talk page to address all this together but from next time I will ensure addressing content-related issues on the talk page of the article. I am not brushing off the copyright violation but stating how it could be avoided. Isn't it more important to show how one has recognised what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake next time? I had a reading of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE and I promise not to violate copyrights again. You should see Talk:Premiership of Narendra Modi#Use of investigative agencies where Tayi Arajakte is aggressively relying on his WP:JDL-based explanations to get rid of the content reliably sourced to the best available source of this subject after edit warring to remove it here without gaining consensus. At least 3 far more experienced users (including 2 admins) have agreed with my position. You shouldn't be topic banning a user who is on the correct side in this dispute. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Making my statement here because of 2 frivolous warnings I received from Tayi Arajakate right after I made my comment on talk page.

First warning falsely claims that I violated WP:NPA because of the word "WP:STONEWALLING" I used here, followed by the false claim of having a "rough consensus", despite no consensus is developed in less than 2 hours for removing reliably sourced content. No evidence of WP:NPA violation was ever provided.

Second warning falsely claims that I violated WP:CANVASSING by notifying the long term contributors in good standing who have edited this article for years.

Either this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or a WP:CIR issue, or a combination of both. You can't go around spamming frivolous warnings just to get discourage your opponent in a content dispute. Admins need to take a look at this misconduct of Tayi Arajakte. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Pranesh Ravikumar

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

Since when do we require peer reviewed scholarly sources? What we require is content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Pranesh Ravikumar needs a TBAN from ARBPIA. Notice they have three(?) DS alerts. Will await further input. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed with Pranesh Ravikumar here. I'm not sure why they brought the content discussion to a user talk page rather than the article talk page; that's generally unproductive. And I'm even less impressed with repeated copyright violations, and then characterizing that with a brushoff I admit I had to focus more on rewriting.... I'm inclined to agree with a topic ban here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carter00000

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 Carter00000

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Carter00000 (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:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

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

At WP:ITNC, the user has bludgeoned arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, essentially resulting the same argument being restated about 8 times. These include:

08:41, 1 September 2022 The relevance of the bolded article is also in question, given the scope of the report and the fact that the report make no mention of genocide.
12:43, 1 September 2022 The word "genocide" does not appear anywhere in the report and the allegations don't come close to that either
13:29, 1 September 2022 I think that the link to the article is already questionable, given that the reports scope is on counter-terrorism strategies, while "Uyghur genocide" implies much more serious actions.
14:59, 1 September 2022 the scope of the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism related operations of the government, and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all,
15:59, 1 September 2022 I would like to reiterate that the report makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all.
15:13, 2 September 2022 the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. ... Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide".
16:55, 2 September 2022 Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide in not alleged or mentioned in the report.
09:01, 3 September 2022 Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude.

After being cautioned about bludgeoning on their talk page and about beating a dead horse in the discussion itself, the user continued to bludgeon the discussion and then pinged a bunch of editors who were involved at a discussion on another page:

12:29, 4 September 2022‎ wall of text
16:07, 4 September 2022‎ pings to 5 editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Alerted about generalsanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see this diff.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff and diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that the above shows that the editor has bludgeoned, has been warned about bludgeoning, and has no interest in stopping bludgeoning. I'd ask that the user be blocked under general sanctions for 72 hours for repeatedly bludgeoning at WP:ITNC with respect to the Uyghur genocide article. I believe this will allow time for the user to calm down and will prevent further disruption in this thread. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: In the past, the user has gone to WP:ERRORS when the ITNC discussion was briefly closed and again made the same sort of argument for why they didn't like the blurb in an effort to get it pulled (i.e. The scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism and counter-extremism related operations of the government and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all). A partial block from ITNC would likely just push the bludgeoning back to WP:ERRORS based off of the user's past behavior in the thread. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for 72 hours is that it's the standard first-offense edit warring sanction; I think that bludgeoning is somewhat akin to talk page analogue of edit warring (i.e. using brute numbers of edits to try to get one's way). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: A topic ban would also work to prevent disruption and, given that the editor doesn't really edit articles in that topic area anyway, I don't have concerns about it unduly impacting the editor's editing. It might even be more narrowly tailored than the block. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carter00000: Is there a reason you canvassed ITNC about this AE thread? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Carter00000

Statement by Carter00000

On the initial edits, I would like to note that the edits linked were made at different stages of the ITN nomination. I felt that given that the discussion had entered into new stages, it was reasonable to address the same concerns again, given that each stage was for a separate action.

I would like to note that I stopped making the above argument after being warned. The two subsequent edits made related to the nomination in general, and was to address issues with the process of the nomination, given the number of concerns raised by other editors. The concerns were cited to editors who had raised those issues in brackets, pinging them at the same time as a means to request their comments on the discussion. The pings to the five editors in the second comment was to request comments from all participants of a concurrent discussion on the subject on a different page. Carter00000 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please find my clarifications on the points mentioned.

I would like to note that I don't edit much in ITN, with only occasional contributions. I have also mostly limited myself to a few comments for each nomination commented on in the past.

I have previously not made any edits realting to this DS topic, these were my first edits to this topic.

As per my previous comment, I would like to re-iterate that I did stop making the point which I was warned for, after I had been warned. My understanding is that sanctions are only imposed for continued disruption after being warned.

Given the reaction here at AE, it has been made clear that I have overstepped in a topic of contention, which should have been apparent to me given the topic DS. I would like to signel my willingness to take a step back, re-assess my actions, and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Please note that the previous cases relate to actions initiated by myself against the conduct of other editors which I felt was against policy.

In this case, my actions are in relation to content issues on an article. I feel that these issues are of a different nature, and that it is obvious that I would be more proactive in the former case.

I further note that this noticeboard is for enforcement of DS's on specific topics, so it seems unreasonable to constantly bring up my actions in other parts of WP not related to this topic area. Carter00000 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Whatever sanction that is deemed necessary, I'll support, ncluding a topic ban from WP:ITN/C for extraordinarily disruptive conduct, even after being asked to stop. Yes, I recognize I may have partially prompted this by closing the discussion here, but these closures are not atypical on ITN/C once a consensus is reached, as it had been, and the proper thing to do then is discuss any changes to the blurb at WP:ERRORS. Even when he is the sole voice of opposition, Carter00000 has been dominating the discussion both on WP:ERRORS and WP:ITN/C in a way that represents battleground mentality.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: My only other encounter with Carter00000 was on WP:ANI when he opened up two threads: once against Citobun and again against Alsoriano97. In the latter case, there was a great deal of suspicion regarding his own conduct. It seems he also opened up an ArbCom request which was also quickly shut down. I'm not sure if that means he also needs to be topic banned from WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, but it's clear he is overzealous and quick to instigate drama in areas where it would be more prudent to disengage and mediate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the declined ArbCom request to refresh my memory, and given what took place there, I now believe his disruptive conduct was and is such that an indef WP:NOTHERE block may be more appropriate.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

After filing multiple Arb cases and ANI cases, I think it's time for a topic ban from ITN. This is just ridiculous. Since they dragged me to Arb (which was immediately declined for not having merit), I will comment in this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by InvadingInvader

I have not had any direct interactions with Carter outside of this most recent debacle on Xinjiang, but I'm not hearing happy notes about this guy. I do think he frequently disrupts consensus, and if he/she/they had spent more time on Talk:2022 with regard to Xinjiang, I believe many arguments he would bring up would be redundant and unproductive.
Most people seem to be suggesting a TBAN or Block; my recommendation would be to TBAN Carter from Xinjiang permanently and a block of at least 9 months followed by a permanent "probation" period. He's caused problems before, but I'm one who believes in reform. If he's able to prove himself after he/she/they block to be a constructive editor who respects consensus, I think he could be an awesome contributor, but if more stuff pops up about him disrupting consensus, "playing Karen" and dragging people to arbitration, acting in a manner in which he demonstrates behavior contrary to WP:OWN, or anything else that would show he's WP:NOTHERE, the permablock may be needed. What I'm personally worried about is if he does get permablocked too early, he's gonna IP sock vandalize since a permablock could be interpreted by Carter that he can't go lower on Wikipedia, giving him motivation to have a grudge against us forever. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Carter00000

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

Statement by Deepfriedokra A 72 hour block seems like a milder sanction than is usually doled out here. Would a WP:partial block of 72 hours duration for that page (WP:ITNC) not serve as well?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Welp, I'll go one better as a partial block would not work. How 'bout a WP:TOPICBAN on anything to do with the Uyghur genocide, anywhere at all on Wikipedia, broadly construed, of three months duration. Perhaps Carter can find a constructive way to contribute apart from that area. I'll support almost anything. I'm easy to get along with. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's the overall content here that is in question. Changing focus not withstanding. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltCip: If I remember correctly, Carter00000 mostly edits mostly in the ITN area. Hast here been other disruption not about the Uyghur's? If so, that should be the focus of any TBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we accept Cart0000's assurances and do not impose a TBAN now, we will just find ourselves back here again. Past experience with three ANI's and two ArbCom requests tells me Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 72 hour block is going to do very little in my opinion. It appears that Carter has a bee in their bonnet about this issue outwith ITN (e.g. here) and therefore I think that a TBAN from the topic area of some duration is what we should be looking at. No real opinion on the duration, but I'd happily support DFO's suggestion of three months. firefly ( t · c ) 18:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is going to be a tban, it should be indef -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:24, 4 September 2022 (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.

[3] Aboushanab, Tamer S.; AlSanad, Saud (June 2018). "Cupping Therapy: An Overview from a Modern Medicine Perspective". Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies. 11 (3): 83–87. doi:10.1016/j.jams.2018.02.001.

[a]

[b]

[1]

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