Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE 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.

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SashiRolls (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#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29, requesting:

1. Interaction ban
2. Indefinite block for continuing same exact behavior after expiration of prior six (6) month block. [14]
3. NOTE about Interaction ban: Trouble with one-user-interaction-ban is user has history of WIKIHOUNDING against multiple editors and admins.
   • Examples: NuclearWarfare after getting sanctioned [15] [16] [17], and Neutrality [18], and myself [19] [20].

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

Summary: Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem, and (self-admitted) WP:WIKIHOUNDING. [21] [22]

1. 20 June 2017 - Block expires after blocked six (6) months for Disruptive editing and Wikihounding by Dennis Brown — block expired two (2) days ago. [23]
2. 00:11, 21 June 2017 - As noted, below, by Timothyjosephwood, casting WP:ASPERSIONS about me without even notifying me. Admits to working on unfounded "story" about me based solely on my high-quality new article creations.
3. 11:56, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls shows up at page BullRangifer acknowledged that I had greatly improved, Bibliography of Donald Trump [24]. User has never edited this page, prior to my improvement work on it [25].
4. 13:06, 22 June 2017 - Same pattern as noted in prior AE report [26] -- WP:NPA, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on talk page of article, disrupting formal dispute resolution RFC with irrelevant commentary about one individual editor: "Given the recent creations of categories" -- user links to categories I created. Comments about new articles I created. Nothing to do with the ongoing RFC about a different issue. Uses an ongoing RFC dispute resolution process to disrupt and inject commentary about one single editor.
5. 13:46, 22 June 2017 -- Again, same behavior. Separate comment, same talk page, same casting WP:ASPERSIONS, irrelevant comment about new articles I've created recently. "Congratulations on the 18 book reviews you've added in the last 20 days (430K)." User seemingly has taken the time to add up all the kilobytes and calculate how much content was generated from my new article creation work. Sarcastic. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Same exact behavior as prior block.
6. 14:30, 22 June 2017 - Again at Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump - Sarcastic. Irrelevant commentary focusing on one individual editor. User takes time to post huge tabulated index of my new article creation work. [27]. Removed by Salvidrim! with this page is for discussion of improvements to Bibliography of Donald Trump, not for listing other contributions of other editors
7. 15:10, 22 June 2017 -- SashiRolls adds evidence in his response to this AE request. SashiRolls admits: "I have indeed decided to follow his contributions to the encylopedia." Admits his edits to page Bibliography of Donald Trump, after I had greatly improved the page, was his, "first ever intervention on a Trump page unless I'm mistaken". Note that his "table" uses the word "below" 7 times. He appears to have copied this data from an off-wiki attack harassment site.
8. 16:39, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls admits to "sifting through the diffs" spending an inordinate amount of time going through my edits. SashiRolls seems unable to comprehend working on a new article in a text file naturally means taking more than "10 minutes to prepare". SashiRolls says, "I have not sought to identify anyone working through the Sagecandor account as a RW person." and yet he has harassed me offsite including in at least three (3) separate websites including apparently his own personal website where he created an entire harassment page about me.
9. 16:58, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls changes header level names at Arbitration Enforcement to say "Defendant" and refers disparagingly to me as "Prosecutor" and "special prosecutor".

Prior behavior with multiple editors

1. September 2016 - Topic banned by NuclearWarfare, then goes and WIKIHOUNDS admin NuclearWarfare as noted at [28] and [29]
2. Admin Neutrality prior exasperation with the WIKIHOUNDING: SashiRolls: I've basically tried to avoid interacting with you, given your past conduct, but you continue to draw my name into your constantly grievance-laden posts. The fact that you bear these incredible grudges and follow editors around is extremely off-putting. [30]
3. Note that user has previously admitted the WIKIHOUNDING with comment: Yes, I am keeping an eye on you from afar [31]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19:28, 3 September 2016 Topic ban from politics related topic on a living person by NuclearWarfare.
2. 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.
3. December 2016 - blocked by Dennis Brown for six (6) months for Disruptive editing and Wikihounding after AE report with consensus from admins Laser brain DIFF, Peacemaker67 DIFF, and Timotheus Canens DIFF.

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

1. 12:59, 30 August 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by MrX.
2. 16:08, 6 November 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by Doug Weller.
3. 19:38, 14 December 2016 Reminder by Jytdog about American Politics 2. Specifically by engaging in personal attacks through use of ad hominem.
4. 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.
5. December 2016 - block notice from Dennis Brown.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notice DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I agree that after having been accused of WP:WIKIHOUNDING without evidence, and having noticed that Sage accuses a lot of people of this, I have indeed decided to follow his contributions to the encyclopedia. I would remind Salvidrim! that linking off-wiki is frowned upon based on WP:LINKLOVE. This behavioral guideline contains the root "harass" 26 times and the word "critic" once (as legitimate "critique" contained in a table heading).

In no way do I think my behavior at Bibliography of Donald Trump or at Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump (my first ever intervention on a Trump page unless I'm mistaken) wer inappropriate. Wikipedia users who are readers far outnumber Wikipedia contributors. The reader should always be kept in mind. It is therefore important to make readers aware of who the authors of many of the book review entries mentioned on the page are:

• Disinformation: 2 June 2017 | history | 16K | 27K | (DYK nomination), self-nominated it for GA (awaiting review)
• The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: 3 June 2017 | history | 18K | 18K
• Dezinformatsia: 3 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (review pending)
• The Case for Impeachment: 5 June 2017 | history | 28K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA, which it failed.
• The Plot to Hack America: 7 June 2017 | history | 26K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA (review not yet undertaken), discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
• Defeating ISIS: 8 June 2017 | history | 25K | 24K | AFD nomination, failed/withdrawn from GA, discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
• Final Report of the Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel: 10 Jun 2017 | history | 28K | 29K |
• The Terrorists of Iraq: 9 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
• An End to al-Qaeda: 9 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
• Terrorist Recognition Handbook: 10 June 2017| history | 22K | 22K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
• Trump: The Kremlin Connection: 11 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K
• Think Big and Kick Ass: 13 June 2017 | history | 38K | 38K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
• Why You Want to be Rich: 14 June 2017 | history | 20K | 22K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
• Midas Touch: 15 June 2017 | history | 23K | 24K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
• Insane Clown President: 16 June 2017 | history | 30K | 30K | DYK nomination
• Time to Get Tough: 17 June 2017 | history | 31K | 30K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review)
• Trump Tower: A Novel: 20 June 2017 | history | 18K | 21K | DYK nomination, indefinite full move protect request
• Trump 101: 22 June 2017 | history | 23K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), DYK nomination

I would suggest that administrators kindly but forcefully suggest Sagecandor employ their skills on topics other than US-Russian relations and Donald Trump, as they have already done their work here. As for an I-Ban, if it is two-way, no problem. I'm not looking for conflict with Sagecandor. I want the community to be aware of what they are doing. SashiRolls (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing creepy about sifting through the diffs that are publicly available by design in order to make our readers aware of "on whose authority" our articles have been compiled. There is absolutely nothing personal in the list above. I have not called it creepy that each book review entry took about 10 minutes to prepare and occupied a tiny part of a very long day editing elsewhere. I have not sought to identify anyone working through the Sagecandor account as a RW person. They are obviously very motivated having created all sorts of categories critical of DT (Music, Books, Films, Works, Parodies) as I mentioned on the talk page.

An I-Ban has the effect of preventing a reasonably good copy-editor from paring the text down to size a bit, but that's OK. I'm not very interested in Donald Trump.

What is creepy: TimothyJosephWood's satirical outing of me in December. (A schoolyard play on my real name + that of my mother) sort of a "we know who you are" type edit". I will be happy to provide evidence to Arbcom should that be necessary, but I think we need to move on. I did not start this AE drama; Prosecutor Sagecandor did. (once again: they have appeared in 17 AE cases now in their 80 days in the project, 7 as special prosecutor.) Though they have been taken to ANI several times, I've never sought to prosecute them. (Though on the page in question Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump, they are guilty of restoring contested content without consensus, though I gather that rule has been recently overruled.) SashiRolls (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an especially egregious demonstration of NOTHERE. Support sanctions. SashiRolls has no right to suggest another editor change editing areas. Subject experts are welcome here, and if an editor adds good content, without creating disruption, then they are welcome to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after reading the link provided below, I support an INDEF from Wikipedia. Creepy indeed! -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'm not going to have any hurt feelings over an indef. The above is just creepy AF, and this is starting to get into actual real life stalking. If there's a compelling reason to keep Sashi around I'm not seeing it... not now... all of 48 hours after their block expired. The time other editors have spent on this exact shit right here outweighs their positive contributions tenfold. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyJosephWood's satirical outing of me in December. ...Wut? I'm sure this will be good. TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I did the last block and not technically involved but think it best that other eyes review. For the record, the last block was for 6 months, had a strong consensus at WP:AE, and was done as a NON-Arb Enforcement block. It can be found here. There was some confusion on his talk page about whether it was an AE block or not, but it absolutely was a traditional block, just done at AE because it seemed unnecessary to move the case to a new venue once it has already started. As for the merits herein, I have no comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Topic ban can be indefinie and also an indefinite AE block can be made too, but this kind of block can be overturned by any admin after 1 year and 1 second, but not before 1 year. Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sashirolls went right back to hounding Sagecandor hours after his latest block expires, (and has been involved in off-wiki harassment I can't link to). I absolutely support an immediate IBAN between Sagecandor and Sashirolls, at the very least. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor requests an IBAN, and SashiRolls says he's fine with it, so I suggest we quick-close this AE with an enforceable IBAN for today. It may not solve the entirety of issues but it's an immediate solution to an immediate problem. Small steps and all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm tending to agree that this user is not a net positive to the encyclopaedia and should just be indeffed - but that can't be done as an AE action. I guess an admin could do it under their ordinary discretion, or otherwise this should probably go to WP:AN for community discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]