Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
 |
Important information
Please use this page only to:
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. 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 request may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a discretionary sanction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
lists.wikimedia.orgContents
TracyMcClark[edit]
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 TracyMcClark[edit]
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- TracyMcClark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- :
ARBPIA DS, consensus must be reached before reinserting a reverted edit.
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Mar 30 I remove the word "steel coated"
- Mar 30 I remove "steel coated"
- Mar 30 TracyMcClark reverts the first edit.
- Mar 30 TracyMcClark reverts the second edit
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 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 Sept 27 2016.
- Was warned on his talk page to self-revert before being reported.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Firstly, the reason why this is a day late is because as an observant Jew I was offline the past day.
In addition to the diffs above, before filing this complaint, I posted on his talk page that his post violates DS. He refused and said it was a content dispute. I then posted again, that regardless if he feels it's a content dispute, his post still violated DS. He refused and then told me to stay off his page. I didn't want to file this complaint, after all, I do believe we should warn first and then let the editor revert and use the talk page. In this case, that didn't happen. (Should we use rubber coated or just rubber bullets, can indeed be discussed on the talk page. The article I read said that it was a rubber bullet, to claim it in Wiki's voice as rubber coated steel bullet may not be correct. But regardless, we have an egregious violation of the DS, I warned him twice and even gave 25 hours to revert.)
- Seraphimblade As to why I reverted, if you read the article, the Israeli statement is that it is a rubber bullet. IIRC, I checked one article and I didn't see any mention of steel coated, and in one, it was in the headline, but I didn't see it in the article, but I did see the Israeli mention of rubber bullets. After TMC said it was in the article, I did look more carefully and did see it, but again, he should have used the talk page and pointed it out. We have DS for a reason. I don't care to have anyone blocked and a warning that after a revert, you use the talk page and not reinsert is all that is needed. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- (Please allow my edit here, it's easier to converse) That could be the whole point of DS. TMC should have gone to the talk page and posted that. I was working on the assumption (as someone who is familiar with firearms) that there are many types of bullets, and that rubber bullets are not the same as rubber coated steel bullets. Had he posted on the talkpage and not reverted, we wouldn't be here. As you pointed out in other AE actions, TMC did not follow procedure. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning TracyMcClark[edit]
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 TracyMcClark[edit]
Statement by Kingsindian[edit]
This is one of the more silly things to fight over. As this B'Tselem page makes clear, what Israel calls "rubber bullets" are actually "rubber-coated steel bullets". There's no contradiction here between the two positions. To be clear, we should use the actual term rather than the euphemism. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
-
- It would have been better if you tried to address the point of the disagreement rather than concentrate on the procedural matter. It's ok if you didn't read the news article carefully at first, and missed the "rubber-coated" part. The objective should primarily be to get the facts right, not argue about who reverted who, and who broke DS. If you edited it to read something like rubber-coated bullets (which Israel claims are rubber bullets), a compromise could have been reached - assuming nobody pointed out that they are actually the same thing. Nothing is lost if the WP:WRONGVERSION stays up a few hours or days while consensus is reached. Bringing someone to AE over trivial matters is not helpful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]
Result concerning TracyMcClark[edit]
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- So, here's what I'm seeing here. Sir Joseph changed two instances of "rubber-coated steel bullets" to "rubber bullets" in the article, claiming the cited source ([2]) didn't contain that wording: [3]. I normally would dismiss this as a content dispute, but after a quick look, I saw that the cited source not only does have the exact wording "rubber-coated steel bullets", and very early on in the article as well. So, @Sir Joseph:, I'm interested to know why you left an edit summary indicating the cited source doesn't say those words, when it clearly does. Misrepresenting references and falsifying edit summaries do go to behavior rather than content issues, so I hope there's a better explanation than that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
-
- Sir Joseph, thanks for your explanation. I'll take your word for it that missing that in the cited source was accidental. Still, what I see here is where you made a clear error, another editor corrected it (in the process, making a minor error in procedure), and you, rather than telling them "Thanks, missed that", proceed to drag them to AE for a minor breach of protocol made while fixing your mistake. Certainly, we can all make a mistake or miss something, and I get that, but what apparently happened after concerns me a whole lot more than the minor protocol breach, to be quite honest. DS is to stop disruptive behavior, not play "gotcha" if someone misses a step but isn't behaving harmfully. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- And now we move somewhat into the realm of farce, as I note you made a comment in another editor's section, while seeming to indicate you knew you aren't supposed to do that. If you're going to haul another editor to AE for something this minor, I would at least hope you would be scrupulous in following the protocols yourself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- This looks to be a storm in a teacup that shouldn't have come here. I recommend the request is closed with no action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
TheBD2000[edit]
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 TheBD2000[edit]
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- TheBD2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :
1RR and no reinstatement of challenged material without consensus on Protests against Donald Trump
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 2 April Edited article lede to include disputed material, specifically, "multiple cities" which puts undue weight/influence on the statement.
- 2 April Reinstated that material after it was removed by revert and without engaging in talk page discussion to create consensus.
- 2 April Again reinstated challenged material without discussion, and has refused request to self-revert.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I challenged the edit by reversion and opened a talk page discussion, and TheBD2000 has simply ignored it; the user here has violated both 1RR and the requirement not to reinstate challenged edits without talk page consensus. They have refused to engage in discussion and refused a request to self-revert. I acknowledge that I (inadvertently) violated 1RR as well, and accept any sanctions resulting from that, but I was attempting to work in good faith with the editor and got nothing but blind reverts for my trouble. Refusing to engage in good-faith discussion and consensus-building is not conducive to editing sensitive topics such as this one.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheBD2000[edit]
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 TheBD2000[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]
Result concerning TheBD2000[edit]
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
