Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Genabab
[edit]Genabab is warned to avoid edit warring, that 1RR and 3RR are not allowances, to verify the quality and reliability of sources they are using in contentious articles, and that information simply being verifiable does not mean that it is due. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2024 (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. Request concerning Genabab[edit]
User is aware of sanctions on this topic User talk:Genabab#Introduction to contentious topics
User Genabab is constantly adding unsubstantiated Iranian, Hezbollah and Hamas propaganda to articles involving Arab-Israeli conflict. Often citing deprecated sources[1] and edit warring once they are reverted. The material they are adding is completely fabricated claims, for example, Hezbollah having claimed killing 2,000 Israeli soldiers[2] while the real tally is 25, as well as adding claims such as Iran's missile attack on Israel destroying 20 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II aircraft.[3] Other edits include changing results of battles in infoboxes from Israeli victory to Hezbollah victories,[4] as well as removing Hezbollah from the list of atrocities committed by the group.[5] Viewsridge (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Genabab[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Genabab[edit]
Statement by ManyAreasExpert[edit]
Statement by The Kip[edit]Not an admin, but feel like I can shine some light here, going point-by-point:
Regarding some of the other things brought up:
In total, some of this case is a bit overstated/overdramatized, but there's also genuine concerns with Genabab's editing tendencies. The Kip (contribs) 19:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Swatjester[edit]I have no opinion on most of this dispute but want to comment as to @The Kip:'s suggestion about attribution on the Hezbollah claim. Statement by TylerBurden[edit]I think this editor has shown some signs of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing within WP:RUSUKR, as ManyAreasExpert indicated. Seeing them insisting on adding what can only be described as obvious propaganda in another CT is therefore not all that surprising. Genabab seems to think it is more important to present ″both sides″ than to follow WP:DUE, and I don't think attribution excuses that, because it still adds bogus to articles with our without it. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Genabab[edit]
|
Kalanishashika
[edit]Kalanishashika is indefinitely topic banned from ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2024 (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. Request concerning Kalanishashika[edit]
Although the diffs provided above only deal with its latest incarnation, the issue has been long-standing. Since the previous cases of edit warring by this user on the same article were dealt with elsewhere I didn't include them above but I will expand on them here for context. This user who appeared shortly after Tamil genocide article was created seems to be a SPA whose primary engagement has been with that article where their behavior has been disruptive. On 12 June 2024 I reported them to AN3 for 3RR violation but no action was taken although they implied they gamed the system by reverting for the 4th time outside the 24-hour limit and an admin told them as much. Later, after an admin at ANI notified this user that 1RR now applied, this user continued to game the system and reverted for the 5th time outside the designated limit. I highlighted this on 21 June 2024 in an admin's talk page discussion but no action was taken. After being inactive for 2 months, they went back to gaming the system by reverting 1RR protected article outside the 24-hours limit; I notified an admin of this on 27 August 2024 but no action was taken. I did however warn the user that I will file an ARE report if their disruptive behavior persisted. Even after that they have now gone back to flouting guidelines by reverting for the second time without even continuing to engage the active talk discussion that they stopped engaging on 2 September 2024. Since I've exhausted all options, I request this committee to solve this issue once and for all.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
[*] Internet Archive has the book for anyone to check though the site seems down at the moment: https://archive.org/details/cagefightforsril0000weis ---Petextrodon (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kalanishashika[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kalanishashika[edit]
I would say that I am surprised by this enforcement request, however then again, I am not, as Petextrodon mentioned this enforcement request is not the first time Petextrodon has attempted to get admins to sanction me. First of all, the content addition in question was done by me after Petextrodon a similar addition two weeks back on 17 September 2024 (content he had introduced on August 2024). This content was discussed in the talk page, however this discussion was going in nowhere so, I took a step back to allow for the things to cool off. However, Petextrodon after two weeks added the disputed content, two weeks later I expanded his edit with additional content in question. I am happy to revert my edit and apologize, however could I ask if Petextrodon's edit on the 17 September 2024 is correct, since I feel that it's the same as mine on 5 October 2024. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Since Petextrodon did mention this, for the record I would like to share the complete discussion User_talk:Aoidh/Archives/2024#Intractable_user and a similar issue was raised by Petextrodon Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive483, in which case both of us were warned not to engaged in edit warring. I feel that I try to abide by the warnings I have received, I am not sure if Petextrodon does. I might be wrong here; I will leave it to the admins to make a call on it and correct me if I have errored. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kalanishashika[edit]
|
ThatBritishAsianDude
[edit]ThatBritishAsianDude is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Hinduism, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2024 (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. Request concerning ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]
The examples I have given are of the most recent issues; there is a lengthy history of warnings on ThatBritishAsianDude's talk page (please check history), including for mis-leading edit-summaries, poorly sourced content, and, in several instances, edit-warring. They appear to not be taking these seriously, and are being a net-negative in the topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]Honestly kind off suprised although this isn't the first time someone comes here based of a disagreement. It seems Vanamonde went all out to include things, I don't see how I broke any rules based of the mentioned recent edits from #1 to 5 and I'd suggest the admin concerning this issue to read that discussion on the talkpage, I did a lot of effort in that particular discussion while getting a lot of pushback from Vanamonde in particular, showing no signs of coming to a consensus. During the discussion I made no edits having learned from past disputes, I only made the edit after the discussion seemed dead and another editor seemed to agree with me. As for #6 and 7, that discussion is still ongoing with there being many editors disagreeing with the tags added by that particular editor, saying these tags where added in good faith seems to be a word choice to just make me seem worse in this situation. As for #8 to 11, that had again to do with that particular editor, after received warnings I refrained from editing those pages after not feeling like putting in any effort in it anymore. #12 just seems to be Vanamonde's viewpoint since in the discussion following that (I didn't revert it after that), I asked many times where the consensus and these supposed sources came from still not having received clear answers. #13 just isn't right, since I made attempts to discuss it with that particular Editor. Although this probably isn't the place, I think that Vanamonde has an Ideological bias on Wikipedia, mainly Anti-Hindu and Anti-Indian, I haven't been the only one to have noticed this through the years [17]. It is visible in the edit history and created articles alone. There also seems to be a small group of editors with a similar bias backing each other in related articles. To be clear I am not saying this with bad faith or Ill intent. As for the contentious topics restriction that was notified, I don't think that is the best example since I got that notification after having only made one edit one that artcicle and i'd like to think I have grown a lot as a editor since then taking breaks when disputes arise or become to much. (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC) @Barkeep49 I think you took that quote out of context, I don't actually think that now but was suggesting it since mainly Bangladeshi and Indian editors on that page where disagreeing with each other ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC) @Bishonen And adding mythical without sources that mention it isn't ? If you read the discussion you can see that I am not Pro- or Anti-Hindu, I just thought that in this specific instance neutrality should be kept ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Bluethricecreamman[edit]Was curious about this account and saw this enforcement thread. here is a diff of arbitrary blanking of criticism of an organization associated with hindu nationalism movement.[18] reason for blanking was suggestion that newspaper url was “not well sourced enough” in the edit summary Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]
|
Raskolnikov.Rev
[edit]I withdraw this request. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:31, 15 October 2024 (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. Request concerning Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]
Recent incivility:
As far as WP:AGF violations go, it doesn't get any clearer than calling multiple users "malicious" or a "bad faith actor", in forums that are not for dispute resolution. Other editors shouldn't have to tolerate such aggression.
N/A
Raskolnikov.Rev's response seems sincere; I'm optimistic that this might be resolved without necessarily needing formal action. I'm open to just withdrawing this if that's an accepted/encouraged practice? — xDanielx T/C\R 22:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC) If there's no objection (procedural or otherwise), I'm withdrawing this. Since Raskolnikov.Rev seems to sincerely intend to self-correct, it seems like no formal action is needed at this time. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]I believe this is a reasonable complaint to raise, and I will make sure to not use emotive and needlessly abrasive language like that going forward, and always assume good faith. And to the editors who were on the other side of my barbs, I apologize, and I hope going forward we can all collaborate together with mutual respect to improve Wiki. Here are some more detailed reflections on each cited case: 2024-10-11 "it is frankly absurd to pretend ..." 2024-10-12 "It seems like you're incapable of grasping ... I know it's embarrassing that you presented ..." Here I was letting my emotions get the better of me, which again I'll make sure to not let happen again. To add some context: in the first case I was not referring to any specific editor, and it was part of a general statement where I cited extensive RS. Still, it was entirely needless to do that, and won't happen again. Regarding the second one, @XDanielx initiated the language of being incapable of grasping something: "It seems like you haven't fully grasped...", but I shouldn't have mirrored it. That was a mistake that I will not make again. 2024-10-12 "If you continue with this behavior, I will bring it up in arbitration. And I will revert your latest malicious edit ... do you think people will not bother to click on the links you provide?" Here I am referring to an edit by @XDanielx making an addition to a long-standing consensus text that was contested in Talk and did not have consensus, which they were aware of as they were a participant in said discussion. Calling it a "malicious edit" however was entirely needless and unproductive. The second part of the quote is referring to a link provided that contains text which @XDanielx said was not contained in it, but again, it was needless and unproductive. I could and should have merely made the case without those remarks. 2024-10-09 "Since it's pro-Israel though I doubt you'll take that up ..." Here an editor came into my talk to tell me to self-revert after misunderstanding Wikipedia policy concerning 1RR, as they later admitted. Another editor had actually violated it, and I was referring to that, but there was no point in doing that, completely needlessly abrasive. That will not happen again. 5 to 11 are from a lengthy debate where aforementioned editor violated 1RR, and repeatedly violated established consensus. My warnings were an attempt to persuade them to stop doing so, and they were not merely hollow threats, I have been working on a report concerning this editor. But I realize that it is not constructive to say you are going to make a report about someone, and to refer to their edits as malicious. If that is indeed the case, then it has to be shown in a report brought to arbitration, without the emotive language, and just the facts of the case. I hope the admins can see that I invest time and thought into editing, and that my engagement with the various materials, though at times including needless emotionally charged language that I will immediately rectify and ensure will not happen again, is a good faith serious and constructive effort to help improve Wiki. And I know I have to not only assume, but accept that that is also the case for others. Thank you all for taking the time to read this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Andrevan[edit]As the respondent on diff 4, I agree that even though I was there making a mistake that I ended up striking and withdrawing, the response I received was hostile and bad faith, and accused me of disruption based on something that was grossly misinterpreted and flatly distorted from December 2023. I wasn't going to open an AE report on that alone but I was troubled by it and I'm glad that xDanielx opened a report so I can comment that yes, it was not an appropriate response to my polite, if completely wrong and mistaken message. Andre🚐 01:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]
|
Invaluable22
[edit]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 Invaluable22
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Relmcheatham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Invaluable22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 9 April 2023 Vandalized Dylan Mulvaney's page with wrong pronouns and a plainly bigoted 'reaction' section.
- 9 April 2023 After the above edit was reverted, they restored it.
- 9 April 2023 Then restored it a third time. A minute later they recieved the GENSEX warning on their profile.
- 21 September 2024 After a year of not touching GENSEX topics they edited Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull three times in a row with WP:TEND editing (see additional comment).
- 21 September 2024 ^ second edit
- 21 September 2024 ^ third edit
- 22 September 2024 They then add their POV to the QnA section a few hours after it was reverted (see additional comment).
- 22 September 2024 Shortly thereafter they post their reasoning on the talk page.
- 22 September 2024 More explanation.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 April 2023
- Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic. (See additional comments below)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I refer to the edits at KJKM's article as WP:TEND and in violation of GENSEX due to the 22 different topics where that specific edit of 'anti-trans advocate' has been discussed on the talk page [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] and the talk page's QnA [41] which they added to in diff #7 showing they were aware of this prior concensus. Right above the qna segment on the talk page is the arbitration remedies notice. This is my first time utilizing this process, so I apologize for any errors in my understanding or formatting. Relm (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Invaluable22
[edit]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 Invaluable22
[edit]Statement by (username)
[edit]Result concerning Invaluable22
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This is pretty stale, and this diff presented with the report is reasonable in that we shouldn't be calling someone a neo-Nazi. The misgendering a year and a half ago is bad, but I'm less concerned about the discussion of anti-transgender versus women's rights. Most new editors with ~25 edits probably aren't aware of a history of discussions, the sourcing requirements, etc. With the staleness I'd be more likely to go with a logged warning than a topic ban, but won't stand in the way if others think a topic ban on for an editor this experienced is the right play. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- The early diffs are bad but very stale, and the recent ones do not rise to the level of sanctions for me. I am most concerned by this, and would log a warning specifically for the addition of unsourced contentious material. Users are not required to agree with community consensus. They are required to respect it, but I have not yet seen evidence that Invaluable22 has done so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)