Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:43, 5 December 2012

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

Cla68

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Cla68

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBR&I: [1] Cla68 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with, Mathsci (talk · contribs), broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia, per AE thread.

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

[2]
[3]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cla68's claims: Mathsci is involved in an obsessive ongoing three-year feud with Captain Occam, despite CO being site-banned from WP for the last 12 months; radical changes in Mathsci's recent editing patterns, despite knowing that they are a direct consequence of recent open heart surgery

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

Barely six weeks ago, Cla68 was banned from making comments about me of any kind, anywhere on wikipedia. The original restriction was in relation to matters arising from WP:ARBR&I. Since that ban, he has nevertheless continued to do so on arbcom pages in a previous failed attempt to open an arbcom case "Race and intelligence 2". Now, in a request for amendment unrelated to him, he has written an unprovoked personal attack on me, directly related to WP:ARBR&I. In the diffs above Cla68 writes: "If you want to continue to facilitate the ongoing feud between an obsessive, established Wikipedia editor and an obsessive, established banned editor in their years-long personal feud with each other, while allowing thin-skinned admins to squish us peon content editors who try to say something about it, be my guest." Cla68 might think that by not mentioning my name explicitly he can exploit a loophole in his interaction ban allowing him to make any kind of vicious personal attack on me that he wishes. Without producing diffs or evidence, Cla68 has made a claim unsupported by any evidence (such as diffs) that there is an ongoing feud with an unnamed banned editor. If he is referring to Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin or TrevelyanL85A2 or the recently blocked account Zeromus1 (a sockpuppet of Captain Occam / Ferahgo the Assassin), there is no evidence of any "feud" in the findings of arbitrators either in WP:ARBR&I, the subsequent review or any later statements by arbitrators. Suggesting that there is just compounds the problems already present in Cla68's unprovoked statement, which is written in the hyperbolic over-dramatic language of a flame war. Cla68 is quite aware that he is prohibited from making statements about me of any kind. What he has written is a gross and deliberate violation of his AE ban. Since this is by no means the first time he has done so since that ban was imposed, the violation should now result in some form of editing restriction (a block of at least one week).

The response of Cla68 below shows that he has no understanding of his interaction ban. It confirms that he is determined to ignore the AE restrictions and cause whatever disruption he pleases. At no stage has Cla68 appealed against his AE restrictions: that appeal should normally have been lodged here. Contrary to Cla68's hyperbolic statements, this is the second request to enforce the AE restrictions. The first occurred on 23 October,[4] one day after the restrictions were imposed. The first request for enforcement was a direct consequence of Cla68's failed attempt to initiate an arbcom case, "Race and intelligence 2". That request was essentially a list of complaints or grudges that Cla68 had assembled concerning me. It was rejected by the arbitration committee. It is probably worth administrators reading the comments made here during that enforcement request, since it contradicts Cla68's own description.

Cla68 has now repeated more explicitly the unsupported claim that I have been fighting or feuding with somebody on wikipedia for three years. Presumably he means Captain Occam. If not, whom does he mean? That user was AE-banned by Risker in December 2011 and was subsequently site-banned by arbcom, so which on-wiki interaction or feud is he referring to that can be ascribed to 2012 and for which months (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December—Cla68 can take his pick)? I have no idea why Cla68 has decided out of the blue repeatedly to make these unsupported statements about me. He is blatantly violating his AE restrictions.

@Timotheus Canens: during each month of 2012 some form of arbcom activity has been kept going that can be traced back to the site-banned user Captain Occam and his cronies. The same is true now. All I can do is respond to the comments made about me. If Cla68 describes me as an "obsessive, established Wikipedia editor" engaged in a "three years-long personal feud", I prefer to raise my objections to his personal attacks here. Disruption has been caused by a number of unsuccessful requests for new cases or amendments, and the current request is very little different from recent ones. By contrast the amendment I requested soon after the review was passed fairly quickly. Given the findings of the review, the current murky request for amendment has almost certainly been orchestrated off-wiki by site-banned users. That persistence is what is wearisome. Because of post-operation trauma which has truned my life upside-down, I cannot concentrate sufficiently to add content to wikipedia as I did prior to October. I would still hope, however, to be protected from unjustified and unprompted personal attacks. I expect attacks like that on wikipediocracy, where Cla68 has free rein as one of the founding members, but not here.

@ Cla68. Why is Cla68 now trying to take advantage of my ill health? Yes, there was a noticeable change in my editing in September. To refresh Cla68's memory, I had a myocardial infarction, the first of three, on September 29; reported to A&E on 2 October; was given a triple bypass operation on 8 October; and have been gradually recuperating away from my home in France for the following weeks. Yes, post-operation trauma, physical and mental, lasts for at least six months. That affects my ability to write content and in fact my functioning in daily life. But why seek to profit from misfortune of this kind? I would not wish other people to have that kind of experience themselves. I would, however, hope that they would not make comments of this kind when they knew that something as serious as that had happened.[5] I find that depressing and hope that Cla68 can refactor what he has written.

@Seraphimbade: Cla68's editing restriction resulted from the motion about reverting/restoring/facilitating edits of the community banned user, Echigo mole. It had nothing to do with the content of the two diffs above which, because of the reference to "three years", can only refer to Captain Occam. I do not understand how I can be involved in a feud with a user who has been banned from editing on wikipedia since December 2011. What has happened to change that, apart from Cla68 making a false claim and deliberately misrepresenting me (as he has deliberately misrepresented the after effects of my heart operation)? Where is the on-wiki evidence of this "feud", beyond Cla68's unsupported assertion? It seems to be something he has invented out of thin air, as his version of Cla68's "truth". But how can anybody be in a feud with a user, banned from wikipedia for almost one year? If Cla68 wants to appeal his AE ban, he should do so on this page. Arbitrators rejected the last attempt to adjust AE sanctions through the arbitration committee. If Cla68 wants to change the rules about sockpuppetry or proxy-editing to give banned users new privileges, the village pump is probably a good place to start.

If "prohibited from commenting on Mathsci ... anywhere on wikipedia" does not apply to arbcom-related space, then please modify the wording of the original restriction. That would certainly make it easier to ignore this and any future personal attacks in arbcom-related space. Because of past experience, "arbcom-related space" should include the user talk pages of arbitrators, but not of other administrators.

Discussion concerning Cla68

Statement by Cla68

Admins, could you please do something about this? I think this is the third or fourth enforcement action Mathsci has filed against me. Do you need the links? Admins User:Timotheus Canens and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'm especially interested in what you have to say. You helped make this mess. Cla68 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was referring to Mathsci and to whoever this banned editor is that he has been fighting all over Wikipedia for the last three years. They are both clearly obsessed with their pursuit of each other, so much so that Mathsci was, by his own admission, dueling with this guy from a hospital bed. As far as I'm aware, I'm allowed to comment on the subject in related dispute resolution forums such as here, ArbCom admendments, and ArbCom case requests, etc. If I'm not, then that's news to me. Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, if you look at Mathsci's contribution history over the last few months, you will see that 90%~ are dedicated to sock puppet investigations, blocking IPs, and filing AE requests or AN notices against editors or admins who comment negatively on his behavior in pursuit of this (admittedly real) boogeyman. In my opinion, your actions in the past have facilitated or encouraged Mathsci's behavior. Could you please do something to stop it, at least as far as it is affecting other editors? Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cla68

As an administrator who doesn't frequent AE I'm commenting here. It would have been better if Mathsci hadn't filed this request. It would also have been better if Cla68 hadn't responded to this request.

Cla68 is of course entitled to comment on Arb motions that name him as an affected party, but that doesn't mean he has carte blanche to make snarky comments against Mathsci, especially ones that refer to medical conditions. As far as I can see, Mathsci's editing affects Cla68 only insofar as Cla68 chooses to make it an issue. If Cla68 would decide to ignore Mathsci's posts to Arbspace, and ignore Mathsci's removal of sock posts, would there be an issue? Similarly, if Mathsci would decide to ignore Cla68's posts to Arbspace, annoying as they may be, would there be a problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cla68

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

Cla68, for clarity, are you denying that the comment in question was in regards to MathSci? If so, an explanation of what its intent was would be very helpful. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in general agreement with T. Canens, after reviewing the surrounding context. It would be extremely rare to prohibit someone from appealing sanctions against them (in fact, I know of no such case where that has ever been done), and comments in the context of an appeal in the proper venue (which ArbCom is one of, for an AE sanction) is broadly and generally considered an exception to a topic or interaction ban, since disallowing the sanctioned editor from discussing the matter in the appeal would essentially prohibit them from appealing at all. What are they going to say? "I'm appealing something I can't name, on grounds I can't discuss"? This is essentially a frivolous request given that, and I would support the restrictions proposed on future enforcement requests. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Fut. Perf., but my patience is wearing thin. The amendment request at issue does request that Cla68's interaction ban be lifted. Cla68 is therefore allowed to comment in that thread unimpeded by the interaction ban. (I voice no opinion about the accuracy of Cla68's characterization of the overall situation, as that is irrelevant to the question whether the interaction ban applies.) Moreover, AE generally does not interfere in arbcom's own pages.
I think Mathsci's enforcement requests are doing more harm than good, and I propose that we direct him
1. to seek enforcement of the interaction bans at issue arising out of edits on any page whose title begins with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests only from arbcom clerks or arbcom itself, and not from any other venue, including AE; and,
2. to not seek enforcement of the interaction bans at issue arising out of edits on any other page by means of an on-wiki posting, unless he has obtained permission for such posting from any uninvolved administrator by email. T. Canens (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I disagree with my colleagues above, and I stand by the principles I have expressed elsewhere on similar matters: we must stop people from abusing Arbcom pages to circumvent their restrictions. If the community imposes interaction bans, it means: "person X is not allowed to pursue conflicts with person Y", anywhere, in any form. It does not mean: "person X is invited to escalate their conflict with Y to Arbcom". Of course Cla68 is free to comment on the idea of lifting his restriction. But he could have done so without using it as an opportunity for taking yet more cheap and unprovoked potshots against Mathsci. So, no, even when answering on an Arbcom page, he is not "free to comment in that thread unimpeded by the interaction ban". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and before I forget: to avoid another weeks-long blowup like we saw last time, this same principle goes for this thread here too. Cla68: on this page, you are allowed to talk about yourself. You are still not allowed to talk about Mathsci, and I will block you if you do (the way you did in your second and third posts in your statement above.) In return, Mathsci, please make absolutely no further posts in this thread. You've made your position clear; now please leave the rest to others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 *#to not seek enforcement of the interaction bans at issue arising out of edits on any other page by means of an on-wiki posting, unless he has obtained permission for such posting from any uninvolved administrator by email. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 04:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 *I have to say I disagree with my colleagues above, and I stand by the principles I have expressed elsewhere on similar matters: we must stop people from abusing Arbcom pages to circumvent their restrictions. If the community imposes interaction bans, it means: "person X is not allowed to pursue conflicts with person Y", anywhere, in any form. It does not mean: "person X is invited to escalate their conflict with Y to Arbcom". Of course Cla68 is free to comment on the idea of lifting his restriction. But he could have done so without using it as an opportunity for taking yet more cheap and unprovoked potshots against Mathsci. So, no, even when answering on an Arbcom page, he is not "free to comment in that thread unimpeded by the interaction ban". [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
+** Oh, and before I forget: to avoid another weeks-long blowup like we saw last time, this same principle goes for this thread here too. Cla68: on this page, you are allowed to talk about yourself. You are still not allowed to talk about Mathsci, and I will block you if you do (the way you did in your second and third posts in your statement above.) In return, Mathsci, please make absolutely no further posts in this thread. You've made your position clear; now please leave the rest to others. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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