Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334

50.84.151.82

Blocked as a standard administrative sanction by Dennis Brown. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 10 April 2021 (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 50.84.151.82

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 50.84.151.82 (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:ARBBLP

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

17 March 2021 Willfully misgenders a transgender man
7 April 2021 Undoes another IP who fixed their misgendering
7 April 2021 Again reverts the misgendering
9 April 2021 In response to being warned, declares that misgendering is a obviously left wing belief and states their intention to continue reverting the misgendering
9 April 2021 Again reverts the misgendering

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)

Alerted to discretionary sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Reference the article Shooting of Tony McDade - the person shot and killed was a transgender man, as discussed by reliable sources. The IP user edited the article to intentionally misgender the person - changing transgender man to woman who identified as a man. This is a clear violation of BLP and MOS:GENDERID. In response to being reverted and warned, they attempted to turn it into a political debate, made a number of personal attacks, and mocked the very idea of misgendering. The user clearly understands Wikipedia policy in this space, but has no intention of following it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning 50.84.151.82

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 50.84.151.82

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 50.84.151.82

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

Rather limited to what I can do with an IP, but I blocked the IP address (corporate/static) for one year as a standard admin action (non-Arb Enforcement). Leaving open in case another admin has a better or additional idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the block and above comment by Dennis Brown and think this can be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster

The series of events described are not an issue for Arbitration Enforcement, and instead should be handled on the article talk page using standard conflict resolution methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 11 April 2021 (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 Grandmaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

9 April 2021 Grandmaster deliberately distorts what the RFE/RL source here says. He cites "RFE/RL experts" but these are not the words of Ron Synovitz (article writer), they are the words of Can Kasapoglu and Fuad Shahbazov, Turkish and Azeri officials, respectively, and far from neutral or reliable sources.
9 April 2021 Rather than simply move the source to the "Supported by" for Turkey below, Grandmaster removed the entire citation
7 April 2021 Grandmaster refers to neutral and reliable sources (The New York Times, Reuters, Stratfor) that confirm something he doesn't like as "pointless"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1 February 2008 4 week topic ban in the same area

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 1 February 2008 by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The complete misrepresentation of the RFE/RL source was especially alarming. Given that the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article already has the Very Long and Controversial templates and has the 1RR applied, it is both very harmful for false information to be included like this and very easy to overlook it. --Steverci (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: If the body of the article no longer mentions fighter jets, then someone has removed it at some point, and I will take care of re-adding it. The discussion on the talk page right now is not directly related to the source Grandmaster added to the article. I only wanted to bring to light that an editor is either hardly reading his sources for intentionally twisting what they say to suit his agenda. The RFE/RL source states Shahbazov is an analyst at the Center for Strategic Studies under the President of Azerbaijan, which is a government organization. Kasapoglu seems to be director of a think tank that calls itself independent (at least officially), so I apologize for any oversight. And I didn't mention Mekishvili because he wasn't quoted in the edit. The thing to note is that Grandmaster took a neutral source simply reporting what Turkish and Azeri sources were claiming, and lied that it was actually the neutral source making those claims.

Perhaps Grandmaster could've discussed the RFE/RL source in the ongoing talk page discussion before even adding it in the first place, but that would've revealed it didn't state what he claimed it did. I already explained on the talk page how Turkey being the one responsible for recruiting and deploying the Syrian terrorists was being questioned on the RfC at the time, so I added that EU source to verify it. I would like to see Grandmaster try to explain how he came to the conclusion that Kasapoglu and Shahbazov are "RFE/RL experts".

And since Grandmaster has decided to bring up sanctions from several years ago (which I originally wasn't planning on doing), I'll point out he has been blocked multiple times for edit warring on AA2 related articles. He is also distorting the circumstances that led to the RfC. I had started the RfC so we could get the opinions of third-party editors with no personal bias. Those "other involved editors" were all entirely Azeri or Turkish users, some of which are now banned, and one of them was blocked for sockpuppeting and revealed to have been running an off-Wikipedia canvassing network for votestacking. There were a lot new users and IPs that showed up to the RfC to !vote on all pro-Azeri positions, including Turkey not being a belligerent. Who knows what could've led them there.

I have not done anything wrong by adding the Turkish leaders to the infobox. I was citing a source discovered after the RfC and simply being WP:BOLD to see if anyone would be opposed to it. Turkey being a belligerent is listed as alleged for now, but Turkish support is not alleged. I have also not violated 3RR or even the article's 1RR. Grandmaster's first link isn't a revert, and the second link is me reverting a user who called my edit "Armenian propaganda" when one of the sources is from an Azeri news site. Perhaps Grandmaster was hoping no one would check to verify that it was a revert, like he may have been hoping no one would verify what the RFE/RL source actually says. Lying about me making reverts seems to show Grandmaster is the one who hopes to get me banned to eliminate a threat, as he revealed at the end of his statement. --Steverci (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandmaster: If I had to question the validity of the source I wouldn't have gone here, instead you outright lied about what the source was. That's not being bold. What does that say about you're intentions? Misrepresenting a source like this is something to be expected from a new disruptive user, it's alarming to see a user who has been editing for over 15 years do something like this. The Turkish and Azeri analyst claims (which RFE/RL simply reported) that the Azeris used NATO commando tactics and only got a little advice from Turkey are not confirmed by any third-party sources. A report to the OSCE here reveals that after several failures on the battlefield by Azeri forces in October, they were called back and replaced by Turkish special forces. So much for NATO-level commando tactics.

I reverted the first time because no good reason ("Armenian prepaganda") was given, and reverted the second time because you claimed Turkey's participation is entirely alleged when support is not alleged. --Steverci (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning Grandmaster

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 Grandmaster

This report is simply ridiculous. None of the diffs provided show any rule violation on my part. Regarding RFL source, if Steverci disagrees with it, he could have discussed it with me at talk of the article. He never raised any objection or concern about it, but took it here instead. Second diff, Steverci used an EU parliament resolution to support the claim that Turkey was a belligerent, while the source clearly says Turkey was "offering military support to Azerbaijan". So in this case Steverci blatantly misused the source, and reported me for fixing the problem. Regarding the third diff, indeed, as it was mentioned here, my comment only meant that the presence of Turkish jets in Azerbaijan does not make Turkey a belligerent, as those planes did not take part in hostilities. I don't see how this comment could be a violation of the rules.

But this is a good opportunity to look at POV editing of Steverci himself, who was repeatedly permanently banned from WP for POV editing and sockpuppetry (please see his block log). I find his activity on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war to be quite disruptive. He tried to have Turkey included as a belligerent, despite the overwhelming majority of reliable sources only mentioning that Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan. When his proposed edits received objections from other involved editors, he started an RFC, and the consensus was that Turkey could not be listed as a belligerent. Then Steverci demanded a closure review at WP:AN, without notifying other involved editors. To me it looks like forum shopping. The result was that the closure decision was upheld, and Steverci's demand was not satisfied. That still did not stop Steverci from trying to include Turkey as a belligerent into the infobox. He tried to list Turkish generals as commanders, even though Turkish generals cannot be listed, if Turkey itself is not a belligerent. 3 rvs to have the article his way, despite no consensus from other editors: [2] [3] [4] I understand that Steverci will not accept Turkey not being listed as a belligerent, and will continue editing against consensus, forum shopping, etc. This report here is an attempt to get me removed as a perceived obstacle to having the article his way, though I'm not the only one who disagrees with him. Please see the discussion at talk of the article, where his attempt to list Turkey and Turkish generals as belligerents does not get any consensus from other involved editors. I think it would be good if admins looked into Steverci's own activity, and consider banning him from AA topics due to disruptive behavior. Grandmaster 16:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci. Again, if you disagree with a source, the way to go is to discuss it at the talk, and not to take it to WP:AN. You have been here long enough to know that WP:RSN is the venue where you can request a review of reliability of a source, after you fail to reach a consensus on it with other involved editors. But since you did not make any attempt whatsoever to discuss it with me or other involved editors, and this is the first place where you discuss it, I have a good reason to question your intentions. I was being bold by adding a source, but if you disagree and revert my edit, you must take it to talk and explain what you think was wrong with the source, and that never happened. Coming to RFL as a source, it contains no controversial info, and does not bash or slander any sides of the conflict. It merely informs that Azerbaijan used robotic warfare doctrine developed by Turkey, and commando tactics employed by NATO in Afghanistan. There's nothing controversial about this information, and it is quite in line with what other sources quoted in the article say, for instance Forbes magazine and others. So I don't see how my edit could be something so outrageous that merits an immediate admin intervention. Grandmaster 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci. Regarding your edit about Turkish generals, it goes well beyond being bold. You made an edit, it got reverted, received no support at talk, yet you made 2 reverts to restore it. Grandmaster 22:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci. That is not OSCE report, it is "Statement by the delegation of Armenia". Not a neutral third party source by any stretch of imagination. It does not justify your frivolous report here. We can continue discussing RFL source at talk of the article, which is the normal way to proceed when you have a problem with a particular source. You cannot take every minor editing dispute to WP:AE, and I would appreciate if admins gave their assessment of the recent activity of Steverci. Grandmaster 17:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Grandmaster

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

For diff #1, I note that the source also cites an Alex Mekishvili, and that Kasapoglu and Shahbazov are think tank analysts, not government officials (I'm not saying it's a great source, but trying to use it hardly seems beyond the pale). I'm not really sure what to make of diff #2. My reading of diff #3 is that "pointless" was used to say that it was a moot point because there aren't any sources establishing that Turkish planes participated in the actual fighting; surveying 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war quickly, I don't see a mention of Turkish planes, so the comment seems reasonable.Given that there's currently a discussion on the article talk page related to Turkey's position in the infobox which seems to be leaning against Steverci a the moment, this smacks of trying to use AE to win a content dispute, which seems like the most concerning behavior on display at the moment. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This also seems to me like a content dispute, which is already being discussed on the article talk page as it should be. While sometimes reasonable people can disagree on the proper interpretation of source material, the fact that another editor disagrees is not misconduct to be addressed by AE, but a matter to be handled via the usual process of discussion and if need be dispute resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vojtaruzek

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 Vojtaruzek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

22:00, 15 April 2021 "Don't forget that wikipedia is basically a far-left propaganda site now, they will not allow information about this to be published here."
00:28, 16 April 2021‎ "See? You can't even talk here without getting reverted, if you say something local censors don't like. They will just whine about their "reliable sources", which is just an arbitrary demand to make writing non defamatory things about PV and other organizations impossible. And also to make criticism of CNN and other progressive media impossible, since they are those "reliable sources" and of course they won't inform about themselves being exposed for manipulating the public discourse and the election."
00:37, 16 April 2021‎ Restoring above comment after it was reverted
00:45, 16 April 2021‎ Restoring above comment after it was reverted, this time with the summary "I did stay on topic, which is refusal of PV's work and them exposing the "reliable media" that permeates the whole talk page. Also, censoring talk page is a new low for wikipedia censors, you now started to purge criticism of your far left policies."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

19:40, 18 January 2021: 48-hour block following a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard stemming from edit warring at Project Veritas

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, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Project Veritas page has received some renewed attention lately, apparently due to some new video relating to CNN. Vojtaruzek, who has largely been inactive since their January block for disruption at the page, has evidently also found renewed interest in using the talk page as a place to denigrate Wikipedia, its editors, etc. It's pretty clear that they can't edit productively in this topic area and especially on this article. Whether or not they can edit productively at all I'll leave up to the AE admins, though their apparent disdain for Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy and our other "far left policies" does not give me much hope in that regard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, I'll mention that Talk:Project Veritas has become a bit of a nightmare again recently, of both SPAs and some slightly more established accounts making personal attacks, POV-pushing, and generally rejecting the reliable sourcing policy. I'm not sure if there's a discretionary sanction that would help, but if a reviewing AE admin has any ideas, some uninvolved admin eyes would be useful. There are a handful of users who could potentially be brought to AE over their behavior there, but a report per user would be unwieldy IMO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Vojtaruzek

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 Vojtaruzek

I usually edit Czech wikipedia (to that accusations that I do not edit much), here I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the propaganda about Project Veritas and refusal to accept any sources but from the same organizations that PV exposed (like CNN). Of course, it was just met with censorship from those people who took control of that page and can basically erase everyone, and when I defend myself, I get accused of "edit warring", "verbal grenades", "disruptive conduct" and other buzzwords and punished, how typical, why is wikipedia still called a public site that "anyone can edit", since many articles are just a far-left propaganda and informations that do not fit this narrative are immediately erased, which is very evident on Project Veritas page, along with people who criticize this. You will not be convinced otherwise, since this is just meant to silence me, stop with this act of "just arbitration" and "reasonable period to make a statement", the result has already been decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

I was going to post a message on their talk page about this [[5]] to tell them if they are not willing to abide by wp:rs this might not be the best place for them to edit (I did not pick up on the NPA violations until now). They are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment they have posted here is chock full of not here and right great wrongs. Its about as clear a statement of POV pushing as I have even seen.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Vojtaruzek

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

I'm not seeing much indication that this individual intends to do anything but disruption, with the noted lobbing of verbal grenades. The editor's last edits before the latest round were in January, which also involved disruption and edit warring at Project Veritas. Vojtaruzek, I'll leave some reasonable period for you to make a statement and convince me otherwise, but otherwise I'm very much leaning toward a regular administrative indef for disruptive conduct and NOTHERE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the statement here was indeed more of the same, I have proceeded with the indefinite block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Breezing through all the contribs, a few concerns come to mind, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is one of them. WP:FORUM is another. It's fine to have opinions, even about Wikipedia as a whole, but when those opinions interfere not only with your editing, but with the editing of others, then we have a problem. We are a collaborative project, welcoming diverse opinions, but not disruptive behavior. This seems a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE, as the primary reason they are editing is to "correct the record". I think Seraphimblade has the right solution here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Seraphimblade that a regular indef block would be logical. This user is also active on the Czech Wikipedia where he also seems to run into complaints of POV-pushing. Apparently the abbreviation 'POV' is internationally-recognized. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pkeets

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 Pkeets

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Pkeets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1992_cutoff)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

14:22, 16 April 2021 Questioning the reliability of well established sources,...
Talk:Project_Veritas#Expose_CNN and Talk:Project_Veritas#CNN_2021_expose ...seemingly based on one "source" known for spreading disinformation
22:21, 16 March 2021
14:30, 16 April 2021
14:40, 16 April 2021 ...and making vexatious RSN filings.

All seem to indicate that this user has not heeded the concerns expressed previously about their behaviour in this topic area and that they are still intent on promoting their own views on the topic and engaging in trolling and posts of a purely disruptive nature.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

01:38, 9 December 2020 Topic banned for a duration of 3 months by Drmies pursuant a discussion at ANI

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

The most appropriate course of action, given that the memo apparently hasn't gotten through after three months and that their recent edits are even more egregious, would be an indefinite topic ban from the subject area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:52, 17 April 2021 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Pkeets

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 Pkeets

Since suspension lapsed, I have made only good faith posts about issues I feel are important and supporting these appropriately. I have made no changes to actual articles, but only made polite recommendations on various talk pages. Besides this Request, I notice that some editors have been changing my posts and then making raucous comments. I'm wondering when this kind of harassment became acceptable at Wikipedia? Pkeets (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GorillaWarfare

(Posting here and not below as my editing interests overlap with Pkeets' somewhat substantially).

I have seen Pkeets cross my watchlist a few times recently and thought "aren't they topic banned from AP?" only to remember that their previous topic-ban was time-limited. I almost filed this myself last night after seeing their comments at Talk:Project Veritas (which, as I mentioned above, is a bit of a nightmare right now), but didn't have the energy for it. It's pretty clear that they treated their topic ban as a timeout after which they could return to their previous behavior, and didn't actually learn or change their approach. Their goals here seem to be pushing the things they read in unreliable, hyper-partisan sources, and attempting to reject the sources that are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia in talk page comments ~~without actually beginning any discussions at RSN~~. Edit: Oh dear, I see they've actually begun to start discussions at RSN. While this is generally the advice that I give for people who object to RSP consensus, they're arguing from the basis of Project Veritas' "exposés". That's... arguably worse than not beginning the discussions at all. The AP topic ban should be indefinite.

I would also like to echo my comment above about the difficulties at the PV talk page, if any uninvolved admin has ideas for how to improve things there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Pkeets

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards