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 Shrike (talk | contribs) at 13:28, 15 January 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:28, 15 January 2013 by Shrike (talk | contribs)(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 and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcuts

    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
    341342343344345346

    Maurice07

    User is topic banned from Greek-Turkish relations -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

    Request concerning Maurice07

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Δρ.Κ.  04:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    This user has engaged in long-term disruption and edit-warring across many Greece-related articles. I have omitted the Cyprus-related articles which although they have also seen widespread disruption from this user, they are not subject to ARBMAC.

    Here are some examples of the relentless, long-term edit-warring by this user.

    Imia/Kardak

    Long-term disruption and edit-warring showing intent to remove, and failing that, downgrade, any connection to Greece regarding Imia.

    1. Revision as of 13:18, 26 April 2012 Future Perfect at Sunrise m (rv, unconstructive POV-pushing) eliminates Greek name, gets reverted by FPaS
    2. Revision as of 13:23, 26 April 2012 Maurice07 eliminates Greek name again.
    3. Revision as of 13:25, 26 April 2012 Maurice07 Inserts Turkish name first then Greek name.
    4. Revision as of 13:33, 26 April 2012 Future Perfect at Sunrise m (rv, stop this now.)
    5. Revision as of 14:35, 26 December 2012 Maurice07 (Undid revision 529774906 by Dr.K. Now is not part of a template.). Edit-wars to eliminate Dodecanese template.
    6. Related to Imia: Revision as of 21:13, 29 June 2012 Removes Imia from the List of islands of Greece.
    Greek–Turkish relations
    1. Revision as of 15:36, 20 December 2012 Maurice07 Reverts FPaS.
    2. December 2012 Maurice07 (→‎Aegean Sea: More Common? So you say!)
    3. Revision as of 14:36, 21 December 2012 Maurice07 (→‎Aegean Sea: As usual,nationalist behaviors.You can not tolerate even the name of the original article.)
    Massive, long-term, edit-warring

    Between 24-25 September performing approximately 85 (eighty five reverts) sometimes with bot-like speed averaging sometimes 4 reverts per minute, on various lists of Diplomatic missions trying to put Turkey in Europe against consensus.

    Gets blocked on 26 September after ANI report Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07.

    On 3 January he resumes the September edit-warring with five reverts in 3 days: Revision as of 23:37, 3 January 2013 Maurice07

    See also: User:Maurice07 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Sending to WP:AE)

    Obsession about adding Turkish names of Greek locations

    See here, where he adds the Turkish name of Komotini in the article of Golden Dawn.

    Xanthi

    Edit-warring to add the Turkish name at the lead despite the existence of a separate name section in the article.

    1. Revision as of 11:28, 9 January 2013 Maurice07 (Reverted 1 edit by Dr.K.: See other languages of Xanthi/İskeçe!! Greek,French,German,Italian,Bulgarian...)
    2. Revision as of 02:04, 11 January 2013 Maurice07(I realize that.It's available name section,why do you not accept to be included here?) reverts Laveol although he says he realizes that there is a separate name section he still wants to highlight the Turkish name at the lead:
    Languages of Europe

    Insisting that a citation is needed that Greek is spoken in Turkey, a fact that is clearly well-established. Edit-warring as usual.

    1. Revision as of 10:36, 9 January 2013 Maurice07 (Undid revision 532110294 by Dr.K. There is no believable evidence!) i.e. no "believable evidence that Greek is spoken in Turkey".
    2. Revision as of 02:10, 11 January 2013 Maurice07 (→‎Greek: Turkey has a 2.500 Greek minority and source still necessary like Republic of Macedonia !!)
    More evidence of disruption
    1. Edit-warring to add the Turkish version of Kalymnos Exhibiting the same behaviour as in Xanthi.
    2. Revision as of 17:19, 3 January 2013 Maurice07 (Undid revision 531065578 by Proudbolsahye irrelevant for this article !) Removing a link to Racism in Turkey from Anti-Armenianism.
    3. Revision as of 21:41, 3 September 2012 Maurice07 (Undid revision 510636570 by Chipmunkdavis Partially? It's not a good reason to retrieve! I completely agree that as a personal opinion.) Edit-warring about Cyprus on Turkey.
    4. Revision as of 20:02, 27 December 2012 Maurice07 (rv, irredent edits.) Calling another editor's referenced edits "irredentist" for using the geographical term Armenian Highlands.
    5. Revision as of 10:56, 3 December 2012 Maurice07 (Undid revision 526095933 by Dr.K. Southern Greek Cyprus is not recognized by the Turkey, this is a point of reference.) Removes Cyprus from the southern geographical neighbours of Turkey on the basis that Turkey does not recognise Cyprus. In other words clearly politically motivated editing.
    6. Revision as of 21:28, 24 September 2012 Maurice07 Modifies location of Istanbul from "Europe & Asia" to "Europe" alone. A clearly tendentious and dogmatic approach to geography.
    Personal attacks
    1. Revision as of 23:40, 28 December 2012 (view source) Maurice07 (Undid revision 530025548 by Dr.K. Clearly WP:VAN ! Don't imposed.)
    2. Revision as of 23:58, 28 December 2012 (view source) Maurice07 (Undid revision 530209652 by Dr.K. Tendentious? It's interesting to hear from you.Unfortunately,u can not mention "impartiality" with your contribs in the article of Cyprus!!)
    3. Revision as of 14:36, 21 December 2012 Maurice07 (→‎Aegean Sea: As usual,nationalist behaviors.You can not tolerate even the name of the original article.)
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. ARBMAC warning #1 from FPaS back in April 2012.
    2. ARBMAC warning by FPaS about Imia/Kardak #2 on 26 December 2012
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The user rarely communicates on talkpages and he has contributed very little content to the encyclopaedia other than the relentless edit-warring and disruption.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Courtesy notice


    Discussion concerning Maurice07

    Statement by Maurice07

    Comments by others about the request concerning Maurice07

    Result concerning Maurice07

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

    Aminul802

    Not actionable. The editor has not been able to edit since his notification about the arbitration case. Only edits made after that notification are potentially grounds for discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  00:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Request concerning Aminul802

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Aminul802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 18 December 2012 Accusations of vandalisim after I correctly removed the claim that Brownmiller (a BLP) had given a figure of 25000 rape victims, she had not, that was her estimate for forced pregnancies. Reverts an IP editor calling the IP a vandal during an edit war he is involved with. This is in violation of principle 1
    2. 13 January 2013 Has used sockpuppets to advance his POV in violation of principle 2
    3. 9 January 201321 January 201215 December 2012 He is a WP:SPA whose sole purpose on Misplaced Pages is to add as much negative information regarding the International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) or to any article connected to it in violation of principle 3
    4. 12 December 2012 He has edit warred BLP & link violations into articles in violation of principle 5 A great many diffs can be given for this if requested.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 13 January 2013 by CIreland (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Further proof of Aminul802 editing in such a way as to bias an article in a certain way are these. A great many of the sources he has used for criticism have the opposing view in them also, this is prime example The source used (Ref Condemn) here has a rebuttal from Richard Rogers, who was head of the ECCC. This should have been added at the same time. He also used this which has Mizanur Rahman supporting the ICT yet he failed to add it. I also believe he has engaged in meatpupperty this editor has three edits then finds his way to the BLPN board to support Aminul802 in a discussion there, and then proceeds to reverting a BLP to Aminul802 favoured version.

    This article falls under WP:ARBIPA as the ICT is prosecuting suspected war criminals from the Bangladesh liberation war which India was involved in.

    I request he be topic banned from all articles broadly construed which deals with the ICT. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    He is currently requesting an unblock claiming the sockpuppet was in fact his wife. If this is proven to be the case then the violation of principle 2 can be discounted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    Sandstein, he was not given a warning earlier as I did not know such a warning had to be given, this is the first AE I have ever had to file. I would say this account is a SPA, the majority of his edits are to articles related to the ICT. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    It would appear he had two sockpuppets is another according to the SPI Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notified


    Discussion concerning Aminul802

    Statement by Aminul802

    Aminul802 would like this discussion to take cognizance of his own statements here . Aminul802 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC) copied over by request Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Aminul802

    Result concerning Aminul802

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

    This request is not actionable. Only one of the reported diffs is of a later date than the warning of 13 January 2013, and it is not on its face sanctionable. Also, it is clear from the reported user's contributions that they are not a single purpose account dedicated to that particular article. The earlier diffs are not sanctionable because they predate the warning, so I'm not examining them. The request should be closed without further action.  Sandstein  20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    Sandstein, that diff is from January 2012 - the editor is currently blocked for sockpuppetry and so has not been able to edit since the notification I gave. CIreland (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    Right... Closing, then.  Sandstein  00:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

    Lazyfoxx

    Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

    Request concerning Lazyfoxx

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Lazyfoxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 14 January 2013 Canvassing
    2. 14 January 2013 Canvassing
    3. 9 January 2013 Original research
    4. 12 January 2013 Accusing other editors of having agenda
    5. 13 January 2013 Accusing other editors of having agenda.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

    The user was already sanctioned on this board for exactly the same conduct Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive110#Lazyfoxx mainly canvassing and accusing other editors of having agenda

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    • The first two diffs are clear violation of canvassing as he notified two users that probably will support him in the argument.He notified only them.
    • The third diff in my opinion is violation of WP:OR the relevant quote from the source."Bedouins,Jordanians, Palestinians and Saudi Arabians are located in close proximity to each other, which is consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula" nowhere the source use word "partial" that was added by the editor the rest of his edit regarding to this source is as I undestand his interpartation of graphs which is too WP:OR
    • I think the last two diffs speak for themselves.

    --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Lazyfoxx

    Statement by Lazyfoxx

    Comments by others about the request concerning Lazyfoxx

    Result concerning Lazyfoxx

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