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	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Vanlister

No action taken. Spirit if not the letter of 1RR was not broken in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 31 August 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 Vanlister

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Vanlister (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:A/I/PIA

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

18:00, 19 August 2021 Rm the fact that Israel Defense Forces was behind the group Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners from the lead
22:23, 19 August 2021 The same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

6 April 2021 blocked for his editing of Kenneth Roth#Israel.

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

Given IP alert 19:38, 2 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I asked them to undo their last edit here, or they would be reported. Alas, they seem not to want to undo it, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that you clearly broke the 1RR, you also misrepresent the underlying issue; there is no controversy over that fact that it was people inside the Israeli military who set up and ran the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners. Even now, you write "According to Ronen Bergman" in order to weaken the undisputed fact. It is not only "according to Ronen Bergman"; it is according to everyone else, too. You ought too be topicbanned for misrepresenting sources. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanlister claims that what Bergman writes about the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners is "controversial".

It isn't. At least I haven't seen anyone stating that it is (apart from some anon Wikipedia-editors.) When you claim that Bergmans' writing here is "controversial", then you should at least manage to point to one WP:RS that says so? But you have not done that. Q.E.D. Huldra (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Note; Vanlister's first removal was not undoing an IP; (then the edit-line would have been [1]); instead Vanlister simply rm the stuff offending to them. (I somehow doubt that Vanlister knew who added the stuff that they removed.) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Vanlister

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 Vanlister

I did revert one time, the first time was not reverting anyone prior. Huldra use of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement requests is done instead of collaboration and in practice to bypass dialogue which is highly prejudicial, and a provocation (sending a message without letting the time to answer, etc). My modification was essentially to remove a highly controversial statement from the lead that wasn't presented as such ( but was presented as such in the text), Huldra should therefore justify his agressive revert instead of reverting other's without expressing motivations. (Also my past block was linked to a dispute concerning Chomsky views and antisemitism in UK not about Kenneth Roth) --Vanlister (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't leave me time to answer guys.--Vanlister (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question does not support your point of view in this comment. You didn't provide a source proving that there is a consensus as well. I solely moved a paragraph from the lead to where it was already in the article in a "controversy" section. Mouse and cat play. --Vanlister (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to receive messages from you. You made your point. I disagree. Done. I am not interested in your dispute, it was written as a controversy period. And it is obviously a controversial statement, and apparently you didn't manage to find other materials than what Bergman, a journalist, says. I am done with this. Not interested in your campaign. --Vanlister (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I have just recently come across this editor in a different context.Diff which was followed by a message on my talk page which message was repeated verbatim at the pages of two other editors whose pages are on my watchlist. Ordinarily I would hesitate to be unduly critical of a newish editor but looking at the editor's talk page and recent contributions makes one wonder if it is only a question of when the hammer falls rather than if. I think it needs to be made clear that productive editing is the right way to go not the current unproductive back and forth.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hippeus

@HighInBC:, Vanlister's first edit removed something that was added three years prior on 5 March 2018. Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169.

This complaint is vexatious and without merit, Huldra should know that reverting IP editors (from three years ago!) does not fall under the 1RR restriction that says: "Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion".

As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here.--Hippeus (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: the 500/30 restriction was in place from 2015 or 2016. It was just streamlined in the Palestine-Israel-4 page, but it existed from the Palestine-Israel-3 page. Huldra is all over the Palestine-Israel-3 page, Huldra presented evidence that led the committee to state that "The one revert rule that was added via a motion on March 10 2012 has been gamed. (Huldra's Evidence)". So Huldra should know that IP edits after 2015-6 are exempt from the 1RR rule.--Hippeus (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs by ZScarpia show some attribution being added and removed between 2018 and 2021 in front of the sentence. However, as far as I can tell, when Vanlister made their edit the sentence stood without attribution phrased almost identically to the blurb the IP added ([2] vs. [3]). I did not find any removal of this blurb prior to Vanlister's removal, so if this was a revert (of ages old material), it was a revert of the IP and no one else.--Hippeus (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Hippeus's point would be more persuasive if Vanlister had used an edit summary noting that his revert was exempt on this basis. As things stand, it just looks like a removal of sourced material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

Hippeus: "Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169."

Between being added by an IP editor and removed by Vanlister, the text in question has been edited by registered users (for example: [4][5][6]).

Like Selfstudier, I don't want to seem to be seeking the sanctioning of a relatively new editor. However, I think it would be best to ensure that Vanlister understands that the first edit does count as a revert.

Hippeus: "This complaint is vexatious and without merit. ... As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here." Incorrect and hyper-exagerrated.

← ZScarpia 16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shike

Its frivolous filing.Its long time practice that we don't count removal of long standing material as revert but an edit[7] --Shrike (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Vanlister

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

@Vanlister: I have moved your comments to your section—see "Statements must be made in separate sections". Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vanlister, any edit that reverses the action of another editor is considered a revert. Removing part of the article is a revert because it is reversing the addition of that content to the article. I understand that this may not be intuitive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hippeus. Given that the edit being reverted took place prior to the arbcom ruling, and that the arbcom ruling exempts the edits in violating of the 500/30 rule I think it is reasonable to say that he did not violated the spirit of the 1RR ruling. A stickler would point out that the IP edit was not in violation of the 500/30 rule because it was made before the the arcom ruling went into effect, but I don't think such an interpretation would be in the spirit of the rules. I support closing this case without action. I have no opinion on the motives of the user filing this case. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment HighInBC. The spirit of 1RR wasn't broken and there's no need to take action in this case. While I recognise that editors have suggested that this report was baseless there is an argument (the strength of which I won't go into) that the spirit of the rule was broken. There's also an argument that explaining the issue to a relatively new editor would have been a better approach. In summary though, I don't see a pressing need to take any action so I'm closing this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW

Appeal declined. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: TillermanJimW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week.

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

Notification of that administrator: Notified: [8] HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TillermanJimW

For being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances.

While I will freely admit to having transgressed 3RR – mea culpa, shoot me at dawn – and will promise not to do so again (cross my heart and hope to die), I also think there are a number of extenuating circumstances that the blocking administrator neglected to consider.

And first and foremost is that in the “notice of edit warring” posted by Crosstalk, he said “the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification”. While, as WP:GAB notes, two wrongs don’t make a right, those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts which seems rather unfair right out of the chute.

But more importantly, the crux of the discussion – which was removed by those other editors including the blocking administrator – is that I had posted, as per WP:NPOVD, the requisite tag [POV] on the main page – which was reverted within 3 or 4 minutes before I’d even had time to complete the posting of the required explanatory section in the talk page called for in that NPOVD document.

Which raises the question, regardless of my 3RR transgression, to what extent any of the editors who reverted my posts addressing the issue, including the blocking administrator himself, are justified in removing that NPOV tag. At least without some evidence of addressing the points presented – which did not happen at all. And particularly where Crosstalk himself acknowledged that “His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM."

Had kinda thought – on some evidence (Five Pillars) – that the NPOV policy was more or less trump and that it would have been sufficient to at least temper the application of that sanction – as I had said. But I hadn’t even realized a sanction was in force as Crosstalk’s post only talked about “a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring” – not that a sanction had been applied. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but it should count for something.

In any case, when or if you rescind my block – sooner would be better as there are other edits I have in mind on less controversial issues – I’ll look into the possibility of taking that NPOV dispute re the Hubbard article to the NPOV noticeboard.

However, as the putative POV transgression took place in the Hubbard article that seems to be where the discussion should take place. To that end, it might expedite things if you were to revert that POV tag and my justifications for it - if that is at all possible. Maybe even add a page block or protections or whatever else you might think is appropriate in the circumstances.

But I think that issue has to be addressed in one place or another. So would appreciate the earliest rescinding of my block so I can proceed as soon as possible accordingly.

Thanks for addressing these points.

--TillermanJimW (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gadfium

I blocked under the WP:ARBGENDER discretionary sanctions because TillermanJimW is tendentiously arguing about the difference between sex and gender at an article about an individual. The issue here that TillermanJimW takes issue with is that the article Laurel Hubbard says "she transitioned to female". This is the accepted way to express a gender transition. If they want to persuade the community to change the usual terminology, they need to do so on an appropriate WikiProject or policy talk page.

My involvement here is as an editor on New Zealand topics, and Hubbard is a moderately prominent New Zealander especially because of the recent Summer Olympics. I'm not involved in transgender issues as such, so I'm not sure which would be the best place for TillermanJimW to express their views; perhaps one of the talk pages of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject LGBT studies, or WikiProject Gender studies. I'm sure a brief and polite question on any of those talk pages would get a response advising of the most appropriate venue. The appeal does not give me any confidence that they understand the reason why they were blocked or that they intend to change their behaviour.-gadfium 08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

I am involved in some sense, yes, but not in the reverts that led to Tillerman's 3RR. And I'm not weighing in here, either, except to offer convenient links for this editor's WP:IDONTHEARTHAT comments on their user Talk page after requesting this appeal: [9], [10], [11]. This doesn't seem promising. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TillermanJimW

Result of the appeal by TillermanJimW

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

I have posted this at the request of TillermanJimW. I will give my opinion on the matter later. I believe they are a little over the 500 word limit. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing very a forceful attitude from this editor at Talk:Laurel Hubbard. This includes edit warring, but also justifying it by saying "NPOV is trump". This seems to show that they think they are neutral and that as such they can edit war. Their unblock request uses the language "those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts" which gives the impression that they think 3RR is an allowance of reverts that can be used up.

This combination of having ideas that are fairly different from the existing consensus, and the attitude that they are right and that justifies a forceful attitude is problematic.

I feel that this appeal should be declined as accepting it would send a very bad message. I also think that if there is more disruption from this user in this area that a topic ban may be required. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a decline is required. Trying to force a tag onto an article in a contested area is a favorite battle tactic but it's very disruptive in a topic under discretionary sanctions. The text of the appeal suggests a longer break from the topic might be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an appeal, it's a rant. Decline. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't like the "used up two of my reverts" bit. I want to make clear here that the distinction is "If you go over 3RR, you will get in trouble", but is not "If you don't go over 3RR, you won't get in trouble." If it becomes clear other editors disagree, take it to talk and lay off the revert button. I don't see any reason in the appeal to believe that the block is not still necessary, and if this continues a topic ban might become so as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The edits in question were disruptive anyway and they violated 3RR. It definitely looks like TillermanJimW believes that 3RR is an entitlement [12] which is not the case at all - edit warring is always disruptive, 3RR just exists as a bright line which unambigously means that a block is needed. It's still edit warring if you believe that you're right or if you believe your have the neutrality policy on your side. Hut 8.5 18:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum

Last chance saloon for Solavirum against violating the topic ban yet again, in light of them agreeing to avoid a much wider set of topics: "related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc." As I note below, the next violation is almost certain to lead to sanctions of considerable severity. Will record this in the log. El_C 14:43, 27 August 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 Solavirum

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Solavirum (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: Armenia Azerbaijan 2

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

25 July 2021 Breaching their tban on Armenia / Azerbaijan articles, broadly construed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Solavirum has violated their topic ban for the 3rd of 4th time now.[1] The tban was from pages relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed. A historic ruler of an Azerbaijani province falls under the ban area. Previously, in one of their tban violation blocks, the enforcing admin Drmies blocked them for 2 weeks saying that “many will consider that relatively mild”.[2]

Arb enforcement log of their blocks.[3] Previous ANI cases involving Solavirum’s tban violations.[4], [5]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Abbās-qoli Khan, known for his wealth and opulence, had served as beglarbeg of Ganja" diff

Reminder that Solavirum was told not to test the boundaries of WP:BROADLY multiple times by El_C, one of the tban and subsequent violations enforcing admins. [1] [2] [3] [4]

And they edited the ruler of Ganja, Azerbaijan. It is even wikilinked in the article itself Abbas Qoli-Khan. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum the mentioned Ganja, Azerbaijan in Abbas Qoli-Khan as per its wiki article, is Azerbaijan's third largest city. After the dissolution of the Russian Empire and the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, it became part of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the Azerbaijan SSR of the Soviet Union and since 1991, the Republic of Azerbaijan. With the realities of Azerbaijan emerging as a country only in 20th century but Azerbaijani nationalist historiography extending its history to the depths of Iran, Armenia and Caucasian Albania, your edit is apparently violating the rule you’ve been kindly asked to adhere: not editing anything related to Azerbaijan, so the community could see that you are able to stay away from topics you have conflict of interest with for some time. But you keep editing tangentially around Azerbaijan, apparently thinking that if you don’t touch the modern republic of Azerbaijan then that’s ok… ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc. if you aren't 100% confident it can't be construed as directly related to Azerbaijan or Armenia." - MJL

Solavirum, user MJL actually suggested for you to make sure if said articles can't be construed to be related to Azerbaijan. The if part seems to be very hard for you, some might even say impossible. And I think it wouldn't be entirely unfair for the community to see a certain problematic pattern here, especially given your previous violations. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, "Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc." That actually seems reasonable. I will take the advice and act upon it. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear MJL, this was Solavirum's response to you, which didn't include your followup about broadly in that quote. Hence the clarification and full quote shown to them in my reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Solavirum

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 Solavirum

ZaniGiovanni, I don't understand, why is this violation of the topic ban exactly? The article's topic is about an Iranian statesman. I don't have a topic ban on Iran related articles. There was no "Azerbaijani province" back in the 1600s. The Turkic Azerbaijan in the north of Aras only emerged in the early 20th century, before that the only "Azerbaijan" was in north of Iran (see Iranica). The topic is also about a non-Azerbaijani. The article itself isn't even in Wikiproject Azerbaijan, and to prove the contrary, please provide some WP:RS, because what you're doing is WP:OR. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, most RS agree that Republic of Azerbaijan is called Azerbaijan since 1918. Before that, especially the 17th-century developments, nothing lies within the history of Turkic Azerbaijan. The topic itself lies within Iran and Georgia (country) topics, not Azerbaijan. There is well-established consensus over this in Wikipedia. A broad example would be this --► Sincerely: Sola virum 21:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, in all honesty, I'm well aware of this. The reality is I should've be more careful here. What I did was just to remove macrons (like in here; see title). I've been far away from Armenia and Azerbaijan related articles if you take a look at my contributions and GA nominations. I was just doing some cleanup routine, and that was one of the articles that I stomped upon. With that in mind, I really don't think that this violates the topic ban as there is a well-established consensus in Wikipedia on pre-20th century developments on the territory of the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan not being related to it. Though I will ask about it to the more experienced editors working in this topic. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 09:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, "Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc." That actually seems reasonable. I will take the advice and act upon it. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, yeah sadly whenever I work on non-Armenia/Azerbaijan related topics I seem to be getting stomped upon it. Like when promoting Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan to GA I technically violated the topic ban for mentioning a local Armenian ruler in Cappadocia in a single sentence. Taking MJL's advice, I will step off of Turkey, Iran, Caucasus (and so on) related articles until the topic ban is off just to be sure to not violate it again. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 14:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

@Solavirum: Abbas Qoli-Khan was a beglerbeg of Ganǰa according to [13]. He's listed under Category:Safavid governors of Ganja. I agree that it is a bit silly that figures like Abbas Qoli-Khan (who's connection to the topic of the modern nation of Azerbaijan is rather incidental), but you really should've learned by now to be really careful regarding this kind of stuff.
If you ever hope to have a chance of appealing this topic ban, then stay as far away from Azerbaijan and Armenia as possible while on enwiki. Contribute here positively for a while, and then your topic ban could eventually be revisited. Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc. if you aren't 100% confident it can't be construed as directly related to Azerbaijan or Armenia.
Does that make sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I think if Abbas Qoli-Khan had not been a leader of Ganja, Azerbaijan, then this edit would have been fine. Beyond that, let's keep in mind that the violation occurred more than a month ago. It isn't like that Solavirum isn't capable of contributing positively to Wikipedia (see these edits to Castle Wolfenstein for example), but this user quite hasn't figured out a good method for interacting with his topic ban (I don't think they have those on azwiki). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: Yes, but then Solavirum took it one step further by saying he "..will step off of Turkey, Iran, Caucasus (and so on) related articles until the topic ban is off just to be sure to not violate it again."
That is more than I asked for, but it certainly is welcomed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Solavirum

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

Solavirum, I'm concerned that you keep finding a way to skirt the boundaries of WP:BROADLY (as I expressly phrased it at the time). You were warned for it, you were blocked for it. How is this time going to be any different? El_C 14:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, that works for me. Which is to say, whatever works for you so as to not violate the topic ban yet again. Please be aware that the next topic ban violation is almost certain to lead to a block of considerable length (months rather than weeks). Also note that I rarely warn someone for such violations after I've already warned and blocked them for these, so this warning is quite a boon. El_C 14:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay

Withdrawn by filer. El_C 21:10, 27 August 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 GoodDay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GoodDay (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/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions

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

GoodDay has left notices at seven talk pages of articles that use Template:Infobox officeholder, asking editors to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#MoS_RfC_closure_challenge:_job_title_capitalization_in_infoboxes, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that I opened. GoodDay has made clear they strongly object to the challenge ([14], [15], [16], [17]). Given that this template is transcluded on over 183,000 pages, I'm suspicious of how these articles were selected. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says: Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP, so it is clear extra care is expected of users participating in these discussions. I believe these messages constitute WP:CANVASSING.

GoodDay says in the discussion that they know of a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes' of their respective country's political offices. I suspect that those are the articles they targeted with these messages.

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

[18]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I reached out to GoodDay on their talk page to inform them of my concern and ask them to revert. They have refused to do so. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: Thanks for this. GoodDay has said they expect editors at Australian and American bios to object to lowercasing. That covers most of the articles they left these messages on: Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Kathy Hochul. WP:CANVASS doesn't require that the editors canvassed actually take the position the canvasser expects, only that the canvasser expects them to take a certain position. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning GoodDay

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 GoodDay

I've left neutral notices on seven highly profile bio article talkpages, concerning an WP:AN discussion which may affect them. There's absolutely 'no way', I can know which side of the argument, editors who frequent those bios, will chose. I'm not a mind reader. TBH, I find by filing this report, Tartan357 is over-reacting & breaching WP:AGF. PS - Why am I being reported here anyway? I'm not under any sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I must confess. I don't appreciate Tartan357's hostile attitude, towards me. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove the notices (which don't breach WP:CANVASS), would Tartan357 withdraw this report? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed @Shibbolethink:, those supposed pro-capitalize editors can easily turn out to be pro-lower case editors. Tartan357, might be killing a chance that he'll get support from editors at those seven bios. He's the one who's apparently assuming that they'll all chose 'capitalization'. Not me. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: Tartan357 has 'mis-linked' my so-called refusal at my talkpage. My response was "Doubt it, as I have absolutely no way of knowing 'which' side those editors will take. I left a 'neutral' message on those 'seven' bios". If one's going to link to comments, they should do so correctly. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Tartan357 gets it wrong. He's suggesting that I'm a mind-reader. If I were to say that "Donald Duck is going to get fired by Walt Disney Studios". How would I know that? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW @Tartan357:, you're suppose to respond to other editors in your own statement section. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I have no involvement in this dispute, and haven't interacted much with either of these editors, and have not participated in the RfC. However, I would like to lay out a concern I have after reading this discussion casually...

The filing editor (Tartan357) states the following:

GoodDay is opposed to the RfC question (reading the RfC, this is true). Y

GoodDay has posted on several (7) talk pages with the discussed infobox (true) Y

[There are] a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes (a statement that GoodDay indeed made, but that has not been actually verified as true). N

GoodDay has posted on those articles, and only those articles, which have local editors who fight against lowercasing. (unverified) N

Tartan357, your argument has a hole in it. It would serve you well, in my humble opinion, to provide evidence of discussions on at least several of these 7 talk pages demonstrating such users who are en masse against lowercased professions in infoboxes, and thereby showing that this was actually CANVASSING.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not the packaging.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99

I'm not involved in this incident but am generally dismayed that these disputes are still with us all these years on. There are unsurprisingly a heck of a lot of US and Australian biographies in the English Wikipedia. If there is a systematic preference among the editors of those articles to capitalize office names one way while the MOS says to capitalize another way, then it cannot be said that the MOS documents sitewide consensus on the matter. The "local consensus" being whined about is in fact local to the MOS, while the observable approaches of 1000s of articles all over the site are what is actually sitewide.

Therefore, if the bias that Good Day supposedly imputes to the contributors of those biographies really exists, then he has found an error or misrepresentation in the MOS that should be fixed, with our thanks. If the bias doesn't exist then he hasn't canvassed. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GoodDay

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

First, this seems like a novel interpretation of the canvassing guideline. But beyond that, Tartan357: GoodDay is right in saying that they didn't refuse to discuss this with you. They just disagreed with your premise (allowed), and from that, you went straight to AE. There isn't even the pretense of engaging in some sort of dialogue. If I were more cynical, I'd say that this rather looks more like: once they'll disagree, I'll go to AE. My immediate sense is that this complaint isn't actionable and was likely submitted prematurely. El_C 11:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also am not seeing anything actionable here. It is a stretch to consider this canvasing. One would have to assume GoodDay had some sort of special knowledge about what people at these articles think and is being very sneaky. I see no reason to assume this. I also find a lack of attempt to work this out before coming here to AE. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little more sympathetic to the report than my colleagues above. GoodDay, you're surely aware that a close review is not meant to relitigate a discussion, but to assess whether consensus was judged correctly; and as such, it doesn't require more input from disputants as much as it does from people who know how to judge consensus? In this circumstance, it doesn't look very good to ask for input at the talk pages of a list of political figures, regardless of whether that list was random or carefully chosen. That said, I don't see an actual violation, and I don't think a sanction is warranted or justifiable. And this didn't need to come to AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena

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 Davidbena

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Davidbena (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:A/I/PIA

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

The canvassing occurred between 15:49 and 19:40 on the 27 August to "like-minded editors"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

August 2018 – First TBAN imposed at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
November 2019 – Appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban – closed as unsuccessful
May 2020 – Second appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – archived without formal close
June 2020 – Appeal of second TBAN at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena – declined as out of jurisdiction, and DB advised to reopen a request at WP:AN.
August 2020 - Appeal of second TBAN at ANI :TBAN narrowed in scope

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 area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At Davidbena talk page refers.

Regardless of the outcome here, it would be desirable to amend the tban so as to clarify that the tban applies in the case of articles where it is clear and obvious that "...pre-modern Levantine history and modern Levantine politics are inextricably linked" or "geopolitical features such as borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute" applies, discussions formal and informal at City of David, Silwan /King's Garden refer.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Davidbena

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 Davidbena

Yes, it is true that, while in a discussion on whether or not to merge the article King's Garden (Jerusalem) with Silwan, I sought a wider feedback from other editors, and which violated the policy of canvassing, for which I am sorry, but which have since rescinded each message, and have promised not to do this again. In fact, what I did was clearly a misunderstanding on my part, as I wrote asking for an opinion, without telling them how they should vote, but giving them the option to accept the merge or decline the merge, thinking that this was permissible, so long as I didn't tell them which way they are to vote. When I was informed of my mistake, I immediately rescinded each message and stated that I would voluntarily put myself under a month restriction from editing any Wikipedia page on main space, as a punitive measure (see here), so that this action will never be repeated by me again. If I might add, too, while the proscription of canvassing was explained to me back in 2014, as you can see here, what may have misled me was the editor's words: "While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view." (In this case, I think that I actually kept everything quite neutral). Background: I am an editor who has been active on promoting accurate coverage of biblical sites on Wikipedia, among other subjects of universal interest, and seeing that the article King's Garden (Jerusalem) is one of those important biblical sites, with a viable and notable history of its own, I strongly felt opposed to any merger with Silwan, for the reasons given in the Merge Request (see here). My mistake was to seek a broader feedback from other editors about either the necessity of a merge, or else its redundancy and inessentiality, which I have since rescinded. It is important to recognize one's mistakes, which I do, and ask the community's understanding that mistakes on this venue are sometimes unavoidable, being that we are human. And, in case anyone here is wondering, I whole-heartedly respect all peoples who live in this country and I have no wish whatsoever to bring politics into my edits (which I think my accuser here may have been worried about). My view is and will always be that all peoples, nations and ethnicities (whether Jew, Muslim or Christian) have their special place and role in Israel/Palestine. This has been my personal guideline and it will always be. I see no reason to be put under any topic ban, as I have not breached any imposed topic ban. In my humble opinion, it would be disproportionate to punish an editor found guilty of canvassing with a ban on editing all scientific articles or a ban on editing articles of Biographies of Living Persons (BLP). I will remind my fellow editors here that, occasionally, editors will disagree with one another, but even so, there is a place for handling content dispute. So far, my accuser and I have not resorted to that venue, and, hopefully, we will never have to do so.Davidbena (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite:, while I respect your standing as an administrator, I still find it strange that you would seek to punish me because of the exchange that I had here in this edit. First, I am permitted to edit pages in the I/P area, but only prohibited to engage in matters relating to specific areas of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (such as border conflicts and disputes, wars, political ideologies, etc., etc.). I have fully guarded myself from doing just that. Besides, what I was hoping that he would do was give his opinion about a BIBLICAL SITE. No more and no less. Secondly, if I canvassed the above person, it was only after I had been misled to think that "limited friendly notices were allowed, and that they should reflect a neutral point of view," which I was keen to do, based on this message that I received years back, which you can access here. I have since been of the mindset, perhaps even unconsciously, that this was permitted, if a person were broached about such issues in a neutral way. Again my mistake, and I'm sorry for that. Every man or woman here works in the subject matters with which he or she are most familiar. My work entails historical places in Palestine/Israel, some of which bear the I/P tag. To prevent me from making improvements on those articles, I think, would be a disservice to Wikipedia, especially when I have NOT breached any topic ban. Asking with all due respect and human cordiality as is humanly possible to permit me to continue editing in this field.Davidbena (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Davidbena

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

Davidbena has 44,000 edits and believes that admins won't notice that an obvious act of canvassing (simply look at the editors he pinged - no disrespect to any of them, especially the one that said "I'm not getting involved in that", but they're all on one side of the I/P divide) will not go un-noticed. Either they assume that everyone else is stupid or there's a serious WP:CIR issue going on here. I'd suggest putting the original TBAN back and making it permanent, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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