Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:10, 13 September 2018

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Netoholic

No action for now. The dispute was about Political views of American academics. Anyone who desires to improve this article is expected to actively work toward consensus. Report again if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Netoholic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary Sanctions, American Politics 2.

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

September 5, 2018 Please see the edit summary: "rvt disingenuous editing and inaccurate edit summaries."

This is a revert of these two edits by me: [1] and [2], made with no follow-up comments in talk. There are underlying content/POV issues here, but my concern for this report is specifically about describing my two edits as "disingenuous editing" and having "inaccurate edit summaries". I think that it is clearly a personal attack, made in a battleground-y way, that does not accurately describe the edits or edit summaries that I made, and is at a level that should not occur under DS. Had the edit summary simply been about a concern over NPOV, I would not be raising this here, but instead would be discussing it in talk. The page is Political views of American academics, so it is entirely within the scope of post-1932 US politics.

It is important to consider, also, that there have recently been two community RfCs that were held at Netoholic's request, in which the community strongly rejected his views about page content: 1 and 2, so it is not like my edits were contrary to talk page consensus or his revert was consistent with consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: Previous recent AE block for battleground behavior: June, 2018.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): May 21, 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: @EdJohnston and other interested admins: I appreciate that part of AE is getting fresh eyes on a complaint, and I of course have been deeply involved. But to some extent, I think this report goes to what I said at WT:AE#A broader issue, about how AP2 needs more decisive action at AE. Do you think I edited disingenuously? Do you think that my two edit summaries were misleading? Also, to some extent, please consider as a thought experiment how you would feel if I, in turn, were to figure "Well, they say it's OK at AE" and go and revert the revert with an edit summary of "rvt disingenuous editing and insulting edit summaries. NPOV means giving due weight not equal weight". Do you really want DS to mean that's all OK?

Of course I'm not arguing edit warring based on one revert of my edits. I reported a single diff, but if you want to see an ongoing pattern of battleground against broad consensus by Netoholic at that page: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. It's a pattern, and it's not like it's just a two-editor disagreement between Netoholic and me. It's pretty much all the other editors active at the page disagreeing with Netoholic – and I started having RfCs in the hope of resolving the multiple issues, and the community very strongly rejected Netoholic's views each time. It's getting close to where anyone who makes a non-gnomish edit gets reverted right away by Netoholic, with a WP:1AM fight over every detail. It's becoming an unproductive time-sink for the rest of us. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had past experience with premature closing, so I'll make note of this: [15]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed: Well, it's obviously your call and not mine. In the past, Netoholic has always stopped editing during any AE discussion about him, and then resumed as soon as the discussion is closed and archived. It's true that the page has been very quiet of late, but that has been because there have been two successive RfCs during which pretty much no one wanted to edit the page until there was a result, and I think that there has also been a lot of fatigue over it. Let me propose the following: I will go now and revert the revert (with a polite edit summary, and with a subsequent edit making a good faith effort at compromise), and let's see what follows after that. If a day goes by with crickets, please feel free to close this with no action. If after you do that trouble erupts again, please be prepared for me to say I told you so. Deal? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made these three edits, the first of which is the revert: [16], [17], and [18]. I trust that these edits were not disingenuous and that my edit summaries were not inaccurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [19]

Discussion concerning Netoholic

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 Netoholic

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Netoholic

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

There is no 1RR on this article, and I don't think Tryptofish is making a complaint of edit warring. Rather, this ia a claim about battleground editing. The complaint is about the edit summary in this single edit of Netoholic. This is actually Netoholic's first edit of the article since June 16. The summary to which you object is (in its entirety): Rvt disingenuous editing and inaccurate edit summaries. Contradictory viewpoints deserve equal standing per NPOV. The claim of disingenuous editing is hinting at dishonesty, which is a bit much. But it seems overkill to want to sanction for this. I'm sympathetic to the difficulty in reaching agreement, and in fact the two RfCs look to have been reasonable steps. But this one edit summary doesn't seem to be a big deal considering the bitter disputes we see in the area of American politics. Netoholic is mentioned in DSLOG and was blocked in June at AE for battleground editing and misuse of admin boards. The June block seems justified. Unclear if this current complaint, when added to the past record, amounts to a pattern requiring a new sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far there is just one person requesting action (Tryptofish), one responding admin (me) and no comment from the person named in the complaint (Netoholic). The article we are discussing was the subject of hot dispute in the past, especially in May and June. But with an article that is currently very quiet, and with such a low rate of activity by Netoholic on the article, it is hard to see this as being a large problem. Can a guy who only edits the article once in two months really be holding up all progress? Above, you have added some diffs to show battleground editing by Netoholic but they are all from the month of May, which seems like a long time ago. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Tryptofish's new comment, I'm closing this with no action against User:Netoholic. If the problem continues, open a new complaint and link to this one. It's my guess that the existence of this article is more welcome to editors on the conservative side of the political spectrum, in US politics. When we consider editors' personal views, such people may not be in a majority here. The net effect may not be much zeal for article improvement. But if efforts do continue, we expect people to work in good faith to reach agreement. There is also the usual puzzle, that when an article survives AfD (as this one did in May) there is no guarantee that anyone who supports the article's existence will actually work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Help 2018

Let Me Help 2018 is topic banned from Brett Kavanaugh and his nomination process for the US Supreme Court, broadly construed, for six months. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Let Me Help 2018

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Let Me Help 2018 (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)

Brett Kavanaugh was placed under Discretionary Sanctions on August 4, 2018 for Post 1932 American politics.

I suggest Let Me Help 2018 be topic banned from Brett Kavanaugh for a period of anywhere from 1 month to 6 months.

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

Let Me Help 2018 keeps trying to force in WP:PROMO to the WP:LEDE of Brett Kavanaugh through edit-war, in violation of WP:1RR and without any discussion on the talk page.

06:35, 7 September 2018 1st addition
06:49, 7 September 2018 2nd addition / revert / Fails WP:BRD
11:09, 7 September 2018 3rd addition / revert / WP:1RR violation
08:23, 10 September 2018 4th addition / revert / disregard of WP:BRD

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

Galobtter warned the editor three times talk page from about this behavior.

Let Me Help 2018 is well aware of these warnings, because he/she individually deleted each of the the three warnings.

I also warned the editor at the talk page of the article here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice: [20] Revised Notice.

Discussion concerning Let Me Help

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 Let Me Help

Statement by Drmies

Well, Tornheim, thanks--I was halfway through filing for the same thing. Let me Help is just being tirritating and I'd block them myself if I hadn't been friendly enough to revert them first. They're uncommunicative, they removed warnings and sage advice from their talk page, and that's disruptive. A block is warranted, given they've been warned before. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jdaloner

The reverts continue beyond what is identified above, making 3 times in approximately 18 hours. I don't know whether I'm supposed to edit/add to David Tornheim's list above, so I'll just add the new ones here:

5. 01:59, 11 September 2018 5th addition / revert / WP:1RR violation

6. 02:16, 11 September 2018 6th addition / revert / WP:1RR violation

Jdaloner (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ...it could be you!

Result concerning Let Me Help

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

Let Me Help 2018 has violated two restrictions on this article, both 1RR (on multiple occasions) and the requirement to discuss disputed edits on the talk page and gain consensus before making them again, also on multiple occasions. My suggestion, with them being a relatively new editor, is a six-month topic ban from Kavanaugh and the process of his nomination, broadly construed (after which time, hopefully, the matter will have been settled), with a clear understanding that any more trouble will lead to the ban being broadened and/or lengthened. Since the disruption is ongoing, unless anyone very shortly objects, I will implement that remedy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't happen too soon. Let Me Help 2018 just did it again, and I can't revert it this time, having already made my 1 revert per 24-hour period.

7. 03:46, 11 September 2018 7th addition / revert / WP:1RR violation

Jdaloner (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle

The areas of dispute are outside the scope of arbitration enforcement that the case allows. Sanctions will need to be considered by either the community, or the Arbitration Committee. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Born2cycle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Born2cycle (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/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Born2cycle_warned

and, more importantly

This AE case, section "Request concerning Born2cycle"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Born2cycle (B2C) is an editor whose entire focus at Wikipedia is about page naming and page moving. They have made 26,000 edits here, yet only 3,000 to mainspace (and most of those have been edits related to page moves). Over the last five years, fewer than 10% of their edits have been to mainspace (and again, mostly page move related).
In the original AC case referred to above, B2C was warned that "(they are) warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors".
Given a number of problematic issues, an AE case was opened by User:TonyBallioni on 6 March this year. The case can be seen at this link, section "Born2cycle". As you can see, there was a clear consensus to topic ban B2C from article naming discussions due to their disruption. It is worth reading the discussion there - consensus was quite clear. However, before the case could be closed, User:Dennis Brown stepped in and blocked B2C indefinitely, quoting remedy 4.2 of the aforementioned ArbCom case.
On 4 June 2018, User:wbm1058 unilaterally unblocked B2C, with the unblock summary "a nearly 3-month first block is of sufficient duration, and is well beyond the norm for a first block for tendentious editing". I disputed this unblock with wbm1058 - here's the "discussion" that ensued.
However, B2C, despite the unblock, did not edit again until early August. Then he started his previous modus operandi as follows

18 edits at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
6 edits at an RM discussion at Talk:Nosedive
9 edits at an RM discussion at Talk:Freston, Suffolk

Then, he started closing RM discussions

The discussion at Talk:The_Late_Show_(franchise) was immediately challenged as a supervote.
This one - Talk:Michael_McCormack_(Australian_politician) is a shocker - he moved the page despite 80% of the !votes being against. An admin reversed it.
At Talk:DiDi, there was an RM on whether to move Didi (company) to Didi Chuxing. B2C ignored most of the discussion (one editor did suggest this) and unilaterally moved it to Didi (where it still is).
See also conversation with User:SmokeyJoe at User_talk:Born2cycle#RM Supervotes

After the original AE and block, B2C should never have been able to return to his standard of disruption on move requests and article namings. I hope that this AE will reach the coinclusion that the previous one did, before it was (in good faith) short-circuited by the block. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here.

Reply to TonyBallioni

Hi Tony, yes I considered that, however I brought it here because it concerns an AE discussion that was not completed due to the block; the majority of the evidence is at AE rather than the ArbCom case. However I'll let others decide what the best venue is; it's 01:00 here so I won't be active for a few hours now.

Discussion concerning Born2cycle

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 Born2cycle

I've been careful to not comment too much in any one RM discussion. Though many other editors do this all the time, I've been told when I do it it's Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing, so I've refrained from engaging in such behavior. But what's "too much"? For example, Black Kite notes I have 6 edits at Talk:Nosedive, accurately, but Crouch, Swale has 7, SmokeyJoe has 19, Diego Moya has 30... why am I singled out? Similarly, at Talk:Freston, Suffolk, while I do have 7 edits, Crouch, Swale has 30. At Talk:Disambiguation where I have 18 recent edits, Widefox has 25 and Diego Moya has 49. Are these other more prolific editors in violation of Tendentious Editing or disruption? I certainly don't think so. Do you? Then why am I? I'm not aware of any other policy or guideline that anyone is even alleging I'm violating.

As my user page and FAQ has long explained, my primary interest at WP is stabilizing titles (and, thus, title policy), so of course I don't have much main space editing. Why is this even considered a violation of some kind? It's certainly not a documented one. In each of the two cases where I've been accused of super voting in my closes, only one person has objected. Normally, challenged RMs are taken to RM Review. But not me. Straight to Enforcement I go. I don't think it's fair to enforce imaginary rules, but that's exactly what seems to be going on here. What I'd like to see is a clear explanation, from someone, anyone, of what written/published policy I'm accused of violating, and how they believe I'm in violation of it. I would be happy to comply. Simply disagreeing with me about titles should not suffice as a reason to support banning me from RM discussions. Right? --В²C ☎ 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite claims "B2C ignored most of the discussion ... and unilaterally moved it to Didi (where it still is)", while RegentsPark sees what actually happened: "b2c seems to have actually read the discussion, discovered that three editors (not one) are fine with DiDi because that's the name used internationally and by several reliable sources. Seems reasonable to close it that way, imo". Indeed, rather than ignoring "most of the discussion", I read it carefully, and found consensus favoring DiDi over the current title, and not just by numbers. I have a history of similar differences in perspective/understanding with SmokeyJoe, Dick Lyon, and others. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I endorse a TBAN on Born2cycle closing RM discussions based on the diffs provided (the close at Talk:DiDi also appears to be a supervote), but I'm not convinced yet anything more is necessary. The Nosedive discussion (which I participated in) was a clusterfuck for reasons other than this editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the procedural comments that this should be re-filed at WP:ARCA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Black Kite, it is my suggestion that this be taken to ARCA. The DS only apply to policy discussions and for violating the warning, we could block but not TBAN as it is outside of DS. I don’t think ANI would work well here as it’s been tried before to little avail. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting I’ve notified Juliancolton of this on his talk since he’s involved in one of the incidents and was mentioned indirectly. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wbm1058, just to clarify, I suggested he be banned from policy pages last time, which is within the scope (see the DS authorization, which is distinct from the standard enforcement), and it would have been appropriate in my view given the blatant forumshopping and bludgeoning of policy talks instead of actually asking for a move review. I can’t speak to his behavior in that way since the ban, but given the closure that JC had to overturn (correctly IMO since it was so far off base as to not need a MRV), I think having the committee take a closer look at this is probably needed rather than DS on policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SmokeyJoe

Support a ban on Born2cycle (talk · contribs) closing discussions, especially RM discussions, and from editing any titling policy or guideline. His understanding of "compromise" in consensus is not there, instead he invokes black and white thinking, discarding others views that conflict with his bias for his long held titling theory objective. His objective he states as "stabilizing titles (and, thus, title policy)", but it is better described as "Title Minimalism" and "Algorithmic titling decisions", the second being inconsistent with consensus decision-making, and the net effect is disruption.

Weak opposition to banning from RM discussions or policy talk discussion on titling, but:

Support "contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors"

or

A prohoibition from engaging in lengthy threaded discussions, in favour of only making his own point in his own dot point without naming others.

My longer opinion was expressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 23:47, 7 March 2018. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

Not clear to me what b2c is doing wrong here. I looked at the closes mentioned above, and they aren't unreasonable. Even the DiDi case presented as a particularly egregious example is not really that outré. Rather, b2c seems to have actually read the discussion, discovered that three editors (not one) are fine with DiDi because that's the name used internationally and by several reliable sources. Seems reasonable to close it that way, imo. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dicklyon

Support at least a ban on closing RM discussions and on editing any policy or guideline page; SmokeyJoe says it well, so I don't need to repeat. Discussion is OK, but some reasonable limits might still be in order. I think we've had a solid 10 years of this nonsense, with some breaks now and then. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calton

Given Born2Cycle's antics at Talk:Bend, where he tries to declare as invalid a move request that was his idea originally and promptly went against him, ArbCom -- here or elsewhere -- should go ahead and make topic ban official. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2Cycle:: What I'd like to see is a clear explanation, from someone, anyone, of what written/published policy I'm accused of violating, and how they believe I'm in violation of it.

You appear to have confused Wikipedia with a legal proceeding or a video game. But here you go, if you missed it the first time. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbm1058

I concur with TonyBallioni that the better venue for this may be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The sanction proposed for enforcement is "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." and the remedy is "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." My understanding is that Dennis Brown rejected the previous request for enforcement as out-of-scope, which is why he did not take a WP:AE action, but rather "a normal admin action". Bans on closing requested moves or participating in policy discussions are beyond the scope of remedies which is limited to blocks. The ~3-month block which resulted from the previous AE discussion on this matter was three times longer than the initial restriction called for by the Arbitration Committee. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Born2cycle

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

There is no authority under the arbitration case to topic ban B2C (or anyone) from requested moves. The only enforceable remedy explicitly states that it applies only to MOS pages themselves, not to requested moves or anything else. If sanctions are going to be placed here, they need to be placed either by the community, or by ArbCom. "Warned" remedies are just informational, they aren't enforceable (at least not by admins, ArbCom can choose to further sanction an editor who was previously warned). So, this discussion really needs to be taking place either at AN, or at an arbitration request/amendment request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford88

Blocked for one week for a clear violation. Crawford88 should note that unless they edit in other areas, they are not really complying with the topic ban and they are in danger of heading toward an indef block.--regentspark (comment) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Crawford88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Crawford88 (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 : specifically, a topic-ban from "all pages related to India, broadly construed".

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

12 September 2018. The user's first and only edit since coming off a 3-day block for another topic-ban adds material about an Indian professor writing in an Indian newspaper about an event organized be and attended primarily by the Indian diaspora, to a page in which at least half the material is related to India.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[21] One previous block for violating the same topic ban.

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

Topic-ban and block for violating this ban were all within the last 4 months.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User seems unable or unwilling to comprehend what a topic-ban is, and that they are required to abide by it. Virtually all of their edits since the ban have been violations. Vanamonde (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Crawford88

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 Crawford88

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Crawford88

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

Petrarchan47

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 Petrarchan47

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions,

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_Aspersions :

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

May 2016 KingofAces has made changes to this encyclopedia that should make you shudder
Jan 2017 Otherwise the same tiny handful of editors who have controlled the GMO articles here will continue to reign.
September 2017 I thought we had a crew who was completely committed to all things Monsanto?, If Wikipedia truly has been taken over, in some areas anyway, by a gang of bullies such that the reader isn't getting a full picture of topics guarded by this group, then the reader should be alerted somehow. Only those readers who already know the latest will recognize that the articles are biased. among others at that talk page.
Oct 2017 there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto, whilst those still trying to make WP into an encyclopedia are few and far between.
Aug 2018 May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page? What led to that decision? It appears to me that there is off-WP communication.
Sept 2018 You appear to be wanting to sanitize the coverage here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

June 2016 Warned by admin for violating aspersions principle.

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

Petrarchan47 has been around the GMO dispute since the original ArbCom with battleground behavior and casting aspersions, etc. but has usually been ignored because they tend to be more of an acute presence in the topic rather than consistently there causing problems. Back at ArbCom, Seraphimblade said in their vote I just linked, Constant aspersions, including veiled accusations of other editors being shills, is not a minor issue and is unacceptable conduct. That's still going on and getting to be a chronic issue now though even though we passed a principle at ArbCom about aspersions because of exactly this kind of behavior. Other editors have been topic-banned for exactly this kind of stuff already such as this case (I link multiple other AE cases for GMO aspersions in that case too).

There's also been a trend of going to Jimbo's talk page saying Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem, etc. and a lot more I'm not going to try to detail here except that it's very similiar to what we dealt with before David Tornheim was topic banned. I already linked one of the aspersions that came recently about me wanting to "sanitize" the content, but this comment gets into the battleground behavior even more. They tried to claim I was using 14-year old sources in that particular edit (in reality were 2015 or newer), but the accusatory tone continued towards me Did you do actually do that before making this edit . . . Having a PhD in your specialty in insects and pesticides/pest management, I would think you would know the importance of doing a literature review, and that you would not add 14-year old studies, which is a violation WP:MEDRS. It's getting both petty and incoherent at this point that even I've run out of patience to ignore.

The links above show just some of that sporadic but steady stream of aspersions editors have been mostly ignoring over the last few years since most of the other editors doing this stuff have been topic-banned already. The topic has settled down finally, but editors coming in doing this sporadically are the few still stirring things up. Trying to caution Petrarchan about all this seems to result in more Monsanto is controlling Wikipedia or bending over backwards for Monsanto type statements. They seem pretty committed to still being pointy on article talk pages given this history and warning, so while I was hoping the old GMO stuff could die down, it's starting to look like this editor still needs attention from admins. This is what the aspersions principle was meant to prevent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Petrarchan47

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 Petrarchan47

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Petrarchan47

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 273: / Line 273: @@
 *
 {{hab}}
+==Petrarchan47==
+<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
+===Request concerning Petrarchan47===
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Kingofaces43}} 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Petrarchan47}}<p>{{ds/log|Petrarchan47}}
+<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions]],
+[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_Aspersions]] :
+<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=721010388&oldid=720999528 May 2016] {{tq|KingofAces has made changes to this encyclopedia that should make you shudder}}
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetic_engineering&diff=prev&oldid=762968100 Jan 2017] {{tq|Otherwise the same tiny handful of editors who have controlled the GMO articles here will continue to reign.}}
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&oldid=806614835#Ghostwriting_pt_2 September 2017] {{tq|I thought we had a crew who was completely committed to all things Monsanto?}}, {{tq|If Wikipedia truly has been taken over, in some areas anyway, by a gang of bullies such that the reader isn't getting a full picture of topics guarded by this group, then the reader should be alerted somehow. Only those readers who already know the latest will recognize that the articles are biased.}} among others at that talk page.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Groupuscule&diff=prev&oldid=804617895 Oct 2017] {{tq|there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto, whilst those still trying to make WP into an encyclopedia are few and far between.}}
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlyphosate-based_herbicides&type=revision&diff=855363777&oldid=855357987 Aug 2018] {{tq|May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page? What led to that decision? It appears to me that there is off-WP communication.}}
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monsanto&diff=859376850&oldid=859366106 Sept 2018] {{tq|You appear to be wanting to sanitize the coverage here.}}
+; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
+<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petrarchan47&oldid=723763076#Aspersions_at_GMO_RFC June 2016] Warned by admin for violating aspersions principle.
+;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
+<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
+*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 :
+Petrarchan47 has been around the GMO dispute since the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Proposed_decision#Petrarchan47 original ArbCom with battleground behavior and casting aspersions], etc. but has usually been ignored because they tend to be more of an acute presence in the topic rather than consistently there causing problems. Back at ArbCom, [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] said in their vote I just linked, {{tq|Constant aspersions, including veiled accusations of other editors being shills, is not a minor issue and is unacceptable conduct.}} That's still going on and getting to be a chronic issue now though even though we passed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions|a principle at ArbCom about aspersions]] because of exactly this kind of behavior. Other editors have been topic-banned for exactly this kind of stuff already such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive221#Groupuscule this case] (I link multiple other AE cases for GMO aspersions in that case too).
+There's also been a trend of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=856455906#%22Roundup%22_(Monsanto/Bayer's_top_selling_herbicide)_has_no_Wikipedia_page?! going to Jimbo's talk page] saying Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem, etc. and a lot more I'm not going to try to detail here except that it's very similiar to what we dealt with before [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195#David_Tornheim|David Tornheim was topic banned.]] I already linked one of the aspersions that came recently about me wanting to "sanitize" the content, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monsanto&diff=859378356&oldid=859377335 this comment] gets into the battleground behavior even more. They tried to claim I was using 14-year old sources in that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&diff=859121827&oldid=859121765 particular edit] (in reality were 2015 or newer), but the accusatory tone continued towards me {{tq|Did you do actually do that before making this edit . . . Having a PhD in your specialty in insects and pesticides/pest management, I would think you would know the importance of doing a literature review, and that you would not add 14-year old studies, which is a violation WP:MEDRS. }} It's getting both petty and incoherent at this point that even I've run out of patience to ignore.
+The links above show just some of that sporadic but steady stream of aspersions editors have been mostly ignoring over the last few years since most of the other editors doing this stuff have been topic-banned already. The topic has settled down finally, but editors coming in doing this sporadically are the few still stirring things up.  Trying to caution Petrarchan about all this seems to result in more Monsanto is controlling Wikipedia or bending over backwards for Monsanto type statements. They seem pretty committed to still being pointy on article talk pages given this history and warning, so while I was hoping the old GMO stuff could die down, it's starting to look like this editor still needs attention from admins. This is what the aspersions principle was meant to prevent. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
+; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
+<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
+<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+===Discussion concerning Petrarchan47===
+<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
+====Statement by Petrarchan47====
+====Statement by (username)====
+<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+===Result concerning Petrarchan47===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+*

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards