Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:45, 30 January 2017

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against 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

Kingofaces43

Meritless request. Complainant DrChrissy blocked for one week for topic ban violation and warned of possible further sanctions. Sandstein 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Kingofaces43

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kingofaces43 (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/CASENAME#SECTION :

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

[1] A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.
[2] A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.
[3] A deliberate attempt to poison the well, to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, to goad me on a page I am not allowed to reply on because of my GMO topic ban.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): See here [4]

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Background: Earlier this month at this thread [5], I read that an editor (@Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering[6]. Kingofaces43 replied within 14 mins, but rather than limiting themselves to addressing the wiki-lawyering content, they first attempted to poison the well by bringing up my ARBCOM-GMO topic and interaction ban.[7] Two further edits discussing my GMO sanction were made by Kingoaces43. This harassing behaviour is totally unacceptable. My sanctions have absolutely nothing to do with American politics or a moth. Kingofaces43 claims my comment was battleground behaviour being continued from the GMO case, yet I have not edited in the GMO area for 12 months because of my ban. Kingofaces43 has brought up my sanctions clearly to attempt to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, and to goad me (I am of course unable to discuss my topic ban to defend myself on the page where Kingofaces43 started their mis-behaviour).

Other evidence of recent interaction: Kingofaces43 also states[8] that he and I basically do not interact since my topic ban – again what is the relevance of my topic ban to this thread other than to cast aspersions and as a further attempt to discredit and goad me. Furthermore, Kingofaces43 demonstrates their spectacularly short memory. Less than 30 days ago, I applied at WP:ARCA to have my GMO topic ban lifted.[9] Kingofaces43 made a statement there[10], which they are entitled to do, but to suggest this is not interaction with me is totally misleading, if not a lie.

Why have I brought this to ARBCOM? Kingofaces43 is a very experienced editor and well aware that I am unable to even mention my GMO topic ban on article pages or other noticeboards; bringing this to ARBCOM is the only way I know of seeking action against Kingofaces43 to protect me from this harassment and goading without violating my topic ban. But moreover, ARBCOM have made several strong statements against casting aspersions, including in the GMO case. Kingofaces43’c statements are clearly about the ARBCOM-GMO and arose from that case. I suggest therefore Kingofaces43 comments fall under the same considerations, i.e. they should not be casting aspersions and discretionary sanctions can be imposed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[11]]

@Sandstein, @EdJohnston If I can not bring this to ARBCOM where Kingofaces43's comments clearly relate to the ARBCOM GMO case, then where else do I take it? You seem to be suggesting that any editor can mention another editor's topic ban anywhere in the project to poison the well in the knowledge that they are acting with total impunity. Is this what you are suggesting? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Your statement is self-contradictory. In one sentence, you state you do not understand what arbitration case I want to have enforced and then a couple of sentences later you are calling for sanctions against me in the ARBGMO case - precisely the case I have made it patently clear I want enforced. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: if you can give me information on how I can protect myself from actions such as those of Kingofaces43, I will gladly go away quietly. At the moment, you seem to be suggesting that any editor can come along and start attacking banned editors contrary to WP: CONDUCTTOBANNED - which is a policy. You seem to be supporting Kingofaces43's violation of this policy. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Kingofaces43

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 Kingofaces43

This started with an incident DrChrissy was not involved in. An insect, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi, was named after Donald Trump's hair. I'm an entomologist, so I went to the page to make sure political issues weren't seeping into what should have been a cut and dry scientific description. Unfortunately for avoiding drama, one of the identifying features of this species is size differences of its genitals compared to the other closely related species. This cued comments on Donald Trump's "small hands" and other appendage jokes. This resulted in the AN3 case with the issue of 3RR being broken and these political justifications interfering with talk page content discussion. Because of the latter, I said in the case intro American Politics 2 DS could apply to the situation with no stretch of the imagination (even though it’s completely silly that politics are entering into an insect species page), but said nothing more on that.

Cut back to the GMO ArbCom case. DrChrissy received topic bans prior in part due to battleground behavior and following editors into other topics as part of that. The same thing happened in the justification for their topic ban in GMOs and their interaction ban with Jytdog for the same kind of thing going on towards me here. I also patiently dealt with a lot of this behavior, but I opted not to ask for a one-way interaction ban at ArbCom because I expected the GMO topic ban to prevent such behavior from DrChrissy directed at me. Aside from admin boards discussing their sanctions and appeal, we generally haven’t interacted since ArbCom.

Skip forward to the AN3 case. A mere 13 minutes after I posted the report, DrChrissy was there accusing me of wikilawyering[12] for saying that the American Politics DS apply in that intersection of topics. I don’t think a reasonable person would say they don’t apply, but it is extremely pointy to accuse someone of wikilawyering that at best. It's basically a continuation of the battleground behavior from DrChrissy in the GMO topics that was now proxied over to the AN3 board (not skirting a ban, but continued behavior that usually leads to such sanctions expanding), especially considering how they jumped in. Instead of escalating to AE, I just cautioned this, but they instead tried to claim I was goading them[13][14] while calling for my head as part of their continued battleground behavior. There was no taking advantage or goading per WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED while trying to caution them as I directly pointed out to them previously,[15][16] but they chose to continue misrepresenting and ignoring those reminders (i.e., WP:ASPERSIONS, a principle even amended at GMO ArbCom).

At the end of the day, I think I’m convinced that Sandstein’s one-way interaction ban option is looking like the best option to prevent more of this behavior the way this is escalating. Since I normally don't interact anymore with DrChrissy unless they come into areas I'm working on, and they were pursuing me in this case, this might be a case where it’s viable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

This is an attempt to crowbar a dispute into an area where there are DS active. The comments by Kingofaces are legitimate in context (they address behaviour that led to prior sanctions, not the sanctions themselves, still less the content area covered by the sanctions).

DrChrissy is sanctioned in more than one topic area. [17] finds nearly 70 pages of AN/ANI archives mentioning DrChrissy. My personal impression is that DrChrissy abuses process to try to gain advantage in content disputes.

Regardless, there is no AE sanction to apply here. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kyohyi

Not taking a position one way or another on validity, but this appears to be claiming violations of WP: CONDUCTTOBANNED. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iazyges

I think that as Trump is a well known and very vocal figure, and the moth is explicitly named after him, it does contain a certain amount of political connection. I must agree with JzG that this does appear akin to process abuse. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm tempted to just put a facepalm here, as there clearly is no violation other than the topic ban violation and generally unhelpful complaint by DrChrissy. But per Regentspark, if there is any way to close this with an STFU to DrChrissy instead of a block, perhaps that would be for the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by username

Result concerning Kingofaces43

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

It seems to me that this request is without merit. The reported diffs do not constitute sanctionable misconduct in any way that I can determine. Moreover, this request does not even indicate which arbitration case it wants to have enforced, so it can't be acted on for this reason alone. The comment by DrChrissy that caused the comments by Kingofaces43 that have been reported here seems to me to be unnecessary at best - admins can very well act on edit warring reports without input from uninvolved bystanders - and needlessly confrontative. Indeed, this very report - not being an instance of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX - is probably a violation of DrChrissy's GMO topic ban. I invite other admins to comment on whether a block and/or a one-way interaction ban of DrChrissy with respect to Kingofaces43 per the WP:ARBGMO discretionary sanctions might be appropriate. Sandstein 18:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Sandstein that this complaint is without merit. If Kingofaces43 mentions that someone else is banned from GMO that's within his rights and such a mention does not violate the GMO sanctions. As Sandstein observes, this complaint is not an exercise of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX, and as such it may be a violation of DrChrissy's ban. User:DrChrissy should consider withdrawing the complaint now, before more time is spent on it, and forestall the chance you'll be sanctioned for abusing the process. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that DrChrissy is going to take the hint to withdraw this, so I suggest we proceed with a one-week block for making a complaint at AE that is not permitted by WP:BANEX. (The editor, while topic banned, can't raise any complaints about the behavior of others on grounds of violation of the same case). And per DrC's comment above, they are asking for enforcement of WP:ARBGMO. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the cited 3RR complaint, DrChrissy said to Kingofaces43, "You might like to frame your edits in fallacious terms that you are not intending to goad, but I will state clearly that I feel like I am being goaded". It looks like DrChrissy insists on interpreting these remarks as an attack on himself by Kingofaces, but I'm not buying it. It's like he is saying, "I insist that you attacked me, and I won't let you deny it." EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The various diffs linked by the complainant don't seem particularly bothersome to me. I also think that they are being a trifle disingenuous with @Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering without mentioning the glaring connection Mr. Trump. I'm not familiar with the back story here (the GMO topic ban) but a block does seem in order. (Though, if I may add, I've seen some good work by DrChrissy recently so if a block can be avoided, I'm happy to support that too.)--regentspark (comment) 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into consideration the comments above, I'm closing this with a one-week block of DrChrissy and a warning that repeating this behavior can lead to additional sanctions such as an interaction ban. Sandstein 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Holanthony

The appeal of the BLP topic ban is declined. Sandstein 17:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Holanthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Holanthony (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinitely topic-banned from editing in the BLP topic area, specifically "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace".

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

Notification of that administrator: Holanthony failed to notify me as required, but I confirm I am aware (thanks, Sandstein). BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Holanthony

I feel the topic ban was imposed unfairly and rashly without having been given a chance to respond. It originally stems from an unrelated personal/private dispute I have had with an elderly man that uses the username "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" on Wikipedia. He has now chosen to take this matter to a whole different level in a desperate attempt at petty revenge online. I can assure you dead to rights that he will try to protest this appeal with all his might and present further accusations and so-called "evidence", all of which I could easily stave these off had I had the chance to respond and by referring to WP:POTKETTLE, listing the number of violations this user has perpetrated. I will not however, for two reasons, 1. my topic ban would prevents me from discussing BLP related incidents. 2. I'm going to stick withWP:SCWTEGH for now. I also request that this user is disqualified from this discussion as he is an involved editor. By the same token, I also ask that BethNaught also be disqualified as they are no longer uninvolved as per WP:UNINVOLVED. Adding to this, BethNaught has also written on my talk page, accusing me of being a liar and having done various things (that were untrue) and said that they were not "sympathetic" towards me, so I have no reason to expect a fair and objective treatment from them [18]. Having said this, I believe the sanction was too harsh and one-sided and if it is to remain, I request that it be time-limited.

Statement by BethNaught

I will try to deal with what Holanthony says in order so I apologise for a lack of eloquence.

I certainly did not impose the sanction rashly. HW's request was made at 06:03 10 January and I saw it about an hour later. I handed down the sanction at 14:35 the same day. I did this after several hours of consideration and examination of the evidence presented. I don't think it was unfair that Holanthony wasn't notified before this, because he was warned at ANI on 29 June that further problematic BLP edits would lead to sanctions, and received a DS alert. I did examine all the evidence provided. Some diffs were better or worse than others but I pointed out two serious examples in the sanction and especially in light of the ANI I think the topic ban was reasonable. I do not believe that I was ever WP:INVOLVED as I have only interacted with Holanthony in an administrative capacity (to the best of my recollection). I did accuse Holanthony of lying: his revenge AE request against HW contained the claim: HW was "Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 28 September 2016 by Bjelleklang". That was linked to this diff. Not only is this diff not what it purports to be, but WP:AC/DS/L contains no log of a DS against HW (unless the search function in my browser is broken). Also, the reason I was unsympathetic to Holanthony's unblock request was because of the revenge report, not because of any bias.

When considering whether to make the sanction I debated very carefully with myself whether it was proper for me just to make it, instead of referring to AE. I knew that Holanthony might try to paint me as being a lackey of HW or as being used by them. But I did it nevertheless because of Holanthony's egregious behaviour on BLPs. BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: The wording could be improved upon, but if you look at the DS log, indefinite topic bans are commonplace. Some are by individual adminstrators. BethNaught (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved editor The Big Bad Wolfowitz

@Lankiveil: This came to my attention some days after it was posted, and I don't really have anything new to add to the accurate comments below. I believe the problems with Holanthony's BLP editing are amply demonstrated by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/AE evidence draft, and his failure to appreciate basic elements of the relevant DS is conveyed by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208#Statement_by_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Holanthony

I've looked several times, but I see no valid grounds for appeal in Holanthony's statement, simply the clear fact that he doesn't like it. There is no discussion about whether the ban was appropriate, or whether Beth Naught had the right at the time to impose the sanction. The stuff about HW seems totally irrelevant, and whether BN is "involved" now (if she is, which does not appear to me to be the case) has no bearing on whether she was involved then, when she imposed the sanction. I would suggest that the appeal be denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever seen a less convincing appeal for anything. Her appeal seems to be solely based on the actions of others, and no one has questioned them. Also failed to notify topic-banning admin, which could be seen as suspicious. I also suggest it be denied. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Holanthony

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

This is one of the most unimpressive appeals I've seen for a long time. There's basically nothing to it except personal attacks and unsubstantiated complaints about other editors (see WP:NOTTHEM), but not a word about the only thing that matters: the appellant's own conduct for which they were presumably sanctioned. I can't check anything about the actual sanction because it is not linked to in the appeal. The only sort-of-relevant argument here is the allegation of bias with respect to BethNaught - but this allegation is not only very unconvincing, but the one diff provided in its support postdates the topic ban and cannot therefore be grounds for appealing the topic ban. I would decline the appeal and warn Holanthony that more appeals in this vein may lead to blocks. (If anybody considers it pertinent, Holanthony was recently blocked by me for violating the topic ban they now appeal). Sandstein 21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm incorrect, but based on the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions, I was under the impression that indefinite topic bans could not be imposed by a single administrator under discretionary sanctions, only topic bans of up to one year. Is "of up to one year" meant to modify all sanctions in that sentence, or only blocks? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are up to one year, but bans can be of any duration. Look at WP:DSLOG for examples. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Holanthony was notified of the ban in this diff on their talk page on 10 Jan. Holanthony was warned about BLP editing in a previous ANI from July 2016. There are other diffs in BethNaught's notice. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything in this appeal which would indicate that BethNaught was wrong to apply the ban. There is a procedural argument about failure to be notified, but in my view Holanthony should have been aware that there were concerns about his editing of BLP based on this edit. That being said, the ban is indefinite, not infinite. There are plenty of articles that are not BLPs that need love, and I'd encourage Holanthony to go and make positive contributions to them and give us a reason to trust them on BLPs again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- On a side note, given the claims made here, has User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz been notified of the existence of this request? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Decline, the sanction is reasonable under the circumstances and after appropriate warnings. If Holanthony wishes to reduce it to a time limited sanction then they can appeal after (at least) six months of editing other areas of the encyclopaedia without any problems. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that no administrator (or indeed any other editor) is in favor of lifting the ban, I am closing the appeal as declined. Sandstein 17:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88

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 Hijiri88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hijiri88 (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/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hijiri88: Topic ban (II) : stating, and I quote here, "Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

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

30 January 2017 WikiProject Japan question about "Japanese reading of the title of a Chinese poem?"
30 January 2017 second edit in same section

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Feel free to call it nitpicking, but I have to assume asking a question about Japanese readings of material on the WikiProject Japan talk page qualifies as discussing Japanese culture. If I'm wrong, then having some sort of clear indication to that effect here would be useful, I think.

With the link provided below, I note that edits of this sort are permitted, although there is nothing on the arb page itself to that effect, and I would be willing to withdraw the request on the basis of that information. Unfortunately, I saw no reference to it on the arb page itself, and I think it would be useful for such material to be there as well. Also, it appears that as once again my actions are being questioned, I hit the wrong link once when filing the request for arbitration, that of Hijiri88's recent edits, and saw the discussion there. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification here.

Discussion concerning Hijiri88

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 Hijiri88

Is this a joke?

ArbCom explicitly told me I am allowed cite Japanese sources when writing articles about non-Japanese topics, and I asked WikiProject Japan for help in formatting the name of a Japanese ref in an article on a Chinese poet.

On top of that, why is John Carter still following my edits? What about the TBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't read JC's additional comment until just now. I saw that I was being reported and by whom I was being reported, and immediately knew what he was talking about (I checked the link to verify it). If John Carter has such a poor understanding of the difference between "Chinese" and "Japanese" culture, he should not be reporting edits like this even if it were not a ban-violation (and this isn't even the first time this has happened[19]). Asking for specific clarification each time this happens (on AE and not ARCA, mind you) is wikilawyering; the necessary clarification was already made last March. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I have to admit that I have a little bit of history with both editors. I've agreed with both at different times, and disagreed with both at different times, the former more often with Hijiri and the latter more often with John. That being said, I'm a little concerned about this request. The edits in question seem to me to be more personally motivated than motivated by any intention to edit in the area of the topic ban, though the latter remains a possibility. However, the fact that this report was filed rather than a warning issued speaks poorly of the OP, who has been in conflict with Hijiri88 in the recent past. Combined with this Arbcom request which was made earlier today, I'm concerned about the possibility of the OP hounding Hijiri. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 129.9.75.191

Doing a quick perusal of the edits of Hijiri88 at WP:Japan, they were asking about how to stylize an essay title in regards to a poem written by a Chinese Poet. How is this Japanese Culture and how does the ban apply? 129.9.75.191 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Just to note: John Carter and Hijiri88 are the subjects of a recently imposed Interaction Ban [20], and I'm not certain that John Carter's filing here is allowed by WP:BANEX. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

Sigh. So I closed the ANI last week that ended with these two being interaction banned. John Carter asked me on my talk page if filing an arbitration request would be allowed and I said I believed it would be, so that's on me if that isn't the case. I would say that when he said "request for arbitration" I took that in the literal sense of an WP:RFAR and not an enforcement request. Frankly I was hoping he wouldn't do anything at all and just move on, which was kind of the whole point of an interaction ban, but here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more I look at this the more it does in fact look like a violation of the iban. He told me he was already planning a request but this enforcement request is about edits that happened today, well after he was told to just stay away from Hijiri88. There is no reason he should still be following his edits and stirring up more drama, my response to his question was based on him filing a request based on things that had already transpired between the two of them, not stalking his edits looking to get him. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hijiri88

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
-Feel free to call it nitpicking, but I have to assume asking a question about Japanese readings of material on the WikiProject Japan talk page qualifies as discussing Japanese culture. If I'm wrong, then having some sort of clear indication to that effect here would be useful, I think. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
+Feel free to call it nitpicking, but I have to assume asking a question about Japanese readings of material on the WikiProject Japan talk page qualifies as discussing Japanese culture. If I'm wrong, then having some sort of clear indication to that effect here would be useful, I think.
+:With the link provided below, I note that edits of this sort are permitted, although there is nothing on the arb page itself to that effect, and I would be willing to withdraw the request on the basis of that information. Unfortunately, I saw no reference to it on the arb page itself, and I think it would be useful for such material to be there as well. Also, it appears that as once again my actions are being questioned, I hit the wrong link once when filing the request for arbitration, that of Hijiri88's recent edits, and saw the discussion there. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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