Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khirurg (talk | contribs) at 05:36, 22 September 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:36, 22 September 2017 by Khirurg (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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 informationShortcuts

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

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

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    MehrdadFR

    MehrdadFR is blocked for a week, and as a discretionary sanction topic-banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months.  Sandstein  16:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    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 MehrdadFR

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MehrdadFR (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
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    1RR vio:

    1. 09:14, 17 September 2017 1st revert
    2. 18:53, 17 September 2017 2nd revert

    3RR vio (1 hour 15 minutes outside the 24Hr window):

    1. 07:58, 16 September 2017 1st revert
    2. 17:03, 16 September 2017 2nd revert
    3. 19:28, 16 September 2017 3rd revert
    4. 09:14, 17 September 2017 4th revert

    WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA / WP:ASPERSIONS:

    1. 20:14, 16 September 2017 - do not lie... You're manipulating, that's oblivious.... Please keep in mind Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not outlet of a Jewish state
    2. 09:24, 17 September 2017 - you're obviously a POV pusher
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 04:51, 11 March 2015 Edit warring block 1
    2. 05:33, 6 July 2015 Edit warring block 2
    3. 18:40, 13 January 2016 Edit warring block 3
    4. 14:24, 26 January 2016 Edit warring block 4
    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.

    10:13, 17 September 2017 alerted - this was prior to his latest 1RR. During the 4RR sequence he was not technically alerted to ARBPIA.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Page was placed in ECP + ARBPIA 16:54, 12 September 2017 after a high-frequency edit war between IPs on this same issue. In addition, prior to the DS alert, the user was also warned he was in violation of 1RR by myself on his talk 19:45, 16 September 2017, and by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) in an edit summary 09:17, 17 September 2017.

    Addendum: 15:51, 18 September 2017 is a further 1RR vio in relation to the 18:53, 17 September 2017 revert (2nd revert above).Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC) 16:00, 18 September 2017 Is yet another.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning MehrdadFR

    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 MehrdadFR

    Situation here is pretty obvious, AMIA attack is legally unsolved case and that's an undeniable fact, and few activists are desperately trying to change it and promote one-sided politically motivated accusations, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Everything can be found on Talk:AMIA bombing in detail: investigate journalists are deleted from article (WP:CENSORED), as well as five other scholarly sources, books by lobbyist organization such as WINEP are promoted, and so on. Involved user obviously invited his fellow Israeli to vandalize article, and then they play on alleged "consensus" and "1RR" card. --MehrdadFR (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Cambalachero

    The article was protected on September 12 by Samsara because of the Arbitration case (here). As I first became aware of such arbitration then, I added {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} to the article talk page, just in case, on September 17 (here). The discussion escalated anyway, so on September 18 I pinged both users to remind them of those discretionary sanctions here. Then I was informed that this AE had been already filled. Checking the background a bit more, I noticed that MehrdadFR had already been warned and then deleted the warnings. Then, he broke the 1RR: here MehrdadFR deletes and replaces a lot of info, Icewhiz reverted him here, and MehrdadFR restored his edit here (all the same day, September 18). Cambalachero (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

    By the way, I'm not much interested either way in the Arab-Israeli dispute. I watch this article because I usually work with articles about the politics in Argentina, and the AMIA bombing is a frequent topic of news, even to this day (I also created the related articles Alberto Nisman and Memorandum of understanding between Argentina and Iran). Cambalachero (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning MehrdadFR

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Clear violation of the 1RR restriction, with a history of relevant blocks. The response here indicates a WP:BATTLE approach to editing. MehrdadFR is blocked for a week, and as a discretionary sanction banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months.  Sandstein  16:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

    Resnjari

    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 Resnjari

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Khirurg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Resnjari (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:ARBMAC :
    Resnjari persistently displays highly incivil behavior on Balkan-related topics, frequently making snide remarks, taunts and other forms of incivility. In addition, in February of this year I changed my user name due to privacy reasons, yet Resnjari persistnely brings it up, even though I have repeatedly told him not to do that. I can't think of any other explanation other than he does this intentionally, because he knows it bothers me.

    Taunting editors about past blocks. This is very common

    1. Datehttps://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=801763192

    Yesterday, another Albanian user, Ilirpedia (talk · contribs) posted extremely offensive material on his userpage denigrating an entire ethnic group. I removed the material, and then Resnjari not only edit-warred to restore it, but he also referred to me as a troll

    Note that Ilirpedia has been blocked indef and User:Ymblanter deleted his userpage, so I can't provide diffs of edits of the userpage.

    Resnjari also persistently brings up my old username, even I have repeatedly told him not to.

    1. doubles down
    2. I tell him to stop
    3. his reaction

    This is nothing new, he's been doing this ever since I changed my username.

    1. I tell him not to
    2. his response
    3. and again

    He also bad-mouths me to other editors, here he refers to me as "the usual types"

    This behavior by Resnjari is persistent and has been going on as long as he has been editing Balkan topics ([https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAlbania&type=revision&diff=767519163&oldid=767506760 ] [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ATsamiko&type=revision&diff=770935813&oldid=770082236 ]). Many of his comments are clearly intended to get under the skin of Greek editors without crossing the line into overt name calling. It has helped him avoid incivility blocks so far, but taken as a whole, his talkpage behavior contributes to a permanently charged and highly negative atmosphere to Balkan topics. Any discussion where Resnjari get involved quickly devolves into a circus where such snide remarks and taunts are bandied about. I find it particularly bothersome that when told not to do something that he knows bothers other editors, he doubles down.


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    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.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Resnjari

    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 Resnjari

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Resnjari

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