Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Arbitration Committee Proceedings | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
Requests for arbitration
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Geschichte
Initiated by Dennis Brown - 2¢ at 00:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- Geschichte (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Dennis Brown
Sadly, I'm here about administrator Geschichte and two primary violations of policy. The first is blocking an editor, User:Jax 0677 on February 19, 2022 [4] while they were in an edit war with them. The rationale was breaking 3:RR although that wasn't the case, there were 3 reverts, not 4. The target was Template:Morgana Lefay. By itself, this is worrisome, but could have possibly been dealt with at ANI/AN.
They did show up to ANI to briefly explain their actions, which centered around their interpretation of WP:OWNERSHIP. They admit it should have been done via a discussion, which is normally a good sign, assuming they follow up. But they didn't. They did not reverse or modify their block, nor clearly admit being WP:INVOLVED. They only made the one comment at 9:30 22 Feb 2022 and went dark on enwp. Since their break from enwp, they did manage to edit the Norwegian Wikipedia, so they haven't been unable to continue the discussion, only unwilling. [5] This is clearly a blatant violation of WP:ADMINACCT.
I bring it here as a last resort, as only ArbCom can handle cases of admin abuse of tools and failure to be held accountable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- One note, I don't have a specific remedy in mind. Honestly, I think it depends on Geschichte's participation. I just know the current situation is unacceptable as is, and I'm not willing to watch it be swept under the rug. When admin blow off being accountable, it lowers morale and makes it harder for all other admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢
- You're absolutely right about 3RR Barkeep49, however, when you are the one edit warring with an editor, you shouldn't be blocking them. And I would disagree that ONE comment in an ongoing discussion, with no follow up after two weeks, meets WP:ADMINACCT. That would be one giant loophole. Just show up, deny it, walk away, go scot free. No, it requires a good faith effort to engage when there are legitimate concerns. I should ping 331dot, who modified the block unilaterally. Oh, and I'm not measuring against the other cases, the events here stand on their own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi, perhaps you need to read the complaint better before scolding me while ill informed. The issues are INVOLVED and ADMINACCT. I never said a block wasn't warranted or appropriate, and in fact, have said exactly nothing regarding Jax 0677, nor did I list them as a party. It isn't about them. What little I said of the block was to provide background only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Geschichte
Hello everybody! I just got an email about this case. While I knew someone were looking into the situation, I haven't been active in a while, initially to cool things down but also because of some work responsibilities. I will try to reply more in-depth shortly. Geschichte (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Jax 0677
I was recently blocked from all of Wikipedia by User:Geschichte. On February 19, 2022, I only did 3 reverts to Template:Morgana Lefay. WP:3R states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period". I made a mistake with one of my reverts, but the overall impact came out in essence to only 3 reverts within the 24 hour period. Additionally, I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block. Furthermore, Geschichte who reverted my edits did so in violation of WP:BRD. The reversions that I did were "16:54, 19 February 2022", "17:00, 19 February 2022" and "17:55, 19 February 2022" [the reversions at "17:54, 19 February 2022" were in error, and "rm * Symphony of the Damned (1990) * Sanctified (1995)" was done because I added those back by mistake]. My block was reduced to restrict me from only editing Template:Morgana Lefay, which would serve the purpose of a 48 hour cooling off period involving editing that very template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Kurtis
I think ArbCom should wait to hear what Geschichte has to say in response to this, and then decide how to proceed from there. Maybe the fact that this is being brought to the committee's attention will be enough to spur him into reflection. A full case may not be necessary if he can show us that he's learned from what happened here. Kurtis (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Fram
@Wugapodes, how could this "have been handled effectively by the community"? We (well, admins) can block them (which seems an overreaction) or remove their autopatrolled right (which has no bearing on this situation at all), or we can ask them to explain themselves per ADMINACCT. It is clear from the ANI section that their response was unsatisfactory (basically, admitting a minor error wrt 3RR while completely igoring the actual issue, involved admin tool abuse). With their long history and as an active admin, they could have easily resolved this rapidly with something like "sorry, I got carried away there and indeed crossed the involved line in the heat of the moment, apologies, won't happen again": the whole thing would be long gone and forgotten by now. Instead, they tried to get away with their evasive answer: you can see on their contributions list how they first remained silent for a day, then only appeared at ANI when explicitly summoned by Ritchie333, then immediately started editing again, only to stop again when their response was criticized at ANI. This is a blatant and rather extreme case of ANI flu, and looks like an attempt to get the thing archived and forgotten by remaining silent, which is the exact opposite of what ADMINACCT asks. So please, tell us how the community should deal with this apart from starting an Arb Case after waiting two weeks and seeing them edit elsewhere? Fram (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: "there was clearly edit warring, so I think it unlikely that anyone would have blinked an eye were it not for INVOLVED. " If I had noticed the block, I would have done more than blink an eye. Template:Morgana Lefay was created by Jax 0677 on 16 January 2022. On 19 January Geschichte started editing it, and then both editors started edit warring. Neither used the template talk page, Geschichte left this incredibly cryptic message[6], Jax replied very reasonably[7], and then the block by Geschichte[8]. Now, if that block would then have been done by an uninvolved admin, without a warning and without taking the same action towards Geschichte, then yes, there would be a problem, and that would be an unwarranted and one-sided block. Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, it's not the flu, it's "work responsabilities" which never stopped him from editing every day in the past (last time they missed a single day here was somewhere in November), and which suddenly happen twice here (first when the ANI section was opened, and then again when they finally responded, got back to happy editing, and stopped completely the very minute their response turned out to be completely inadequate). Some people will probably laud Geschichte for engaging with the case: for me, this response here only further cements the impression that they can't be trusted at all and shouldn't remain a sysop. Fram (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by FormalDude
- I just want to second Fram's comments here. The very reason I closed the ANI was because there was effectively nothing the community could have done in this case. That's not to say the ANI was meaningless though, it shows a clear need for reconciliation from an administrator. This needs to be followed through with if Geschichte is unwilling to sufficiently explain themselves. ––FormalDude talk 09:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Echoing both Fram and Robert McClenon. This response from Geschichte is completely insouciant. A case should be opened. Continuing to wait is harmful to both ArbCom and the community. ––FormalDude talk 09:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Nosebagbear
This is, somewhat openly, a case of using the sledgehammer of an ARBCOM case request to force an admin to the table to meet their ADMINACCT obligations. 331 has done what XRV would do/have done, so we are left just with the admin side of the issue. And I can't really blame the usage - functionally everyone paying attention would rather Geschichte engaged and didn't need to progress any further. I would like their ultimate engagement to now consider both the tools use involved aspect and the adminacct aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ritchie333
As I mentioned at ANI, I would like an answer for the following questions to Geschichte:
- Why did you block a user you were edit-warring with?
- If you thought you could voluntarily step back from edit-warring, why didn't you think Jax 0677 could?
- If you think Jax 0677 was trying to take ownership, do you think Jax 0677 would have reasonable grounds to think you were too?
- Why did you block Jax 0677 from the entire site, preventing him from editing several million articles he has never been disruptive on?
I agree with Fram that we need a satisfactory response to these questions per WP:ADMINACCT but I also agree with WTT that the response is not urgent and we can sit on it for a bit, provided Geschichte is not disruptive elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by North8000
This definitely can't be ignored. Waiting at least a little longer for Geschichte to respond would be the logical next step. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by caeciliusinhorto
On the topic on Barkeep49's question as to whether Geschichte responded "promptly and fully": they may have responded promptly, but Jax's initial statement noted that "I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block", and both Fram and Ritchie explicitly cited WP:INVOLVED before their response. After their response, but before Geschichte's most recent edits at no.wiki, Fram called them out on avoiding the involved concerns. I don't see that any response which completely ignores the involved concerns can be considered "full". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by WaltCip
The intention of this case filing, it seems, is to produce a more salient and explanatory response from Geschichte for his ADMINACCT actions (and possibly an apology). It is to that end that the determination of a need for a case should be subordinated.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
As multiple people have noted, this case is similar to the last two case requests involving administrator conduct, followed by inactivity by the administrator and failure by the administrator to provide an explanation of their use of administrative capabilities. During the preliminary consideration of the last case, I criticized the Arbitration Committee for its delay in accepting the case because they were waiting for a statement by the subject administrator. This statement is partly a response to pushback that I received from the Arbitration Committee. (The arbitrators were acting reasonably in pushing back, and I am acting reasonably in further explaining my criticism.) I will try to explain further my thinking, and to continue to explain why the ArbCom should not wait for a further statement from Geschichte. I have previously stated, for instance, in this essay, that ArbCom acceptance of a case should not require a decision on the merits of the case, but only on whether a judgment on the merits of the case is needed. Some arbitrators have stressed the need to be deliberative, but the time to be deliberative is in considering the case, not in waiting to take the case. Avoiding taking a case is avoiding deliberation.
As I previously commented, the "optics" of waiting for an extended period of time for a statement by an administrator who has gone silent are very bad. It looks to many non-admin editors as if the administrators on the ArbCom are circling the wagons to protect another administrator, and are more concerned with protecting their own than with ensuring the integrity of the encyclopedia. An arbitrator said that I should have noticed that the ArbCom always waits for a statement from the defendant administrator. I have noticed, and I strongly disagree, and I think that ArbCom should consider the signal that it is (unintentionally) sending to non-admin editors, that the ArbCom is trying to protect administrators.
ArbCom should accept a case involving administrator conduct based on a concept similar to probable cause, and the time for a defendant to make a statement or provide a defense is in the trial, not in deciding whether a trial is in order. ArbCom is making an error in waiting for the defendant to decide whether to hear the case.
In this case, the defendant has already had two weeks to respond, and has not respondedand their response has been inadequate (and has made a few edits to another Wikipedia), but ArbCom should not be waiting for a further response as a precondition to opening a case. In this case, there is sufficient evidence of a misuse of administrative capabilities for ArbCom to open a case, and then to decide whether to wait for a statement, and to decide what remedy to implement, either without or with a full evidentiary proceeding. It is time to accept this case, and delays in opening cases on administrative conduct are a self-inflicted injury to ArbCom.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Deepfriedokra
- I'm growing tired of the "circling the wagons" mantra. It is in no way reflective of reality, especially when there are admins complaining about the behavior of an admin. It is, in fact, becoming tedious and disruptive. ArbCom is a deliberative body, so let them deliberate without what amounts to heckling and badgering.
- Once again, the subject of an ADMINACCT complaint has absented themselves from a proceeding. I expect more of a response from an admin than they have given, but the Arbs get to decide. Yes, we all make mistakes, and I've made some really stupid ones. When I make a mistake, I do my best to fix it, to root cause it, and to take steps to reduce the likelihood of further stupidity. The Arbs are smarter than I, so I doubt I need to state the (to me) obvious to them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- (But I will anyway. It's what I do.) I think @Geschichte: should have absolutely not blocked Jax 0677, Jax 0677's block record not withstanding. Geschichte should have stopped reverting, reminded Jax of WP:3RR, and then reported to WP:3RRN, just like any other user in a content dispute after trying to engage them in discussion on the talk page unsuccessfully. If Geschichte had just stopped and discussed, there would have been no edit war. Of course, with a full block in place, discussion was impossible. (Who knows, maybe in a discussion. they might have decided they were wrong.) What I would need would be 1) an admission of doing it wrong, 2) an understanding of what they should have done, 3) an expression of familiarity with partial blocking, and 4) an assurance that there will not be a recurrence. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wot Cabayi sed, I'd expect better of both of them. (Geschichte and Jax) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Darth Mike
By their own admission, even though Geschichte knew that there were inquiries into their actions, they chose to disappear 'to cool things down' [9]. Geschicte wasn't completely absent from all projects, per their edits on Norwegian Wikipedia. Their lack of communication was a choice.
The question that I have for Geschichte is very simple: How can the community have trust in an administrator who chooses to disappear when they know that their controversial actions are being questioned? -- Mike 🗩 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by RoySmith
I like telling aviation stories, and there's one that's particularly germane to the question of how fast or slow arbcom moves.
An old grizzled pilot and his brand-new copilot are flying along when a warning light starts flashing on the control panel. The old pilot takes out his stopwatch and calmly starts winding it. The new guy looks at him in shock and says, "What are you doing! We've got an emergency! Why are you winding your watch?" You need to do something NOW! The old guy looks back and says, "Well, kid, I've never killed anybody while winding a clock". -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Lugnuts
Geschichte has been an admin since January 2006 (!) (RfA). I don't see anything obvious jumping out in the ANI history of issues about them, so pretty much a clean record for the best part of 16 years. Using ANI as a guide, it states "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Did the original issue count as urgent, chronic or intractable? I don't think so. If their conduct had long-term issues around civility, or invovled blocks, etc, then we'd have a problem. But making one (bad) block? I don't see a net positive for the project as a whole for further action, as long as Geschichte simply states they were wrong in this one-off incident. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Amakuru
I don't have much to say about this, other than that obviously the action of Geschichte in using the tools when INVOLVED fall well short of what's expected of an admin. This is a one-off incident that needs to not occur again. However, I'm bemused by Worm That Turned's decision to "accept" the case today. Yesterday, you made the very sensible observation that "we take reasonable steps to allow the subject to make a statement before considering whether we open a case" and "Arbitration is glacially slow by design - we aim for "right" decided by cooler heads not "fast"". That doesn't seem consistent with a decision to suddenly throw the book at Geschichte and launch into a full case, less than 24 hours after the previous comment. This has only been open for 3 days, and I urge that we give Geschichte the time to respond and hopefully apologise and promise not to repeat the offence, after which perhaps a case can be avoided. — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Geschichte: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Geschichte: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/1/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Noting that I am watching this case request. On first read, it's not clear to me that Geschichte failed in his ADMINACCT responsibilities, unlike in the last 2 administrator conduct cases. I will continue to think about that and hope that they will respond to this request with further thoughts about this incident. I also await to see if editors have evidence of other administrator tool use contra to policy. Finally I would be remiss in noting my strong belief, to quote WP:Edit warring,
The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.
Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- @Dennis Brown except Geschichte didn't deny everything. My response would be different if there wasn't an admission that it should have been solved through discussion (and also the admission that 3RR wasn't violated). I can understand why that would be less than satisfying for Jax and other editors. But if this was a one off incident? Then I need to think about whether they responded "promptly and fully" to pull the standard linked to at ADMINACCT. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Robert (and others who might share his thoughts) I can't speak for all my fellow arbs, but from my perspective, and from what I've seen them write in other situations, we should provide reasonable waiting for parties, especially in cases with only 1 or 2 parties as with Admin conduct cases, to respond. This is why when we added parties to the IRANPOL case mid-case we started the time period for the evidence phase over, to give all those non-admins a fair amount of time to participate. This is why we communicated several times with Tenebrae before issuing our topic ban. So I disagree with your assertion that I am contributing to the circling the wagons around another admin, as opposed to acting on a principle for how I think ArbCom should act. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- So after thinking things over, I've settled on a metric for judging whether ADMINACCT has been satisfied: the expectation is to respond to reasonable topics of concern but there is no expectation to respond to specific questions. In this case there were/are two major concerns: whether the block itself was appropriate under policy and procedure and whether Geschichte was INVOLVED. I think Geschichte has satisfactorily addressed the first topic, but has failed to address the second topic and as Cabayi points out has chosen to invest energies elsewhere. That is a choice he can make but it's not a cost free choice, so I am an accept as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of the willingness to wait expressed recently by Amakuru and Enterprisey, I have defended the idea of waiting above. But by policy there is an obligation to for them participate here. If an admin, or some other named party, is just inactive I can can AGF and say that they're fairly prioritizing other things (work, family, health, etc). But it becomes harder for me to say that is the case when they're editing on other wikis (even if just minorily). Further, as WTT notes below the request for Geschichte to comment on INVOLVED waited for a few weeks at ANI, again during which they were active on another wiki. There's a balance to be had here and as WTT also notes, we're at least 24 hours away from opening a case and a response may still be enough to make that unnecessary. But if no response comes now that too is fine - Geschichte would be given a couple of weeks to respond during the Evidence phase of the case (and time beyond that even after a PD is posted). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown except Geschichte didn't deny everything. My response would be different if there wasn't an admission that it should have been solved through discussion (and also the admission that 3RR wasn't violated). I can understand why that would be less than satisfying for Jax and other editors. But if this was a one off incident? Then I need to think about whether they responded "promptly and fully" to pull the standard linked to at ADMINACCT. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I largely agree with Barkeep. Seems pretty different from recent cases and like it could have been handled effectively by the community. I'll wait to see what's to be said though. — Wug·a·po·des 07:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram: I appreciate the course of events and understand that it was frustrating especially given recent context. I think it's important to point out that the community is not powerless. What do we do with editors who edit war? We block them. What do we do with editors who do not respond to community concerns? We block them until they explain themselves. Why is this suddenly off the table as a community tool? Unlike the last two cases, it's not clear that we're even being asked to desysop, and that is really the only unique power we have that the community does not. If the desire is for a strong warning or restriction, the community can do that. Now that it's here, I'll consider it because this is a valid place to raise the concern, but I do think it's worth pointing out that the community could have used its tools as well. — Wug·a·po·des 05:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: An important distinction from me is that Geschichte did reply. Editors weren't satisfied with the reply and wanted more engagement, but that's meaningfully different from not replying at all. If the goal of this case is to "encourage" Geschicte to respond more, I think it's reasonable to give some time for that to work, especially since we haven't even met the 48-hour minimum before a case can be opened, and Geschichte has already signaled they'll engage. — Wug·a·po·des 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also waiting for input from Geschichte. In addition, I'm curious about the background to the edit war; is there some past context to the dispute? This seems like a really lame thing to edit war over. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm willing to wait for Geschichte. As I see it there's a few issues here. 1) Was the block proper if done by another admin? 2) Was the block in violation of INVOLVED? 3) Did Geschichte meet the requirements of ADMINACCT?
Well, as to the first question, a partial block was an option per 331dot, but they aren't always used, there was clearly edit warring, so I think it unlikely that anyone would have blinked an eye were it not for INVOLVED. That leads to 2) WP:INVOLVED specifically states that In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. The question becomes "was it straightforward enough"? Would any reasonable admin have blocked... without warning? Was it so urgent that it needed to be dealt with by Geschichte? And that leads us to 3) because the questions are still hanging. I appreciate that Geschichte responded in a reasonable period, with an explanation - but was it enough? I'd like to hear more statements, but I am minded to accept yet another admin case, depending on Geschichte's response. WormTT(talk) 10:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- @Fram the fact that the block is one sided is indeed a fair point, though I see Geschichte made 2 reverts, while Jax made 3. We can debate the hypotheticals, but I accept that there is potential for the block to be considered poor, even aside from the INVOLVED aspect. WormTT(talk) 11:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- There does appear to be a tendency of certain community members baying for blood when administrators appear at Arbcom. As far as I'm concerned, the current status quo is as follows:
- Arbcom is the only place where administrators can be removed "for cause", this is by firm community consensus, although I disagree with said consensus, it it the state of play.
- There are many reasons that Arbcom will remove the sysop userright, egregious misuse or a pattern of behaviour that falls short of expectations. Generally, we won't for a single incident that falls short of expectations, especially where the administrator shows contrition and we believe they are unlikely to carry on the behaviour.
- The case process is stressful and unpleasant for all parties, especially subjects, and so we do not open cases lightly. As a corollary, cases that are opened more often than not lead to sanctions. This is not a requirement of a case, but it is something that happens.
- Based on these factors, and the fact that there is no urgency - we are not seeing the administrator carrying on using the the tool while we deliberate - it is quintessentially fair that we take reasonable steps to allow the subject to make a statement before considering whether we open a case. Let's not be making the assumption that there is nothing that can be said by the party that would stop a case from being opened. Let's not paint ourselves into the corner that we don't even need to think about things. Arbitration is glacially slow by design - we aim for "right" decided by cooler heads not "fast". WormTT(talk) 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with @Cabayi below but more firmly. we should accept this case. WormTT(talk) 12:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Amakuru I'm a patient man, but there are limits. This case is 3 days open, yes, but we're 36 hours since Geschichte said he'd reply soon, and weeks since the issue was first raised. My accept vote doesn't start the case, but it starts the ball rolling on one. We'd still need at least net 4 and probably more (other conversations to be had) plus 24 hours, all of which gives Geschichte time to appear, and comment. I've changed my vote to open a case in the past and I would have no qualms about doing so again.
- In other words, yes, I'm still willing to wait for his response, but a bit of pressure of a count down timer is also a reasonable requirement. WormTT(talk) 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with @Cabayi below but more firmly. we should accept this case. WormTT(talk) 12:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- There does appear to be a tendency of certain community members baying for blood when administrators appear at Arbcom. As far as I'm concerned, the current status quo is as follows:
- @Fram the fact that the block is one sided is indeed a fair point, though I see Geschichte made 2 reverts, while Jax made 3. We can debate the hypotheticals, but I accept that there is potential for the block to be considered poor, even aside from the INVOLVED aspect. WormTT(talk) 11:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Two editors, each with >14 years tenure & >120,000 edits, should be well aware that edit-warring doesn't need to exceed 3RR. 3RR is merely the bright-line indicator. I'd expect better of both of them. Waiting for the response... Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown, I made no mention of you directly or indirectly. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- We're approaching 48 hours since Geschichte made a promise of a fuller response during which time he's edited on nowiki. The waiting time is nearing its end. Cabayi (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, elsewhere, we're all considering the fine details of m:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines to which one of the guiding notions is that WMF should support, nurture, & work collaboratively with local Arbcoms, not undermine them. How do we hold up our end of that understanding if Geschichte prioritises day-to-day editing on nowiki over his WP:ADMINACCT responsibilities on an ArbCom case here. Don't read me wrong, it's a choice he's free to make, but it's not a choice without implications.
- TL;DR - Accept - Cabayi (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unimpressed with Geschichte's understanding of INVOLVED. Broadly agree with Fram's reading of the "ANI flu" part of the situation. Although the justification is poor, I don't see that it clearly violates ADMINACCT; I think there's sort of an implicit invocation of the INVOLVED clause that WTT quoted above, even if that invocation is at odds with community views. I'm taking a particular interest in the justification
at the time I considered the removal of material from the template as being clearly disruptive
. Anyway, waiting for a statement. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)- Still waiting. I figure we got time. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Decline. I believe the comments left by Lugnuts most accurately reflect my thoughts at this point in time; this appears to be a one-time incident of improper use of the tools, followed by some barely-justifiable "I just want this to go away" disappearing. While I know we (as a community) want to reach a point where adminship is "no big deal", I cannot reconcile that viewpoint with bringing a case before ArbCom for every admin that makes a dumb mistake without immediately apologising for it in the correct and precise manner. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment I see little more happening here than an admonishment for their actions. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page: |
Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan
Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness at 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Removal of topic ban
Statement by Supreme Deliciousness
It has now been over 1 year since the topic ban was implanted. I have read everything in the arbitration case and the Principles:[10] and I promise to follow the principles and rules. I am asking for the topic ban to me removed as it is not needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49, its best to use modern academic sources as much as possible, and if older historical sources are used for some information, for example for a historical perspective, then that info should be presented as being from that specific historical source. Any edits in the topic area must be based on a reliable source, this also includes discussions at the talkpage. Furthermore I can tell you right now that I have 0% interest to participate in any kind of uncivil discussion with anyone at any talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
BDD, in the case of the A-I conflict then there is an overwhelming large majority worldview that the occupied territories Israel captured in 1967 are not part of Israel, this includes the UN, EU and other large international organizations. I believe it is npov to follow this large majority worldview and not present the occupied territories as part of Israel. Sources for this can be easily obtained but I don't believe its appropriate to ad sources for this large worldview every time I edit within the A-I conflict for obvious reasons. If someone disputes this, then I can show them high quality sources at the talkpage.
In the case of "Kurds and Kurdistan", because of what happened last year with the arb case and the behavior of some people, then I should be extra careful to avoid any issue, so I plan to always use a high quality academic source when I make edits within the topic area, or as I said above for historical info properly attribute it to the historical source. I believe in some instances a reliable well known news agency could also be used for some info but its a case by case basis. If any other editor objects to any edit I make then obviously it would have to be discussed at the talkpage in a calm and civil way with good sources until the issue is settled. If someone is uncivil then that person can be brought to Enforcement and be blocked/banned, so I don't believe there will be a problem now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Kurds and Kurdistan: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Kurds and Kurdistan: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Supreme Deliciousness, can you explain how your editing will change if we accept your appeal to address the issues found in the case about your prior conduct? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Based on their answer above, and my (albeit not thorough) look at their editing history since November I am tentatively prepared to accept this appeal, though perhaps with an explicit note that it may be reinstated. It could, under DS, be reinstated without such a note but would also make clear to admin that they are authorized to act should reinstatement in this topic area restart the kinds of behaviors that led to the TBAN in the first place. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness, I see much of your recent editing has been in the topic area of the Palestine–Israel conflict, broadly construed. I take this as a good sign, that you're able to edit another area related to ethnic conflicts in Western Asia without any obvious trouble, like further blocks. Could you draw on this experience to explain how you would approach editing Kurds and Kurdistan again? How have you dealt with potential conflict with other editors? How have you identified high-quality sources? --BDD (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am waiting for a reply to BDD, but at the moment I am leaning towards accepting. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear a response to BDD's questions also, but in addition, I'd like to know a bit more about what Supreme Deliciousness feels has changed? At the case, I was considering a full site ban, as I was aware that he had been restricted in 2009 for similar behaviour, back when Arbcom gave time limited restrictions, as well as multiple blocks in the wider topic area. A simple "it's been a year and I promise" isn't quite what I'm looking for. WormTT(talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Motions
![]() | This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion". Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Requests for 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. 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 discretionary sanction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ypatch
Appeal declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by YpatchI am requesting my topic-ban to be lifted or modified. I was given a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page, where I’m currently taking part in 3 different content disputes:
My topic ban concerns “stalling out the consensus-building process”, but I have proposed alternative solutions that have at times been met with violations of the article's Consensus Required Restriction. Nevertheless I have tried to steer arguments towards WP:DR (what I thought we were supposed to be doing in such cases).
Statement by Vanamonde93I believe that Ypatch's recent contributions to People's Mujahedin of Iran and its talk page are aimed at preventing content they dislike from being included by any means necessary, rather than at discussing disagreement in good faith. This isn't based on any single diff, but on the totality of their recent behavior. I am happy to answer questions from uninvolved admins, but I doubt I will change my mind about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Iskandar323I am far from a regular in "post-1978 Iranian politics", and my principle interaction with this page has been to effect a name change in a move request with unanimous support, but, based on my limited experience I would have to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment that the editor in question would benefit from some time away from the subject (as I have in other areas). Ypatch seems to tread a particularly fine line between neutral and tendentious editing with regards to the PMOI, and appears very much overly invested in the subject. In the diffs cited above by Ypatch, which they are presumably upholding as an example of good editing, we see them boiling down existing material on the funding of either terroristic/militaristic activities into a bland statement about funding. You also have them deleting substantial reliable, secondary sources such as Guardian long reads that make use of detrimental terminology about the group, while adding less ironclad/no consensus sources such as Daily Beast material to reinforce sympathetic viewpoints. In the active discussion on names, Ypatch is pushing back against the mentioning of a term that reliable sources say was a standard name for the group prior to the 1990s, at which point the PMOI made an active public relations (PR) push to change its image. Content aside, Ypatch, based on no particular Wikipedia policy or guideline (but heavy reference to the discretionary sanctions, and the need for consensus/an RFC to undo anything that they have reverted), takes a position that aligns with that PR. Meanwhile, on Commons, Ypatch has also been trying to bring about the deletion of public domain images that I suppose might arguably be construed as portraying the PMOI in a negative light - here the group's leader meeting with Saddam Hussain. Make of all this what you will. I'll leave it at that, but, as I began, I believe Vanamonde93 is well merited in having concerns over this editor's current ability to edit neutrally in this subject-matter area. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by YpatchStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Ypatch
|
Proletarian Banner
Thank to PB themselves, this was a pretty easy report to handle. Indef blocked, email and talk page revoked, all as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 3 March 2022 (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 Proletarian Banner
The user has broadly and disruptively been engaging in a widespread change of the descriptor used for the Marxist-Leninist states (often the Soviet Union and the Albania) from "communist" to "socialist" across a grand number of articles without seeking consensus. At the time of writing, the user has made 46 edits to the article space, of which 21 have removed mentions of the term "communist" or "communism". This disruptive behavior, which began before they were aware of the sanction, continues after they were made aware. Albania:
USSR:
Hungary:
Multiple countries, including at least one Eastern European or and/or Balkan state:
N/A
The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in a consensus-based manner and is being rather disruptive across the Eastern European and Balkans topic area. The editor is engaging in clear POV-pushing and repeatedly insists upon using their own definition of communism when writing articles and rejects basically all sources they personally disagree with as being Update: the user is also somewhat uncivil, referring to me as an
Discussion concerning Proletarian BannerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Proletarian BannerStatement by ScottishFinnishRadishJust block now and save the time and drama. [18][19] [20] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Lee VilenskiJust as a note, due to the recent contributions, I've handed a block to the user to avoid further harasment. Feel free to extend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Proletarian Banner
|
Hob Gadling
Springee's contributions are actually the most helpful here. Hob Gadling, you can get a bit over the top at times when it comes to civility. It's one thing to tell someone to "fuck off" (rude), but it's another to call them a liar (personal attack, casting aspersions). Neither is helpful, both will get you blocked if you make a habit of it. Consider this an informal but stern warning on civility. As for the original report, I feel A. C. Santacruz has failed to provide evidence that backs up her claims. The comments you linked were very mild (much more so than Springee's examples) and are what we expect in a heated debate. If you see the first comment as a "gross personal attack", your threshold may be too low. WP:AE is a big hammer that shouldn't be used lightly, and I see no reason to use the tools available to us in this instance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:11, 6 March 2022 (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 Hob Gadling
His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hob GadlingStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Hob GadlingThere is nothing wrong with bringing forth valid arguments for downgrading the SI source, but as soon as bad reasoning is used for that purpose and the refutation of that reasoning sidestepped, the encyclopedia is not being improved. Not retracting bad reasoning is bad behaviour, and I will continue to stand up against it. Criticizing user behaviour is not a personal attack, and neither is pointing out that a certain user behaviour is not helping the encyclopedia. That is what I did. <angry comment withdrawn> --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by MrOllieSince you brought this discussion up for wider comment: When discussing things 'as civilly as possible' in the future maybe don't help escalate or use phrases like 'petty piss-fighting.' MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Shibbolethink@A. C. Santacruz, my sincerest advice is to withdraw this case proposal. You seem a very well-reasoned editor with a calm demeanor. Someone who occasionally holds opinions contrary to the tide of the editor base, but who does it with aplomb and kindness. I would say this ARBE proposal is uncharacteristically reactionary.
Shibbolethink dismounts ungracefully from the high horse he has no business riding.--— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by JoJo AnthraxThe OP's wholly hyperbolic statement here ("His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case."), and their posts here and here, provide ample justification for quickly declining this case. A. C. Santacruz, please follow the excellent advice of Shibbolethink above and withdraw this case now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by SpringeeHob Galding's civility is an issue. Is it serious enough to require a block? Probably not but their behavior, over the long haul is an issue and they should be warned for their general battle ground like behavior.
This is needless hostility towards other editors (who very well may be wrong in the bigger picture). Per CIVIL, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." If nothing else this should close with a simple, clear statement that comments like these are not compliant with CIVIL and need to stop. Note: I'm not involved in the RSN discussion in question and I don't have an opinion on the outcome. I have had unpleasant interactions with HG in the past hence my CIVIL concerns here. Springee (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Hob Gadling
|
CapnJackSp
First, thanks to Kautilya3 for bringing up some interesting points, in particular that it is fine to have a bias, as long as that bias isn't permeating your edits. We all have biases of one kind or another. In the end, I'm not inclined to sanction CapnJackSp, although I am going to warn them firmly about copyright infringement in particular, as well as behavior. This means you have a short piece of WP:ROPE and you will simply be blocked without warning for either. You ALL need to discuss more, in good faith, before editing. This report went off in so many directions, I'm not sure I can summarize it fully except to say there is a lot of misbehaving in the WP:ARBIPA area, and no one on this page is perfectly innocent. So aside from the warning, I'm closing with no hard action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 9 March 2022 (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 CapnJackSp
Following this, Venkat TL tells them its not the same and Toddy1 restores the first part (on the link between the automated messages and the database) and removes the unverifiable "centralised" from the section on database of private citizens leaving explanations for both on the talk page (see Talk:Tek Fog § Removal of content from section on Automated messaging).
I'd think this is just trolling and WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Note that the account became active on 10 January, commented on the article's AfD pushing for deletion on the same day, and has since been persistent in trying to skim off content, introduce expressions of doubt and badger people on the talk page. The Tek Fog article isn't the only one, there is similar behavior on every article they have significant involvement in; for instance see the retaliatory accusation in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092 § BLP violation by Venkat TL after receiving a copyvio warning in User talk:CapnJackSp § February 2022. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CapnJackSpStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CapnJackSpAn apology to the admins - This has gotten elongated to 600 words, and I feel I would be removing relevant material if I cropped out more. Kindly bear with me. This seems to me to be a content dispute being brought to DE, but I will nevertheless answer the points raised by Tayi below. (As a sort of "background" for points 1-3, this issue cropped up after Venkat TL made an edit to the article, Tek Fog. I saw that the material introduced had been repeated earlier in the article, and removed the sections that had been repeated. Venkat, without discussion, reverted my edit and his edit summary suggested that the onus lay with me for the material - I removed it and reminded him of the current standard procedures at Wikipedia.) (1) The points about the database and the automated messages being sent were covered in the section "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" and the first sentence of "Automated messaging". Here, I had also mistakenly removed the point about "centralised document", which I subsequently, in my later edits added back to the article (see point 2). (2)Here, I reverted Venkat's edit (which had reinstated the material, without any attempt at following BRD) while addingthe part about the centralised document to the section for the database. The same is reflected in my edit summary, which Tayi seems to have misunderstood. The "centralised document" is explained in the original report by The Wire to be a Google Sheet, and that it was only accessible through the database. The information has now been included in the article with much more clarity. (3) The section quoted covers two of the three points - The third being covered by the first sentence of "Automated messaging". No idea what the issue is here. (4-6) After this, editor Toddy1 pointed out that while the material had been individually covered, the Wikipedia article had not linked these two as the cited source had. Toddy and I settled on a version with minor changes after his edit, here. A day later, Tayi put a warning on my talk page at User_talk:CapnJackSp#March_2022. I responded politely, and again in more detail when asked. Following this, Tayi, without making any attempt to take up his issues with either Toddy, Venkat or me, reinstated the material. I reverted, pointing out that he needed to discuss before reinstating material removed with consensus. [a] The comment on the talk page refers to the "centralised document" being a google sheet per The Wire - Here I am forced to speculate as Tayi did not engage on the talk page at all despite my ping. As both Tayi and Venkat have talked about my ANI report on Venkat, I think I need to clarify. The report was about Venkat repeatedly calling a murder victim a "terrorist" after being asked to stop doing so, a few days after he was reported on ADE [28] by Abhishek0831996 (where he was asked to tone down his rhetoric) and more recently on ANI by Kautilya3. It was pointed out to him (by Kyohi and Chess) there that my report was indeed correct and Venkat was wrong to use such language. The report can hardly be misunderstood to be as a "retaliation" when it happened two weeks after the warning, with Venkat and I having multiple constructive discussions in the meantime, ending with both of us reaching a consensus. Venkat's claim that I revolve around his articles, seems to be unfounded - Many spaces I edit are untouched by him, and I haven't edited in many areas he frequents. Our "intersection" lies around topics that are featured prominently in Indian media, where sometimes I edit an article first, and sometimes he does. If the admins do want any further clarification, I would be open to them. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Venkat TLApologies as entire Statement approx 600 words. (excluding quotes) I am an involved user as CapnJackSp has multiple disputes with me and has targeted me on admin boards.[30] I agree with the observation by the admin User:Black Kite on ANI case that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build. But the case for Boomerang action on CapnJackSp did not get enough traction there. I have tried my best to assume good faith with CapnJackSp but now I have become tired by the incessant sealioning and tendentious editing by this user. Some of which are borderline trolling. Tendentious editing of whitewashing and censoring reliably sourced information. CapnJackSp's edits on Wikipedia mostly revolve around the articles that I have created/edited, associated talk pages, and admin boards where he comments only to target me. I can add individual diffs, but they are all available on this Xtools page. Based on the talk page interactions, I cannot decide if this is competency related issue or deliberate refusal to follow the policies like Copyright violations, close paraphrasing and edit warring. He argues ad nauseam and is a total time sink for the wikipedia contributors. I will welcome some action. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by TrangaBellamThis is subtle trolling, at best. Suggest a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3This seems like a storm in a teacup. CapnJackSp's first deletion was technically correct. The sentence he deleted was already covered in the earlier section titled "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" (as the section title itself makes clear). But his later claim that somebody else should follow "BRD" while he was reinstating his deletion is not correct. (If your edit was already reverted then you are in the "D" stage.) Likewise, when Venkat TL demands on the talk page, " There are newish users on both sides, who have only hazy understanding of procedures and are not being very cooperative with each other. I would recommend closing with warning to both sides to collaborate more sincerely. I also think that page is in a mess and quite disorganised and incomprehensible. The content should be junked and rewritten fro scratch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning CapnJackSp
|
Clean Copy
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 Clean Copy
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Clean Copy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPS
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
16:50, 6 March 2022 — breach of topic ban, mentioned the S-word
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
14:44, 3 February 2022 — topic banned
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Not applicable.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
@Dennis Brown: Not only he violated his topic ban once, he violated it twice, as shibbolethink stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Clean Copy
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 Clean Copy
Statement by Shibbolethink
Further example of Clean Copy breaching his TBAN: 06:11, 17 February 2022. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Clean Copy
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Textbook example of violating a topic ban, zero question in my mind. Going to park and let another admin decide on the appropriate sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think 48 hours is very reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- A 48 hour block seems warranted, this was as obvious as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, textbook. I'm good with 48 hours. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- 48 hours is OK, I suppose, but Clean Copy has only edited once in March and may not notice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)