Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:36, 11 December 2022

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yae4

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Yae4 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: "topic banned from climate change, broadly construed." imposed at this arbitration enforcement request, logged at log of sanctions.

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

Notification of that administrator: Special:Diff/1125144723

Statement by Yae4

I want the sanction to be lifted. Why: The main reason I want it lifted is so I can stop being concerned in the slightest about "broadly construed" whenever I dabble in articles like Wind_power_in_Tennessee, where I recently corrected glaring errors and made a small expansion citing a dead trees book by an environmentalist. It has been long enough. Lessons are learned. The closing admin said "I'm not 100% on board with it" (the sanction) on my talk page, so the sanction was not 100% good to start. At the closing summary they wrote "an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted." I followed their advice - cleansing watchlist of climate articles broadly construed, editing obscure articles, reading and following WP policies and guidance, trying to keep interactions near the top of Graham's Hierarchy, as much as possible. Unfortunately, a few of the niche or obscure articles I focused on - alternative Android operating systems - were as contentious as in any identified as "discretionary sanctions" topics, except with (1) fewer editors, and (2) far fewer editors who try to practice any of what Awilley suggested. We all know paid and conflicted editors is forever at Wikipedia. Thus, more time than I would like was spent in oversight review boards. I received one 7 day Page Ban as a consequence of my careless 3RR violation during a swarm of COI IP or SPA editors.

The primary problems were: my including poor sources for some edits, and for a couple new articles I wrote; irritating a particular admin and some other editors by being too bold and disagreeing too much in discussions; and mostly - not accepting the reality of the "consensus" situation at Wikipedia on topics like climate change. Commit to fix: I have, and will, do the best I can to use "reliable" sources, in the way Wikipedia defines them. I've re-evaluated some sources I previously added, and removed them myself when realizing they were not good. WP:DUE still seems to be a more or less arbitrarily applied mystery to me, but what can I say. I will continue interacting with other editors towards the top of the pyramid, even when they don't return the favor.

Note: I have not significantly changed my User page other than adding some new articles. The Hall of Shame section has not been changed because I did not want to think about the articles and whether my views of them have changed, or to be accused of changing it to look "better" or hide it. I know many Wikipedia editors would not like the sentiment in the section title, and it is not in line with Wikipedia "consensus". Nevertheless, it remains notable (to me) when a MIT PhD scientist throws away their scientific career because of uncertainties in computer modeling of climate, and they do not have an article in Wikipedia because they didn't publish enough studies or got ignored by "reliable" sources.

Thanks for considering my request. I will be happy to answer any questions, but it may be a few days before I can. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond_My_Ken, Black_Kite, I will not profess belief in a POV because of a vast majority, a small majority, or any kind of group, if I am not convinced. My understanding is this is not required. The details of consensus here are too involved to get into, now, probably not ever; I learned the POV and methods of Wikipedia on this topic. I will stay out of its way, and avoid disruption. Awilley said "I do hope to see you appeal it as it's clear you have some knowledge about the subject." They were correct, although it was a side interest for me. I accept the branding as a Wiki-heretic, so to speak, but it would be nice to be out from under the formal sanction. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

I closed the AE thread that led to the topic ban. In my close I wrote, "as this is the user's first sanction, an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted." It's been over two years since then, and Yae has more than doubled their edit count while avoiding the topic area. The appeal shows awareness of what the problem was and commits to fixing it. I support extending another chance. ~Awilley (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Yae4

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 Beyond My Ken

I oppose lifting the sanction. The request is replete with the editor's opinion that they did nothing particularly wrong, and that the basic reason they were sanctioned is that they were too "bold" and too opinionated for the rest of us, and one admin specifically. Black Kite's statement below is correct: it's not Wikipedia's consensus about climate change, it's the consensus of the vast majority of reputable scientists with expertise in the subject that matters. That's who we follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's reply to the initial comments is as full of disdain for the Wikipedia community -- and scientific consensus -- as was their appeal in the first place. I could give a dman if they're comfortable with being a "Wiki-heretic", my concern is for the encyclopedia. I do not believe that lifting the sanction is a good idea, as much damage can be done before anyone notices that the WP:ROPE has disappeared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Environment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

It's been two years now. Lift the t-ban & give the individual the chance to prove they won't be disruptive in the topic area. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)

Result of the appeal by Yae4

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

I'm a bit unconvinced by not accepting the reality of the "consensus" situation at Wikipedia on topics like climate change being a reason for their sanction (as well as their statement that they will do the best I can to use "reliable" sources). Quite apart from the scare quotes, when in comes to subjects like climate change it is not the consensus at Wikipedia that is the issue, it's the consensus amongst the vast majority of scientists and reliable sources that we follow. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved up to own section, sorry it's been a while since I've done one of these. ~Awilley (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, it doesn't matter that you're still uninvolved, that's usually the case, anyway. But it is standard practice, that in an an appeal, a sanctioning admin whose sanction is being appealed always comments in their own section. You should move your comment from Result of the appeal section. I've never seen that done before, in any appeal, including the many tens where I was the sanctioning admin (and had remained uninvolved throughout probably all of them). El_C 18:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since it's likely gonna be lifted, I guess it doesn't really matter. But please keep in mind for future decorum. El_C 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with lifting here. I think the appeal statement is acceptable; also from what I can see the user has never been blocked or reported here for a violation, so 2 1/2 years is more than enough time to ask for a second chance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympian

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 Olympian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Olympian (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: WP:ARBAA2

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

1 December 2022 cites a Turkish tourist website that denies the Armenian Genocide as a reliable source
1 December 2022 cites Maxime Gauin, an Armenian genocide denier,[1] with a particularly inflammatory anti-Armenian article
1 December 2022 cites Jörg Baberowski, a Clean Wehrmacht revisionist
2 December 2022 after removing the tourist website, replaces it with a "academic source" that is actually another Armenian Genocide denier, Justin McCarthy
3 December 2022 cited sources for strongly contentious claims that they did not actually state

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 21 October 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Olympian recently created a new article that uses several sources denying the Armenian Genocide. Olympian showed no regard for what is considered a reliable source, only for sources that confirmed the narrative he wanted to push. The article itself is a neologism and much of its text is original research. Olympian made several outlandish claims, such as "ethnic cleansing was caused by the loyalty and favour of the Azerbaijanis to the Ottoman Turks", which the citations Olympian used did not actually say. Several other third-party sources cited for "massacres" also failed verification (explained in detail here). --Dallavid (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympian I believed that you had merely made a mistake at first by using a genocide denial source. But you added multiple other genocide denial sources, including replacing genocide denial sources with other genocide denial sources. Even if this was all unintentional, it's concerning that you didn't do the bare minimum to check the reliability of the sources. The Gauin paper states "the Republic of Armenia exists due to a continuous process of ethnic cleansing". If you could not tell that this incredibly offensive and vitriolic essay was not reliable, you should not be editing articles related to Armenia.

And nowhere in my report did I say you support genocide denial by using these sources, I was clearly pointing out why these sources should've been immediately recognizable as unreliable. Pointing out WP:FRINGE POV pushing is not a personal attack, it's criticizing the content. Could you please explain what compelled you to type "ethnic cleansing was caused by the loyalty and favour of the Azerbaijanis to the Ottoman Turks" when the attached citation stated nothing even remotely similar to that?

"By writing this article I was trying to shed light on other atrocities that occurred in this time"

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Dallavid (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning Olympian

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 Olympian

Throughout his report, Dallavid has downright misrepresented the facts in order to support the notion that the entire article is original research, you can see this in my reply debunking his unsubstantiated allegations. In regards to the usage of the Turkish tourist website, Maxime Gauin, and Justin McCarthy – because exact numbers regarding the massacres are elusive, I used these sources' numbers without conducting a thorough background check, which is an indictment of my ability as an editor which I've since become aware of and will work more carefully in future to avoid – in saying that, I did delete the sources as soon as they were pointed out to be unreliable as I was previously unaware that they were problematic and had not intended to use them after knowing that they were unreliable [3][4][5]. Moreover, in his report, Dallavid is implying that I support Armenian genocide denial by using these sources: the fact is that I myself am an Armenian whose family fled the genocide, so I categorically reject the notion that I in any way support its denial and want to ensure to whoever is involved that it's certainly not the case. Notwithstanding that this statement by Dallavid "only for sources that confirmed the narrative he wanted to push" constituted a blatant personal attack, by writing this article I was trying to shed light on other atrocities that occurred in this time, as numerous reliable sources support the fact that Azerbaijanis were subject to massacres and expulsions at the hands of Armenians in the post-WW1 period. Finally, the statement Dallavid mentions that was unsourced simply had the wrong page number/author as I explained to him already, I also deleted it immediately after it was pointed out. – Olympian ^loquere 12:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C I never intentionally used those sources, and in fact, I removed the problematic sources immediately after they were pointed out to be denialist. To reiterate, I don't support Armenian genocide denialism (I'm from a family of survivors), so it's extremely disrespectful that Dallavid has misrepresented my position to claim that I am and that I intentionally used those sources. Just to be perfectly clear, this article has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide, and simply relates to massacres against Azerbaijanis in the first Armenian Republic as supported by a plethora of sources—the article barely mentions the genocide twice, referencing the following authors: Stuart J Kaufman and Thomas de Waal, who are cited to describe the weary state of the Armenian nation after years of being exterminated from Western Armenia, and the hundreds of thousands of refugees' need for housing (at the expense of the Azeri population). Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Olympian

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

Support sanctions due to contributions that at the very least seem to bolster Armenian genocide denialist claims. And expressing these as representative of scholarly consensus, which they most certainly are not. El_C 19:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Saucysalsa30

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: "A six-month topic ban from the topic of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, including Peter Galbraith and Iraqi chemical attacks"

AE section

Log

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

Notification of that administrator: Diff

Statement by Saucysalsa30

I was given a topic ban primarily on the basis of false accusations and misrepresentations that I refuted and addressed in the AE section. The details are in my comments there.

It was becoming clear in AE that my addressing and refuting the accusations was not fully read or understood by the imposing admin. After the TBAN, I asked them about it on their Talk page, demonstrating again as an example how the primary accusation regarding Peter Galbraith was false and misrepresented (other accusations and the overall substance were also refuted on the AE section). I was confused they said I "failed to address the substance of the complaint"[6], which was extreme, considering my comments mostly refuted the overall complaint made in AE.

The AE section also pointed the other crux of the complaint justifying the sanction, in August on Talk:Anfal_campaign, where a whole consensus and RfC were opposed to [accuser]'s disruptive editing and on my side, where [accuser] lashed out at myself and other editors. The imposing admin perhaps misunderstood agreements and constructive discussions there that led to positive article changes as "bludgeoning". It seemed interpreted that long comments with sources and building agreement, such as Buidhe and GregKaye can attest, equals bludgeoning, when in fact we were aligned and in agreement. I now see how that can be misinterpreted. In reality [accuser] was actually bludgeoning against full consensus which seemed missed. My comments and consensus building led to substantial improvements by editors to an article in poor shape. In that matter things only went south when [accuser] stalked me, made a lengthy PA against me, and followed by attacking multiple editors and bludgeoning. Novem Linguae apologized to me and labeled [accuser]'s activity as a negative on the Talk page.[7] My responses to [accuser] on Talk:Anfal_campaign were refuting their off-topic PA and aspersions which other editors condemned as disruptive, and on AE I only included some history of [accuser]'s harassment against me to show it is a longtime norm and not an uninvolved editor. This included the most recent occasion on Peter Galbraith in October, where [accuser] stalked me to the article where he had no prior activity and was disruptive (with the respective false accusations refuted on AE). Acroterion at least conceded on the Peter Galbraith matter, which was the primary accusation and the other of the "behaviors" justifying the sanction, although with "litigate individual issues away" [8], which was not my aim.

The error uncontroversially made: I apologize for "taking the bait"[9] which led to all this, by someone who has harassed me for a couple years. I should've known better and it was an error on my part. I have had no similar issues with other editors and vice versa. I acknowledge a decision was made and that regardless of mixed justification on their Talk page that there is reason to defend one's already-made decision. If the response to this appeal is "wait out the time", then all good. Happy Holidays! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion The "tendentious editing" was entirely addressed, to the point of demonstrating that an entire consensus, on the Talk page and from an RfC created by the accuser, was on my side against the accuser who was POV-pushing , making PAs, and bludgeoning against consensus to force their personal views on an article. Also, restoring NPOV with agreement from editors as Buidhe, I, and others did is the opposite of "tendentious". Are casting aspersions really necessary, like Acroterion did on their Talk page[10]? Does Acroterion have any evidence that this "approach" hasn't changed? Is acquiescing to POV pushers providing no sourcing and labelling well-sourced, uncontroversial fact as "fringe" consisting of "tendentious editing"?

"which consisted of arguing that they were right and that other editors should be sanctioned, based on private evidence that ArbCom did not act upon"

No, this is incorrect, and is evidence of inattention. Two different situations. I was "right" because I was leading consensus and significant improvements to articles, and had demonstrated that the accuser was in fact actively hounding, making personal attacks, engaging in tendentious editing against consensus, which was the disruptive editing. Then made blatantly false and refused accusations in the AE report that Acroterion didn't disagree was misrepresented/false, but waved this away as "litigating". Nothing to do with ArbCom.

Acroterion has the ArbCom situation mixed up too, because I didn't provide "private evidence". The accuser did, which was accusing me of making a real-life threat against them, which ArbCom threw out because it was a ridiculous lie. [11][12] I pointed it out in AE to show a recent extreme instance of blatant lying against me by that user, like the AE section was full of and proven as such. To be clear, it was the accuser, not me, who provided "private evidence". I didn't provide "private evidence" to ArbCom, but only let them know, on Barkeep49's advice, with diffs that the accuser was deceitful[13].

Acroterion's statement demonstrates that the sanction is at least in large part the result of negligence or inattention, considering the admission that the decision was based on misunderstanding who did what and tying together two separate matters, while ignoring what the argument was based on. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acroterion

I see nothing new here, nor do I see evidence that SaucySalsa30 has changed their tendentious approach to Wikipedia, which is the source of their sanction, and which they've never addressed. This appears to be a shorter continuation of their approach to the initial sanctions request, which consisted of arguing that they were right and that other editors should be sanctioned, based on private evidence that ArbCom did not act upon, and that their sanction must be the result of negligence or inattention to the correctness of their conduct. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Saucysalsa30

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Saucysalsa30

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

192.80.162.118

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 192.80.162.118

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 192.80.162.118 (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/Iranian politics and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

10:22, 6 December 2022: First edit incorrectly accusing a living subject of "publish[ing] a false report".
10:09, 7 December 2022: First revert incorrectly accusing a living subject of "publish[ing] a misleading article" and "spreading false news".
01:06, 9 December 2022: First revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.
04:50, 11 December 2022: Second revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.
11:08, 11 December 2022: Third revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

192.80.162.118 refuses to stop editing warring/reinstating unverified original research by way of WP:SYNTH/WP:COATRACK material to The New York Times journalist Farnaz Fassihi's WP:BLP, even after it has been patiently, exhaustively explained to them on the talk page that this is a violation of Wikipedia's content policies. The thrust of the edits is to disparage Fassihi for co-authoring a New York Times article related to the ongoing Mahsa Amini protests that had an arguably overstated headline which was modified before Fassihi even contributed to the article, based on tweets and secondary sources that do not directly refer to the article (except for one source that mentions the original headline in passing), none of which mention Fassihi's name. I am requesting that 192.80.162.118 be banned from Fassihi's page to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning 192.80.162.118

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 192.80.162.118

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 192.80.162.118

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 149: / Line 149: @@
 The error uncontroversially made: I apologize for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_take_the_bait "taking the bait"][https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F#Not_feeding_the_trolls] which led to all this, by someone who has harassed me for a couple years. I should've known better and it was an error on my part. I have had no similar issues with other editors and vice versa. I acknowledge a decision was made and that regardless of mixed justification on their Talk page that there is reason to defend one's already-made decision. If the response to this appeal is "wait out the time", then all good. Happy Holidays! [[User:Saucysalsa30|Saucysalsa30]] ([[User talk:Saucysalsa30|talk]]) 22:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Acroterion|Acroterion]] The "tendentious editing" was entirely addressed, to the point of demonstrating that an entire consensus, on the Talk page and from an RfC created by the accuser, was on my side against the accuser who was POV-pushing , making PAs, and bludgeoning against consensus to force their personal views on an article. Also, restoring NPOV with agreement from editors as Buidhe, I, and others did is the opposite of "tendentious". Are casting aspersions really necessary, like Acroterion did on their Talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAcroterion&type=revision&diff=1121221707&oldid=1121214694]? Does Acroterion have any evidence that this "approach" hasn't changed? Is [[Talk:Vietnam War#Including Star Wars in "In popular culture" section|acquiescing to POV pushers]] providing no sourcing and labelling well-sourced, uncontroversial fact as "fringe" consisting of "tendentious editing"?
+:{{tq|"which consisted of arguing that they were right and that other editors should be sanctioned, based on private evidence that ArbCom did not act upon"}}
+:No, this is incorrect, and is evidence of inattention. Two different situations. I was "right" because I was leading consensus and significant improvements to articles, and had demonstrated that the accuser was in fact actively hounding, making personal attacks, engaging in tendentious editing against consensus, which was the disruptive editing. Then made blatantly false and refused accusations in the AE report that Acroterion didn't disagree was misrepresented/false, but waved this away as "litigating". Nothing to do with ArbCom.
+:Acroterion has the ArbCom situation mixed up too, because I didn't provide "private evidence". The accuser did, which was accusing me of making a real-life threat against them, which ArbCom threw out because it was a ridiculous lie. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=1102072773&oldid=1102066350][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheTimesAreAChanging&type=revision&diff=1102280728&oldid=1102251585] I pointed it out in AE to show a recent extreme instance of blatant lying against me by that user, like the AE section was full of and proven as such. To be clear, it was the accuser, not me, who provided "private evidence". I didn't provide "private evidence" to ArbCom, but only let them know, on Barkeep49's advice, with diffs that the accuser was deceitful[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASaucysalsa30&type=revision&diff=1102254914&oldid=1102253749].
+:Acroterion's statement demonstrates that the sanction is at least in large part the result of negligence or inattention, considering the admission that the decision was based on misunderstanding who did what and tying together two separate matters, while ignoring what the argument was based on. [[User:Saucysalsa30|Saucysalsa30]] ([[User talk:Saucysalsa30|talk]]) 20:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 ===Statement by Acroterion===

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