Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evenfiel (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 29 September 2006 (→‎Deathrocker). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Shortcut

    This is a message board for coordinating and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision. Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.


    Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?

    This page only involves violations of final Arbitration Committee decisions.

    Enforcement

    Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their Arbitration case.

    Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Arbitration Committee decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. Requests for Comments is still the best place to hash out content disputes.

    Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized at poking sticks at caged animals. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted.

    If an Arbitration case has not been finalized, it is not enforcable. In that case, bad behavior should be reported on WP:AN/I and you should consider adding the behavior to the /Evidence page of the Arbitration case.

    Note to administrators: Arbitration Committee decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior by these users is not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned. The enforcement mechanisms listed in each individual case should be constructed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.

    Using this page

    Edit this section. Please put new requests above old requests and below the sample template. A sample template is provided, please use copy and paste, do not edit the template.

    Be prepared with:

    • Diffs showing the violating behavior
    • Point to the final decision in their Arbitration case, a list with summary disposition is at WP:AER
    • Clear and brief summary relation of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case.
    • Sign and date your report with Wikipedia's special signature format (~~~~). The archival bot uses the time stamp to determine when to archive reports.

    Be advised to:

    • Notify the user at his or her user talk page.

    Archives

    Sections are automatically archived when the oldest time stamp in the section is 7 days old. The current archive is Archive 2.

    Edit this section for new requests

    User:Intangible

    Intangible (talk · contribs) - case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible.

    Could someone have a look at the recent edits at Vlaams Belang and Bloed-Bodem-Eer en Trouw, especially the latter. I feel I'm being drawn into an edit war with Intangible again. In the latter article, he keeps removing a paragraph linking the neo nazi organisation with the Vlaams Belang, very loosely based indeed on WP:V. Thanks. Please have a word with him.

    [1], [2] and [3]. (You'll find my two reverts inbetween those three.) --LucVerhelst 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Verhelst, what is your problem? Here you accuse me of sockpuppetry [4], here you accuse me of tendentious edits [5][6]. This is ridiculous. My edits were not tendentious, I provided an edit rational in all cases (and some on the talk page). You have no consensus for your rv [7]. It's a shame you should be blaming me for tendentious editing. Intangible 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't acuse you of being or using a sockpuppet, I was discussing the possibility that you would return to Wikipedia after the arbcom decision as a sockpuppet, and how the arbcom decision could be inforced in that case.
    • You might have added the diff where I provided an explanation for calling your edits tendentious : [8].
    --LucVerhelst 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please have a friendly word with him ? Please ? [9], [10], [11], here he seems to have realised he couldn't go on on the first track, deciding to try something new : [12], [13] --LucVerhelst 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:PROB "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged." It seems you now already have struck out on me on more than three occassions, the latest being [14]. This is really uncalled for Mr. Verhelst, and I hope an administrator will have a word with you, because this is tiresome. Intangible 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People that disagree with you on the subject of an article are not necessarily striking at you personally, you know. Or do you mean the reference to your ArbCom case ? I think I am fully entitled to point out to you in what way you are -in my opinion- violating the ArbCom decision/your probation. --LucVerhelst 09:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One more : [15] --LucVerhelst 10:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And these maybe on the BBET article[16], [17] and on the Neo-Nazism article[18] --LucVerhelst 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but these edits were necessary to make sure no false authority is given to the view of this journalist. There is enough conspiracist thinking going around at Wikipedia. Cas Mudde, a well-known political science professor at the University of Antwerpen, who studies neo-nazi groups in West Europe, had never heard of BBET before, but somehow this journalist knows all! Intangible 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This article of 3 March 2006 already mentioned BBET. And This article from 14 April 2006. And this article of 17 May 2006. I wonder where you got the information that Cas Mudde never heard of BBET. --LucVerhelst 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [19]. Intangible 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Intangible is again engaging in disruptive behavior concerning the BBET (and the relevant article & apparently also in Neo-Nazism). Before the arrests following the terrorist plans of BBET, the group was well known by ALL far right specialists, although most thought it was nothing more than a review and a group of neo-nazi teenagers. The police searches found military grade weapons, bombs and assassination plots, which make of it more than a simple "teenagers cult". He is deleting information, and changing content, claiming — against all of the Belgian press — that Manuel Abramowicz is not a "specialist of the far right". Please see fr:Manuel Abramowicz for credentials, as well as fr:ResistanceS for information on the website (which uses lots of scholars, see the list — even if you don't speak French you will see the links to the Universities in question). Intangible claims to know better than the Belgian press about the relevancy of various factors. This is a breach of Wikipedia:No Original Research and he is arguing just for the sake of arguing. Enough! Tazmaniacs 14:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect:
    • The link I provided above (in Dutch) is to one of these "far right specialists" Cas Mudde. You can check Google Scholar [20] and see his many peer reviewed publications and citations to his work. Mudde had never heard of BBET before. He also says: "I cannot directly see how any terrorist campagne can be executed by any of such groups." I have nothing more to add to your averse writing Mr. Tazmaniacs. Intangible 18:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your link dates from 8 September 2006. I provided three articles mentioning BBET in March, April and May. They're articles from one of the Belgian quality papers. I really don't understand how professor Mudde could have overlooked them, being focused on the far right that much.
    Actually, I must admit that I never heard of professor Mudde before you mentioned him. That's a bit strange, since I'm quite interested in politics, and he's a professor at the university in my home town.--LucVerhelst 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FIY, Intangible also seems to be involved in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism. --LucVerhelst 08:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Will314159 is the reason why mediation is being sought. Please do not make suggestive comments on things you clearly have no idea about. Intangible 12:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed that the people the information was meant for are wise enough to evaluate this. I was a bit reluctant to mention the mediation case, but thought it was best to mention it here anyway, making the work lighter for the administrators.--LucVerhelst 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    I feel I have been personally attacked by Intangible at [21] and [22]. I left a {{npa2}} template on his talk page. --LucVerhelst 20:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And here. --LucVerhelst 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And here. --LucVerhelst 14:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [23] --LucVerhelst 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Today I left the {{npa3}} template on his talk page, now I see he archived his entire talk page. Is this appropriate ? --LucVerhelst 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there are two schools of thought on that. There are people who read the user page guidelines and say what you do with your talk page is no big deal, and there are poeple who read the vandalism policies that say that removing valid warnnings from one's own talk page is vandalism. (There was even an edit war recently over what the policy should be, if you can believe that.) I tend to think that it's not necessary to treat warnings like {npa} as some kind of scarlet letter. He obviously saw it if he archived it, and if it ever becomes an issue its right there in the page history so he can never say he wasn't warned.
    I'm going to look into the further particulars of your situation tonight, but right now I have to be offline for about 4 hours. Thatcher131 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Thatcher131. A warning need not stay on a talk page after it is read. Admins need to look at the history when giving warning and blocking anyway. --FloNight 13:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling

    I'm starting to get the feeling that Intangible is now showing behaviour that could constitute trolling. Especially when looking at Talk:Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw, or this edit. Could someone look into this aspect, and confirm or deny my feeling ? Thank you. --LucVerhelst 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Another example.--LucVerhelst 08:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    I don't see anything worth taking action for yet. Intangible's calling some of your comments "nonsense" is personal, and a mild personal attack. But the two remedies available are to block him (per the usual blocking policy), or to ban him from the articles in question (per the arbitration decision). These comments wouldn't deserve a block from another user and I'm not convinced they should in this case. Also, repeatedly tagging experienced users with {npa} templates is often viewed as not a very nice thing to do, and you certainly don't need to edit war over their removal. A few nice words is often enough, and if not, then at least you've got nothing negative on your account. Otherwise, the article talk page comments look like two people with a content dispute who have stopped listening to each other. I don't yet see any trolling.

    An article ban is a blunt instrument and I'm also not sure at this time that it is warranted. Let me explain why. Although arbitration decisions deal with user behavior, I have looked into the content dispute underlying this situation. There seems to be an effort to link the Belgian political party BBET with an American professor from a fringe white supremacist movement. This is based on a French language report that in turn is drawn from sources including the professor's remarks published in an obscure 24 page 3-times a year white supremacist newsletter. The newsletter is not online but the article is copied on a blog and on BBET's web site. Technically, WP:RS policy stands behind the newspaper. The allegations that the newspaper mistranslated the professor's remarks are poorly supported since the blog and BBET site they are cached on could have been altered. No one has produced a scan of a paper copy of the newsletter that could definitively impeach the newspaper. If such a copy were produced, it would not mean the newsletter was an RS, but it would cast strong doubt on the La Libre story.

    However, I question the propriety of including the claim at all, even if it is sourced per policy. This is a classic example of attempting to prove guilt by association. I'm not sure why it is necessary to try and associate a Belgian political party with a fringe American to discredit it; would we include in an article on the US Democratic Party the fact that some party officials may have been visited by a fringe French or Belgian politician who was so obscure that the visit wasn't written about for two years? Surely there are sufficient Belgian sources to write an encyclopedia article about the activities of a Belgian political party in Belgium without having to rely on guilt by association through a single questioned newspaper article. I would strongly advice you to knock off the guilt-by-association unless you have more evidence of significant contacts between BBET and American white supremacists.

    Regarding Abromowitz, I wonder about a "journalist" founding an advocacy web site. American journalists aren't generally allowed to be members of advocacy groups, much less be founders. You need to be very careful in selecting sources that are reporting, not advocacy (for example, newspaper articles, but not editorials) and a reporter who is also an advocate presents a real problem.

    Intangible has been sanctioned for engaging "in tendentious editing which minimizes the neo-fascist tendencies of [nationalist or right wing European political] parties." But this case is a poor example of this and does not yet (in my opinion) rise to the level of a ban. Develop better sources, and avoid guilt by association. Things BBET said or did are vastly more powerful than who they have associated with. I didn't really want to analyze the content dispute but I did; hopefully this will prove helpful to any other admin who reviews the situation. Thatcher131 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue is indeed not about BBET being a neo nazi group, it is about alleged ties of BBET to a mainstream political party (VB), which do not exist. Intangible 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification from both of you. It seems to me like the currently available evidence for a connection has some problems. In any case, edit warring over it is not the solution. If you can't find stronger evidence, you can try a request for comment, third opinion, or mediation. If there is a strong consensus one way or the other after some additional dispute resolution processes, and the article is still disrupted, there would be a stronger case for intervention. Thatcher131 14:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with Intangible. The issue is not about alleged ties with the VB, the issue is about the way Intangible thinks he can edit. He simply refuses to discuss the content of the matter. --LucVerhelst 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you both have discussed the content issue so much that you are no longer paying attention to each other and are just repeating old arguments. You think the LaLibre story is a reliable source and his argument about mistranslation is original research. He thinks the English language version of Griffin's comments proves the newspaper story is based on a mistranslation. My thoughts on the matter aren't important, as arbitration is about user conduct, not content. I do not at this time see this as one-sided disruption, but two people being equally stubborn. Please engage in one of the dispute resolution mechanisms I described above. Thatcher131 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Belien

    Please check out this diff, with this comment : "removed per http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/515, anything cochez writes about Belien is pretty much bull". He removes content, that is based on articles from one of the country's quality newspapers, and refers for his removal to a web log. How am I supposed to react to this ? --LucVerhelst 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, he removed three sources citing a weblog, it seems. I can't read dutch. Ask him to explain on the talk page why each of those sources fails WP:V, since he has cited it himself in the BBET talk page. Thatcher131 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it, and he replied: "I did not remove these sources based on WP:V.". --LucVerhelst 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to edit the article for you. You need to engage him in a good faith discussion on the talk page. If he doesn't have good reason to remove the comments, put them back. If he acts disruptively and won't explain his edits, report it here again or to the administrators noticeboard. On BBET you both had good points and you both stopped listening to each other. Don't get into that pattern again. Thatcher131 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note

    Arthur Ellis

    • The remedies for the ArbComm decision concerning Warren Kinsella were that Arthur Ellis was banned from the Warren Kinsella and related pages, with the exception of the talk page for Mark Bourrie. He is also to limit himself to one account.
    IP blocked 24 hours, Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 12 hours, since he is involved in another open arbitration. Thatcher131 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deathrocker

    In the Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the user Deathrocker keeps on reverting the page. He's under parole, was blocked for one day, and already reverted the page a few times after his bloc expired. Pretty much anything other users do to change his edits he calls vandalism, so all his reverts are legit, because he's fixing vandalism! The discussions with him are very long and fruitless, and I've tried all ways to reach a consensus with him (See the discussion page, last topic "A new start"), I've tried to edit the page including a mix of his edits and mine, but he always chooses to "fix vandalism" and revert the page. Thanks. Evenfiel 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned him on his talk page [25] that this is not simple vandalism, but a content dispute over how much the article should focus on the exclusion of one particular band. As a content dispute, he is expected to negotiate in good faith, and seek outside help such as a third opinion or request for comment if necessary, but not to simply revert others' edits. If he reverts again, I will block him. Thatcher131 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll also RFC. Thanks. Evenfiel 14:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=78504937"