Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spartaz (talk | contribs) at 05:52, 11 April 2016 (OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive190). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 WP:AE WP:ARE 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: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of 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: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect 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.

TripWire

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 TripWire

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TripWire (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/India-Pakistan:

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

Edit warring and WP:GAMING to have consensus, continues to reinstate something for which he has gained no consensus. Such as:-

reverted here:

Reinstated reverted edit again, got reverted again, then reinstated same edit again, then reinstated once again after being reverted, and again, while sure that he was sure that his edit will be reverted.

WP:NPA, WP:SOAP violation.

"Like I have said many times, stop wasting time. The best you can do is to support socks and their contentious edits, unfortunately you'll fail in that too."

"I'd suggest that you keep your Mullah Raj theory with you and act maturely."

Use of very hostile language, WP:BATTLE.

"I know a dear friends of yours was blocked for socking and one does get jumpy at times."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Topic banned from all "edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts, for a period of 6 months".

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

Just came off a topic ban this year.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Once he would realize that his topic ban is no more in force, he would go back to making those same kinds of edits that led to the topic ban, he would make three objectionable edits to Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 at first, then he disrupted the article Bangladesh Liberation War by edit warring and making hostile comments on talk page, after that he would falsely accuse @Volunteer Marek: of harassment. And now he seems to be missing no chance to attack editors like @Ghatus and Kautilya3: and others. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning TripWire

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 (TripWire)

A highly bad-faith personal attack report by DiNA4. The editor was never in conflict with me and was not involved in the edits from he is quoting his so called proof. I will be replying to each and every accusation made by him in due course of time as he has dug out events from history/past which infact has no bearing on what is being discussed. This alone shows his person hatred towards despite the fact that he had never interacted with me.

But before I reply to his accusations, Admins to please note that all of my edits referred by DiNA4 in his report were made by me as I and other editors (atleast 3) were in conflict with MBlaze Lightning who was recently blocked for socking. His master KnightWarrior25 was already blocked, but NOT for socking, but for pushing-POV and edit-warring. So, let's get one thing aside that I was indeed in conflict with MBL who was an established POV-pusher and had habitually indulged in edit-war. He too later was caught and blocked. So I was infact reverting or challenging MBL (all while remaining within the rules and following policy of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS etc) because I saw that he was destroying Misplaced Pages. While being in conflict with MBL I remained well within the policies of Wiki and tried my best to talk it out with the involved editors. At no place did I edit-war as being claimed or else I must have been reported to ANI. The fact that MBL was blocked for socking for his master KnightWarrior25 who was blocked for POV-pushing/edit-warring is altogether a confirmation that I was correct in my approach. This coupled with the fact that during my discourse with MBL I followed the rules which make this report against me a personal attack and nothing else.

Now if you think saving Misplaced Pages from being destroyed by a sock and a known POV-Pusher is wrong, please make me accountable for that. But if you think I did right by standing in his way, I would like that DiNA4 be sanctioned for wasting Admin's time.

BTW, the policy for filing a report on ANE says that "diffs older than one week may be declined as stale" but here D4iNA4 is quoting weeks old diffs.

Reply:

Accusation-1:

Edit warring and WP:GAMING to have consensus, continues to reinstate something for which he has gained no consensus. Such as:- reverted here:

Reply-1:

I was completely within my rights to make Edit and gave full details in the edit-summary why I did so. In edit I was reverted back by the adding editor, no problem, he was in his right too following the WP:BRD. This led to the 'D' part and I and the other editor engaged in a discussion over this at the talk page. I dont see anything wrong with that. Just a way of building pressure on me by D4iNa4.

Accusation-2:

Reinstated reverted edit again, got reverted again, then reinstated same edit again, then reinstated once again after being reverted, and again, while sure that he was sure that his edit will be reverted.

Reply-2:

• Edit was reverted because MBlaze Lightning (a confirmed sock of KnightWarrior25 - now blocked) was trying to insert DUPLICATE information in the article. Though it was sheer commonsense, but MBL failed to get it. So a talk page section was opened and it took 3 x editors (including Ghatus and Kautilya3 - both Indians) to explain MBL that the info he was adding was indeed duplicate. What a waste of time.

Even Kautilya3 and Ghatus agreed with me and told MBL that he was wrong in adding duplicate info:

• Kautilya3 agreed with me by saying; "Yes, I too agree with TripWire's objection" diff
• And Ghatus did too by saying; "I think TripWire is right here over" diff

Only then MBL stopped his edit-warring and refrained from re-inserting the info. Hence my edit was correct/justified.

Now pray tell me, by stopping a POV-pusher (MBL - who later understood he was wrong) from re-adding duplicate info wasn't I favoring/building Misplaced Pages as per its polices and isnt DiNA4 wasting our time by manipulating facts?

Why is then DiNA4 lying and dragging me here to settle his personal scores on the direction of someone?

• Edit : DiNA4 says that edit was same as edit (i.e. I reverted twice) to prove that I was edit-warring. But he is lying. As edit was made on 24 March whereas edit was made on 1 April and concerned two DIFFERENT issues which were being discussed SEPARATELY on the talk page.
• Moreover, edit has nothing to do with either edit or edit as these three concerned three different issues and were made weeks apart. One being as early as 1 April 2016 and the latest one been made on 10 April 2016. Really? This is like digging up my entire history and adding random links to my edits and linking them together in sheer bad-faith to show that I edit-warred. BTW, none of the edits mentioned violated any policy as all were being discussed following the basic wiki policy of WP:BRD, not to mention that the edits were made to challenge a blocked sock whose master was also blocked for pushing POV.

So Admins should take note of this manipulation.

Accusation-3:

"Like I have said many times, stop wasting time. The best you can do is to support socks and their contentious edits, unfortunately you'll fail in that too."

Reply-3

Kutaliya3 has a history of supporting socks. He has been pushing MBL's edits even after he was blocked for socking and also supporting Ghautus' WP:OR here. Kutaliya also has a history of supporting socks against established editors. He has supported POV edits of User:Akbar the Great who was a sock of User:Bazaan, he has been in close contact with User:Greek Legend who was a sock of User:CosmicEmperor and now he seems to be owning edits of MBL (another sock). He has been exchanging emails with them and has admitted to be in contact with blocked socks on an Admin's page. Seriously, how can we improve Misplaced Pages if seasoned editors will support blocked socks and are always available to push their agenda even after they are blocked? All I did was point that out.

Not only this, but I made the above reply when Kutaliya3 also had attacked me personally:

"Oh, good. You are dodging my question. That is what I thought you would do. For me to say anything on talk, you need to state an objection first, which you never did. Frankly, I don't think you have any clue what is going on here." diff.

Accusation-4:

"I'd suggest that you keep your Mullah Raj theory with you and act maturely."

Reply-4:

The above statement was made in response to Kutaliya's following comment:

"We are not going to have a Mullah Raj on Misplaced Pages."

I'll leave it to the admins to decide who was attacking whom.

Accusation-5:

"I know a dear friends of yours was blocked for socking and one does get jumpy at times."

Reply-5:

Background: I removed a WP:FAKE content but Kutalia3 immediately reverted me in a knee-jerk reaction. Like any good editor, I opened up a talk-page section to discuss the dispute. When I invited Kutaliya to discuss his reversion, after discussion he accepted his mistake and agreed to self-revert, which he did. As he was restoring the content of MBL (a blocked sock) and have admitted of being in contact with him after he was blocked, I simply pointed out the fact that a senior editor like him should be careful before he reverts in favour of a blocked user. In short, I was correct in making that edit. Ktaliya3 agreed too.

Point scoring by DiNA4 in Bad-Faith:

Just came off a topic ban this year.

Reply:

• First, I didn't come off topic just this year. I was banned on 3 July 2015. My ban ended on 4 January 2016 (3 months from now). As I still liked to build Misplaced Pages, I remained semi-active on Wiki during my topic-ban avoiding the topics I was banned from. When my ban ended on 4 Jan 2016, I still didnt start editing the pages I was banned from immediately. I only started participating on these topics from 20 February 2016 (1 month 12 days after the ban ended) onwards. I used this 1 month to develop more understanding of Wiki polices and didnt just jump back to editing. Even then too my first edit after my topic-ban ended was regarding something for which a clear consensus had been reached after a deliberate discussion at the talk page but a blocked editor without paying any attention to the consensus again tried to re-insert his POV (this fact can be seen in my edit-summary). In short, the first edit I made after my topic-ban ended was to revert vandalism, but still I am being reported by DiNA4 for the same? This extreme hatred towards me is totally uncalled for and unjustified. Admins to take note, please.

Accusation-6:

Once he would realize that his topic ban is no more in force, he would go back to making those same kinds of edits that led to the topic ban, he would make three objectionable edits to Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 at first, then he disrupted the article Bangladesh Liberation War by edit warring and making hostile comments on talk page, after that he would falsely accuse @Volunteer Marek: of harassment. And now he seems to be missing no chance to attack editors like @Ghatus and Kautilya3: and others.

Reply-6:

• Admins please note that Edits & are same edits but quoted TWICE by DiNA4 to falsely add weight to his WP:NPA report.
• This edit was made in sync with WP:WEASEL on 28 February 2016. The edit has not been challenged to date. What's here to discuss and why did DiNA4 pointed it out then?? I'll leave that to Admin's judgement.
• Edit was made when Kutaliya removed some content saying that it was unsourced. Only I did was in edit being quoted by DiNA4 was to re-add the content by citing a source. What's wrong in that?!! Even Kutaliya agreed (the content is present in the article to date)! DiNA4 has deliberately missed the very next edit where I added the source after restoring the content removed by Kutaliya3.

This is really unacceptable. DiNA4 is lying over and again to make his point across!

• Edit is same as edit and was just added TWICE by DiNA4 in bad-faith to falsely add weight to his report, and has already been replied to at Accusation-4.
• Edit is true as VM did indeed harass me and I took the matter to FPAS' talk-page. Self-explanatory details can be seen in the edit itself.

To Admins:

BTW what does DiNA4 has to say about the language/personal attacks used by Ghatus whom he is trying to defend by reporting me for WP:NPA:

• diff "Don't try to be over smart. Go to Talk."
• diff "50:1. Idiot. See talk and give secondary source, not news"
• diff "All non WP:RS rubbish and unverified PoV pics are removed.If you continue to do this,the consequence will not be pleasant"
• diff "Do not talk rubbish"

Statement by Kautilya3

Some general remarks concerning TripWire. As far as I can see, they are an SPA, whose contributions are limited to Indo-Pakistan conflicts. Secondly, the majority of their contribution are to edit-war over the content that the others have contributed, very little of their own content. How much of that the project can tolerate is a big question. TripWire has barely come off a 6-moth topic ban. Whether their behaviour has improved as a result is another question. I think it has. There is less edit-warring and more participation on the talk pages, even though I would say it is still far from ideal. The over-aggressive behaviour in discussions continues.

One factor that is currently playing out at the moment is that MBlaze Lightning has been indeffed, rightly, and the pro-Pakistan editors favour reverting all of his edits wholesale. I have objected to that approach and said that we need to discuss specific objections in an issue-based way. That has not gone down well with the pro-Pakistan editors, and they have taken to calling me a supporter, even a "meatpuppet," of MBlaze. However, ironically, TripWire has been forced to point out on this page how often I have opposed MBlaze and supported their stance instead. That is poetic justice, it seems.

Given that TripWire's behaviour shows improvement, I don't believe any serious sanction is warranted at this stage. However some cautionary remarks to TripWire to tone down their rhetoric and be more collaborative in their approach would be welcome. A recognition that editors like me are willing to listen to all sides would also be useful.

Statement by Freeatlast

From analysing the edits made by D4iNa4 I have come to the conclusion that they are a sockpuppet account that is used from a "safe location" such as a public library, internet cafe, a friends house or a relative's house. It is crystal clear that this account is kept alive by merely logging in and doing a couple of reverts etc every week or so whenever the user visits this safe location. The majority of his/her edits are just simple reverts or talkpage input. Thier grand total of "actual" edits in indo-Pak articles is less than 50. So even though nothing can be proved about this account of course their knowhow of wiki jargon(behavioral evidence) is suggestive that they are not a novice who merely reverts others once a week. However they have filed SPI cases(quickly rejected) and have taken time to give input at ANI etc. And now they are trying to request an enforcement. This behavior has led me to conclude that they are actually some community banned user who cannot ask for an unblock, but they want to be involved in the indo-pak articles so they just do the occasional revert/bad faith report from time to time. Therefore this request should be treated carefully. Now as far as the actual "request" is concerned we can see from the get go that the entire "evidence" here is fabricated.

1. The first claim of gaming cleverly and conveniently fails to say that in actuality Tripwire was undoing vandalism by a sockpuppet and trying his best to refrain from even touching the article. You will see that many of his reverts are to versions that are from uninvolved editors.
2. As far as the so called "personal attacks" go we have someone who is asking for a t-ban based on an editor saying "please act maturely". I do not know whether to laugh or cry at the copious amounts of bad faith oozing from this. This is a highly volatile area and truth be told if every editor who asked another to "act maturely" was banned from topics we will have to T-ban almost 75% of editors. So this is just a "filler" used by the nom to "beef up" his accusations, and make them look big. more space=more suspicion. The reaction usually is "There are so many diffs, he MUST have done something".
3. As far as the accusation of WP:BATTLE is concerned firstly you can see that once again it is a filler. Why not include it with NPA? no Sir! We are going to make a new accusation. Secondly it is clearly the exact opposite of what the nom claims, Tripwire is actually saying "no harm, no foul" at the end leading to quite a good faith ending to a heated discussion. Including such a diff here is mind bogglingly bad faith.

My advice is that the nom should spend time actually improving the encyclopedia instead of filling this kind of bad faith requests. I was going to suggest boomerang but then I though why ask for a block? he only comes online once or twice a week to revert etc. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

This is nothing more than an Indian editor targeting a Pakistani editor after block of User:MBlaze Lightning (an Indian editor). I can understand the reason for sympathy as the requestor himself has a quite outstanding socking history. See (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning TripWire

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