Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:24, 13 February 2017

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor 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 a previously alerted editor who engages 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 fewer 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.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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 other arbcom 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	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355

Kuioooooo

No action taken. Sandstein 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Kuioooooo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kuioooooo (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 :

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

Feb 5 20:53 I removed the claim that his loan from an Israeli bank is a government connection.
Feb 6 16:12 He then reverts, violating DS by not seeking consensus for a challenged edit.
I then revert back to the way it was prior to his violation of DS, (using my 1revert in the process).
Feb 6 16:14 He then reverts me violating his 1RR and DS for not seeking consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

In the talk page.
In edit notice on page when editing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764063225

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Even before my alert, he has been reverting other users without gaining consensus. Furthermore, this sentence of his, "He has received multiple loans from Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, a publicly held banking corporation organized and operating under Israeli law, and subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel-owned Bank of Israel."

seems to me to be just a weasley way to include that Kushner has a loan from Bank Hapoalim. Every bank in the world is under comprehensive supervision of the government of the country they are in. Bank Hapoalim is not a government bank and merely having a loan outstanding from that bank is not a government connection.

I have also given the editor a courtesy notice to revert and discuss but that went unheeded. User is a new editor and perhaps doesn't know the rules, but I have tried to engage and judging from his recent posts seems to be pushing an agenda.

On the talk page, he is doubling down, with this, "Bank Hapoalim is not only merely regulated under Israeli law, it's also subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel.--Kuioooooo (talk) 4:44 pm, Today (UTC−5)" Clearly someone has an agenda, when they are pushing government regulation as a source to be government connection.
Just to add, disregarding everything else, the claim that Kushner has a loan from Hapaolim is unsourced. (Which would possibly make it a BLP violation since it would insinuate that Kushner is beholden to a foreign government.)
Sandstein, I apologize, I fixed the diffs. Also, the edit notice only mentions BLP, but all the diffs I brought were after I posted the DS to his talk page. There were prior reverts, but he was not properly notified before, even though the talk page specifies. (Also, I am not sure why the claim that someone has a loan with a bank means they have contact with a government. I have an account with a US bank, does that mean I have connections with the US?)

Also, the NYTimes source was not in the edit, it was added recently. In addition, I don't appreciate being called a sockpuppet.

Georgewilliamherbert, his first revert was a violation of ds, not 1rr. His second revert was a violation of 1rr (and ds) And as for your claim of clubbing, please note I gave several courtesy warnings. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764067119

Discussion concerning Kuioooooo

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 Kuioooooo

I only revert once in 24 hrs, as allowed by the discretionary sanctions, and only reverted Sir Joseph once ever.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Sir Joseph removed well-sourced relevant content that have been in the article for sometime, and after getting reverted, they are supposed to get consensus before attempting to remove the extant version again.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section was removed earlier by a new account with 17 edits to date, the first 10 being on their own Sandbox [1] That editor was reverted by Jim1138 [2]. I strongly believe some kind of sockpuppetry is going on here.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk:Jared Kushner (Government relations section), user Sir Joseph first pretended that they couldn't find the NYTimes source that's been in the article for sometime, then claiming that stating relevant facts as they are, under relevant section, is not right.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kuioooooo

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

Sir Joseph, please format your request such that all diffs are identified by date and time. Also, tell us why you think that Kuioooooo was aware of the 1RR restriction at the time of their last revert. It doesn't seem to show up in the edit notice. Sandstein 22:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kuioooooo, please tell us why you should not be sanctioned for re-adding obviously contentious material about a WP:BLP (a) that is based only on a primary source, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and (b) is based on a source that does even not name the person at issue and seems therefore unsuited as a basis for the statement you sought to add? Sandstein 22:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can overlook the issues given that everyone backed off to the talk page. I suspect the removal by Ryk72 is correct but it's not all so obviously wrong or unsourced that zero tolerance is needed. Sir Joseph, your timeline accuses him of a problem on his first revert, which is not how it works unless 0RR is applied (and it is not for this article). AE is not a club to beat disagreeing editors with. Kuioooooo, you need to pay attention to the content criticisms in the talk page. Try and move beyond going back and forth with Sir Joseph and discuss with others there.

I would close no action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with closing as no action, but on different grounds. Even as amended the complaint does not make clear that Kuioooooo was properly notified of the applicable sanctions before the edits at issue. Closing accordingly. Sandstein 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islington Bloor

Disallowed RfC comment struck, user blocked for a week for personal attacks. Sandstein 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Islington Bloor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Islington Bloor (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#500.2F30 :

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

09/02/2017 Participating in RFC that new users shouldn't participate.

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [3]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I probably don't think any sanction is warranted against a user(though some of the comments of the user raise the question if the user is really new) but I ask that EC protection should be applied on a Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy till the end of the RFC as new users can't participate in it per language of the restriction " This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Islington Bloor

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 Islington Bloor

As I said when I restored the comment it's improper for an involved editor to remove someone else's comment. The closing admin can decide for themselves whether to accord my comment less weight becauee I'm a new editor. It's not for Shrike to, using a technicality as a pretext, ynilaterally remove a comment he coincidentally happens to disagree with.

- (responding to Laser brain's comment) I didn't edit the article. I contributed an opinion to the discussion on the talk page. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iazyges: The absurdity of your position here is I would be able to comment on a deletion discussion but not in a name change discussion. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Laser brain: I guess I could take the easy route and say that I actually am an established user who lost his password a few weeks ago and opened a new account but I see that you've actually gone to the extent of crossing out my comments in the Talk page of the article. That act is such a magnificent monument to bureaucratic stupidity and officiousness that it would be a shame to remove it and, in any case, I don't have the patience and can't be bothered to jump through whatever bureaucratic hoops are required to prove that I had a previous account and besides, even though the other account has not been accessed in weeks and cannot be accessed and this new account was opened subsequently and has not edited concurrently with any other account I'm sure you or some other bureaucratic idiot would say oh, it's a sockpuppet and then I'd have to go through some tedious lengthy procedure to prove that no, I'm not a sockpuppet. So how about this laser brain. You can let it sink in that you are a manifestation of all the worst bureaucratic stupidity of wikipedia, part of the reason why so many editors give up and leave in frustration and why the number of active editors is on the decline and why Wikipedia is becoming more and more sclerotic and I'll simply disable my account and go off and do something more productive with my time like watch paint dry. Congratulations. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iazyges: Schroedinger's Wikipedia Account? First you argue that I"m probably not a new user "suspicious for a new user" and now you argue that I obviously am a new user "your seeming lack of knowledge... seems to go against your claims"? Somehow, by your argument, I simultaneously am a new user and am not. Again, this is the sort of culture of bureaucratic stupidity and sophistry that drives people away from Wikipedia. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've scrambled my password and am now logging off in order to do something useful instead of this nonsense. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iazyges

I don't think this breaks any DS, but I do think it should get sent to either SPI, or ANI. That they commented in an RFC (or even found one) is suspicious for a new user, considering they commented before even creating their own user page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Islington Bloor: please move your comment to your own section, per instructions on the top. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I have not commented already in that "vote" under any other name or edited the article but feel free to run an analysis. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please comment in your own section. I would also say that regardless of if your claim of being a new account of an old user is true, you are REQUIRED to say so, unless you are taking a fresh start, which you obviously aren't given you outed yourself (which clean starters aren't supposed to do). Your seeming lack of knowledge in certain areas seems to go against your claims as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I don't think any action is warranted, at this point. We can just strike the comment at the RFC. If the editor continues to unstrike or reinsert the comment, then further action can be taken. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply mark the comment as a new comment? The comment is civil and constructive, the content is not at all objectionable, is it? Islington Bloor (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Exemplo347

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen an attempt by someone to get an Arb. Sanction widened because they're having a dispute with someone else. The standard methods of resolving disputes are more than sufficient to deal with comments in an RfC discussion - Dispute Resolution, AIV, SPI, even AN/I - those processes all work very well. Arb Sanctions aren't some secret weapon that can be deployed to shut users down, bypassing the usual processes that the vast majority of editors have to go through.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Islington Bloor

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

@Islington Bloor: You're not allowed to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict until you reach 30 days and 500 article edits, per the banner on that Talk page. Consider this a final warning to that effect. I've applied EC protection to that page through the end of the RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The disallowed comment by Islington Bloor has been struck. The statement by Islington Bloor above contains personal attacks. For that, I am blocking Islington Bloor for a week. I think we can close this now, as further discussion is unlikely to yield something productive. Sandstein 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by dailey78

Appeal declined. Establish a solid track record of editing peacefully in unrelated and topic areas, and then try again in 6–12 months. --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: dailey78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Rod (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles

Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles talk

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by dailey78

I have made numerous useful contributions to the various articles regarding Ancient Egypt. They have enriched the site and made it more encyclopedic. Three years ago, I received a topic ban for editing a highly contentious and controversial article, which is guaranteed to produce disagreement (hence the controversy). After three years, it seems unreasonable and unfair that this ban is still being enforced. Is it a murder conviction? I would like the ban lifted, because my contributions have and continue to enrich the site. In fact, a lot of what you read in various articles on Ancient Egypt, I contributed. Also, without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia.

If you have not been involved in a topic ban before, I don't think a reasonable person would assume that the ban would last for 3 years. I was made aware of the violation today. I only read the fine print of the ban after Ed Johnston suggested that I reread it today. Yes, it's meant to be taken seriously. I have edited articles on mini dental implants and other dental implants. My primary interest in Wikipedia is history and specifically Egyptian history, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that most of my edits have been around A.E. Some of the articles on A.E. are not contentious and I've made many edits that were helpful and improved the articles without incident. I am essentially being given this multi-year ban for editing an article that is extremely contentious. Everyone that attempts to edit the article ends up in contentious discussions on the Talk page. It is extremely difficult to make any improvement to such a contentious article without offending someone. We've learned to discuss it on the Talk page and move on with our lives. At the end of the day, these articles are in much better shape after I started editing them than before my contributions (speaking as objectively as possible about my own work).Rod (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laserbrain suggested that I post the following conversation from their Talk page:

I'm three years older and wiser and should be given a chance to contribute. If it doesn't work out, just ban or block me again. We all agreed to discuss the highly contentious topics on the Talk page and then edit the article. It seems that I'm the only one being forced to follow that agreement, but I have followed it. The administrators are complaining about recent edits, but have you actually reviewed some of those edits. In one edit, a sentence said "authors said xyz", I added several citations so that readers would know exactly which authors made the statement and where they could read more about it. The article was enriched. What is there to complain about?Rod (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dailey78: Thank you, and I do think it would be a benefit for you to post this to your AE request so the other commenting admins can read it. I'm willing to extend good faith generally and I believe you can make useful and productive contributions. When when conflicts occur, and they will occur, how will you react? --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the editors of the highly contentious article(s) agreed to post contentious edits on the Talk page and discuss there, without edit warring the posts on the actual article. It's the only workable solution, because editors disagree strongly and often about this topic.Rod (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Admin note: Statement exceeding 500 words removed. Sandstein 21:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Statement by Doug Weller

daily78 writes ": On Feb. 5, 2017 editor [Temple3] edited the article and removed the word "fringe" because it alters the balance and is not NPOV. Following the lead of [Temple3], I removed the word "fringe" three days later from a different sentence. That's two editors agreeing that "fringe" is inappropriate for the article. However, editor Doug Weller reverted us and reintroduced "fringe".

What actually happened is that Temple3, with their first edit since 2012-05-21, removed the word fringe. I did not revert that edit or replace that instance of the word fringe. My edit summary clearly says "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk): Rv edits by topic banned editor." The first bit of that, "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk)", is of course not something I wrote but is what the software adds. I'm not going to get into the content discussion, but I'm disturbed by the fact that I obviously didn't revert Temple3 but am accused of doing so. All I did was revert the posts of a banned editor. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, what I would suggest is that you spend six months editing in other areas that interest you. There must be some, and if you can find areas that do have issues that require careful work within our policies where you can show that you understand and can work within them well, I believe an appeal would be successful. Doug Weller talk 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by dailey78

Result of the appeal by dailey78

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

You weren't topic banned "for editing", you were topic banned for behaving poorly in that topic. For us to consider removing the ban, I'd like to see some indication that you understand your role in the disputes, why you were banned, and what you would do differently going forward. As far as I can tell, you are quite recently making potentially contentious edits and I think the probability of your getting into further conflicts is high. Getting into conflicts and disagreements is not problematic in and of itself, but how you behave in those conflicts is critical. --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be taken seriously? Dailey78 was topic-banned from "all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles" in 2014, yet as recently as yesterday they have been violating this topic ban by editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy (e.g., at [5]). It seems that they have never edited anything unrelated to this topic. Asking for a topic ban to be lifted a day after violating it is preposterous. I'm instead considering a lengthy enforcement block. Sandstein 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly complicated by the 12 month Wikibreak they took 2014-2015 and then the 18 month 2015-2017 break. But not much. I can extend a bit of good faith IF their current edits weren't disruptive and IF they stay stopped during the discussion, that they might legitimately not have understood the sanction was permanent / nonexpiring. Enough if both are met to withold sanction now and discuss whether they can address prior issues enough to consider some form of standard offer. But I have not yet reviewed the current edits enough. Reviewing now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This can't be serious. Arguing that three years is too long for a topic ban would make sense if you'd spent those three years editing other areas on Wikipedia but, instead, you merely left and then returned three years later to continue where you had left off. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this appeal, demonstrate that you can edit non-combatively by editing in other areas, and then, after a reasonable period of time, return with evidence that the ban is no longer necessary. Otherwise, I think we'll have to go with Sandstein's enforcement block suggestion. I'd also suggest not making statements like without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia, they aren't exactly reassuring. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein. Showing you can edit in other areas constructively is the solution to a TBAN. Rocking up after a long break (having not edited anything else) and editing where you have been banned is not a good formula for getting a TBAN lifted. I'm seeing nothing that makes me confident that the editor has the capacity to edit constructively. A six month enforcement block seems about right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asilah1981

No action—incorrect venue. Please use WP:AN/I. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Asilah1981

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Asilah1981 (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:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks

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

I require enforcement at breach of agreement after a long Incident discussion (see Incident link below) and continuous litigation and irregular editing by the editor in question, as well as successive incremental blocks and eventually an alternative, constructive sanction to a block, 3 month mentoring, that has eventually been equally breached by the editor, as detailed by the mentor User:Irondome [6] and [7]

06-01-2017 Incident closed with resolution to start 3-month-mentoring period; an archived discussion with all the details, diffs not available

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[8] I add all the block log, the last one being in late December / early January with two different incidents overlapping

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): I posted notice on the editor's talk page

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the areas of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor has changed during mentoring the overall tone of his language. He has also blanked most of his talk page lately [9] for which he is entitled anyway. However, evidence of irregular editing has not change.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [10]

Discussion concerning Asilah1981

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 Asilah1981

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Asilah1981

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

the editing may be problematic, but that's a matter for ANI or other fora, not AE, as I'm not seeing an Arb case here needing enforcement. Relying on a block log is insufficient, at AE you must show that this editor needs to be sanctioned for actions covered by an Arb case. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Trident

Blocked for two months for topic ban violations. Sandstein 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Neptune's Trident

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Neptune's Trident (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/GamerGate (topic ban) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (repeated violations):

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

Edited Mike Cernovich on 29 November 2016, 2 December 2016, 8 December 2016, 17 December 2016, 9 January 2017 (and again), 29 January 2017, plus other dates. Check the history of that article and search for "Neptune's Trident", I'm seeing 72 edits, only a few of which are mentions by other editors
Edited Vox Day as recently as 10 February 2017 but the history shows 36 edits and 4 mentions by other editors

These were not simply uncontroversial grammar or punctuation changes, either. Some of these edits were reverted on

5 August 2016 and again 6 August 2016 after Neptune's Trident re-added unsourced content. When reprimanded 13 July 2015, Neptune's Trident was specifically told to "discuss the issue without repeating the claim".
10 February 2017 as unsourced

Editor has been warned repeatedly about BLP-violating edits after the block:

25 October 2016 which was removed without reply
25 October 2016 (again) which was removed without reply
25 December 2016 which was removed without reply
10 February 2017 which was removed without reply

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

12 March 2015 DS alert for both GamerGate and BLP
12 March 2015 Blocked for 48 hours for violating BLP
12 March 2015 Blocked for 1 month for violating BLP while already blocked, and topic-banned from GamerGate
6 July 2015 Brought to AE for creating the article Giant Spacekat (company), a company cofounded by Brianna Wu. This AE was closed on 13 July 2015 and Neptune's Trident was subsequently reprimanded for violating topic ban

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the areas of conflict as noted above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was a brief discussion about potential topic-ban violations here and here, but it doesn't look like anything happened. Pinging @HJ Mitchell: as requested in that last link.

@EdJohnston: I can't find a diff of someone directly telling him about the connections, no. He was alerted to a discussion at User talk:zzuuzz where the connection was discussed, but he did not join that conversation. It's entirely possible that he never read the discussion and that he didn't make the connection on any of the articles. That being said, even assuming a great deal of good faith, it's implausible. The articles mention GamerGate, as do Sad Puppies and Milo Yiannopoulos, both of which he edited on 25 October 2016 (SP, MY).

On Vox Day, he filled in citation templates on articles that mention GamerGate (1, 2, 3) which suggests he read them, and he edited a paragraph mentioning GamerGate (1). On Mike Cernovich, he added a block of text from a New Yorker article that mentions the connection, which again suggests he read the article. Woodroar (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User talk:Neptune's Trident#AE Request

Discussion concerning Neptune's Trident

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 Neptune's Trident

Statement by (username)

Statement by Kelly

If this user is under a topic ban regarding Gamergate-associated subjects, then the editing on Vox Day can be considered a violation - the article subject's blog contains the Gamergate hashtag in the header. On 25 October 2016, I also warned this editor about adding the category "Alt-right writers" to the BLPs of science fiction authors associated with Sad Puppies, which is also considered by many to be Gamergate associated. (See the Sad Puppies article for refs). These controversial edits to BLPs were frequently made without any reference to reliable sources. Kelly ^hi! 01:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: - Speaking for myself, I didn't specifically warn him these articles were Gamergate-related (I didn't know about his sanction at the time.) I did, however, specifically warn him that he was editing BLPs. Kelly ^hi! 04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has removed the notification from their talkpage, indicating they are aware of this discussion. Kelly ^hi! 04:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Neptune's Trident

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

It is logical that Vox Day, Mike Cernovich and Sad Puppies should be covered by the Gamergate sanctions, but did anyone notify Neptune's Trident that these articles are included in his topic ban? He doesn't help himself by constantly deleting warnings from his talk page, which may suggest that he is up to something, and by hardly ever participating on Talk pages. But I'd like to see evidence that he continues with problematic edits after being notified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe for a second that this editor isn't aware of Vox Day and Mike Cernovich's connections to Gamergate. I'm willing to extend good faith a certain length, but not across the Grand Canyon. Recommend a three-month vacation. --Laser brain (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Laser brain about AGF here, but reckon a more substantial block needs to be implemented. Gamergate is linked in Vox Day and Mike Cernovich, so Blind Freddy could tell that they were included in the TBAN Harry handed him in 2015. I reckon a six month block would be more appropriate given this is not a one-off that could be explained as a mistake. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that Neptune's Trident has violated their GamerGate topic ban by editing articles about subjects who according to their articles support the GamerGate "movement". This means we do not need to determine whether he has also violated WP:BLP. Neptune's Trident has declined to make a statement here. There have been four previous blocks of up to one month for various misconduct. In line with our practice of escalating blocks, an enforcement block of two months therefore appears appropriate. Closing accordingly. Sandstein 17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guccisamsclub

No action taken. Sandstein 12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Guccisamsclub

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

20:53, 11 February 2017 As an example of condescension toward other editors in the talk page environment Guccisamsclub says, "It's an "opinion"? Well duh." later in this same comment he says, "You also thought that the intel community did not conclude Iraq had WMDs, that the hacking findings are endorsed by 17 agencies, and plenty of other mind-bending stuff." This last phrase is applied as a rationale for saying this:"Frankly Steve, you are not in a position to critique any source on this topic." So here this editor is demeaning my editor capabilities based on an unrelated discussion on the talk page of another article. Hopefully my reply to that post will shed further light on this issue: [11]
21:41, 11 February 2017 This is an example of more personal insults and disrespectful behavior, which I characterized in my next post: 21:48, 11 February 2017
11 February 2017 Here Guccisamsclub mischaracterizes my post with "That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research..." rather than adding anything constructive to the conversation. By now it might be clear the he is attacking rather than contributing. Here is my reply 23:56, 11 February 2017, which essentially says "it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet."
4 00:02, 12 February 2017 and 00:04, 12 February 2017 he mis-characterizes my editing behavior with "or have you not read the article youre attacking" and adds to this "wouldn't be the first time". I am not attacking anything. And he denigrates my input into the conversation by saying I have not read the article and this wouldn't be the first time. In other words, rather than focusing on the editing and contributing he engages in WP:NPA behavior. Also at this point Politico was not part of this discussion, and he was the only one who mentioned it, but without any kind of reference as to why it was relevant. So, rather than providing rationale for how this is relevant, he would rather use this as some sort of stick to figuratively beat me over the head, or to show a weakness I might supposedly have. In any case, here is my reply, hopefully shedding some light on this 00:50, 12 February 2017. Also, this is the third time he brings up Politico, finally providing a rationale for referring to it after using it to engage in WP:Battlegound the previous two times. And this was not the reference under discussion by a number of editors - only him.
12:30, 12 February 2017 He mischaracterized my editing behavior by (I suppose) chastising me "If you talk without reading you are being disruptive. If you actively refuse to read, you are being intentionally disruptive," So here he is accusing me of disruptive editing or disruptive behavior, which is way off the mark, based on some sort of presumption or set of presumptions.
15:53, 12 February 2017 Here he is accusing SPECIFICO of being the only editor who is "consistently and successfully gaming Arbcom..."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [12], [13].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Guccisamsclub ~~inexplicably~~ appears to be consistently engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior while also contravening WP:NPA.; Also. it appears that Guccisamsclub is too involved with the topic of this page, (2016 United States election interference by Russia), to be able to edit constructively on this talk page.; I appreciate the feedback and outside perspective from the Admins. I am glad cooler (uninvolved) heads prevail. I am accepting your feedback as advice. ~~Closing this with no action suits me~~. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]; However, had I seen what was happening in the main space per the diffs below, I probably would have added them to my complaint, if I thought these were DS violations. It appears there is reinsertion of what I would consider to be wp:undue re-inserinsertions. For instance, it seems Ritter is an outlier in the intelligence community according to his own opinion piece in the Huffington Post [14].

One instance Ritter cites he says he was "ultimately proven to be correct" but there is nothing to back that up or in what way he means he was proven right. The point is, by his own admission this appears to be a minority view (and so on), below Wikipedia "balanced view" criteria - and I would be against having this in the article. Anyway, my point is - if the diffs below are main-space DS violations, do the Admins wish to address this? These edits involve Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, MrX. Perhaps input from the editors would be helpful. I leave it up to the Admins to decide. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20:22, 12 February 2017

Discussion concerning Guccisamsclub

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 Guccisamsclub

What I said to SPECIFICO was in response to this:
Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Steve himself seems like a polite enough guy, but I've seen him overreact to completely innocuous statements with threats:

@Steve Quinn: You make a very good argument for inclusion of the word "alleged." As you say, reliable sources report that US intelligence agencies have alleged Russia interfered in the US elections. Going from the fact that US intelligence agencies have made those allegations to a statement that those claims are correct would, however, be WP:OR. You can have a personal view on whether or not the CIA, the FSB or any other intelligence agency in the world is trustworthy on any given issue, but unless reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) on the whole state something as a fact, we cannot do so here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: please do not mischaracterize my post (what I said), and please do not do this again. This is considered disruptive editing and contravenes WP:NPA. I am not here to defend against mischaracterizatizing my words. Please do not be presumptuous enough to tell me what what I mean either. Please be attentive to the Arbcom DS restrictions template above This is fair warning. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Confused ...

Here Guccisamsclub mischaracterizes my post with "That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research..." rather than adding anything constructive to the conversation. By now it might be clear the he is attacking rather than contributing. Here is my reply, which essentially says "it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet."

So who was making the personal attack here? I'm confused.

Why not read the source at some point?

"Also at this point Politico was not part of this discussion, and he was the only one who mentioned it, but without any kind of reference as to why it was relevant. So, rather than providing rationale for how this is relevant, he would rather use this as some sort of stick to figuratively beat me over the head, or to show a weakness I might supposedly have. In any case, here is my reply, hopefully shedding some light on this. Also, this is the third time he brings up Politico, finally providing a rationale for referring to it after using it to engage in WP:Battlegound the previous two times. And this was not the reference under discussion by a number of editors - only him."

Before complaining here, why not actually read the damn article from politiFACT, not CO, as I've already told Steve on the talk page. I've implored Steve read the immediately relevant source several times, to no avail. It seems he still hasn't done so.

This was already retracted...

"wouldn't be the first time"

That was retracted and crossed out as potentially impolite, though arguably accurate. Why didn't he even mention that?

The discussion on the page is pretty heated, though some editors have managed to be consistently polite. My impoliteness—or frankness—towards Steve has to do with the fact that he consistently posts unsourced patent nonsense to the talk page and does not respond to requests to read any sources. Steve's theories do not qualify as OR because they are not backed by research, which is why I termed his posts (NOT his person) "OH". Just read our two exchanges, the one on the Iraq war is hatted. Speaking without reading sources is profoundly disruptive behaviour. Saying over and over again—without any sources—that the intel community's conclusions were largely inconsistent with the claims made by the Bush admin in the runup to Iraq constitutes patent nonsense, which is also disruptive. There is no nice way to say to someone: "you are consistently unaware of basic facts and refuse to learn about them." If I am ignorant about a topic, I'll avoid talking about it. If another editor showed me a source and demonstrated that I had no idea what I was talking about, I'd promptly retract my statements and only continue the discussion after having thoroughly read all the relevant sources and then some. That's elementary circumspection. Anything else is disruptive behaviour under WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTFORUM.

I actually haven't edited the article much at all (!), because I know that several editors will simply revert any edit they find controversial. Under 1RR and Abcom, this means that it's very hard to mount a counter-challenge. So what is actually meant by my "battleground attitude"? Refusing to agree with Steve on the talk page?

Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely pathetic. All but the first one were reinstatements of apparently longstanding text. As for the first revert, it was immediately reverted with no action on my part. SPEC, VM and MRX have all violated 1rr and/or DS, btw. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

@Sandstein: There have been many instances in which Guccisamsclub appears to have violated the provision of DS that states, “Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).” For example, he reinserted text reverted by me, @MrX: and @Volunteer Marek:.

On Guccisamsclub's talk page, I asked him not to do this, but he declined here.

Guccisamsclub appears to deny that these are violations, so as long as he is here at AE, I thought we could ask to have that question adjudicated. In the DS environment, various editors have said that it feels like edit-warring and it feels like he should not be editing in American Politics articles.

I expect that I'll now face the customary barrage of off-topic attacks for appearing here, but I will try to step back and let the Admin process work.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Guccisamsclub

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

I'm not seeing anything here to get excited about, to be honest. Sure, the snark and sarcasm could be dialed back on all fronts. If we start sanctioning people for such when discussing American politics, I'm not sure we'll have many editors left. --Laser brain (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sandstein 22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Few people are very nice on pages about recent American political events. We will sanction actual persistent personal attacks and nastiness, but I don't see anything like that in the diffs offered by Steve Quinn. Steve's own tone on the talkpage isn't exactly warm either, as here. Suggest closing with no action. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Closing as no action regarding the diffs submitted as evidence per discussion above. The diffs submitted separately by SPECIFICO can, if they are actionable, be resubmitted as a separate enforcement request - in proper form, with dates and explanations. Sandstein 12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SPECIFICO (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:ARBAPDS

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

10 February 2017, 03:34 SPECIFICO deletes some content (that's fine), with rationale "Delete BLP smear unproven libelous allegation against James Clapper";
10 February 2017, 19:21 I revert him, arguing "Opinion is attributed and grounded in facts, not a BLP violation";
11 February 2017, 00:22 He reverts me, violating DS/1RR by reinstating a challenged edit, with comment "BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law";
11 February 2017, 07:13 I start a discussion on the Talk page, providing a detailed rationale behind my restoring the deleted material, and I urge SPECIFICO to self-revert until the question is settled by a proper debate;
11 February 2017, 07:14 Thucydides411 restores the material, stating: "There's no policy saying that opinions that haven't been proven in a court of law can't be included" (which happens to be one of my 6 arguments for keeping the disputed contents);
11 February 2017, 13:21 SPECIFICO replies with "Alert! This text is not worded to state "opinion" or "commentary". Edit warring. BLP violation." without rebutting any of my 6 arguments. The disputed text is fully and repeatedly attributed as an opinion by its authors, cited in a reputable newspaper. The accused person is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, his false testimony is a matter of public record (see James Clapper#False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs) and he even admitted having (unwittingly of course) misled Congress.
12 February 2017, 20:28 SPECIFICO deletes a chunk of material from the same quote, while the discussion is ongoing between several editors, thus committing a second DS violation.
The text is restored by Thucydides411, erased by Volunteer Marek and reinstated by Guccisamsclub : 12 February 2017, 21:02, 21:48 and 22:19
Just noticed this while preparing this report: Right after his first removal of material which refers to Clapper's false testimony, SPECIFICO discreetly goes sanitize Clapper's own article, trampling on longstanding content which undermines his position: 10 February 2017, 03:41 and 03:45. I'm not reverting those out of respect for the dispute resolution process, but wow, this does stretch the limits of good faith!

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

Warned in May 2016 by Coffee, December 2016 by Sagecandor and January 2017 by Octoberwoodland. Participated in numerous WP:AE threads.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not only SPECIFICO violates sanctions that he knows well, having participated in several AE discussions in the recent past (and even launched a few iirc), he also neglects to self-revert when warned, ignores the arguments against his BLPVIO stance and only contributes to the ensuing editor discussion via vague innuendo against an imagined cabal of "freaks and geeks" who are "glued to their computers 24/7" in order to "edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over". After other editors on both sides of the argument have exchanged some detailed and reasonable views, SPECIFICO comes back to say unconstructive stuff like: since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases, which I must admit I have trouble parsing.

When, in an unrelated discussion in which I happen to agree with his stance but not with his tone, I tell him: I for one don't care whether Sprey's opinion is included or not, but I'm getting really tired of reading your relentless opposition to include anything you personally disagree with. As a veteran Wikipedian, your fellow editors expect a tad more neutrality from you, less badgering and fewer aspersions., he replies with Your personal attacks have got to stop. Now., to which I say I am criticizing your comments, not your person. And you have made plenty of personal attacks before receiving the slightest admonition, so please don't go there. But here is not the forum to discuss a temporarily heated exchange; I only want to address the substance of SPECIFICO's two DS violations demonstrated above, and failure to hear comments by other editors or participate constructively in the ensuing discussion.

Response to Volunteer Marek: We are not here to adjudicate the content dispute, but to evaluate an editor's conduct under DS. On the contents, I am perfectly fine with amending the text to avoid any claim in wikivoice, as I stated on the Talk page, and I don't think whoever originally wrote this paragraph was being "sneaky". I'm just saying that the longstanding content (yes, a month is long for this heavily-edited article) should have stayed in place after the first revert pending discussion outcome. WP:CRYBLP is not a valid excuse to ignore the discretionary sanctions regime in this case. — JFG ^talk 01:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: On the content dispute (that we are not supposed to solve here), your numbers take only one side into account: there are 6 editors who presented arguments to keep the contents (JFG, Thucydides411, Darouet, Guccisamsclub, Slatersteven, The Four Deuces), 1 who would keep them with some rewording (MelbourneStar), and 6 who want to remove them entirely (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Steve Quinn, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Neutrality, Casprings), so things are pretty even as they stand, and we are far from consensus on removing the statements in dispute. We can surely amend the prose, and that's what the ongoing discussion should focus on. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: Removed text exceeding 500 words. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done [21]

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thucydides411

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you with diffs as to if a restriction was actually breached:

First removal - not a revert 03:34 10th Feb.
Second removal - 1st revert 00:22 11th Feb.
Third removal - 2nd revert 20:28 12th Feb. More than 24 hours since last revert. Does not violate 1rr discretionary sanctions. And even if it did, unless there is consensus the raised BLP issue is not a BLP issue, revert-restrictions are exempt for BLP-related removals.

On the other hand we have JFG:

First revert 19:21 10th Feb
Second revert 07:12 12th Feb. More than 24 hours since last revert but contrary to BLP policy for removal of material with a good faith BLP concern AND the discretionary sanctions which explicitly state "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

So Specifico has acted according to both policy and the sanctions and JFG clearly has not. And thats just the specific BLP issue, there is other material which has been discussed to be contentious which has also been reverted multiple times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guccisamsclub

Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Darouet's statement, I'm not removing it as I did the others because it has diffs and is mostly on topic. However, I find it unconvincing. I'm reputed to be the hardest of hard-liners in civility enforcement, but I can't find a clearly actionable incivility in the reported diffs. Making confusing and "edgy" statements is normally not enough for sanctions in individual cases. It may become actionable if it is a longterm pattern of conduct that inhibits or disrupts productive discussion

My list of quotes and diffs from the editor was meant to establish precisely that: a long-term pattern of nonsensical, unfocused, unsourced, fringe and inconsiderate contributions. This has been erased, due to the fact that most quotes lacked diffs. If this is really an issue here, I'd be glad to provide the diffs (which would take a couple hours to assemble given the sheer volume of contribs). Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

Prior to SPECIFICO's removal the paragraph clearly couched all content in terms of Binney's and McGovern's views: William Binney… has expressed doubt... In Harper's Magazine, he told Andrew Cockburn... Writing in the Baltimore Sun, William Binney and Ray McGovern criticized the report... commenting that... Binney and McGovern wrote that… Binney and McGovern proposed that... Sandstein, literally every sentence begins with attribution. A reasonable person would have easily concluded that the phrase "false testimony" remains a part of Binney and McGovern's voice, and many article editors thought the same.

SPECIFICO did not rectify the problem by simply quoting from the piece directly (as I did here), but removed it wholesale, and made no post on Talk to explain themselves. When they finally did comment, their explanation was so brief as to be incomprehensible. Contrast that with MelbourneStar's clear description of the problem, which allowed us to improve the wording.

Laser brain infers that JFG may be in breach of D/S by subtly, but powerfully re-interpreting the D/S proscription: "it may be you who violated the provision not to restore challenged text without consensus." In fact the text is, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The Binney and McGovern material was there for some time, and SPECIFICO's removal ("edit") was challenged.

Guy: if SPECIFICO is in breach of D/S, I think the violation is trivial: realistically, it is very difficult to be certain of who is violating what when everybody is reverting.

The more important issue is civility. The WP:ARBAP2 "Final Decision" states,

"Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion… Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook…etc”’’

Now, consider this Talk comment made by SPECIFICO only yesterday, while they were simultaneously bringing an A/E request against Guccisamsclub:

"Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all."[22]

What is SPECIFICO saying here, except that all the editors who volunteer their time here but disagree with SPECIFICO are trolls? When I attempted to interpret their comments charitably, they rejected that interpretation, e.g. they really were referring to everyone else on the page.

At one point on Talk SPECIFICO incorrectly accused me and other editors of breaching D/S:

" "I shall..." shows admirable resolve -- but it is not apt to make any denials go more smoothly if there's an AE discussion about reinstating disputed text."[23]

SPECIFICO repeated the same allegation on my talk page (as they have done several times to me and other editors, without ever, to me, providing diffs). When I responded on Talk, they extraordinarily chose to hat my comments in response to their allegations, writing absurdly, "words unrelated to article improvement."

That is incredibly offensive.

These kinds of behaviors are exactly what D/S are supposed to prevent. I think it would be foolish to sanction SPECIFICO for a revert when everyone is reverting, but the personal attacks and offensive behavior poison the tone of discussion and merit a strong warning. -Darouet (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: fair enough, but consider your reaction if I hatted the comment you made just now and replaced it with the text, "words unrelated to article improvement," especially if you were responding to an allegation against you. Further, while the phrases "disruptive editors... highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies" may be confusing, I fail to see why they are "edgy," instead of "personal attacks" and "assumptions of bad faith." -Darouet (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Your interpretation of the text of DS is contrary to what it actually states, as MelanieN, an Admin, clearly explained only a week ago on the Talk page, and relies upon conflating "edit" with "text." You're putting us in a situation where sometimes removing text from an article is protected by DS, and sometimes reverting the removal of text is protected by DS, and other times both actions are violations. Which is it? Anybody trained in mathematics will observe this is an impossible situation. -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casprings

The reporter, JFG, has a history of violating 1rr to support his POV. One quick example is here. [24], [25] Casprings (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

@JFG: I need to do some more research tomorrow but on the surface, it looks like SPECIFICO did not breech 1RR in a 24 hour period. In fact, your evidence indicates that it may be you who violated the provision not to restore challenged text without consensus. You may want to purchase some protective headgear as a boomerang may be inbound. --Laser brain (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for a concise statement by SPECIFICO. Everybody else, please keep in mind that AE does not resolve content disputes and that we are not a discussion forum about the finer points of either US politics or BLP policy. Statements by editors who are not parties to the request should be limited to facts that help admins decide whether to act on this request - such as links to previous relevant sanctions or enforcement actions, or submissions of relevant evidence, in the form of dated diffs, of conduct by parties in connection to the request's topic. Sandstein 12:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My initial assessment: The content removals by SPECIFICO in diffs 1 and 3 were justified by WP:BLP. Although the statement at issue ("James Clapper's false testimony") was attributed to a source, it was phrased in such a way that a reader could understand it as Wikipedia (rather than the source) asserting that Clapper falsely testified. It could be argued that rather than reverting the whole addition, SPECIFICO could have rephrased it in such a way as to avoid this ambiguity. However, the source is a newspaper op-ed, which is clearly an inappropriate source for BLP material because by its nature an op-ed does not pretend to assert facts, but to voice an individual opinion. (If it is uncontested that Clapper falsely testified, then there should be much better sources for that.). As to the remaining edits by SPECIFICO, their merits are a content issue and therefore outside the scope of this board, but I don't immediately see a policy or DS violation in them. I would therefore take no action here. I remain open of being convinced otherwise by collagues, though. I'm also looking forward to Laser brain's research regarding JFG's edits. Sandstein 12:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Darouet's statement, I'm not removing it as I did the others because it has diffs and is mostly on topic. However, I find it unconvincing. I'm reputed to be the hardest of hard-liners in civility enforcement, but I can't find a clearly actionable incivility in the reported diffs. Making confusing and "edgy" statements is normally not enough for sanctions in individual cases. It may become actionable if it is a longterm pattern of conduct that inhibits or disrupts productive discussion, but that would need more and better evidence in a separate request. Sandstein 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the evidence provided by Only in death does duty end, it does appear that JFG violated the restriction against reinstating any edits that have been reverted without consensus. I think that a brief topic ban from US-Russia relations might be appropriate. Sandstein 13:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This probably does not violate the letter of the DS, but it plainly does violate the spirit. The use of WP:CRYBLP is common in such cases, of course. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ranze

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

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

Appealing user: Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Kyohyi (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 3 month block, imposed at User talk: Ranze

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

Notification of that administrator: [[26]]

Statement by Ranze

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on talk:Zoe Quinn asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that.

Laser did not like the edits I made to people v. Turner and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something.

I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made. This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain

Note: Ranze does not consider People v. Turner to be covered by the "gender-based controveries" topic area, from which he was topic banned for a year. During his last visit to AE, The Wordsmith and I both advised him that People v. Turner is indeed in this domain and the only reason he wasn't sanctioned is because his TB had elapsed. The content of his edits at the time wasn't really examined. This piece of background is critical if it's to be determined whether the current sanction is valid.

Ranze bumped around for a while doing other things but then decided to return to editing at People v. Turner. I advised him that his edits show an agenda and that he should stay away from that topic. The following edits are of concern:

[27] - Removes mention that the victim was unconscious and intoxicated and adds text in another area stating both parties were intoxicated (only).
[28] - Edit wars to keep it in after it's challenged and he's asked to discuss on Talk.
[29] - Changes wording from "sexually penetrated ... with his fingers" to "digitally penetrated" which was wikilinked to fingering (sexual act), an article about a consensual sexual technique.
[30] - Rewords a statement about Turner's sentence to say people called it light instead of it being light (he made a similar edit to Ethan Couch).

My impression is that Ranze's agenda is to soften Turner's image and marginalize the victim. He may believe he's editing neutrally but I think he's pushing a POV against the consensus established at this article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor MjolnirPants)

This is just a quick interjection from someone uninvolved who has (probably stupidly) watchlisted this page. I looked through the edits in question and I agree that they demonstrate an agenda to minimize Turner's culpability, because the editor has made no edits to this page which had any other effect. The claim that these edits better reflected the sources does not account for the fact that we normally state uncontested claims from reliable sources in wikivoice to avoid stating facts as opinions. I'll recuse myself from sticking my nose further into this by unwatching the page, so please ping me if you have any questions or comments about my statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ranze

The diffs provided by LB show no violation. Some of the edits were removing Wiki voice, such as the one where the sentence was referred to as light, is that Wiki's opinion or some people? And I do fail to see how that article should be subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Ranze

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

@Laser brain: Could you please indicate which specific edits you blocked Ranze for, and why? Sandstein 15:03, 13 February 2017 (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]

@@ Line 600: / Line 600: @@
 ===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
-===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
+===Statement by (uninvolved editor [[User:MjolnirPants|MjolnirPants]])===
+This is just a quick interjection from someone uninvolved who has (probably stupidly) watchlisted this page. I looked through the edits in question and I agree that they demonstrate an agenda to minimize Turner's culpability, because the editor has made no edits to this page which had any other effect. The claim that these edits better reflected the sources does not account for the fact that we normally state uncontested claims from reliable sources in wikivoice to [[WP:YESPOV|avoid stating facts as opinions]]. I'll recuse myself from sticking my nose further into this by unwatching the page, so please ping me if you have any questions or comments about my statement. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
+===Statement by (involved editor)===
 ===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ranze ===

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, 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