Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 11 April 2014 (→LokiiT: closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:50, 11 April 2014 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→LokiiT: closed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages: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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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


    Urartu TH

    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 Urartu TH

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Urartu TH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:AA2
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. April 5, 2014
    2. April 5, 2014
    3. April 5, 2014
    4. April 5, 2014
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on February 21, 2014 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on March 15, 2014 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Urartu TH violated 3RR on an arbitration covered page Khojaly Massacre. Despite objections of other editors, he persistently adds his personal interpretation of a source into the lead of the article in violation of WP:OR, and edit wars to keep it there. I have already reported the 3RR violation, but since this is an arbitration area, this forum might be more appropriate for this violation. This user has been in Misplaced Pages for less than 2 months, but he already has one block for incivility. In addition, he makes questionable edits to Ukraine related articles, such as a BLP article Ihor Tenyukh, which as I understand is also an arbitration covered area, in particular calling him a member of a "neo-fascist" party: It appears that this user fails to understand the core WP policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Grandmaster 08:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

    As result of the report at WP:AN3, Urartu TH was blocked for 72 hrs: , in escalation of the previous block. As the enforcing admin noted, it is a second block in 3 weeks, and it is a result of continuing battleground approach. As the problematic editing of Urartu TH appears to be unlikely to stop, I believe it might be appropriate to consider placing him on an editing restriction in arbitration covered areas. Grandmaster 13:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

    I would like to add the following in response to comments. First, the term "reprisal" is not found in any of the sources used in the article, and in particular in HRW report that Urartu TH was referring to. Neither are the terms "retaliation", "counterattack" or other words with similar meaning, nor do the sources imply that the massacre could have been a "reprisal", which as was noted here has quite a specific meaning. In fact, HRW explicitly places blame on the Armenian side, as do other third party sources that conducted their own investigations. So the edit was in a clear violation of WP:OR, which holds that "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication". Yet Urartu TH was introducing the term "reprisal" not found in any source, and as was also mentioned here was removing every instance of mentioning "Armenian forces" or "Armenian attack", so after his edits it was unclear who attacked whom. Me and other editors found his edit to be unacceptable, and made that clear to him both in edit summaries and at the talk of the article, which did not stop him from restoring that edit 4 times. And when Urartu TH says that I reverted without discussion, it is not true. It is enough to take a look at the talk of the article to see the proof of the contrary. Every time that he posted at talk in support of his edit, he was responded by either me or another editor, and despite there being a clear opposition to his edit, he proceeded to restore it every time he left a comment at talk. Judging from comments he left at his own talk page, where he says that his comments were "ignored", he believes that posting a comment entitles him to rv the page as many times as he likes, even if other editors disagree with his proposed edit, and if they disagree, they "ignore" his arguments, which of course is not so. I think this is where we have a problem. Grandmaster 10:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Urartu TH

    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 Urartu TH

    Please note that Grandmaster (talk · contribs) has been asked to mind WP:HOUND in the past.

    As to the issue at hand, any time I have attempted cited edits on Khojaly tragedy, the user has either deleted or modified the edits.

    Please see for attempts at resolution in civil manner:

    1. April 5, 2014
    2. April 5, 2014
    3. April 5, 2014

    The user has been warned not to start an WP:EDITWAR various times in the article's edit page.

    I have not added a single bit of interpretation to any edit. I merely used the word "reprisal" to define an attack by Armenian forces during the battle of Khojaly which relates to the article. I was opposed by the user in regards to this word. I explained that the chronology of the events clearly show that this was a reprisal attack but that a different term may be used. The user proceeded to simply begin reverting the page back to the previous form without discussion; they ignored my statements regarding the chronology of the events. I believe this is a violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPOV and goes against the spirit and reasons for WP:TP's.

    Grandmaster (talk · contribs)'s attempt to have me sanctioned for an unrelated matter was deemed "not actionable" by Sandstein (talk · contribs) and Penwhale (talk · contribs).

    As far the the Ukraine edits, the terms "neo-fascist" or "neo-nazi" were taken from a cited source .

    I don't see evidence of wrongdoing on my part and would like to further discuss this with a third-party. Please let me know if any other proofs are required and I will gladly provide them.--Urartu TH (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by NE Ent

    I think ya'll can DS individual editors but I don't think you can 1RR the entire article NE Ent 20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Urartu TH

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

    • I see a quite clear 3RR violation (4 reverts in quick succession, within a single hour, against three different users on the other side); combined with an ongoing pattern of aggressive editing and reverting during the previous days; combined with previous warnings and blocks for misbehaviour in the same topic domain, combined with an overall editing profile almost exclusively focussed on national POV issues. That's a case for a topic ban in my book. I notice somebody else blocked him for 72 hours in the meantime, evidently in response to the AN3 report, but I see no reason why that should stop us from considering the longterm side of the matter here too. Fut.Perf. ☼, 16:45, 5 April 2014‎ (UTC)
    • The thing is, I believe Grandmaster's 2 reverts also makes him run afoul of the AA2 DS (and Grandmaster was previously sanctioned under ARBAA2 in 2008). And the word reprisal's primary meaning according to many dictionaries is counterattack, and if I'm reading the events chronologically, it is a counteroffensive (though may not be the best choice of word, it shouldn't have been reverted war over anyway). I would sanction both Grandmaster and Urartu TH for this. - Penwhale | 17:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
      • We are probably going down a dangerous road when we here as admins try to re-debate the merits of the dispute, but since you brought up a possible content legitimization regarding the term "reprisal", then no, "reprisal" doesn't simply mean "counter-attack". It has a very specific meaning in the law of war, and that meaning carries a very strong and obvious POV implication: a reprisal is a measure that, while normally forbidden, can be seen as legitimate in a particular situation. Calling the massacre a "reprisal" is making the definite claim that the massacre was legally justified. The immediate rejection of that edit as illegitimate OR by three other editors was thus understandable and clearly legitimate. Coupled with the other change of wording that served to de-emphasize Armenian agency in the events, we have all the marks of a POV-driven edit on Urartu's part. As for the two reverts, I'm extremely hesitant to hand out sanctions for 2R as long as we haven't formally put the thing under an explicit 1RR rule. If you think that a general 1RR would be beneficial to the article, let's by all means place it under one (I assume that's possible under the current version of disc.sanctions, isn't it?) but as long as that's not in place, I believe editors are entitled to a certain measure of reliability of rules, and suddenly placing the sanctions threshold that low would smack of arbitrariness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You are right. Also, based on the discussions at the article talk page, this article already needs specific sanctions set down. 1RR and a binding move discussion for a specific period of time (if a RM is requested) would be a good start. - Penwhale | 02:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Also, my AGF-ness still leads me to believe that the block placed on Urartu TH is due to violation of the 3RR rule and not specific to the ARBAA2 sanction, in case anyone's wondering my position on that. - Penwhale | 02:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
     Comment: Yes, my block was based on the 3RR report - I was unaware of the existence of this filing at that time DP 10:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks like everyone's attention has moved away from this request since the block. If there are no objections I'll close it tomorrow with an un-logged warning based on what was mentioned by the admins reviewing this request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'm a little concerned by their actions since the 3RR block - they seem totally oblivious to their actions, and seem to feel they're under no warnings or potential sanctions whatsoever ES&L 10:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Apart from a topic ban or a block until they understand what edit warring is (which would and should be a normal admin action) I'm not sure there is a lot we can do here. @DP, do you think it's enough to warrant a TBAN? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Having just re-read a bunch of their edits, I'm almost thinking 0RR being imposed as the next step before a TBAN. DP 10:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

    Rich Farmbrough

    Referred to the Arbitration Committee, please see WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 9 April 2014 (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 Rich Farmbrough

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 04:49 8 April 2014: whether the original page was created using automation may be hard to prove (although everything points in that direction as well). But this subsequent edit is clearly not manually made. Every instance of " (*" (an opening bracket preceded by a space, plus every character after that on the same line) has been removed, no matter if that was wanted or not. The result is that you get changes like:

    And about ten further instances of the same pattern. Perhap others will see this as a manual edit nevertheless, but to me it certainly matches "For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.".

    1. 06:27 6 April 2014 This one is taken from the end of this document, pages 104-105 (or from a different site with the same information and formatting, his page lists no source); note how, in Rich's article, four companies have a name ending in (a); 79 TOTAL Deutschland GmbH(a), Germany, 191 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining S.A. / NV(a), Belgium, 192 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining USA Inc. (a), United States, and 207 TOTAL UK Limited (a), United Kingdom. These just happen to be the same four companies that have a "*" after their name in the original document, indicating a footnote for "multi-segment entities". It seems unlikely that Rich Farmbroug made the same typo four times, matching exactly these four "starred" companies, the only ones to have that extra bit.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    While the first (and most obvious) violation is in userspace (which falls under the restriction but is of course less critical than the mainspace), I don't think it makes sense to wait until it goes really, badly wrong again; that was the reason the restriction was implemented, to prevent further problems. Not following the restriction, so soon after coming back from a year-long block for the same, seems a clear case of having no intention to follow the restriction at all.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Rich Farmbrough

    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 Rich Farmbrough

    1. "An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits" (Principle 3.1)

    Therefore the suggestion that search-and-replace or cut-and-paste is automation is absurd. Even the test for automation in Identifying the use of automation tools says "including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits" we are not talking about the odd edit here or there.

    Clearly any stray edit can be reverted, the concern (allegedly) was that many "wrong" edits in quick succession could be made. That is clearly not the case here.

    To attempt to apply this ruling to the edits given is absurd.

    2. In the complaint comparing * and (a) - the plaintiff has simply, in his eagerness for blood, gone to the wrong source.

    3. In the other diff, it is unbelievable, uncollegial, and anti-encyclopaedic to attempt to to get an editor blocked for working on a "wanted articles" list in their own namespace.

    4. Sandstein says "The edits submitted as evidence can only be the result of an (apparently malformed) search-and-replace command." He is wrong, as demonstrated explicitly in point 2. above.

    5. Further Sandstein said previously that this edit appeared automated. He was wrong in any interpretation, he was looking at the wrong diff here is the single character edit I actually made.

    6. Sandstein closed the previous request very hastily, in the edit immediately after requesting "go-ahead" from arbcom - without notifying me that he believed that he had received it.

    7. It is clear that one arbitrator may not speak for the committee, without previous discussion taking place, and that should have been apparent to Sandstein.

    8. In his preliminary response to this request Sandstein has looked for a different "remedy" under which to sanction me, as in the previous request he looked for (and failed to find) additional reasons to sanction.

    9. It is unclear why Sandstein has gone to extra lengths to support the casus belli but I would have thought that he could raise a request for arbitration enforcement himself, rather than becoming a party and judge at the same time.

    9. It is clear that the edits to a user-space list have not caused a problem, nor are that likely to. Sandstein argues elsewhere that " Whether the specific edits at issue are harmful or not does not really matter. What matters is that the Arbitration Committee has made a binding decision that any and all automated edits by Rich Farmbrough are prohibited."

    10. This is a moot point. If we take the dicta WP:AGF and WP:IAR to heart, we might think that it is better to have copyright violations removed from the encyclopaedia (which I have done), and incorrect facts removed from the encyclopaedia (which I have done) that to enable those who cry foul over putative uses of search-and-replace or cut-and-paste, especially in a wanted articles user page.

    11. Moreover if one interprets the additional "remedy" the way soem have done, I am breaking it by responding here, and cutting-and-paste-ing diffs and quotes.

    12. I did not protest the previous block, because I did not wish to be divisive. I still think that it was a bad block.

    13. Sandstein says "In this case, Rich Farmbrough has made it clear through his statements and his conduct that he does not intend to comply with the restriction"

    13. a. It is clear that the restriction is badly worded.

    13. b. Sandstein was clearly aware that I was requesting that restriction to be lifted.

    14. Sandstein further remarked "if Rich Farmbrough convinces me that he understands that he must unconditionally observe all of the restrictions that apply to him, and that he intends to do so in the future, I'll unblock him at once"

    15. This offer was not made to me. Maybe Sandstein could convince me of its sincerity, but he'd really have to be quite convincing.

    16. Strangely the AE was allowed to proceed on the basis that the amendment was moot, and the amendment was declared moot on the basis that the AE was proceeding. A procedural irregularity that would make Kafka blush.

    15. To sum up, this is a trivial complaint that should be rejected on a de minimus basis. Sandstein is giving every evidence of partiality, has made two demonstrable errors, and should remove himself from the request. The Arbitration Committee should take notice of the abuse of their remedies, and strike, by motion, those they see fit.

    All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

    Personal note, I would far rather be working on African calendars, missing field commanders and the Trinidad and Tobago portal, than spending time here. Unfortunately WP:NOTCOMPULSORY does not seem to apply here, and clearly there are those that enjoy it, so I guess I am stuck with it. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

    @Quest: Automation was defined in the decision thus: "An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits". I believe that was point 1 in my notes above. Should you wish to read the rest of my notes, you might find other informative tit-bits. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

    Statement by Only in Death

    While I agree with HJ Mitchell its harsh, Rich is under an un-ambiguous editing restricting. He must not, at all, make any edits that are automated or appear to be automated. No ifs or buts. This has been explained to him multiple times by a number of people in various locations, including admins here and members of Arbcom. On the other hand, the theory of escalating blocks is that you keep blocking for longer until the editor gets the point. Its pretty clear that that he either a)is incapable of getting the point or b)willfully ignoring it because he doesnt agree with it. Either of which means another block is fairly pointless as a deterrant. At this point stick an indef block on and refer it to arbcom since they caused the restriction in the first place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

    • DP - Find and replace is automated in the sense that it performs a series of tasks without being under the direct control of the user. If I hit find and replace 'the' with 'fish' on this page for example, you could not argue that I typed 'fish' however many times it did it. Rich is forbidden from doing *absolutely anything* other than manually typing in every word in an edit. Its one of the most clear restrictions Arbcom have ever issued in its severity. But the restriction exists and its not really the place here to say 'well we are going to ignore it on this occasion' otherwise what is the point? If its too restrictive, he can appeal to the community or Arbcom and attempt to get it lifted. Remember the original restriction said "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so." Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

    I hadn't planned on commenting, but I am taken aback by the suggestion that Find and Replace searches aren't automated searches. As a software developer for the past 15+ years, I can say that using a text editor's search and replacement feature is absolutely an automated process and one that requires special attention to each and every edit. While I don't know the specifics of RF's ArbCom history, apparently this user has screwed this up so many times that the community has decided that they cannot be trusted to do this again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

    Comment by Beyond My Ken

    Just a reminder to the admins discussing below that it is not the function of the administrative participants on AE to substitute their own judgment for that of the Arbitration Committee which applied the particular sanction that is the subject of an AE complaint. In this case, the wording of the sanction makes it abundantly clear that anything which can reasonably be thought of as being automation, is indeed automation for the purpose of the sanction. As the two comments directly above this indicate, even though search and replace has become so commonplace that it no longer seems to most of us to be "automation", it is indeed an automated process in which an edit is made not directly by the editor but by a software routine under the direction of the editor. This is, without any doubt, "automation", and is therefore subject to the sanction.

    Those who feel such a definition is nonsensical may have a point, even an excellent point, but it's not a point which has any relevance here, it's one that should be directed to an appeal of the sanction. That's not the function of AE, which is to enforce sanctions as they stand, regardless of whether the admins involved in the discussion agree with the sanction or not. Anything else invites the undermining of ArbCom decisions, which are supposed to be final and binding on the entire community. BMK (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

    @RF: You're hanging your hat on a definition of "automation" used in a Principle (Principle 3.1), which is only a stepping stone used by the committee in reaching its final decisions. What's important is the actual remedy where the sanction which is binding on you was laid down by ArbCom. That remedy (Remedy 2) says:

    Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Misplaced Pages. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. (emphasis added)

    This is the sanction which is binding on you, and your continued reference to an earlier principle begins to look to me like Wikilawyering intended to confuse the issue. The actual sanction is crystal clear, and you wouldn't be here again if you would only adhere to it. BMK (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Johnuniq

    Arbcom's remedy should not be read in isolation, and the Findings of fact make it clear that "automation" is referring to repeated edits of the same kind over multiple articles. For example, the "violations of restrictions" finding shows examples like this which is one in a series with edit summary "Delink date fragment or minor clean up using AWB". Other findings refer to the mass creation of categories and the undisclosed use of automation with "numerous examples of high-volume, high-speed sequences of identical edits". Those are the kind of problems that led to the case, and which were discussed during the case, and which the remedy was framed to address.

    Arbcom intended to stop the disruption caused by bot-like edits to multiple pages; there is no indication that search-and-replace on a single page (and not repeated on any page) was prohibited. Yes, the search-and-replace was borked, but editors are encouraged to experiment in their own user space. If RF made a careless edit like that in an article, there may be some reason to debate a suitable sanction, but AE should not be used for a pointless "gotcha". Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Aprock

    1. Search and replace is undoubtedly, undeniably, and unequivocally automated editing.

    2. If the only occurrence of automated testing is on Rich's own user page, the filer should get a WP:TROUT and this closed as WP:SNOW.

    aprock (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Fram

    I just want to reply to the statement by Rich Farmbrough, "2. In the complaint comparing * and (a) - the plaintiff has simply, in his eagerness for blood, gone to the wrong source.". Without providing the right source, either here or at the article (which really should have had a source from the start), this is of course a worthless defense. I have provided the evidence on which I based my statement: my conclusion may have been wrong, but without evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to change my opinion. Without evidence for point 2, there is also no support for his further points (4 and following), since these are based on 2. His edit here makes it clear that they were footnote identifiers, like I said. Fram (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

    Result concerning Rich Farmbrough

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

    • The request has merit. The edits submitted as evidence can only be the result of an (apparently malformed) search-and-replace command. Search-and-replace is a form of prohibited automation under the terms of the Committee's motion of 6 June 2012, which provides that Rich Farmbrough "is directed ... to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the button and typing changes into the editing window)". The previous violation of this restriction, also for search-and-replace edits, resulted in a one-year block, the maximum allowed under the enforcement provision. Without objection by another admin, I will impose another one-year block.  Sandstein  18:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I object. I request this be left open for at least 48 hours to allow me to add my rationale, and to allow for input from other admins. If it is not, I will open a request for an arbitration case against the admin responsible, as Sandstein has had no hesitancy in doing to admins who have dared to defy him in the past. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I haven't been involved in this issue before, so I don't know the ins and outs, but it seems harsh to block someone for using the search-and-replace function on his own user page. The edit didn't cause any harm, so I can't see a reason to block. SlimVirgin 21:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Since when is Find...Replace and automated process? I find this filing to be some ridiculous and petty form of harassment, and the filing should come with its own repercussions DP 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    @OnlyInDeath: Look, I don't think I've typically supported Rich in the past, but seriously, calling using Find...Replace using an "automated tool" is (pardon my language) fucking ridiculous; period. Not to sound insulting, but hopefully he hasn't used a circular saw in his workshop or a vibrator in his bedroom in the last 4 months either. This is ridiculous DP 23:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Given that in June 2012 the Committee passed a motion, which amongst other things, stated "if Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider" and that there is disagreement among administrators regarding whether Rich has breached his restriction we should refer this to the Committee to decide (1) whether this violation is serious enough to warrant a block and (2) decide whether this combined with the violation which lead to the one year block are enough that they want to go through with the site-ban. In any case, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to block (even though that it is not technically required) so it might be best to send this the Committee's way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, I'll wait for at least one of the other admins above (ping HJ Mitchell, DangerousPanda, SlimVirgin) to agree and I'll file at WP:ARCA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

    Rim sim

    Rim sim is blocked for one week and topic banned from everything related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 11 April 2014 (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 Rim sim

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Rim sim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions:
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 5 April 2014 Pointy edit, just copied and pasted the warning given to him, and changed the username to mine, the link there is obviously to his edit.
    2. 8 April 2014 apparently nominating an article for deletion makes you a "Muslims and their apologists"
    3. 9 April 2014 Removes content critical of the RSS, marks edit as minor. inserts unsourced OR.
    4. 9 April 2014 Calls me, "a muslim extremist" and "vandalizer"
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 5 April 2014 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Rim sim

    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 Rim sim

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Rim sim

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

    • Most concerned about the reference to another editor in the dispute as a "muslim extremist" and was pretty much ready to block for NPA, let alone any form of AE. The extreme level of wP:BATTLE mentality across these articles is the reason why discretionary sanctions exist in this realm. The reporting editor has been more than patient in this specific situation (alt to admin account:) ES&L 10:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd support a one week block for personal attacks and disruptive editing (just these edits to the notification log alone , & ). And having had a look at more of their edits I wouldn't have a problem indefing them. However in terms of AE I'd suggest the widest topic ban we can impose which is "for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed, the edits submitted reflect a degree of prejudice (or a lack of ability to distance oneself from the prejudices we all carry around) that is incompatible with writing a neutral encyclopedia.  Sandstein  12:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I can also get fully behind the 1-week block AND topic ban combo platter ES&L 12:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

    LokiiT

    LokiiT is blocked for a week.  Sandstein  11:50, 11 April 2014 (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 LokiiT

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    LokiiT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBEE :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Main one, and the one I really care about here. Baseless accusations of bigotry. Clear WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.
    2. Baseless accusations. Note the responses from other users:
    3. Accusation of xenophobia directed at another user.
    4. More of the same. Accusations of "rampant emotion driven nationalism". Accusations of "filling[REDACTED] with fascist/russophobic propaganda "
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Blocked on under discretionary sanctions in the topic area by Tiptoety (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on by Tiptoety (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I don't really care about the usual accusations that get thrown around in these kinds of discussions about "POV pushing" and all that, I got thick skin. However, I find the accusations of bigotry, racism and xenophobia to be appalling, unacceptable and too much too just let go. Of course there's no diffs, or evidence to support these slurs - because they are untrue. The fact that they've been directed not just at myself but also at other users is pretty clear evidence that LokiiT has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and is not here to constructively improve the encyclopedia, this topic area in particular.

    For a bit of background, LokiiT was extremely active in the EE area during the 2008_South_Ossetia_war. At the time his behavior was very similar to his current actions on Ukraine related topics, and he got a couple of blocks. He edit warred, and after being blocked for edit warring he turned to running a sock farm to try and get his way on the relevant articles. I think there is a strong basis for a concern that at least part of that pattern is being repeated on Ukraine and Crimea related topics.

    Also, I did ask him to remove the attacks first, but no go

    LokiiT is referring to my removals after this discussion at ] (might have to un-hat a section). Despite the comments there he insisted on inserting material which misrepresented sources. Strangely in that discussion he referred to another user's comments as if they were his. The other edits LokiiT is referring to below (like this one) are about my undoing of an edit by an account which is not User:LokiiT, a newly registered SPA User:Limestoneforest. Not sure exactly how this is relevant. Maybe it is.
    For the accusations of bigotry, just click the diffs I provided above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning LokiiT

    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 LokiiT

    This seems like little more than a personal vendetta, as Marek has gone to great lengths to provoke me over the past month or so via bad faith accusations, stalking, edit warring/tag teaming, and blanking material that I've added to various articles, with edit summaries that would suggest he did not read the talk page, content or sources at all. His behaviour has been in line with the disruptive tactics used by members of the Eastern Europe Cabal that Marek (aka Radeksz) was an active member of, hence my comment in his the first link (note the comment I was responding to; I'm not the only one to notice his disruptive editing habits, although admittedly that was a bad place to bring the issue up).

    My edits to[REDACTED] articles are always in good faith and always well sourced. I try my hardest to keep content neutral, which seems to have displeased a few pro-Ukrainian editors. I have strong opinions which I have expressed on talk pages; I don't claim to have neutral opinions. But I try not to let this effect my editing habits and do make an effort to correct for my biases.

    I'm not sure what sockpuppets 6 years ago have to do with this. It's unclear to me whether Marek is accusing me of sockpuppeting right now, or trying to create an illusion of ongoing disruption. Moreover, I have not accused anyone of being bigoted or racist as Marek claims. He must have me confused with someone else.

    On a final and important note: I was not active between the time he asked me to remove my comment and his second message informing me of this enforcement request; I saw both messages just now when I logged in. I have no issue with removing the comment and will do so now.

    • Response to Marek: I contributed at least half of the material to the anti-semetic section that you blanked numerous times despite having no consensus to do so (and all of it in the last blanking). Moreover, I removed the material that you contested and made that clear on the talk page - you not only still blanked the material, but you claimed in your comment that I reinserted it, suggesting that you didn't bother to read my comment nor the material before blanking. Again here is your blanking; notice how it does not include anything regarding the Haaretz article someone else included, which you so strongly opposed. I made that clear on the talk page.. You also continually cited WP:CONSENSUS as your reason for blanking when there were at least three editors actively trying to keep it. In the second diff you mentioned you blanked a large amount of material, including a well sourced paragraph that I added (the one with commentary by Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich)..
    • Response to Lvivske: I consider xenophobia to be a very different thing from racism and bigotry (as does the dictionary). For example, the political party Svoboda that I believe you support (correct me if I'm wrong) advocates xenophobic policies, but that doesn't necessarily make them racist or bigots, does it? With that said, your comment that "The Russians", and not Stalin and the ethnically diverse Soviet leadership, were responsible for the deportation of Crimean Tatars was ignorant at best. LokiiT (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Statement by Lvivske

    "Moreover, I have not accused anyone of being bigoted or racist as Marek claims." was somehow a response to this: "Oops, your xenophobia is showing."....can we at least be honest here?--Львівське (говорити) 14:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

    Result concerning LokiiT

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

    • I find the "Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings..." submitted to Volunteer Marek to be a little deceptive given that they are from 2008, and I'm a bit disappointed that Marek would post them in such a way. I was going to suggest that an IBAN between Volunteer Marek and LokiiT might help solve the problem, however this edit (that Lvivske is xenophobic) which looks unprovoked suggests that there might be something more going on. I'm not sure what to do at this stage, but my gut feeling is that a warning might do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that the request has merit. The evidence shows that LokiiT has engaged in personal attacks against others (WP:NPA), and, in particular, has alleged severe misconduct on the part of others without appropriate evidence (see WP:ASPERSIONS). Such conduct is forbidden. LokiiT continues to engage in it in their statement, and does not substantially address their own conduct. As a discretionary sanction, I would block LokiiT for a week.

      The diffs by Volunteer Marek submitted by LokiiT in their response are not, at least on their face, evidence of misconduct. I do not find it deceptive to link to a warning of 2008, as it is still relevant for the purpose of WP:AC/DS#Warnings.  Sandstein  12:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Add topic