Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

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.

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

Marcelus

No action, the matter is a content dispute and no restrictions were violated. The parties are advised to use dispute resolution if discussion cannot lead to agreement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Marcelus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ed1974LT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Marcelus (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:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

2 January 2024 (nonconsensual removal-reverting of content)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

blocking history for edit warring and violating 1RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area
27 September 2023 (0RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area)
29 November 2023 (1RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area)

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Hello, I noticed that last year User:Marcelus was sanctioned with a 0RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area and was previously blocked for edit warring and violating 1RR restriction. On 29 November 2023 Marcelus successfully appealed his 0RR restriction and 1RR restriction was again applied to him. What is concerning is that factually Marcelus with his 2 January 2024 edit arbitrarily completely reverted content which was fairly recently added by another user with 8 November 2023 edit in a contentious topics procedure article (Eastern Europe area). It is noteworthy that no consensus was reached to edit or remove this content in talk page discussion (where Marcelus and I participated), but by ignoring this Marcelus still made this non-consensual edit (revert) despite his history of disruptive reverting and multiple sanctioning for that in Eastern Europe topic area. I think such editing style by Marcelus can be disruptive in this contentious topic area, especially knowing his editing history and multiple sanctions for reverting other users content in this topic area. I believe that user with such sanctioning history should willingly seek consensus and not edit (revert) discussed content arbitrarily how he personally want.--Ed1974LT (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarcelus&diff=1194145114&oldid=1191571124

Discussion concerning Marcelus

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 Marcelus

8 Nov edit is WP:SYNTH. The source referenced ([1]) mentions nothing about Báthory's "inauguration" as Grand Duke, instead it mentions that the four GDL senators wanted a separate act of inauguration during the negotiations before the conclusion of the Union of Lublin (1569 vs 1580). So the conclusion that the Báthory's ceremony of May 29, 1580 coincided with these attempts is OR. No source connects these two facts or make such implication.

Comment: In general, the very idea that there was a separate inauguration of the Grand Duke in 1580 in Vilnius is WP:FRINGE. It is actually only mentioned on the website of the Vilnius palace in its description of the exhibition of the jewels of the royal treasury at Wawel Castle in Kraków ([2]]). If historians actually believed that this happened it would be an extremely important event, which would be mentioned in every book on the history of Poland, Lithuania or the Republic. In fact, what took place then was the ceremonial handing over of the papal blessed sword and hat, which had traditionally been given to basically every ruler of Poland, to Stephen Báthory going to war with Moscow. Antemurale Christianitatis etc. And the sword itself was given through the efforts of Polish senator Paweł Uchański and not the Lithuanian lords.Marcelus (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Marcelus

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

Ed1974LT, your current statement only shows Marcelus making one edit (which probably could fairly be classed as a revert), but that does not violate 1RR. Were there any other instances of edit warring? If that's all that happened, I'm inclined to close this with no action as a content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should be closed with no action. This is a normal content dispute where one editor disagrees with how to improve an article. This issue is already being discussed at the article's talk page and there was consensus among a small number of editors to make that change. Since Ed1974LT disagrees with the change, they should use our normal dispute resolution tools. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GalantFan

GalantFan is topic banned indefinitely from gender-related disputes or controversies and people associated with them, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:41, 11 January 2024 (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 GalantFan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Callitropsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GalantFan (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/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topics designation

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

19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC): Removing negative sourced content from Men Going Their Own Way and replacing it with positive, unsourced content
21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC), 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC): More unsourced changes to the article's lead without consensus on the talk page
23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC), 20:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC): Repeatedly changing "members" to "supporters" on Men Going Their Own Way
17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 17:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 18:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Edit warring; was p-blocked shortly afterward
Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#MGTOW communities? Members?: I know this isn't a diff, but GalantFan's comments throughout the discussion illustrate a pattern of bludgeoning and WP:NOTFORUM violations.
19:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC): ~~Removing a comment by another editor and~~ starting a new section to complain that the article is non-neutral and needs more sources without suggesting specific changes
20:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 21:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Edit warring to reinstate the comment added in the previous diff that was repeatedly removed for violating WP:NOTFORUM
21:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Using the talk page to complain about other editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC): Blocked for a week by Tamzin for disruptive editing related to this ANI thread. Talk page access was later revoked for continued battleground conduct while blocked.
18:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Partially blocked from Men Going Their Own Way for a week by ScottishFinnishRadish

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Contentious topics alert at 00:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A pretty clear-cut case of battleground conduct. I didn't take a hard look into their previous edits beyond a glance at the ANI thread that resulted in their first block. It should be noted that the editor who started that thread was an abusive sockpuppeteer, which may be a mitigating factor. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 22:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Fixed, thanks. I also agree that we can AGF that the removal of another editor's comment was unintentional. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 06:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1194228489

Discussion concerning GalantFan

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 GalantFan

1 No I did not add any unsourced content. I summarized content from the history and ideology subsections in the lede.

Other editors tell me to discuss the article on the talk page and then REPEATEDLY delete my discussions of the article on the talk page.

They tell me to explain why it needs to be changed and then delete my explanation of why.

They explain that consensus needs to be reached and then tell me why they ignore everyone who disagrees with them.

They alter the POV of the article and then complain when parts of the *original* POV are restored. GalantFan (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Callitropsis also deleted another editors comments about the article after Sangdeboeuf also deleted another editors comments about the article. DIFF

Previously it was proven that editor GreenCows was using multiple sock puppets to create a false impression of consensus on hundreds of articles and to camouflage hundreds of instances of white washing and POV edits. GalantFan (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

It's true that GalantFan's behavior has been obnoxious overall, displaying a repeated failure or refusal to listen to what others are saying. But I think the removal of Writ Keeper's comment (#6 above) was probably a simple edit conflict; as GF indicated on their user talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC) edited 06:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callitropsis: a bunch of the links in the evidence section point to the wrong diffs, usually the ones immediately before the edits in question, FYI. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the talk page history, I was probably too quick to remove several off-topic posts by GalantFan, which seems to have encouraged them to dig in their heels in response to a perceived attack instead of listening. I should have followed WP:TALKO and used {{collapse}} instead of removing posts outright. I'll try to be better about that in the future. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GalantFan

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

As an administrative note, this editor was notified regarding the CT area on 4 January ([3]), so we can only take AE action related to what they did after this time. There are some diffs in the report which are indeed after the notice, so I will take a look at those to determine whether action is required for those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI WP:CTOP says "Edits made before an editor was aware of a contentious topic designation may still be considered as part of a pattern of behavior in future enforcement processes if those processes primarily concern post-awareness conduct." Galobtter (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely, pre-warning behavior can (and should) be considered. But there still must be a violation of some kind after it to apply CT sanctions. I think there is here, but I'm still going through the body of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the edit warring and other misbehavior here, I think I would indefinitely topic ban GalantFan from the subject of men's rights movements. They can then, from there, either demonstrate that they can learn to do better, or go on to harsher sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been considering a block because of their PAs on their own talk page. Calling editors dishonest, also this:"Regarding "consensus isn't a head count". Of course not. Consensus obviously means whoever can camp on the article the longest and delete everything that anybody else writes. Then you lied about me making unsourced edits when all I did is use the lede to summarize parts of the ideology and history. GalantFan (talk) 9:23 am, Today (UTC+0)" Doug Weller talk 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Radish has blocked GalantFan from MGTOW for a week for edit warring. I would not object to further sanctioning for incivility, Doug. Bishonen | tålk 12:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I don't object to any further blocks for incivility or general battleground editing. I've been pretty under the weather and medicated so I didn't want to do anything requiring too much unclouded judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish All things considered, I now think a topic ban from men’s rights movements is the best solution which will with all the issues. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade and Doug Weller about topic banning GalantFan, except that it might be difficult to define "men's rights movements" unambiguously. How about a topic ban from all articles in Category:Manosphere (and their talkpages)? Of course any attempt to change the categorisation in order to to allow editing of an article would be disallowed. Feel better, Radish! Bishonen | tålk 22:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I think we've tried category based topic bans before, and I don't think with much success. It lets people keep nipping right around the edges. With the normal "broadly construed" topic ban, the responsibility is on the restricted editor to stay well clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a gender related ban would cover it all. Doug Weller talk 21:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Doug. Since Gender and sexuality is already a designated contentious topic (which the user has been alerted to), do you guys think we should t-ban from that? Or more narrowly? Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I just reviewed their edits, and I think the full GENSEX topic ban is fine, since it's not a topic they normally edit. Easier to go with the standard rather than something narrower with uncertainty around the edges. I also think, after reviewing their edits, we'll end up back here if they end up editing any other contentious topic. They have a history of this style of battleground editing on many of the articles and topics they've been involved with. Also, thanks for the well wishes, Bishonen. Feeling mostly better now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. Unless there's any objections within the next day or so, will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CanterburyUK

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 CanterburyUK

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vladimir.copic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CanterburyUK (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/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

18 December 2023 Inclusion of information regarding A-I conflict in a BLP article. Information was sourced to primary sources, WP:DAILYEXPRESS and opinion pieces and some direct quotations are not followed by citations. This seems to be pushing a certain POV regarding Jones. I reverted these edits.
8 January 2024 Inserting information on the same topic regarding A-I conflict in a BLP article. Again the information is primarily cited to opinion pieces as well as primary sources and Wikipedia. Quotations are lengthy and some are without citation. There is a section about the 7/10 Hamas attack which is cited to sources which do not mention Jones at all. I reverted this.
9 January 2024 Reinsertion of above information.
9 January 2024 To their credit they did open a talk page discussion about this.
9 January 2024 Added information about Owen Jones and the A-I conflict to a different BLP article. There does not seem to be a DUE case for this as it is cited to a primary source and an opinion piece by the subject of the article. I have now reverted this.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

28 January 2023 Indefinitely blocked from Jordan Peterson and Talk:Jordan Peterson

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

8 January 2023 Informed of BLP discretionary sanctions.
18 December 2023 Informed of A-I contentious topic.
9 January 2024 Warned about adding contentious information to BLP articles.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media. The information they are including is excessively long, poorly sourced, heavily reliant on opinion pieces and direct quotations (many of which are not cited). There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV. Given the editor is blocked from Jordan Peterson, they appear to have prior issues editing BLP issues. They were also recently warned by an editor about edit warring at Konstantin Kisin. The editor appears to struggle with placing and using citations and identifying appropriate sources for BLP articles. I'm not advocating for any specific remedy, but I do not want to catch a block for reverting or similar in the A-I conflict area so I would appreciate an admin's eyes on it.

For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CanterburyUK is continuing to edit in a way that shows a lack of understanding of DUE and sourcing. See this edit introducing an entire paragraph (possibly with copyvio) about a NYT correction into the article of the recently deceased Palestinian writer Refaat Alareer and this edit which removes RS citations and replaces it with an ill-formatted citation to Wikipedia. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning CanterburyUK

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 CanterburyUK

Apologies that I am late commenting here.

Taking item (5) first: the Brendan_O'Neill_(columnist) page

User:Vladimir.copic reverted without using the Talk page - his revert comment was: "I do not see a DUE case for this". This was not helpful - because a superficial read of the paragraph directly above the one reverted: is equally open to that criticism; yet was left intact by them. I have today now asked on the Talk page, for explanation. In the 4 days since they reverted, I have not reverted back.

(Off topic: I would prefer it if User:Vladimir.copic would use the page Talk when he reverts me in several pages. It encourages dialogue rather than what is currently feeling combative.)

(B) Items 1-4: the Owen Jones page

Off-Topic: Vladimir.copic' has not added any words to the page since at least 2018. Neither has Aquillion (unless my search was mistaken)

In December in Talk I initiated a section about lack of new content. I notice on Jan 12th that another editor raised the same issue to my December one, they wrote: "the page lacks content. I notice when edits are made to add content they are reverted, the article has stagnated...Subjects he is active on.. added by various users, result in reverts here"

I have replied there - at length and invite this Arbitration process to read that. Noteworthy is that 4 editors including me wanted to keep the Hamas section (they made small edits to it) versus only 2 against (Aquillion and @Vladimir.copic).

I request the Arbitration process to notice that I have not pursued long edit wars: I have let those two users revert my content after an initial day or two push-and-shove.

Re (1),2,3

User:Vladimir.copic writes: > This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media.

Not just me - 3 other editors were happy for that content to be there - they all made small edits to that text.

> .. many of which are not cited

Not true - checking now, only 1 was not sourced. The Editor could have reverted just that one - instead of all.

> There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV.

I myself deleted that section within 24 hours of the editor flagging it up.

Regards the WP:DAILYEXPRESS mention - the article I quoted was by a notable person Andrew Neill not an unknown or gossip or etc journalist. - so it seemed OK to over-ride the blanket ban on that newspaper.

Re (4) This claim is misleading regards date - I posted on Talk BEFORE I posted any new content, back in December, not January: Has nothing of note happened to Jones the last few years?

Yet User:Vladimir.copic did not enter the Talk page when he first reverted. It was me that took the initiative to encourage the dialogue.

I ask the process to assume good faith. I leave pages better than they were before (eg

Owen Jones book has better coverage)
BLP: Michael Sandel change
Jacob_Bronowski alot of new content.

Thanks.

PS and off-topic:- 'Vladimir.copic' has said in this page 'For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account.' Which was correct re Etiqutte (Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.) Given that they follow Jones, yet they have not found anything in recent years of following Jones that is worth adding to the wiki page -given how sparse it's content is? I don't follow Jones, and yet I have done more to add helpful content to the page.

PPS: and off-topic: Wikipedia:Etiquette - Un-expert editors like myself would find it more welcoming here if the 2 editors above applied this: simple things like : in the case when reverting a block of 5 or 6 sources that clearly took the editor time to source - maybe (a) to revert with positive words first 'thanks for taking the effort to find these sources..' and (b) immediately start a section on Talk about the subject.

Quoting from the guidance: "Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages".

I have not had friendly notes from them.

And: "Avoid reverts whenever possible" Yet reverts seems to be the main activity of the editors on this page:

PPPS - Off-topic: other posts by Vladimir.copic, may fail the UNDUE test he applies to the Jones page more strictly: he created a whole heading here for just one issue:

Moved from above section

What date was his Tweet? what did he say? CanterburyUK (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CanterburyUK

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

I'm very concerned with what I'm seeing with BLP editing, especially with the prior ban from Jordan Peterson. At this point, I think I would topic ban from both BLPs and the ARBPIA area, but when someone needs to be repeatedly restricted, that also leads to the question of whether they ought to continue editing at all, as often restrictions just result in moving the disruptive behavior around. CanterburyUK, if you have anything to say in regards to that, now would be the time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it doesn't seem CanterburyUK is going to have anything to say here, I think we need to figure out what to do given that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This certainly falls below the care I like to see when editing BLPs, especially at the intersection with another contentious topic. My concern is, based on their behavior at Jordan Peterson, they will be unwilling to take the advice of more knowledgeable editors, and create enormous time sinks over plainly unsuitable content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, how do you feel about a topic ban on any BLP edit also covered by another CTOP? Or just a BLP topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that CanterburyUK has been editing since 2008, the additions to the Owen Jones article are not only a red flag from a NPOV perspective, but also regarding editing competence. How can an editor of 15 years still not be aware of WP:UNDUE (this edit makes over 45% of the Jones article about his views on the 7 October attack), MOS:DATE and basic matters such as how to place inline citations? Number 5 7 23:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15 years, but only 655 edits in that time. In terms of knowing the basics, someone who makes an edit per week for 15 years will often know less than someone who's been editing actively for 5 days. That's not to say that action isn't needed here; just that we shouldn't be surprised by things like issues with inline citations and date-formatting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given CanterburyUK's response here is just this (plus a request elsewhere to Vladimir.copic to withdraw the AE request), then I think at the very least a CTOP/BLP topic ban is appropriate. Number 5 7 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at the very least. If they were merely trying to shoehorn material into Jones' article, we could even use partial blocks, but the fact that they're trying to insert UNDUE material about Jones into other BLPs (Brendan O'Neill) shows that they need to be kept away from those topic areas. To be honest, given their editing history and existing partial block, I don't think we'd be losing a huge amount with an indef either. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My lesson learned from issuing two BLP TBANs is that if you think you need to ban someone from BLP, 95 times out of 100 what you really need is to indef them. WP:BLP represents our core content policies at their most strongly-enforced, so if someone is seriously failing to comply with it, then they are seriously failing to understand how Wikipedia works. And if someone cannot comply with the policy as written, it is unlikely that they will be able to comply with the broadest category of TBAN we have at our disposal. Reading this case and the Peterson case, I favor an indef. An unblock appeal should focus on the BLP policy and how it interacts with WP:NPOV, particularly the latter's section WP:DUE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CanterburyUK's response to the case, posted today, only makes me more convinced that an indef is the only solution here. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As issues have continued since your and my comments, I have indefinitely blocked under ARBBLP. After one year this will become a regular admin block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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