Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:59, 6 March 2017

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
341	342

CatapultTalks

CatapultTalks (talk · contribs) is hereby banned, for 3 months, from editing any and all pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning CatapultTalks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CatapultTalks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement :WP:ARBAP2:

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

Starting with most recent

Feb 19 Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [1] (material was added Feb 17 [2])
Feb 17. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [3]. Note that the original text was inserted by CatapultTalks [4] with a misleading summary (WP:AVOIDVICTIM is suppose to protect BLP subjects - it's not an excuse for victimizing them as CT's edit summary implies)
Feb 15. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [5]. Note that this is also an attempt to restart a previous edit war [6] after failing to obtain consensus or even discuss on talk.

[7] Feb 5, 7:59 (arguably not a revert)
[8] Feb 5, 18:06 (revert)
[9] Feb 6, 6:26 (revert)
[10] Feb 7, 19:12 (note misleading edit summary)
[11] Feb 8, 16:24 (revert)

Depending on how you count it that's either three or two 1RR violations.

On Executive Order 13769 - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

[12] Feb 4, 22:38 (revert)
[13] Feb 4, 23:15 (revert)
[14] Feb 5, 8:09 (revert)
[15] Feb 6, 6:13 (substantially changes the meaning of the sentence which makes it a revert)
[16] Feb 6, 20:24 (revert)

This is at least four 1RR violations and pretty close to a straight up 3RR violation

On Social policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

[17] Feb 1, 22:37 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)
[18] Feb 2, 7:01 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)

Then

[19] Feb 5, 7:56
[20] Feb 5, 16:44 (resumes previous edit war)
[21] Feb 6, 17:02 (revert)
[22] Feb 6, 17:42 (revert. There is another edit by CatapultTalks in between the 17:02 and 17:42 one which could also be seen as a revert)
[23] Feb 6, 20:02 (if this isn't a revert (it is) then the edit immediately following this one is)
[24] Feb 6: 22:30

So that's a few more 1RR violations and a 3RR violation.

In addition to the persistent edit warring several of these edits violate the discretionary sanction which states: " All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Several of CatapultTalks' edits have been challenged by several users via reversion, yet he persists in restoring his preferred version without much discussion, much less bothering to get consensus.

See this previous 3RR report which was closed with "Report_should_be_made_at_WP:AE.2C_which_is_the_appropriate_forum_for_any_Discretionary_Sanctions_violations" (personally disagree, violating 3RR and 1RR is violating 3RR and 1RR, discretionary sanctions or not, but here it is) [25]

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

I think I really bent over backwards with this user. Here is the first notification. Here is the second notification. Here is the third and formal notification by User:Coffee. Here is the fourth notification. And here is one last ditch attempt to try and get the user to listen and actually make a pretense at observing the discretionary sanctions restrictions: Fifth notification.

Pretty much the response the whole time has been "I'm right, you're wrong, take it to the talk page" (of course CatapultTalks didn't bother taking anything to the talk page themselves)

Note that CatapultTalks' reply here sort of encapsulates the problem - he violates 1RR, 3RR and other discretionary sanctions and when you bring that up to him he tries to argue about how his edits were legit (on his own talk page, rarely on article page) and refuses to stop edit warring. I mean, discussion is good, but if you break the rules that everyone is suppose to abide by, people will get frustrated (especially after he's been notified, what, six times?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Mr.Ernie's comment below itself sanctionable, per WP:ASPERSIONS? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the first three diffs in the "Starting most recent" section, the diffs are there and just those three are sanctionable. I will try to dig out the diffs for the older reverts tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning CatapultTalks

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 CatapultTalks

First, I strongly object to the allegations that I don't bother taking anything to the talk page. Here are examples where I started discussions on talk pages. You would notice that in some instances I agreed based on inputs from other editors that my initial edit could be wrong and we arrived at consensus.

On Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration: [26], [27], [28], [29]

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration: [30], [31], [32]

On Executive Order 13769: [33], [34], [35]

Here's why VolunteerMarek's allegations about my edits are wrong:

Starting with most recent per VolunteerMarek's statement above

VolunteerMarek reverted [36] this well sourced relevant edit of mine, terming it "redundant". Redundant how, why exactly? Previously too, VolunteerMarek reverted [37] a good, non-controversial edit of mine, just because he can. No explanation why.
[38] - The earlier edit was promoting media's narrative of the deported person as "Arizona mother" and this prolong's victimization per [WP:AVOIDVICTIM]. Instead, my edit adds a key sourced detail about the conviction being a felony and that she entered the country illegally which presumably led to her deportation. Those are the facts.
[39] - This was after a discussion regarding this was open on talk page with no comments from other editors

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration:

VolunteerMarek reverted [40] my well sourced edit adding a key detail because it "confuses everything". Really? How? Again, no explanation
[41] - source cited at the time didn't relate to the text. More sources were provided later to back the claim and I didn't challenge or revert it again
How is this [42] a revert? This is backed by an existing source. It has since not been challenged by anyone.

On Immigration policy of Donald Trump:

[43] - definitely not a revert. perfectly sourced
[44] - not a revert. removed redundant content and was never challenged

On Executive Order 13769:

[45] - this was challenged, discussed on talk page and consensus was to keep it out the article - which is exactly what I did
[46] - why is this considered a revert? I removed some unnecessary background. was never challenged
[47] - I reinstated a key detail because it was ignored during a reword by a different editor. wasn't challenged again
[48] - this was discussed in the talk page and once there were more sources countering the initial source, we made a consensus edit

To me, this looks like VolunteerMarek is reverting my sourced good faith edits just because they don't like the edits or that it wouldn't promote a certain narrative. Please note that none of these edits are vandal attempts or unsourced POVs. So there is no justification in reverting my edits without a good reason - especially given that I'm very open to discussion on talk pages.

CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment:

I request administrators commenting/acting on this to please note that this problem has compounded because of VolunteerMarek's continuous disruptive reverts of my good edits. It is almost like VolunteerMarek is setting me up for failure, by reverting without basis and then asking me to go get consensus. I implore you to relook at the kind of reverts we are talking about. Especially this [49], this [50] and this [51]. Also note that I've had fewer problems with other editors in gaining consensus because they have participated in talk page discussions - something that VolunteerMarek hasn't done. I want to reiterate that I do respect the policies, processes of Wikipedia, but it is the bad discretion displayed by VolunteerMarek in reverting my good edits that I don't respect.CatapultTalks (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Admin note: Comments are closed for this editor. Sandstein 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose a topic ban on Volunteer Marek from bringing editors who edit with an opposing political viewpoint to this board. It is beyond disruptive, and overall an enormous waste of time. I encourage everyone to look through the archives from the past few weeks and see how many of these VM has opened to silence other editors whose viewpoints don't line up with theirs. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SPECIFICO any reading of this history will reveal that you are wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the policy correctly, in order for me to be subjected to administrative action under the discretionary sanctions I need to be officially alerted of the discretionary sanctions, which has not yet occurred. I apologize for appearing to cast aspersions. I had intended to show the prior enforcement action requests that the filer has brought recently, and did not do so the right way. Another editor below has linked the history. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SPECIFICO please stop your bad faith characterizations of my actions. You are the one now casting aspersions at me. I struck a comment I realized could be taken the wrong way and then apologized. You claim to have not given it much thought, but every one of your comments in this particular AE is about me. Please stop the aspersions, but if you'd like to continue, I request you open a new section. Please cease the comments on what you wrongfully believe my motivations to be. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Admin note: Comments are closed for this editor. Sandstein 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mr Ernie There is absolutely no evidence here to support your assertion that @Volunteer Marek:'s edits are motivated by any "political point of view" and it is unconstructive, to say the least, to present such an undocumented aspersion at AE. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ernie casts WP:ASPERSIONS at OP and then instead of providing evidence or even explanation of such denigration, he tells others to scour the archives for evidence? This behavior is explicitly prohibited per guidance concerning enforcement discussions on the discretionary sanctions page, and it is unacceptable. This kind of disruption places an undue burden on editors and Admins who are trying to enforce of ARBAP2, perpetuating violations on numerous articles. Disruptive behavior at AE should not be tolerated. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not given it any thought, but having just read the latest words from Mr. Ernie, I believe that he should be sanctioned to prevent further disruptive conduct. After denying and defying, he doubled down by claiming a loophole "get out of jail free card" that he hadn't been templated and was therefore immune from the DS guidelines on demeanor. Then, as soon as he realized that he is actually in jeopardy, he stated that he apolgizes from the conduct he stood with only minutes before. What's wrong with this picture? SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

@Sandstein: The archives indicate Mr Ernie is correct to claim Volunteer Marek has brought a number of editors with "opposing political viewpoint[s]" to this board. To be precise: 7 (now 8) since August of last year, more than any editor in the same period under ARBAP2: 8/2/2016, 10/8/2016, 10/27/2016, 11/21/2016, 11/25/2016, 12/21/2016, 12/26/2016

WP:ASPERSIONS cautions against claims without evidence or in inappropriate forums. This appears to be neither. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CatapultTalks

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

A troubling pattern of editing is illustrated here, including breaches of 1RR and the requirement for obtaining consensus for challenged material. I think a temporary topic ban from this domain is in order. --Laser brain (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CatapultTalks has been warned more than enough times... and their pattern of editing at this point shows that they hold the discretionary sanctions system in very little regard. As such, I think a 3-6 month topic ban would be appropriate at this time, since CatapultTalks cannot be trusted to follow the less restrictive page restriction system. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I second the AE page ban for Mr Ernie, at a minimum of 6 months duration. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Because it is contested that some of the edits you reported are reverts, please amend the complaint to include the diffs of the edit that the reported edits reverted. – As to Mr Ernie, I think an AE page ban is in order for casting aspersions. Sandstein 10:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing down the Mr Ernie subplot and logging the AE page ban. As to SPECIFICO, if you make one more comment in an AE thread in which you are not a party that is not a concise and useful submission of evidence, I will likely ban you from this page as well. This board is not a venue for dispute resolution, and I am not interested in opinions of random editors, particularly those involved in disputes in the topic area. Use AN/I or the other chaos boards for that. The only thing that matters here is evidence that helps admins address requests. Sandstein 19:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After studying the past history here I endorse:

A ban from this page for Mr Ernie unless directly involved in the AE request as a party.

A 3 month topic ban for CatapultTalks, who seems to me to be deliberately pushing the limits here.

Neither user's behaviour as highlighted here is sufficiently egregious to be sanctioned as a standalone item, but the history kicks it into "enough already" territory. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

The Rambling Man is blocked for a month. Sandstein 21:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This action is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TRM. WJBscribe (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited : "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."

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

The Rambling Man has continued insulting and belittling other editors since the last AE thread last December, where he was warned that "continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked."

4 March "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?"
4 March "You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith in extremis, and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control." Also please note the edit summary: "what an unsurprising misinterpretation, packed with bad faith and clueless as to how to actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM, do us all a favour and come up with something helpful for a change"
4 March "[T]hanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing"."
4 March "We can get back to discussing it with people who are actually genuinely interested in making this a better place."
3 March "You summarily failed to answer my question, but I suppose we probably already have an inkling of the answer."
2 March "You don't have the first idea what you're talking about, but why let that get in the way of a good story and a weak threat, eh?"
24 February "... there are some users who are there simply to give their "opinion" on things, and seldom provide any kind of link or reference for their "opinions". Funnily enough, one of them is here in this thread. Until such scandalous and unencyclopedic behaviour is stopped ... The sooner you both get that idea sorted out in your heads, the better."
12 February "Another parade of article owners and credit-hungry users."
31 January Denigrating an ESL speaker. "That doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps you should leave it to a native English speaker before making suggestions or claiming that "fell into oblivion" isn't neutral in tone."
29 January "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person." – I fully admit some culpability in this, but the reply was rather over the top.
29 January "Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind."
25 January Straight chilling threats, regardless of admin's wrongness. "Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT." + "Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward."
4 January "No, I get it. You didn't even look at the article, I understand."
3 January "we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes"
21 December "Now disappear while I set about fixing up the garbage that I've just found!"
16 December "Your hyperbolic criticism is indicative of one who is too emotional to contribute neutrally."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14 December AE thread closed as no action, but "The Rambling Man is warned that continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked"

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

Driveby comment by Iridescent

Given that the most recent diff of TRM being "belittling" was in reply to someone else saying "fuck you" to him, I think you can probably cut him some slack for that one. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

I note that The Rambling Man has declined to comment here, by removing the notification diff with the comment "from an admin who routinely abuses his position, this is nothing of interest to me I'm afraid. Focus on admins telling editors to "FUCK OFF" instead".

In my view, the request establishes clearly that The Rambling Man has continued the conduct from which they were prohibited, i.e., "insulting and/or belittling other editors", and even their reaction to this AE request constitutes a violation of this prohibition. Per the remedy at issue, if "The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy." According to that policy, administrators must consider "the severity of the behavior; [and] whether the user has engaged in that behavior before."

I conclude that the number of violations established in the evidence, together with the warning in the last AE request and the reaction to this request, establishes a pattern of recurring violations and amounts to a severe violation of the prohibition. Accordingly, to effectively deter The Rambling Man from continuing with this conduct, I am blocking them for a month. Sandstein 21:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Rambling Man

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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).

Appealing user: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Appeal copied/pasted here per standard procedure. – — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 1 month block (logged)

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Done per procedure

Statement by The Rambling Man

I'm not too worried about being immediately unblocked, it appears that this unfortunate event has cast something of a shadow of Sandstein's behaviour as an admin, along with those who enabled me to be told to "fuck off" and be called a "prick". But I am slightly perplexed that Sandstein could have taken the time to read each and every comment produced in The ed17's illustrious report, within the context of each of the discussions and to understand the background to each and every one of them. I'm also perplexed by this continual cry of "insult" or "belittling" when an admin is simply free to tell me to "fuck off" and call me a "prick", or other editors are allowed, nay enabled, to call me a Holocaust denier (don't worry TRM, it's so ridiculous we can just ignore it! etc etc). The block is punitive, not in keeping with the escalation suggested by Arbcom in the first place (remember, the first block, by departed Mike V was actually incorrect in every way, including his accusations of me being a liar), so in essence and in totality, this is a first-time offence, and taking time to go over these diffs (if the blocking admin had done so) would have revealed a richer picture. Now I don't want, and never did want, Floq to be sanctioned, admonished or whatever for telling me to fuck off or calling me a prick, but I did expect a more level playing field. Sandstein has clearly decided against that and is applying his letter of his interpretation of the law. That I wasn't even given a chance myself to respond to The ed17's initial report it somewhat staggering, but to then bring action against the admin who kindly allowed me to use my talk page again (after Sandstein had, once again, used one rule for his fellow admin, and another for me) is shocking. By responding here in this manner, I'm agreeing to abide by the bureaucracy that exists in these circumstances, but I 100% guarantee that we will, once again, see the hawks spiralling overhead, most of whom I've had precisely zero interaction with since the Arbcom case. The lynching will re-commence, but that's what Sandstein and Arbcom demands. I don't look forward to it, all I've been doing for the last few months is trying to preserve the integrity of the main page, and that's left me being called an anti-Semite and a prick. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Statement by involved editor The ed17

I'm copying my initial filing above to make sure people see what exactly we're talking about. If these aren't "insulting" or "belittling" comments, then I have no idea what is. Secondarily, The Rambling Man was given a chance to reply to the AE filing. He instead removed the notification while stating "this is nothing of interest to me I'm afraid." It was clear that he had no intention to participate. Begin copy/paste:

The Rambling Man has continued insulting and belittling other editors since the last AE thread last December, where he was warned that "continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked."

4 March "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?"
4 March "You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith in extremis, and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control." Also please note the edit summary: "what an unsurprising misinterpretation, packed with bad faith and clueless as to how to actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM, do us all a favour and come up with something helpful for a change"
4 March "[T]hanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing"."
4 March "We can get back to discussing it with people who are actually genuinely interested in making this a better place."
3 March "You summarily failed to answer my question, but I suppose we probably already have an inkling of the answer."
2 March "You don't have the first idea what you're talking about, but why let that get in the way of a good story and a weak threat, eh?"
24 February "... there are some users who are there simply to give their "opinion" on things, and seldom provide any kind of link or reference for their "opinions". Funnily enough, one of them is here in this thread. Until such scandalous and unencyclopedic behaviour is stopped ... The sooner you both get that idea sorted out in your heads, the better."
12 February "Another parade of article owners and credit-hungry users."
31 January Denigrating an ESL speaker. "That doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps you should leave it to a native English speaker before making suggestions or claiming that "fell into oblivion" isn't neutral in tone."
29 January "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person." – I fully admit some culpability in this, but the reply was rather over the top.
29 January "Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind."
25 January Straight chilling threats, regardless of admin's wrongness. "Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT." + "Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward."
4 January "No, I get it. You didn't even look at the article, I understand."
3 January "we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes"
21 December "Now disappear while I set about fixing up the garbage that I've just found!"
16 December "Your hyperbolic criticism is indicative of one who is too emotional to contribute neutrally." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Rambling Man

See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#TRM. WJBscribe (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person", a statement similar to that one got me blocked for a bit. I think the appeal should be denied at this point. Civility is something that Wikipedia needs to work on and a constant abuse of civility should not be tolerated. Many of the people complaining about the block are using the timeline as an excuse, but AE has no timeline. While I think there should be some sort of minimum discussion period, there isn't. And TRM showed that he had no intention of participating in the discussion. Sandstein can oftentimes be a stickler for rules, but in a certain sense, with AE we need to stick to the rules. (I am not commenting on the talk page issue, since that is not the focus of this appeal.) I would be OK with a two week block though. We need to reinforce that civility is not something that we just put down on paper. I would also admonish Floq for his uncivil behavior as well. (In any event, I don't see a real appeal from TRM.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That comment you quote was said in response to "I will see you banned if you can't learn to interact like a normal human being... your behavior helps poison the environment in which we all work" - even Ed17 admits culpability for that comment in his section above. Are we really going to allow people to bait TRM in this way and then punish him if he gives as good as he gets? WJBscribe (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was also six weeks ago. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - That Fuck comment from User:Floquenbeam was embarrassing also, attacking in its own way. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by The Rambling Man

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

[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]

[b]

@@ Line 304: / Line 304: @@
 * "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person", a statement similar to that one got me blocked for a bit. I think the appeal should be denied at this point. Civility is something that Wikipedia needs to work on and a constant abuse of civility should not be tolerated. Many of the people complaining about the block are using the timeline as an excuse, but AE has no timeline. While I think there should be some sort of minimum discussion period, there isn't. And TRM showed that he had no intention of participating in the discussion. Sandstein can oftentimes be a stickler for rules, but in a certain sense, with AE we need to stick to the rules. (I am not commenting on the talk page issue, since that is not the focus of this appeal.) I would be OK with a two week block though. We need to reinforce that civility is not something that we just put down on paper. I would also admonish Floq for his uncivil behavior as well. (In any event, I don't see a real appeal from TRM.) [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 *::That comment you quote was said in response to "''I will see you banned if you can't learn to interact like a normal human being... your behavior helps poison the environment in which we all work''" - even Ed17 admits culpability for that comment in his section above. Are we really going to allow people to bait TRM in this way and then punish him if he gives as good as he gets? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 19:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
+*:::It was also '''six weeks ago'''.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 *Yes - That Fuck comment from [[User:Floquenbeam]] was embarrassing also, attacking in its own way. [[User:Govindaharihari|Govindaharihari]] ([[User talk:Govindaharihari|talk]]) 19:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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