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

Cinderella157

For a clear violation of the topic ban, a five-day block is appropriate--to be precise, one week, minus two days, since that is how long it's been without any edits to the request here. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2019 (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 Cinderella157

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cinderella157 (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/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban

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

19 June 2019, edit pertaining to Waffen-SS reenactment
20 June 2019, same
1 July 2019, same.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cinderella157 performed three edits at World War II reenactment, dealing with the subject of reenactment activities around Waffen-SS, the combat branch of the German SS.
Cinderella157 has previously been reminded of the topic ban by Bishonen in an unrelated matter: "Please don't return to old battles in an area that you're topic banned from" 5 March 2019.
I requested that they self-revert 20 June 2019. Cinderella responded to my request that he did not believe that the article fell under the topic ban and performed the revert that I listed as diff #3. I'm therefore bringing the matter here for admin review.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Cinderella157

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 Cinderella157

The edits are not about the Waffen-SS. They are not about the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945. This is really too long a bow to draw to construe that they are. That is my sincere belief (as I responded to KEC).[1] They are about two relatively recent events categorised as "controversies". The first being in the US, where a US congressional candidate offended people by dressing up in costume, and the second, in the UK where two (reported) neo-nazis were filmed running-off at the mouth.

The ban imposed was specifically not about WW2 more broadly, as Drmies appears to be construing. There is explicitly not an interaction ban with KEC. I cannot speak to TonyBallioni's intentions (they have not been recorded) but link to this discussion.[2]. I did raise concerns regarding transparency which relate back to statements now being made. I referred to WW2 reenactment at the case request as being contradictions between KEC's actions elsewhere and what they were alleging in the subject case.

TonyBallioni has identified their participation in the case. The think the same is true of Drmies.

Yes, I used rollback to revert two edits which were essentially the same that had been previously reverted and for which there were comments. I forgot that there were no comments and had intended to comment that previous version (after edits by Hohum and Xx236 were of "better" weight in respect to the tag. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

@Drmies and Galobtter: the wording of the topic ban that passed was written by me as an uninvolved case participant, IIRC, so commenting up here. In my view, this is a violation of the sanction. I wrote it the way it was to intentionally prevent any editing related to the Nazi-era. It was drafted with this statement in mind, where Cinderella157 had compared K.e.coffman’s work to a Nazi era atrocity. Note that historical re-enactment was also included in that statement by Cinderella157, so I’m not sure how he can’t see the connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157, while the ban was changed to allow you to participate in content about the Pacific Theatre of the war, the ban as written was explicitly larger than WW2: it limits you from commenting on anything broadly related to the Nazi-era. As an example, you should not be commenting on the Nuremberg trials even though they occurred after 1945 because they were about crimes that happened during the war. Reenactment of the Second World War regarding Germany and restoring content around the Waffen-SS and German armed forces of the Nazi-era is similar to this, and 100% falls within the scope of a WP:TBAN, which was linked in your sanction and posted on your talk page. The ban also notes that it is broadly construed, which the TBAN policy helpfully links to. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I would like to point out that in this comment on Cinderella157's talk page in March, Bishonen reminded C157 about their topic ban and its scope, and warns them that comments they made on ANI (in a discussion about me, to be perfectly clear) were a violation of that ban. Thus, C157 has received a prior warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cinderella157

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

Cinderella157, I don't understand what I'm missing here. Are you going to argue that a WW2 reenactment is unrelated to WW2 and thus to your topic ban, given the relation between WW2 and the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945? Because otherwise these seem to be pretty obvious violations. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see now that you do. It seems pretty clear to me that this falls under the topic ban and is thus a violation. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cinderella, if one is banned from editing topic X, and one edits "reenactment of topic X", it is not a stretch to say that one violated the topic ban. It's the opposite of a stretch, really. To my fellow admins: this is one of those cases where I don't see how a block will do much good; I'd rather have an editor promise to be on better behavior and not try to skirt around a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks a clear violation to me too. I would refer Cinderella157 to WP:TBAN and WP:Broadly construed: a topic ban from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945 - that history which of course includes the Waffen-SS - would also include the topic of reenactment of Waffen-SS and so on. Continuing previous disputes with Coffman in the area doesn't look good either, and seems precisely the kind of behavior this topic ban was imposed to stop. (As a side note, Cinderella157, your use of rollback here is inappropriate per WP:ROLLBACKUSE.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a block of a week or so in duration is appropriate, unless Cinderella157 quickly and convincingly explains that they now understand that this was a topic ban violation, and that they won't do it again. Sandstein 06:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one here except Cinderella doubts this was a violation. A one-week block, as proposed by Sandstein, seems reasonable; since the last comment here (and the last edit by Cinderella) was two days ago, I will issue a five-day block. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BorchePetkovski

Indef blocked as a normal admin action. Not an AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning BorchePetkovski

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

30 June 2019 [3] - Makes an edit to Macedonians (Greeks) linking to Macedonians (ethnic group)
All edits 25 May-4 June [4] are directly related to Macedonia or Macedonians.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

24 May 2019 Indefinitely topic banned from all areas pertaining to Macedonia, broadly construed, indefinitely
6 June 2019 - I gave a warning on their talk page noting that all their post-topic ban edits were in violation, and that future violations would likely result in blocks.

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.
18 May 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was tempted to just issue a 24 hour block after MJL made me aware of the edit, but it is already 2 days old and they only appear to edit sporadically so I'm not sure if something likely to be symbolic is best? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this, and the easily appealed indefine block as a normal admin action does seem likely to be the best option for this situation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

Discussion concerning BorchePetkovski

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 BorchePetkovski

Statement by MJL {RE: BorchePetkovski}

Thank you for pinging me Thryduulf.
It certainly doesn't give me any pleasure to see this user get banned. Initially, I was really concerned my reporting them to AE originally was rather WP:BITE-y, but then I know they know how to use a talk page.[6][7][8] That just makes me think they must be deliberately ignoring the talk page messages they've gotten so far (whether or not that is with mal intent, I cannot say).
The ridiculous part to me was that this was all avoidable were they to either abide by the topic ban or had originally promised to work more constructively with others. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BorchePetkovski

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

They've only made about 80 edits and have already managed to get themselves topic banned from Macedonia; both before and after the topic ban, every edit they've made, as far as I can tell, is related to Macedonia. I think they should be indefinitely blocked - this would be a specifically indefinite, not infinite block, and they can unblocked as soon as they file an appeal where they indicate an understanding of what a topic ban is and what areas they would continue to edit in. The issue here is that they don't edit often enough for any short block not just be symbolic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Flagrant violation of their topic ban (which, full disclaimer: I am the one who applied) — agree with Galobtter. El_C 17:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and Galobtter: AE can only do 1 month on the first block. We could theoretically normal admin action block them, but to me, that seems to go against the idea of having limits on AE actions for first violations of AE sanctions, and I'd rather not get into the "1 month AE, rest non-AE" thing for first AE blocks. I think a 1 month block, explicitly allowed to be reduced, would serve the same purpose, and also serve as a final warning of sorts. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni my intention was a regular admin block, as that's what I would do if this was a regular topic ban. To my understanding, for WP:AC/DS blocks there is no "initially up to one month, then up to year" - there is only a limit of one year, since it has its own enforcement provisions separate from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions. To me, the point of limitations on the length of AE blocks is that they are not as easy to overturn as regular blocks, and so I don't see issue with going straight to an indef block. I think that an indefinite block which could be overturned in days if they appeal would best accomplish the goal of allowing them to edit productively in other areas, if they wish too, while not wasting further time if they don't. But, a 1 month block would serve the same purpose, as you say, and so I have no objection to that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've always read the one month rule on first violation as applying to DS since DS are a remedy under the case, and I think that's been what we've followed here in the past. I could be wrong though. Regardless, it's not worth an ARCA to figure out, especially in the current circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that we should only block up to one month for this specific violation. But we can indef as a normal admin action, considering their whole editing history to amount to NOTHERE. I would normally argue against this, as I think this editor could be quite useful if they didn't have such a big POV to push. But a one-month block is unlikely to be very effective, as they only have a handful of edits per month anyway. Galobtter's proposal may be all we have left. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the normal admin indef block proposed by Galobter. Sandstein 06:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing that User:Thryduulf, the filer of this AE, now supports an 'easily appealable indef block' I am going ahead with that. Such an outcome was originally proposed by User:Galobtter higher up in this thread. This is not an AE block, and I give permission for any admin to undo the block if they become convinced that BorchePetkovski (talk · contribs) will follow policy in the future and will also obey their topic ban. Since they edit sporadically, and haven't used a talk page since May, a short block may not succeed in getting their attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo

Wumbolo is banned from Andy Ngo and its talk page, as well as topic banned from Andy Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia. Wumbolo is further warned that future disruption in the American Politics topic area will likely result in further sanctions, up to a topic ban from the entire WP:AP2 topic area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (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 Wumbolo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wumbolo (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_(1932_cutoff) :

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

8th July First revert within 24 hours
9th July Second revert within 24 hours, no consensus on talk page for edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11th May 1 week ban for edit warring at Stefan Molyneux, also within the American Politics 2 area

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

Asks an admin whether or not an edit violates the 1RR/consensus required restrictions on the page here.
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

Page placed under 1RR & consensus required by ST47 here. Wumbolo claimed a WP:BLPSPS exemption for his edit removing this. The removal had been contested in the past. The material removed does not relate to a living person and thus WP:BLPSPS does not apply. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

Discussion concerning Wumbolo

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 Wumbolo

I have self-reverted the edit. wumbolo ^^^ 07:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBySouthBaranof is misrepresenting sources; I will provide diffs shortly. wumbolo ^^^ 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: consider this edit, made today, attempting to recklessly revert an edit of mine without any regard to Wikipedia policies and the encyclopedia, plus calling the edit "POV edit by notorious POV editr [sic]" which is a pattern combined with previous reckless BLP-violating reverts [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] in which they call it "POV edit" without any actual rationale while I provided an explanation for all of them but one. And you accuse me of edit warring, while BMK has been blocked 11 times for EW and recently also edit warred which I reported at both AN3 and ANI but was closed as no action (I'm still thinking whether to go to AN or RFAR). wumbolo ^^^ 17:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#diff	Ref	NorthBySouthBaranof claims the ref verifies...	What the ref actually says. (& notes)
1	Guardian	(ESUM) "backed up by nothing more than a tweet."	not given
2	Ibid.	(ESUM) "highly-dubious claim" ; "random tweet" ; "no evidence has been produced"	not given ; not given (& police tweet not "random") ; "without offering evidence"
3	Independent, Fox	(ESUM) "That is not the same as 'the police said it happened.'"	“One subject was arrested for throwing a substance during the incident.”
4	Independent, Fox	"No evidence for this claim has been found."	not given
5	All above	The entire added content	see #3 plus not given
6	Guardian	(ESUM) "entirely-unverified claim made without evidence, as the source notes"	"police claimed without offering evidence"
7	Many	(ESUM) "a hoax" [antifa's narrative]	not given
8	Unreliable clickbait	"and the claim has been generally treated as a hoax."	"Social media reactions to the hoax ranged from amused to appalled." (& social media > police?)
Also #8	Willamette Week	"This claim was labeled 'dubious' by media sources."	(Headline) "Portland Police Made a Dubious Claim About Protesters’ Milkshakes on Twitter. What’s the Evidence?"
9	Snopes	"and the claim has been generally treated as a hoax." & refname "snopesHoax"	"False [...] Alex Zielinkski, news editor for the Portland Mercury, told us the claim that any of the milkshakes contained cement appeared to be nothing more than a likely hoax."
10	Snopes	"though this was later described as a hoax and debunked as "false" by Snopes"	see #9 (Zielinkski's "hoax" label not Snopes's) ; "debunked" not given
11	Several	(ESUM) "no evidence that any milkshake thrown at Ngo contained concrete."	"evidence [...] observation of a police lieutenant [...] a “recipe” sent anonymously to police after the tweet was published" (from Snopes)

The table contains misrepresentations of sources by NorthBySouthBaranof. (emphases in table are mine) wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid: I apologize for attacks. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo: see #9 and #10 in table. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans was always the one misrepresenting sources. I have been consistent. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I can't respond fully because of the limit, but the table above should provide sufficient information. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: personally no, but you have the authority to impose "consensus required". wumbolo ^^^ 20:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GMG

Using twitter as a third party source in an article about a living person is a BLP violation. This edit is not subject to reversion restrictions, and is fairly clearly marked as an edit made under BLP. GMG ^talk 22:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: You would be wrong on both counts. GMG ^talk 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: BLP covers 1) all content on articles where the subject is a living person (or recently deceased), and 2) all content which concerns living (or recently deceased) persons regardless of the subject of the article. Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMG ^talk 00:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: Is there reason to believe that the subject of the article or the person who authored this tweet are both dead and not recently deceased? GMG ^talk 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: It's not entirely clear here what is ambiguous about unless written or published by the subject of the article. Is there some confusion about whether Robby Soave is the subject of the article? GMG ^talk 10:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth (filer)

@GreenMeansGo: I don't believe WP:BLPSPS applies, as I noted in the initial request, because the material removed does not relate to a living person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Feel free to explain, Mr. Intellectual Dark Web. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I'll explain in detail.

WP:BLPSPS states that "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person"

The removed material was "Robby Soave, who wrote about the incident for Reason, reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation."

To support this material, Robby Soave was cited.

We could conceivably say that we are using a self-published source as a source of material about a living person, but only if we were talking about using it a source of material about Robby Soave - and WP:BLPSPS has a specific exception for this in unless written or published by the subject of the article.

I would say the spirit of this would be that using a source published by Robby Soave is okay to use for material about Robby Soave.

We're not using it as a source of information about Andy Ngo, per reading the text I quoted.

Do you follow? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

I have commented at talk:Andy Ngo. Following from those comments, I recommend trouting both Wumbolo and Pete, and possibly also GMG for the argument above, and then closing this AE report with no action. Added: Full thread is here, including my corrected comments as it was PTF not W who started this AE. EdChem (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Relatedly, Wumbolo is repeatedly removing reliably-sourced descriptions of the "concrete milkshake" claim as a hoax, dubious and/or false, from the Milkshaking article. They have ludicrously claimed in edit summaries, without the slightest shred of evidence, that these are debunked "hoax" allegations spread by antifa members, rejected the clear conclusion of Snopes that the claim is "false" and removed DailyDot claiming that it is an "unreliable clickbait company" contrary to WP:RSN consensus. They are doing this because they apparently disagree with or reject the conclusions of these sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

I ran in to some of this same behavior from Wumbbolo on the Antifa talk page, specifically with regard to Mr. Ngo and milkshakes. I think this person is a good editor, but needs to find a way to be a bit less WP:POINTY. Everything did seem to be framed as Wumbolo's edits vs. terrorism. They even managed to get under my skin, and I apologize for being a bit brusque in reply. That being said, if they are willing to honestly try to assume good faith and edit in a less overtly political way, I don't think a block is necessary. Then again, I'm an old softie, and often wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by cygnis insignis

Both users, the reporter and reported edit aggressively and exhibit exceptional rudeness in heated to and fros. Both seem to be spoiling for a fight, not contribute positively in my experience of them, bringing it here is just part of a campaign. cygnis insignis 00:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

@TonyBallioni:: Consider this edit, made today, attempting to whitewash the article about Laura Loomer with the removal of sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Certainly Wumbolo shouldn't be topic banned for following WP:MOS and removing those WP:CLAIMED and WP:ALLEGED the very least. I don't understand the insistence on WP:BLPCRIME or tip-toeing whether it sounds like an assault or not. It can't be BLPCRIME, for once, because no one has been appherended or even recognized from the masked, unknown protestors. And anyone can be a part of the "Antifa" network, so there's no need to tip-toe that for BLP reasons either. You don't need to secure a conviction when there are no suspects and reliable sources have reported the attack. Wumbolo was right in describing the attack accurately per sources and removing the ALLEGEDs, but he should have left the Snopes piece intact. But all these separate things were modified in the same edits. --Pudeo (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snooganssnoogans

I don't have to time to get into this particular dispute, but I'd just like to note that this editor is problematic on all Wikipedia pages that relate to right-wing YouTube and Twitter celebrities and fads (Andy Ngo is another example). He repeatedly and often grossly misconstrues what cited sources actually say, and then edit-wars his changes into articles. Most recently, he edit-warred content not supported by the source into Ben Shapiro's article[15][16]. He also removed text that a RfC concluded should be in the Shapiro article.[17] In an attempt to get the RS noticeboard to give Ben Shapiro's website 'Daily Wire' RS status, he blatantly misrepresented how the website was covered by other news outlets[18] (and recently did the same for LifeSiteNews[19]). He also misconstrued sources on the articles for Shadow banning [20], YouTube [21], and South African farm attacks [22](where the editor was falsely claiming that RS did not report that a "white genocide" in South Africa was false[23][24]). In my opinion, this is something that should be considered a cardinal sin on Wikipedia, because it forces other Wikipedia editors to waste their time sifting through his sources, engage in discussions with him and deal with the edit-warring in good faith. It's an enormous time sink. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PackMecEng

@TonyBallioni: Wumbolo does make a good point about BMK's personal attacks here and in edit summaries. I am concerned with your dismissal of that given our communities lack of response to such things. A new AE filing is of course not needed for that given anyone that comments here can have their conduct examined as well. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wumbolo

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

@ST47: this is your sanction, could you take a look? Sandstein 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. The statement was Robby Soave...reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation. Who is the living person on whose behalf BLP is being claimed? It can't be Andy Ngo, as this statement isn't "material about [him]". It might be Robby Soave, in that our article said that "Robby Soave reported...", but in this case BLPSPS would allow this sourcing. We're saying "Robby Soave reported X" and citing Robby Soave's self-published tweet in which he reports X. WP:BLPSELFPUB would seem to expressly allow that. It feels like a long walk to claim BLP on this.
- There was a prior discussion on the talk page regarding whether this statement was relevant to Andy Ngo or not, but that's not in the scope of BLP and that discussion was still ongoing. ST47 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at this too deeply, and I'd like to wait for more comments, but edit summaries like this make me think we should be looking closer at Wumbolo's behaviour in this area and that a topic ban may be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've had more time to look at his conduct on this article right now, and honestly, it is pretty concerning. In addition to the diff above we have the following:

Restoring claims of assault to the article claiming that punching someone wasn't a crime (ironic giving the edit summary above...)
Appears to think that not using the word assault to describe an assault means it isn't a crime
Long-term edit warring over the involvment of Antifia

Misleading use of edit summaries that introduced a NPOV violation
Fighting over Ngo in other articles:

[29]
[30]

At the very least an article ban is required here with a warning that if the disruption exists in other parts of the AP2 topic area, an indefinite topic ban from AP2 will be next. The only reason I'm not fully on board a topic ban at this point is that he doesn't appear to have been sanctioned before in the topic area, but if he continues to act like this on other articles, a topic ban would be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo, thanks for responding. I appreciate it. If there are concerns with the conduct of another editor, you should file a new AE. This is about your behaviour. I think you mean well on that article, but it looks to me like you're displaying WP:OWN type behaviour on it, which is understandable since you are it's primary author. At the same time, I don't really think the way you've acted is acceptable there. I'd be fine closing this as a logged warning if you agree to take disputes to the talk page, and come to consensus there rather than reverting over the same topic repeatedly. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, bringing up the bad conduct of others is not a defense for one's own bad conduct. This thread is about Wumbolo's actions, not BMK's, which aren't particularly relevant to an AE thread that's examining conduct on an article that BMK has never edited, so I don't think looking at them here would do anything other than muddy the water. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo, I'm not interested in the content dispute. Just a yes or no: are you willing to contain any disputes to the talk page and not the main space article? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'd be a bit worried about sanctions on the basis of the diffs you provide. While the argument over whether assault is a crime is a bit bizarre, I'm a lot more concerned about editors who insist on the "allegedly" weasel-word and on replacing "antifa" with "anti-facist" when RS seem pretty unanimous on describing the incident as "assault" and identify "antifa" as the perpetrators (a quick search turned up CNN, the Independent, Vox, WSJ, Fox, Slate, RT, Yahoo News, the Spectator, the Atlantic, NYT...). There appears to be a sustained campaign to downplay the role of antifa in this article and Wumbolo has been on the side of the sources. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- GoldenRing, I disagree: you are essentially making a content argument, and it is not our job to do that. It is our job to look at the behaviour and determine if it is compatible with Wikipedia’s behavioural standards, which this certainty isn’t. It’s not a weasel word to insist that an article actually make clear that something is alleged when it is criminal and no court has ruled on it, nor is the edit warring okay, or the fairly blatant POV-pushing, misleading edit summaries, and multi-article disruption on this topic. The question is whether or not an indefinite AP2 ban is needed or if a ban from Ngo would be sufficient. I’m leaning Ngo at this time, but would be open to AP2. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JohnTopShelf

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 JohnTopShelf

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Enforcement

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

Persistent attempts to insert negative information into Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, through gaming the 1RR/24h rule (note the timings)

However, forgetting they had already made another revert ...

16:44, 10/07/19 thus violating 1RR (they had also edit-warred over this statement, violating 1RR, on 2-3 July)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Block Log
Blocked on 22 February 2019 for 48 hours as an Arbitration Enforcement action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Blocked on 14 March 2019 for 72 hours as a normal admin action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Blocked on 25 March 2019 for 1 week as an Arbitration Enforcement action for edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Blocked on 1 April 2019 for 1 month as a normal admin action for immediately continuing to add the disputed material to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

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

As above. BLP DS warning was placed on 31 August 2018, and ARBAP2 DS warning was placed on 22 February.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would suggest at the minimum a topic ban from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, although stronger sanctions may be considered. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning JohnTopShelf

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 JohnTopShelf

It was stated that I have "skirted" the 1RR rule. Stated another way - I complied with the rule.

Snooganssnoogans has stated that I continue to "edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS." That is not true. The material I inserted into the Ocasio-Cortez article regarding Pastor Rodriguez' assessment of detention facilities was true and cited to a reliable source. The statement that the Democratic Socialists of America has a long-term goal of ending capitalism is from the organization's own web site, and is also included in the Wikipedia article on the group. Characterizing this edit as a blatant falsehood and unsubstantiated smear is absurd. The real issue is that Snooganssnoogans simply reverts edits if he doesn't like the contents, even if the edits are factual and properly cited, and then accuses an editor of edit-warring if the editor attempts to re-insert the information that was reverted without a valid reason. I also don't appreciate Snooganssnoogans' abrasive statements on the article talk page or my personal talk page, accusing me of lying and fabricating, but I am not going to request any enforcement or whatever for that.

I don't have anything else to add. I trust this matter will be handled fairly.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo

Just to note that this page is also under enforced BRD, which seems to have been ignored by the user in question. A topic ban does seem to be in order given the history. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snooganssnoogans

This editor has been repeatedly warned about (1) DS, (2) edit-warring and (3) BLP violations, yet he continues to edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS.[31] The editor was literally part of discussions where it was clearly pointed out how a group of pastors did not specifically say that AOC was misinforming the public[32], yet the editor edit-warred this falsehood back into the article.[33] The editor was also informed that a source did not substantiate that the Democratic Socialists of America "has a long-term goal of ending capitalism," yet repeatedly edit-warred that back into the article (see diffs provided by Black Kite). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

Pointing out [34] ... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Snooganssnoogans writes in his statement here that adding that DSA wants to abolish capitalism is a "falsehood". He also said that on JohnTopShelf's talkpage, and in an edit summary.

In fact, the DSA does want to abolish capitalism according to reliable sources. Vox [35]: Like most socialist organizations, DSA believes in the abolition of capitalism in favor of an economy run either by “the workers” or the state — though the exact specifics of “abolishing capitalism” are fiercely debated by socialists. Slate [36]: Economically, it entails the abolition of capitalism. The Week [37]: DSA's national platform calls for abolishing capitalism. NPR [38]: the DSA views capitalism as an oppressive system.

JohnTopShelf should have used a better source as it was only implicit from the one used by him, but stop accusing him of posting falsehoods. You are wrong. I suggest a warning for Snoog for calling facts supported by reliable sources "falsehoods" because he wants an editor sanctioned on AE. --Pudeo (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JohnTopShelf

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

So, pointing out that someone violated the spirit of a sanction means they complied with a sanction? This, which Snoogans pointed at, is indeed a misuse of the source (the pastors don't say AOC was misinforming the public). The slow edit warring is clear, and that the DSA edit was a type of smear seems to be confirmed by Bradv in this revert. So, regardless of whether we judge the timestamps to be evidence of manipulation or not, it seems to me what JohnTopShelf fully deserves a topic ban from at the very least this topic. I have not delved very deeply into their other edits, but this also is cause for concern: "the reader" doesn't need to be left in the dark about the fact that Deep State conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. So an AP topic ban wouldn't be a crazy idea. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs

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 Buffs

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Buffs (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 :

I think, but this is an appeal, so I'm asking for UNenforcement.

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

N/A; an appeal

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A; an appeal

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

~~Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.~~ Not me
~~Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.~~ Nope
~~Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).~~ Nope
~~Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.~~ Nothing in my log, nothing in my talk page history ,Nothing in the Arbitration enforcement log at the time
~~Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.~~ I've never given an alert to anyone; didn’t know I could
~~Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.~~ Nope
~~Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.~~ Nope

Part of the problem is that none of these apply...I think...

On the Order of the Arrow talk page I saw and asked how it fell under these sanctions and was told "On the earth side of the United States and around that aforementioned timeline." This interpretation basically means anything that has existed in the US since 1932 or involves discussion since 1932. I don't think that was the intent of the original sanctions. Given that the locus of the primary dispute is regarding language used in 1915 (and earlier), I don't think it should apply. Even if it did, the length of ban is highly disproportionate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Admin El C put Order of the Arrow under discretionary sanctions without logging it. He put also put me under a TBAN as a discretionary sanction without logging it either. He then blocked me without checking to see if I'd had the required notification. I’m asking for the ban/block to be vacated. Details and diffs below as needed. Side note: I'm not familiar with this process, so if I missed something or I've filed it incorrectly, please...be gentle, but you are free to correct any problems

Details/links

An admin warned me not to use a collapse field on a talk page (It’s worth noting El C endorsed such actions just a few days prior, had been done to my remarks in the past with no complaint, and it was already undone/moved with no additional discussion/problems...i felt it'd been resolved). Another admin posted a warning to my talk page, but before I even saw the warning, under AE, El_C decided to increase that warning to a 6-month ban on the article for "underhanded conduct". And before I'd even had a chance to see the ban, El_C blocked me for a week for evading the ban (he later reverted it as he realized I hadn't seen it).

These sanctions were not logged until after I was banned and blocked, as required. As such, actions taken under them should be invalidated.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Well, it's about me...so, yes, as the filer, I'm aware. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Buffs

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 Buffs

See above. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Buffs

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

Pinging El C and requesting his input. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs: for the next time (hopefully never), there is a template for appeals, {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. It's in the instructions. Sandstein 18:42, 12 July 2019 (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