Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:21, 18 August 2017

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 an editor 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 a previously alerted editor who engages 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 fewer 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.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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 other arbcom 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	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355

Wuerzele

Blocked for 1 week for TBAN violations. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (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 Wuerzele

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wuerzele (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#Wuerzele_topic_banned :

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

Aug 3 Editing article within topic ban.
Aug 3 Edit warring previous content back after seeing their content was removed (with the edit summary notice).
Aug 11 Combative talk page comments after WP:GOODFAITH reminder of ban rather than coming straight here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Sept 2015 Blocked by Bbb23 for edit warring in GMO topics
Dec 2015 Topic-banned in GMO and pesticide topics by ArbCom

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a bit of an odd case. Wuerzele was one of the more problematic editors in GMO and pesticide topics, and was topic-banned in the initial ArbCom case. They violated their topic ban awhile ago, but that AE was closed by EdJohnston because Wuerezele immediately stopped editing for a few days once the report was made and didn't respond to the AE. The close also included a note that the case could be reopened if Wuerzele returned and issues were still coming up.

The diffs above are another set of topic ban violations. They came to Fipronil, an insecticide page which unambiguously falls within the topic ban, and started making edits. I reverted reminding them that they are topic banned, only to have them edit war the content they inserted back in. I also left a reminder at their talk page about the topic ban and that I was assuming they had forgotten rather than me filing an AE case (probably should have come here instead due to the edit warring in retrospect instead of the good faith assumption).

At this point, they stop editing for a few days immediately after they were called out on their topic ban again, just like the previous AE, so no case was filed until this weekend when they responded to my talk page notice rather vehemently (rather than deleting it due to their ban as I pointed out). I originally was going to let this slide as I mentioned on their talk page, but Wuerzele was topic banned in large part due to battleground behavior focused towards myself and a few others in the topic that's rearing its head in their comments. We also have a trend of Wuerzele avoiding administrative action by not editing for a few days after a topic ban violation, so I figured even if an admin wants to call this stale, it's better to have a continued record for future reference with the last AE in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note Drmies on the WP:NOBAN related comment, but that specifically excludes administrative notices due to noticeboards, etc. I made it clear to Wuerzele they would have been getting an AE notice instead if I hadn't initially gone the good-faith route and renotified them of their topic ban just in case. The complaint at the talk page is rather silly in that sense given the then other option, but that kind of battleground escalation is why the topic ban was put in place. Had I posted more than what I did, that definitely would have gone outside the spirit of WP:NOBAN. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I didn't intend my reply above as interpreting you had a quarrel with my notification, so sorry if it came across that way. I was more so just clarifying the situation on that notification since you brought it up. Situations like that have history of being taken out of context by others in this topic if not clarified (thankfully things have settled for the most part though). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Wuerzele

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 Wuerzele

Statement by Doc James

They have been an abrasive editor.[2] They have been involved with edit warring [3]. I feel this is a wider concern than just the breach of their restriction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wuerzele

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

These look like pretty obvious tban violations to me. @Wuerzele: do you have any explanation for these edits? GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How long do we leave this open for? According to X!, this user is usually very active on Sundays and weekdays ([4]) yet they've disappeared since Saturday, when all this blew up. It's looking increasingly like a duck-and-dive to avoid sanctions. @Wuerzele: If we don't hear back in 48 hours from now, at least with some idea when you'll be able to respond fully, I intend to take action on this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone else wants to act, they're free to do so. For the minute, I don't see a problem letting this sit another day so long as they don't resume editing elsewhere. I agree that if there's no response then we're in for a longish block. GoldenRing (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GoldenRing. I might could let that talk page comment slide--perhaps they did ban Kingofaces from their talk page, and on one's own talk page one typically gets some leeway, but a topic ban violation is a topic ban violation. Wuerzele, much will depend on your answer here. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- GoldenRing, do it. As far as I'm concerned 24 hours is enough. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingofaces, I think you misunderstood me: I have no quarrel with you or your notification; my point was about their response. Please note, BTW, how cleverly I let us have our cake and eat it too. :) We do need Wuerzele to respond quickly or things will end up poorly for them. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it even needs a response. These are obvious TBAN violations, and Wuerzele's response was basically "if you don't like it, go to AE". I would be looking at quite a significant block here. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wuerzele is banned from both GM organisms and agricultural chemicals generally, their edits of Fipronil violate the ban. There don't seem to be any extenuating circumstances, and Wuerzele's absence from this discussion doesn't count in their favor. So I would support a one-week block for violating the TBAN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitbookspacetube

Twitbookspacetube, a.k.a. Barts1a and PantherLeapord, is topic-banned from all American politics-related WP:BLP content for three months. This is without prejudice to any additional block another admin may want to apply. Sandstein 21:08, 15 August 2017 (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 Twitbookspacetube

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Twitbookspacetube (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) standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014 : Standard discretionary sanctions on any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace

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

Special:Diff/795468237 - re-adding BLP-challenged material while discussion was ongoing
Special:Diff/795468959 - re-adding BLP-challenged material while discussion was ongoing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions I can find.

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.
User has not been alerted to BLP DS as far as I can see, but has been alerted to AP2 DS - both are applicable here.
Update the user has now been alerted to BLP DS but has continued reinserting the violations/contested material. GoldenRing (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This article is about a current event in which someone drove a car into a crowd. I removed the name of the driver from the article on WP:BLPCRIME grounds, as he is not well-known and (obviously, having been charged in the past couple of days) has not yet been convicted of a crime. Rather than start a discussion on re-inclusion, User:WWGB reverted the removal on the grounds that it is well-sourced. I removed the material again, again citing BLPCRIME, and started a discussion on the article talk page. Thirty-seven minutes later, Twitbookspacetube reverted the removal again, citing the talk page discussion as consensus (four editors had commented, admittedly all for inclusion). We've since had another revert-cycle. Twitbookspacetube saw fit to report me to ANEW (closed by User:El_C as no-violation) and has complained, among other things, that I pinged him when replying to him (a grave offence, apparently) and of bludgeoning the discussion (see edit summaries of the diffs above) when I have made two comments on the talk page, one of which opened the discussion.

I requested at his talk page that he self-revert to let the discussion run its course and was told that I was gaming the system.

I ummed-and-ahhed about just blocking on BLP-violation grounds, but considering the talk page discussion is ongoing and I could be argued to be involved, brought it here instead.

And apparently raising BLP issues at BLPN with an entirely neutral notice is canvassing and forum-shopping. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to edit-war BLP violations into the article despite ongoing BLPN discussion - Special:Diff/795477358. GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are now at ~~5RR~~ ~~9RR~~ 10RR on this article. GoldenRing (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @MjolnirPants: fair point - [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. GoldenRing (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out elsewhere, the majority of their reversions on that page today are probably exempt from 3RR as they are reverting vandalism - leaving three times they have re-inserted material challenged on BLP grounds, while discussion were ongoing. GoldenRing (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch from Doug Weller. @Drmies:, @Sandstein: since this user is in fact subject to an unexpired 1RR restriction, does this not rather throw a different light on matters? According to WP:Editing restrictions#User:Barts1a, they have previously been banned from all noticeboards and "should avoid contentious articles and their talk pages"; given the direct dive for ANEW and the very abrasive response to discussions at BLPN and here, is it time to re-impose that sanction? Any uninvolved administrator can do so. GoldenRing (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/795471557

Discussion concerning Twitbookspacetube

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 Twitbookspacetube

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:BLUDGEONING at it's finest - the content that the filer is removing was in the article unchallenged until they came along with a WP:BLUDGEON and tried to beat down people that disagree with their removal of sourced content using a blatant misinterpretation of the relevant policy.

TL:DR: Facepalm Twitbook space tube 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, after sleeping on it, I agree that the userbox was a bit too far in regards to BLP and would be willing to accept the 3 month topic ban proposed. However, I am still rather annoyed that an admin tried to WP:BLUDGEON their blatantly false misinterpretation of policy onto an article. But, said misinterpretation is certainly getting widespread opposition so I'm sure that it will eventually be completely shot down. I would, however, like to commend said admin for not also violating WP:INVOLVED with any administrative action against me, or anyone else in the content dispute. If such action had been taken, I would have a well justified second case to arbcom on the go about it by now for desysopping. Twitbook space tube 02:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

I am uninvolved but this caught my attention [15] I am not sure that such WP:ASPERSIONS casting is suitable for Wikipedia collaborative envoirment--Shrike (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I'm in a similar situation to Shrike in that I happened to stumble across this issue. ~~I don't see this particular issue of rising to the level of requiring AE~~, as there seems to be a strong consensus (so far) at the talk page not to remove the information GoldenRing removed. That being said, understand that I completely oppose this consenus, and find it to be a gross violation of WP:BLPCRIME, but I'm aware that consensus rules on WP. ~~One thing I haven't seen is that Twitbookspacetube is at 9RR.~~ @GoldenRing:, you claimed Twitbookspacetube to be at 9RR without posting evidence. I doubted you so I checked and you are off by 1: TBST has made 10 reverts to that page within a 24 hour period. They were to different edits, to be sure, but this looks like an WP:OWNership issue that might require a short page ban. I've left in but struck a point I initially typed above to help elucidate my line of thought as I wrote this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Correction accepted. Thank you for digging further into that. 4RR is still troubling, but not as troubling. I hesitated to mention the (now deleted) user box on TBST's user page, because I'm rather well known for essentially agreeing with the remaining anti-Trump userbox, and I'm not about to criticize an editor for broadcasting their own political views. (It's adds a lot of weight to their views when the editor !votes or opines against type.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved A Quest for Knowledge

I just wanted to say that while I don't agree with GoldenRing's interpetation of WP:BLP in this particular instance, to the best of my knowledge, their objection is in good faith. Once an editor has raised a good-faith BLP objection, other editors should not be edit-warring contentious BLP material into an article without consensus. I'll also add that the diff that Shrike posted[16] is very troubling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Twitbookspacetube

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

I just added a note to the ANEW report, where I found that the nine reverts mentioned actually boiled down to maybe four--three reverts of the BLP material, and one minor one where one can easily argue that Twitbook reverted the unexplained removal of sourced content (please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:GoldenRing_reported_by_User:Twitbookspacetube_.28Result:_No_violation.29 for more detail)--it should be obvious that this and this should be reverted as pure vandalism. Their "you're a Republican" comment is very, very unwise, of course, but that is really the only thing (besides foolishly not explaining all those smaller edits) I can fault them for--it may be enough in itself, but here we look for patterns. And finally, can I just say that "a current event in which someone drove a car into a crowd" is hardly a fair representation of what seems to have been happening? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here I am defending, to some extent, Twitbookspacetube, and then I run into User:Twitbookspacetube/bloodontrumpshands and User:Twitbookspacetube/UserboxTrumpMurders. Now these are admin only, but I deleted them as clear BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One of those userboxes still shows up on their user page; a purge will take care of that I suppose. More importantly, I see that this is a supposed CLEANSTART account, which begs an important question or two... Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The originally reported diffs look like mere content disputes to me, but the userboxes above ("So far, Donald Trump's racist rhetoric has caused 1 death") are clearly WP:BLP and WP:NOT violations. Add to this that this is a "clean start" account created in November, and we must assume that there were some substantial problems with the user's conduct previously. Unless given reasons not to, I suggest a three-month BLP topic ban. Sandstein 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article edits are indeed a content dispute. I don't see any clear BLP issue there since the information does indeed look to be clearly supported by reputable references. Since the article isn't under 1RR or any similar arbitration remedy or discretionary sanction, any edit warring there would be handled through the standard process for that. I do, however, agree that the userboxes were clear BLP violations, and would agree to the suggestion of a three-month ban from BLP (perhaps just American politics-related BLPs, since that seems to be the source of the trouble). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ponyo noted on the editor's talk page "Twitbookspacetube is subject to a community imposed 1RR restriction via their Barts1a account, which I reminded them of here recently."[17] There Ponyo told the editor "Twitbookspacetube, I'm concerned regarding your creation of this account. You claim that it is a clean start, but I don't believe you are eligible for one due to your extensive history of blocks (with PantherLeapord and Barts1a), edit warring, and the editing restrictions associated with your Barts1a account. Of pressing concern is your return to admin/dispute noticeboards (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, and Example 4), an area that was a particular concern with regard to your behaviour. As you essentially outed yourself here, it is clear that this is an alternative account and not a clean start. It would be prudent for you to link to your previous account on your user page if you are serious about being transparent about your previous accounts. I would also suggest you discuss your editing restrictions with your previous mentor as I see your continued activity at noticeboards as a concern." The editor then thanks Ponyo for raising this. User:Twitbookspacetube claims a clean start with no link. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you put all this together, and we have a serious problem here. Doug--I'm thinking that this account simply should be blocked until the editor offers a solution one way or another. Since the user returned to problematic areas, the clean start is out the door, and any previous topic ban should apply. Sandstein, do you have any thoughts on the clean start complication? Drmies (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that any disciplinary issues arising from the "clean start" are a matter for AE, and I don't have an opinion on whether a block (as a normal admin action) would be appropriate. Unless there are any objections, I'll shortly close this as a three-month American politics BLP topic ban, and any admin who thinks that a block is needed can impose it separately. Sandstein 15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I somewhat do object. The editor has clearly violated their 1RR restriction from the previous account. I'm minded to proceed with either an indef or a quite lengthy block for evading scrutiny, as well as an indefinite BLP ban based on the number of editing restrictions they're already subject to (though they don't have the greatest history of abiding by them). But to be quite honest, I'm leaning toward a flat indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh geez, I remember Barts1a (I didn't know he'd moved to a new account though). For what it's worth, he seems to be an order of magnitude more productive an editor now than he was back then, when he came this close (makes gesture with thumb and forefinger indicating 1mm) to getting indef blocked, but has apparently slipped back towards edit warring, getting involved in drama that doesn't affect him, and contentious subjects. It's not really textbook "evading scrutiny" when he publicly links the two accounts here, although it kind of feels evading-ish in spirit for not mentioning the restrictions or linking to the old account prominently. I agree with Sandstein's proposed AE topic ban, although I'm a little unclear if the topic area is American Politics, or BLP's, or both. I'd suggest both topics. I won't quibble with the 3 month duration, although I'd have probably chosen longer. I also agree that sanctions for violating unrelated community-based restrictions are not what AE is for, and this seems a little complicated (for example. the restrictions listed here don't match those listed here, and it's unclear who changed them and when). Since I'm not convinced an indef block is called for (he really is doing better now than he was several years ago), I'd suggest ANI. Either that, or some admin unilaterally reinstates the restrictions that were lifted by... somebody, and either gives a warning or a relatively short block for the 1RR violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, unusual that Floq would be less harsh on it than I would. It still smells a lot like evading scrutiny, since it wasn't at all made obvious what the old accounts were, they were subject to restrictions, and the new account is flagrantly breaking them. All the same, if we want to try a 3 month post-1932 American politics ban (which seem to be where the BLP violations are a problem, so I'm not sure we need a blanket BLP ban as well), I'll go for that, with a short block for the blatant 1RR violation. But I'd strongly advise there be no more issues, and that the previous accounts be clearly linked, i.e., on the user page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd agree with that as well (I was also unaware of the link to previous accounts). Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Diaz

No action. User:The Diaz is reminded not to edit war, but of the diffs presented, those that are even broadly problematic are quite stale. GoldenRing (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (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 The Diaz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Diaz (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_.281932_cutoff.29 and WP:NEWBLPBAN

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

22:00, 14 August 2017 !vote at RfC on Jared Taylor about "white supremacist" description Unless you can find a source saying that he embraced the labels, labeling him as a white supremacist is obviously defamatory and could land Wikipedia in legal trouble. He has also been described as both a white nationalist and a white supremacist by different sources, and WP:YESPOV says "If different reliable sources make conflicting(which is defined as incompatible or at variance; contradictory) assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Calling him a white supremacist against his word would be a blatant violation of NPOV and WP:LIBEL.
5 August 2017 launched RfC at NPOV to prevent describing people as RS describe them, if this contradicts their self-description. It is about Spencer. This is not "dropping the stick" as they were advised at the ANI listed below.
diff and diff 3 May 2017 started edit warring over nationality of Jose Antonio Vargas (brought here as boy by Filipino parents, has become journalist and outed himself as undocumented in the NYT and has become a lightning rod for discussions of immigration policy) was reverted by User:Bbb23 and others per BLP.
diff and diff and diff 8 May continuation of above
diff and diff both on 29 July 2017 continuation of above
10 August created template for people with Hispanic-American names.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14 July 2017 ANI thread that boomeranged on The Diaz. The close reads The consensus here is that NeilN and DrFleischman did nothing wrong. The Diaz is advised to drop the stick on Richard Spencer and libel in general.
- That ANI was prompted by reactions to this remark by The Diaz at the Spencer talk page: I'd also like to point out that calling Spencer a white supremacist could be considered defamatory, given the controversial label that it is. Wikipedia is quite clear that libelous material should be removed immediately. And yes, I've already heard someone tell me that it only applies to unsourced defamatory content, but the truth is that it's not said in that rule. No, this is not a legal threat by the way, I'm only trying to protect the Wikimedia foundation and its editors from litigation.
- 12 July 2017 reminded of ANI outcome and User:NeilN's warning about making further legal threats, response was to revert with edit note Oh go fuck with someone else

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

Per their edit count this account made its first edit Jun 17, 2016 and has about 1000 edits. They concentrate overwhelmingly on matters of nationality, race, murders, etc. which fall at the intersection of the US politics and BLP discretionary sanctions. They appear to have difficulty understanding basic principles of editing in such loaded topics, and the persistent bringing up of legal threats is especially unhelpful and in general it is not clear to me if they are here to build an encyclopedia.

The August 14th diff (not stale) directly continues the behavior they were already warned about at the ANI - different white nationalist, same behavior.

Am giving you all the opportunity to stop ongoing disruption and prevent the more that is pretty clearly coming at the heavily loaded intersection of two sets of DS. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning The Diaz

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 The Diaz

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Diaz

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

Unless there's more, I'm inclined to close this without action or with a warning. The diffs at 3, 4 and 5 are somewhat troubling, but are also well stale. Their views on labels are perhaps counter to policy and certainly not going to win over a majority - but if the extent of their expression of those views is starting and !voting in RfCs, I'm not sure I see the problem. As for creating the template - what exactly is wrong with this? They requested a change of {{Spanish name}} to use 'Hispanic naming customs' instead of Spanish; they were told there are differences so they created a new draft template (see Template talk:Spanish name#Template-protected edit request on May 29, 2017, and bear in mind that this is probably about Wikipedia's treatment of their own name, as according to their userpage they are of Venezuelan ancestry and we could take a broad guess that "Diaz" is their surname). I can't see sanctions coming out of this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd close as no action. Everything is stale except the 10 August creation of Draft:Template:Hispanic American name, and the request does not make clear how this violates any Wikipedia conduct policy. Sandstein 15:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ==Wuerzele==
+{{hat|Blocked for 1 week for TBAN violations.  [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)}}
 <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>
@@ Line 77: / Line 78: @@
 * I don't think it even needs a response.  These are obvious TBAN violations, and Wuerzele's response was basically "if you don't like it, go to AE". I would be looking at quite a significant block here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Wuerzele is banned from both GM organisms and agricultural chemicals generally, their edits of [[Fipronil]] violate the ban. There don't seem to be any extenuating circumstances, and Wuerzele's absence from this discussion doesn't count in their favor. So I would support a one-week block for violating the TBAN. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 ==Twitbookspacetube==

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, 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