Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:33, 30 June 2012

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 information

Shortcuts

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340

Raeky

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Raeky

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Raeky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

20120622 Inserting copyviolinks and non-existent publications into a pseudoscience article (Principles 4a 11 12)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

user indicates they are aware of sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User seems to have a deep problem with reliable sourcing policy, including use of primaries, use of inappropriate sources, misweighting of unrepresentative sources, and citation policy. Events arose out of an existing RS/N report which was subsequently identified as a major sourcing problem by the RS/N community due to the hundreds of links in article space.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Raeky

Statement by Raeky

Wow, by using WP:BRD to revert a deletion of sourced material and sources that I felt was invalid, then bringing it to your talk page, which is all clearly visible to read, you state I violated the general sanction by first wanting some consensus before deletion of SOURCED material that has been acceptable sourcing for A VERY LONG TIME in these articles. After a couple days by a couple editors at WP:RS/N that a series of websites that encompass thousand+ links in these pages under these sanctions are invalid and copyright infringement with what seems dubious at best. Regardless I still don't see how these sources are invalid, if the issue is you think AIG is copyright infringing (proof?) creation.com's magazines, then link directly to creation.com's archives of all the articles, don't just blanket delete sources and statements stating "I can't find them, so it's not a valid source" when clearly they're available and you just didn't even bother to look. (the two listed here at the top). I would just WP:BOOMARANG this back since Fifelfoo said we should just delete all YEC articles because WP:RS/N said so that combined with the wholesale deleteion of sourced material from these articles and not listening to the first person to raise concerns as more in violation of this sanction then merely an editor exerting cation and restraint, calling for discussion before deleteing sourced material in controversial articles. — raeky t 03:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: EdJohnston: What I was saying is that for YEC articles, we need to represent what they believe, and I was responding to the sentiment that we can't use these journals as sources (even properly linked directly from CMI, so no copyright issues) for their views since they're not scientific peer-reviewed journals. What I was saying is their views are not scientific so we'd never have them represented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so if we're going to represent them we're going to need to use these unscientific poor excuses at a journal or other equally unscientifc poor sources. I don't think this is something that any regular editor of these articles is going to disagree with. Pseudoscience operates outside the purview of science and as a result all their publications are not going to be scientific. I don't mean that their views should ever be presented as accurate or with undue-weight and should always be countered with actual science, but to source their views we're going to have to use these poor sources? I don't see how this is not understanding any of the policies covering this area, it seems common sense. — raeky t 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Raeky

AiG is not the publisher of Technical Journal and its hosting of contents is an apparent copyright violation. Technical Journal is a fringe christian apologetics journal, lacking any indication of weight in the fringe apologetics community, and lacking any indication of editorial review within its own limited fringe community. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Moreover, in this instance, Technical Journal had two copyright violating links replaced with citations, and one claim "The Christian apologetics site Answers in Genesis, for example, makes frequent appeals to concepts from information theory in its objections to evolution and affirmations of the Genesis account of Creation; "[I]t should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."" that manifestly cannot be attached to Technical Journal as Technical Journal is not an organ of Answers in Genesis, removed. The source was retained as it supported a general point regarding fringe community views. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is where the WP:BRD comes into play, the big discuss part. I'm not saying that the deleteion is invalid, I just wanted further discussion of it before it happens, which is pretty much common practice on these articles. The resoning seems fairly sound, but it's possible AiG has supportive information on there, or it could be reworded to use the journal article to make the same point without attributing it to AiG, so wholesale deleteion of the claim may not be appropriate. Again going back to discussion and getting consensus part, that's how we build a reliable encyclopedia. Taking it upon yourself to whitewash a thousand sources with minimal consensus and virtually zero discussion on the articles affected is bound to meet some resistance specifically when they've been using these sources for A LONG TIME without them being questioned. — raeky t 04:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Again, which I asked, do you have anything to back up that AiG doesn't have permission to republish the material on their site, by their Use Policy it seems pretty clear they understand copyright and the two organizations are clearly in the same camp and Creation.com makes available all the material on their website as well. Again I don't have an issue with switching links away from AiG for these journal articles, or even removal of them because of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, afterall I'm clearly in the atheist camp. But what I had an issue with was just because you THINK AiG violated copyright of these journals that your using that to blanket delete a 1000+ references to AiG. Where is your evidence that AiG is not a reliable source for christian apologetic movement? But you're clearly not using your best judgement when you say an article doesn't exist, see [1] when that article does [2], not that I agree with this article at all, but it does exist... — raeky t

"Other shit has existed forever" means you've been operating in a walled garden and failing to pay attention to the reliable sourcing requirements on wikipedia. AiG is not the publisher of Technical Journal. They are hosting the material on their site. They have no indication that they are a valid copyright holder. It is the same as megauploads of pdfs, it is a suspected copyright violation and needs to be dealt with by finding the original source and citing it if possible, and by removing the link. As you could see from WP:RS/N/L there are less than 100 Technical Journal infringement issues in the list for AiG potential inappropriate use of sources. When people make bare copyright infringing links to articles called (varyingly, and impossible to tell except by hyperlink) "Creation" and "Creation ex nihilo", and the website serving the articles doesn't supply the journal title it becomes difficult to search, especially when a search for a volume and issue of "Creation" brings forth an entirely different journal published by one of these two incestuous but distinct apologetics organisations. Capacity to bear WEIGHT needs to be demonstrated. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is published by CMI which Ken Ham used to be part of and left to form AiG, they clearly have ties and links, and are basically sub-sets of each-other. So to make the claim AiG doesn't have permission to publish material is dubious, imho. If these sites where entirely unconnected, their founders entirely unlinked, then I'd say you may have a case, but by their history it makes it MORE LIKELY, CMI is entirely willing to let AiG archive their material in their big website of articles, it makes logical sense given what AiG is claiming to be. The legal tiff between CMI and Ken Ham didn't seem to involve anything about copyright, you'd think if they sued him for misrepresenting their views of christanity or whatever it was about, if he was blatantly violating their copyrights too they'd also mention that? I don't see supporting evidence that AiG is in copyright violation, but if you want to take the cautious approch, does that mean all articles on AiG are now invalid and copyright infringement, that the whole site is unusable? I donno, but I don't see much consensus here by people who edit these articles, and know a lot about this stuff.. *shrug* Regardless someone else needs to weigh in here and let us know if I'm really violating the general sanctions with a WP:BRD revert or not, I'm voting not. — raeky t 04:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that AiG does not display a licence to republish CMI material anywhere on their site? Linking to AiG's "copy" of CMI's content is not acceptable on wikipedia then. Additionally, AiG lacks any credibility as a library or archive (see their absence of collections or accessions policy), we cannot believe that AiG transmit complete intact invariant copies. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to defend AiG as a reliable source since most of the material on their site is made-up outright lies and other crazy nonsense, what I was stating that it would be a little odd for AiG to blatently violate CMI's copyrights since CMI has already sued AiG in the past (not about copyrights but about differences in faith message or some crazyness), to me it would be odd that the organizaton would risk further provoking them. That and Ken Ham has had past connections with CMI and it wouldn't be unreasonable that they share material to further their crazy agenda. I don't care that AiG is being removed as a valid source, I just didn't have any information about it other than you stating that it was a copyright violation with your content removal, if you had provided a link to the discussion in your edit summary, a lot of this would of been avoided tbh. — raeky t 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Paul Siebert

Brief analysis demonstrates that the source used by raeky t is hardly reliable, and definitely is not mainstream. Technical Journal is not in the Thompson-Reuter ISI list. A part of text added by this user is a verbatim quote from the web site he cites. That seems to comply with our WP:NFCC rules.
In connection to that, I am wondering if Fifelfoo asked for community opinion on the WP:RSN regarding reliability of Technical Journal, and if Fifelfoo asked here about the possible copyright problems with the usage of content from that web site. I think that the issue could be easily resolved by going to those two noticeboards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Journal was rejected by RS/N prior to these discussions: a link to AiG (the probably copyright violating site) initiated a broader reliability discussion regarding AiG, that uncovered up to 1000 potential inappropriate uses, RS/N found the issue relating to links to AiG to be sufficiently large as a reliability issue to launch a new subnoticeboard WP:RS/N/L to deal with resolving large scale clean-ups related to possible reliability issues. (Quite a number of Technical Journal links remain intact, with full citations now instead of barelinks, and with the link pointing to the actual publisher of Technical Journal where the issue is a WEIGHTing issue, rather than a clear unreliable use) 01:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you should probably provide the diffs. Add them to your initial statement as a demonstration of your good faith attempts to resolve the issue by ordinary means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donno what y'all are talking about, all I saw was him removing content on a highly controversial page simply stating AiG was a copyright violation, no links to any discussions, all that was discovered AFTER I did a precautionary revert asking for some additional information than just his word that it was a copyright violation going under the belief that a long-held source wouldn't really be an issue. This previous discussion at RSN was held about completely unconnected pages than what I watch and didn't know about it until I started looking at his edits to see what was going on. So any issue that this thing is trying to address in my behavior is my doing a BRD revert on his content removal stating that we'll need more info and to discuss it first, unaware there was some hidden unlinked too discussion about it already. — raeky t 04:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Raeky

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

This whole thread strikes me as making a mountain out of a molehill. We can formally notify Raeky of the discretionary sanctions, but other than that I don't really see any reason for us to exercise our (sparingly used) discretion to find constructive warning and impose a sanction for that single revert. T. Canens (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statements by Raeky such as the one here suggest that he doesn't understand our copyright policy or our standards about notability when it comes to fringe groups. This is enough for a warning under WP:ARBPS, and if he continues to not understand policy some future action might be needed. Our rules about WP:Reliable sources don't get suspended when Wikipedia is trying to provide objective coverage of fringe beliefs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked further into the question of copyright violation, I no longer see a problem with Raeky's conduct. The single edit cited by the submitter should still not be repeated by Raeky unless he gets consensus. There could still be a question whether answersingenesis.com ought to be accepted as a reliable source for the text of an article that was said to be published in Technical Journal. This question should be up to editor consensus. I suggest this report be closed with no action.

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scopes Trial, it seems there could be a valid question as to the usage of answersingenesis.com in an article such as Scopes trial. The conclusions from a pseudoscience do not appear to have relevance to the interpretation of a well-known historical event. However, this AE report doesn't bring us a conduct issue on that point, so there is not yet a match between a perceived problem and what the WP:ARBPS sanctions are supposed to cover. The submitter of this AE did not assert that Raeky (or anyone else) is edit warring or is arguing against policy to maintain links to answersingenesis from articles that should not have them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GDallimore

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning GDallimore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GDallimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[3] User:Fifelfoo removes a suspected copyright violation by Answers in Genesis from Creation ministries international's magazine . The copyright violation is the large scale copying of Creation ministries magazine without copyright acknowledgement. It is being cleaned as part of this large scale cleanup: Wikipedia:RSN#Current_large_scale_clean-up_efforts of copyright violations and reliable source misuse. Since it is a suspected copyright violation it should not be linked to from wikipedia per WP:C.

User:GDallimore restores the text several times [4][5][6], despite being told 1.considering the large scale copying of the magazine it is unlikely the text can reliably represent their views. 2. The text is a copyright violation and can not be linked to on wikipedia for legal reasons per WP:C, Diff [7]User_talk:GDallimore#Copyright_violations.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

From above: Diff [8][9]

User_talk:GDallimore#Copyright_violations

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

Discussion concerning GDallimore

Statement by GDallimore

This is a situation of a small number of users making large scale edits without consensus. There is no consensus that the links involved are infringing copyright. The reason there is no consensus is because there is no evidence that the links involved are infringing copyright. Someone posting something on their website and identifying it as being previously published in a magazine is, to the contary, evidence of good practice by the website.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen some edits being made as part of this large scale clean up of AiG links which were good and much needed. I have not reverted edits to Young Earth Creationism, for example, where I thought the edits were constructive even when I disagreed with much of the underlying reasoning. But making edits without consensus which do NOT improve the article is not acceptable practice. GDallimore (Talk) 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And can someone please explain to me how the discretionary sanctions on the topic of pseudoscience are remotely relevant to this disagreement about copyright? That's a HUUGE assumption of bad faith by the part of the nominator about my intentions in reverting his edits. GDallimore (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Raeky

Welcome to ARE GDallimore, I hope you find it as hospitable as I have so far.. haha — raeky t 01:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dominus Vobisdu

I'm not convinced that there is any copyright infringement going on here. Answers in Genesis and Ceation Ministries Internation split in 2006, and yes, there were legal wranglings over copyright issues. However, those were resolved in 2009. [[11]] I find it implausible that Answers in Genesis is using CMI material without the requisite permission in violation of the settlement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something that I've been saying since day one... I said I think it would be extremely unlikely AiG is violating the copyrights of CMI since CMI has already sued them once, that would just be silly. Obviously there's a better option for the journal links, since CMI has them online as well. But apparently it's been decided beyond any questioning that it's a copyright violation. — raeky t 02:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Plausibility" is not a sufficient standard when CMI clearly has possession of the content, and maintains "reliable" archives with full attribution of the work. Wikipedia needs to be incredibly cautious about copyvio links. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, why not just replace the AiG cite with a cite to the CMI archives directly rather than just deleting the citation entirely? I agree that there is no need to use AiG, but GDallimore was acting in good faith when he said that there is no evidence of a copyright infringement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, if you check the diffs, I do precisely this when the CMI content can reasonably be construed to support the claim; replacing the copyvio link with a full citation and link to the publication's actual archive. The deleted content is primarily the sourcing or weighting of AiG opinions based on CMI content, which is illegitimate as it is misattribution. The mere misweighting of FRINGE claims generally gets marked with a Template:weight tag to indicate that editors need to consider the weighting. The only other claims deleted are clear misweightings, such as attempts to weight scientific claims on scientific articles to any FRINGE view point—or at the same level of seriousness theological claims on theological articles to a FRINGE view point with no capacity to conduct scholarly or professional theological review—where there is no indication that the scientific community has actually attended to the FRINGE view point at all (even if to dismiss out of hand in the scientific press). —Regarding good faith, I do believe fully that good faith existed, but editors are responsible for content that they add, or readd to the encyclopaedia. This is burdensome, but quite real. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Fifelfoo

As in the case above related to this matter, I believe an official warning under this sanction's discretionary sanctions is the most required. We cannot presume that AiG holds a licence for anything published by another organisation, we need to rely on documentation from either or both organisations that meets an adequate standard of reliability demonstrating that AiG holds such a licence; the presumption holds against due to the horrors attendant upon copyright violation. Further, publications by another body and duplicated in a horrifically inept manner on AiG's website do not represent the opinions of AiG. AiG publishes two rags, Answers and Answers research journal that specifically represent their opinion. In addition AiG publishes a variety of content on their website which isn't in breach of copyright and which appears to have originated with AiG themselves—this is appropriate content to attributing the Self-Published Sources "self" opinion. Finally, many if not all of these problems would have been solved if editors working in this FRINGE area had correctly cited material in the first place. Citing Technical Journal would have lead editors to Technical Journal's actual archive to locate the volume, date and issue information—full citations tend to expose many of the issues that raw links do not expose. For one, it would make editors consider if "Jeff Bloggs" or "Jane Doe" actually represents the opinion of AiG when writing, or if they merely represent their own opinion published by AiG (for instance, by checking AiG's speaker's list or staff list).

It is reasonable that inexperienced editors make these mistakes in a complex area like FRINGE editing, it is less reasonable when they revert content they appear to be unfamiliar with over policies they're unfamiliar with. Such conduct merits counselling and improved editing skills assistance. It certainly isn't at a disciplinary stage above a warning to indicate that this is a problematic form of editing in an area where problematic editing has systematically disrupted the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, three regulars contributing on RS/N is a larger than average turnout, ~~as is two reports over three years having the same sweeping opinion that the entire source is unreliable (outside of EXPERT related SPS exemptions)~~; as is the body of work surrounding day in day out FRINGE RS issues (edited for wrong community shock that large scale poor sourcing was uncovered). RS/N doesn't have a mop because it is a content board, and has avoided dealing with these mass, blatant misuses of sources of poor reliability in the past because we lack a stick. This is a FRINGE area, where sourcing is at a premium, much like MEDRS covered areas. Negotiating line by line results with editors who claim to regularly edit in FRINGE topics, but lack a basic awareness of reliability policy is not viable—particularly when it comes to copyright violating links. Sure, we can just drive by tag the articles affected and wait for a sick community to mature; but, these kinds of content problems that go back to pillars, where editors choose to ignore the relevant content board's consensus, are an ulcerating problem with the fundamental encyclopaedic mission. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GDallimore

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

Again? This is getting a bit ridiculous. Discretionary sanctions is not a license to drag everyone who disagree with you to AE - and given the relatively small number of people who commented in the RSN discussion and the relatively large number of articles affected, there's bound to be some good faith disagreements that can and should be worked out without getting AE involved. T. Canens (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree, and would advise we remind everyone that using frivolous sanction processes as a bludgeon during legitimate content disputes is in itself a form of disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Tim & Seraphimblade - AE is not a battleground or a game, and there's a clear warning at the top of this page that it is not to be used it as such. I take a dim view of anyone using AE (or other site processes) to "win" content disputes & I wouldn't say 'no' to WP:Boomerang being applied here--Cailil ^talk 00:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with no action. This appears to be a content dispute. No admin sees the reported edits as violating WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM

VartanM (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2, broadly construed. Yerevanci (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours and given formal notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning VartanM

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grandmaster 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: VartanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

02:46, June 26, 2012 Incivility

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Placed on indef 1RR on February 7, 2009 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
Blocked for edit warring and incivility on February 20, 2009 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VartanM has been placed on indef 1RR and was previously blocked for edit warring and incivility. I find his recent comment at AFD discussion to be very incivil and insulting towards editors from Azerbaijan. In addition, I do not find this comment from another editor at the same board to be particularly civil either: [12] ARBAA2 made a specific provision for courtesy: [13]. I would like to ask for the admin attention to this issue. Grandmaster 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14] [15]

Discussion concerning VartanM

Statement by VartanM

My point is that its summer outside, and you guys are wasting your lives on a stupid article. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Hugs and Kisses. VartanM (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning VartanM

Result concerning VartanM

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

I've blocked VartanM for 5 days for both the comment at the AfD and the unhelpful comment above; I considered doubling the previous block, but decided that I'd take 24 hours off due to the time in between. I also think an indefinite topic ban in the AA area would be in order, as VartanM seems incapable of neutrally, dispassionately editing there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Blade. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't necessarily disagree, I have to say I found the contributions by Yerevanci (talk · contribs) in that discussion a good deal more problematic. Maybe we need to have a look at him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If no one objects in the next 12 hours, I'm going to block Yerevanci for 24 hours for this comment. I think a 90 day break from the AA area would also be good for Yerevanci as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the block and indef topic ban for VartanM, but only with the block for Yerevanci. The latter has never been notified under WP:ARBAA2, so I think we can't issue an AA ban of Yerevanci (talk · contribs) at this time. We can issue the notification, though. Yerevanci has made a serious effort to create content, as you can see from his user page, though he also has plenty of national zeal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre

This is a notification.

An administrator special enforcement action against Sceptre (talk · contribs) has been challenged by an editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump. Uncle G (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay

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

Request concerning GoodDay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: — Rich wales 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics

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

27 June 2012 This edit (by HandsomeFella) removed diacritics from several players' names.
27 June 2012 Although the above edit was performed by HandsomeFella (talk · contribs), this exchange on GoodDay's talk page ~~strongly suggests that the editing was done in collaboration with GoodDay, in order to sidestep the topic ban.~~ raises reasonable questions as to whether GoodDay's comment may (either negligently or by design) have had the effect of prompting others to perform editing of a sort which GoodDay is clearly banned from performing on his own.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

27 June 2012 Notified GoodDay.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although HandsomeFella's edit changed several wikilinked names of individuals to non-diacritic versions (hence my complaint), I also note that HandsomeFella spoke disapprovingly of GoodDay in the recent ArbCom case (see here). There seems to be a contradiction here, and I don't claim to have a good explanation for it. I still believe that the exchange between HandsomeFella and GoodDay (on GoodDay's talk page), in conjunction with HandsomeFella's edit, raises reasonable questions as to what might have been going on, and at the very least, it is not out of order to ask for an explanation. — Rich wales 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HandsomeFella's editing of the names in question could also have been influenced by WP:HOCKEY, which in its current form says that North American hockey pages should generally not use diacritics in player names. This statement, as best I can tell, was added in June 2007 by GoodDay — apparently after some discussion which I was not able to locate just now. I suppose WP:HOCKEY's diacritics guidelines might (or might not) need to be revisited in light of the ArbCom ruling. — Rich wales 23:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is in progress on GoodDay's talk page regarding the interpretation of his topic ban. — Rich wales 01:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

27 June 2012 Notified GoodDay (see above).
~~27 June 2012 Notified HandsomeFella.~~

Discussion concerning GoodDay

Statement by GoodDay

At my Userpage, I posted my discouragement over the lack of maintanence by WP:HOCKEY, concerning 2 articles Nashville Predators, Los Angeles Kings & diacritics. I wasn't aware that I was censored from my Userpage, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with being barred from mentioning certain topics on my pages, but I will refrain from mentioning them in future. As for those editors who are calling for my indef-block? You've (plural) strenghtened my resolve to never retire from Wikipedia. No matter how sharp your (plural) daggers become, I won't quit. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning GoodDay

This is the very definition of frivolity. ✝D B D 22:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a violation of his arbitration mandated topic ban. I think HandsomeFella made the edits in good faith and of his own accord (e.g.: without formal cooperation), but GoodDay started that topic knowing that it violated his topic ban, and likely in the hopes that someone would do his work for him by proxy. He's poking around the edges and seeing how far he can push things. Not frivolous at all, imo. Reso lute 23:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a draconian attempt to hound GoodDay. He merely made a comment on his own talk page and he was leapt upon by Wikipedia "dickers" (slang word for watchers). This place is getting more Orwellian by the minute.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ban says " or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." his edit in his talk page is practically begging for other people to make the changes on his behalf. He even says which articles need to be changed. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved as I am part of the diacritic debate. In fact I don't agree with the "hockey compromise" BUT there appears consensus for it. Together with the other comments made above there was no proxy editing evident. As far as the talkpage comment is concerned I have three observations. a) Technically a violation of the wording b) No violation of the intend - reduction of conflict/drama as I don't think anybody would be so stupid to actually do any real proxy editing c) The comment made by GoodDay did in no way attack any current understanding of consensus. Agathoclea (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in the diacritic debate. This is not just a technical violation of his ban. Clearly, it is a request for his TPSs to check those named articles and remove any diacritics appearing there. Diacritics is just one of the areas of Wikipedia that GoodDay has now been prevented from disupting, but obviously he is attempting to circumvent the topic ban by having others do his 'work' for him. He has broken both the letter and the spirit of his ban. And, btw, proxy editing did take place - request posted 19:26, edits made by 20:34 - for which that editor tells GoodDay the problem has been fixed, and was then thanked by GoodDay. Daicaregos (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was quite clearly an attempt to get his talk page watchers to make the changes for him. Clearly in violation of his ban. It is also a disruptive comment in and of itself of the type he was asked not to do in his RfC prior to his arb case. He knew better and he was trying to push the edges to see how much he could get away with. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the alleged "crime" attributed to GoodDay above is unprovable, and in my mind frivolous. He cannot be blamed for the actions of another editor in this case, period. It was a small technical violation only. But now that it has been established that comments made by GoodDay on his Talk page can lead to actions elsewhere on the 'pedia, I expect that *in future* he will need to understand that he may be held accountable for the actions for other editors. But for this case, no action. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't unprovable that he discussed diacritics which he was banned from discussing anywhere on the wiki. That is the violation here which he quite clearly broke. That he proxied of course isn't provable and I don't believe he did do that since the other editor was one of his critics. However he did discuss them and that is a direct violation of his ban. The fact that he did it so soon after his case is quite remarkably ridiculous imho. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with HighKing. — JonC ^ॐ 14:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's unprovable that he discussed diacritics, which he was banned from discussing anywhere on the wiki? It has certainly been established that GoodDay may be held accountable for the actions for other editors, following comments made by him on his Talk page. However, he must prevented from discussing on his talk page those topics that he has been banned from editing. Unless he agrees to this, I favour an indefinite block, which would be preventative, rather than punitive. Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour leaving him alone rather than obsessing about he chooses to discuss on his own talk page. Take it off your watchlist, for heaven's sake. — JonC ^ॐ 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is what he discusses on his own talk page can/will leak out of his talk page to other areas. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments that I want the AE admins to consider. First, many of those who have condemned GoodDay's actions here have been in conflct with him for some time, so in my opinion their assessment of the situation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Now, while GoodDay's edit was technically a violation of his topic ban, I am of the opinion that action is unnecessary here - but GoodDay has mentioned that he feels he should be able to discuss diacritics on his talk page, and I dunno how ArbCom would feel about that. I just wanted the admins here to have all the info. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 18:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "anywhere on the English Wikipedia." would include his talk page. If Arbcom had wanted GoodDay to comment in talk pages, it would have made an exceptions for talk pages. But it didn't. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My long-standing view of GoodDay is that Hanlon's razor applies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HandsomeFella

My edit was a perfectly good one, and it has not been reverted. I have made hundreds of those before, and they follow WP:MOS and the WP:HOCKEY Project Notice. I wish that Richwales had informed himself better before he went on to pick on me on my talkpage, so he wouldn't have to be so surprised at finding a "contradiction" for which he has "no good explanation". Had he done that, he would have found that GoodDay has an extreme position on diacritics, in addition to a history of editing disruptively along his beliefs, something he has been criticized for by many editors, including myself. – There's the explanation, RW. Inform yourself and you will reduce your level of surprise.

That said, it's not a personal thing to me, so I find no reason to abstain from correcting flaws, just because GoodDay occasionally has the same view. I'm not that childish.

I request that any request for enforcement of any kind against me is dropped, and the sooner the better.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement wasn't being sought against you per the request above, so you didn't really need to add a section for yourself if I understand procedure properly. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am mentioned under "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested". So I thought I'd better get a clarification. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I initially felt the set of events raised valid questions regarding both editors, I am inclined to accept HandsomeFella's explanation of his actions; and on that basis, it doesn't seem to me that any enforcement action is called for here against HandsomeFella. I can't presume to speak for others, but my impression is that no one else is proposing enforcement action against HandsomeFella either. — Rich wales 20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So retract it then. Strikethru the mentioning of me above under "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested". HandsomeFella (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also reworded my original comment about possible collaboration by HandsomeFella with GoodDay. — Rich wales 16:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week --Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Result concerning GoodDay

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

I'm going to echo EdJohnston wrt GoodDay[16], the RFAR ruling: "GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia" is anything but ambiguous, and GoodDay's talk page post is in breach of that ban. That is open and shut. However of whether this[17] is worth a 30 day block I'm less certain. I'm inclined to go with a last & final warning for GoodDay and leave it there, but with the caveat that any further behaviour in breach of the RFAR should result in immediate sanction (1 month block). I'm open to suggestions, or convincing if other sysops have any ideas.
On the matter of whether or not Handsomefella's edits fall into the category of proxy editing I'd say 'no', but if others have concerns I have an open-mind--Cailil ^talk 01:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether GoodDay's talk page will become a hub for coordinating the removal of diacritics by others. So long as that doesn't occur, a block of GoodDay seems unnecessary. Handsomefella does not need any sanctions in my opinion. GoodDay has expressed amazement that he can't discuss the subject of diacritics on his own talk page, and it's fine for him to be amazed, just so long as he doesn't continue there. A final warning would be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the recent edits as well as the arbitration case, it seems clear to me that this is a breach of both the letter and the spirit of GoodDay's topic ban. It appears to be part of a pattern of him testing out the limits of what the community will permit; similarly, he persisted in editing the Zoë Baird article while the arb case was underway, all the while crying "censorship" just as he is doing currently. So I think a block is in order here; we are past the point of warnings. A month seems much, but I would suggest a two-week block. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree Paul (about GD testing the limits), ~~but the Arbs set the lower range for blocking at 1 month, so if we all think that that's too steep we need to consider another measure.~~ Re the 30 day block, I was reading that decision wrong - I still think 14 days is too much, I'd support a week if consensus forms that a block is required, however at this point I still think a final warning is adequate--Cailil ^talk 13:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a sitting arbitrator I'm not going to comment on the merits of the enforcement case, but I will observe that whether a topic-ban includes the user's own talkpage is a constant source of disagreement. I have tried sometimes to make sure this is addressed one way or the other in decisions I draft, but it doesn't always happen; and the same issue arises in community-originated topic-bans as well (such as with the dispute concerning Sceptre this week). Both arbitration decisions and community discussions should strive for greater clarity on this issue (and the right result may vary from case to case). If we ever post a proposed decision with a topic-ban that leaves this point unclear, please point it out on the talkpage so we can fix it at the time and save the enforcement board this type of hassle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NYBrad: Thanks for the larger perspective. I didn't think it unclear in this particular case, as the wording is anywhere on the English Wikipedia.

@Cailil: In general, when an editor's behaviour has reached a level of disruption that they are the subject of a ban by ArbCom, I don't think further warnings following a breach of a ban carry sufficient teeth. In this case, I think it likely that GoodDay's pattern of testing limits will continue in other creative ways if we don't begin to act rather than warn. A one-week block is reasonable in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Paul on this one. A week sounds good to me. T. Canens (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from Paul, so I'll endorse the week long block as an enforcement measure--Cailil ^talk 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, given how many days ago this was, a block now becomes far more punitive than preventative. How about we just ask the arbs to clarify whether GoodDay's topic ban includes his own user/talk pages and move forward from there? Reso lute 15:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating myself a little, if you'll forgive me: The preventative aspect is that a block makes it more probable that we'll prevent GoodDay's next steps in his pattern of testing limits; warnings aren't cutting it, an ArbCom finding didn't fully do it. I suppose a longer block would make it more obviously preventative. And again, I don't see the value in seeking clarification from the arbs when the wording was already clear: "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". GoodDay knew what the likely result would be when he posted on his talk page (that another editor would likely edit something he is banned from editing) so even if we take at face value GoodDay's assertion that he didn't know his talk page was covered by the ban, it's still a clear violation of the spirit of the ban (in addition to being part of his pattern of testing limits). So I still think a block is needed. All that said, I will leave it to T. Canens or Cailil to enact this, as they are more experienced with AE than I am. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support a one-week block in this case, as proposed by T. Canens and Paul Erik. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a clear consensus here for a 1 week block, with which I concur, and which is how will now close this. The arb com topic ban was for "anywhere on the English Wikipedia", which follows from the purpose of such topic bans, which is to encourage editors to disengage entirely from the topic at hand. Perhaps GoodDay truly didn't understand the extent of the topic ban at first- as such I'd have been inclined to give a final warning as a couple of the administrators who first commented suggested. But instead of recognizing the infringement when the very clear language of the arbcom decision was pointed out, GoodDay has continued to protest about being "gagged" and "censorship". This is a very clear sign that this block is indeed preventive. --Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheShadowCrow

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

Request concerning TheShadowCrow

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grandmaster 19:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on May 30, 2012 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
Warned on May 31, 2012 by Moreschi (talk · contribs), logged at WP:ARBAA2: [18]
Warned on June 24, 2012 by CT Cooper (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Another very problematic user in AA area. He was warned about AA remedies, warned about inappropriateness of edit warning, and violations of WP:BLP rules. Despite all of that, he made a very inappropriate edit to the BLP article about Azerbaijani chess player Teimour Radjabov, with inflammatory edit summary (now revdeleted): [19] After I rolled back that edit, he edit warred to restore it: [20] TheShadowCrow was blocked for 72 hours by CT Cooper for persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy: [21], which is the second block of TheShadowCrow within the last 4 months. Since TheShadowCrow proved to be a problematic editor in AA related area, I think the admins may need to consider placing this editor on some restriction in the arbitration covered area to prevent further disruption in the future. Grandmaster 19:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

Discussion concerning TheShadowCrow

Statement by TheShadowCrow

Comments by others about the request concerning TheShadowCrow

TheShadowCrow is not currently subject to restrictions under these sanctions because he has not been given the required initial warning. Despite what Moreschi says here [23], he DID NOT notify TheShadowCrow. This [24] is not a notification. This request by Grandmaster should, at the most, be a request for TheShadowCrow to be given that initial warning so that TheShadowCrow becomes subject to them. However, I doubt the need for even that, given the edits cited are all BLP issues and seem to have been dealt with. Meowy 20:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheShadowCrow was warned about AA2 by me, which is sufficient. The purpose of the warning is to make the editor in question aware of the arbitration, which he was. Moreschi also warned TheShadowCrow to refrain from edit warring in AA area, which TheShadowCrow did not do. On a side note, Meowy is indefinitely banned from commenting at WP:AE and any other boards on AA related matters [25], which he again chose to ignore. Grandmaster 20:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. An editor does not become subject to specific sanctions just because some ordinary editor posts a vague note about those sanctions on the first editor's talk page. Why would any editor give an ounce of credbility and importance to such a note? In fact, I think that the posting of such a note breaks good faith editing guidelines, given that the giver and the receiver of the note will invariably be engaged in some sort of mutual editing dispute (as you were with TheShadowCrow when you posted the note) and the receiver will obviously see the posting of it as an aggressive act. A warning should only be given by uninvolved editors, ideally by uninvolved admnistrators - only then will the editor getting it know it is a serious matter and consider it to be good advice. The good advice by Moreschi about not to edit war and to explain edits on article talk pages applies to all articles on Wikipedia, not just to a specific subject area. Meowy 21:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we had to discuss Meowy here, I think it is worth to take a look at the history of his contribs after his return from a 1 year block in February this year. Meowy stood up for almost every sanctioned user who was sharing the same content views with him, wikilayering and petty bickering sometimes in violation of his ban on participation in AA enforcement discussions that have no direct relation to him. For instance, here he was objecting to the block of two disruptive accounts which were trying to game the 500 edit restriction: [26], and Meowy's incivil comments caused the admins to consider blocking him. Meowy's interactions with the enforcing admins at their talks were also in rude violation of civility norms: [27] [28] [29] I think this user should be restricted to make only comments directly related to the content of the articles, as his participation in any discussions unrelated to the article content is not really helpful.

Also, back in 2007 Meowy was placed on indef 1RR per week restriction, civility supervision, etc: [30], which was logged here: [31] Is that restriction still in force after his return from a 1 year block? The reason why I'm asking is because of the large content removals and reverts he made recently on Khojaly Massacre: [32] [33], which were eventually restored by an uninvolved editor. Grandmaster 09:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TheShadowCrow

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

As this is a clear violation of Meowy's ban, and this is far from the first problem, Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked Meowy for a week. Will come back to TheShadowCrow later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I was just going to make a not of it here. As for TheShadowCrow, the only thing I'll say right now is that I see little merit in Meowy's objection about the warnings. The warnings given to this editor were clearly sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheShadowCrow is already blocked for 72 hours for really obvious BLP violations. I'm minded to leave that in place, and impose a 6 months topic ban from the AA area; I don't have much confidence that an indefinite one won't follow in 6 months and 1 day, but it's worth trying. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why Meowy hasn't been indeffed by now considering the multiple ban resets for evasion in their block log eludes me. Regardless, agree with The Blade on TheShadowCrow. T. Canens (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

@@ Line 278: / Line 278: @@
 :::::Done.  I've also reworded my original comment about possible collaboration by HandsomeFella with GoodDay.  — [[User:Richwales|<u>Rich</u>]][[User talk:Richwales|wales]] 16:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
+{{hat|Blocked for one week --[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 23:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)}}
 ===Result concerning GoodDay===
 <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
@@ Line 295: / Line 296: @@
 :::: Repeating myself a little, if you'll forgive me: The preventative aspect is that a block makes it more probable that we'll prevent GoodDay's next steps in his pattern of testing limits; warnings aren't cutting it, an ArbCom finding didn't fully do it. I suppose a longer block would make it more obviously preventative. And again, I don't see the value in seeking clarification from the arbs when the wording was already clear: "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". GoodDay knew what the likely result would be when he posted on his talk page (that another editor would likely edit something he is banned from editing) so even if we take at face value GoodDay's assertion that he didn't know his talk page was covered by the ban, it's still a clear violation of the spirit of the ban (in addition to being part of his pattern of testing limits). So I still think a block is needed. All that said, I will leave it to T. Canens or Cailil to enact this, as they are more experienced with AE than I am. Thanks, <font face="Comic sans MS">[[User:Paul Erik|Paul Erik]]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">[[User_talk:Paul Erik|(talk)]]</font><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|(contribs)]]</font></sup></small> 18:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 :::::Support a one-week block in this case, as proposed by T. Canens and Paul Erik. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
+*I'm seeing a clear consensus here for a 1 week block, with which I concur, and which is how will now close this. The arb com topic ban was for "anywhere on the English Wikipedia", which follows from the purpose of such topic bans, which is to encourage editors to disengage ''entirely'' from the topic at hand. Perhaps GoodDay truly didn't understand the extent of the topic ban at first- as such I'd have been inclined to give a final warning as a couple of the administrators who first commented suggested.  But instead of  recognizing the infringement when the very clear language of the arbcom decision was pointed out, GoodDay has continued to protest about being "gagged" and "censorship". This is a very clear sign that this block is indeed preventive. --[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 23:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 == TheShadowCrow ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards