Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:31, 2 September 2014

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

Ignocrates

No action because it is not clear that the topic ban was violated. Both parties are advised to stop following each others' edits to minimize the likelihood of problems. Sandstein 05:44, 1 September 2014 (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 Ignocrates

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ignocrates (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/Ebionites 3#Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban :

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

18 June 2014 Interaction with an individual who was at the time being considered for site ban with whom Ignocrates had had no contact at all after I had been commenting on that page. A review of the preceding content of the page will reveal that I had been involved in the discussion of sanctions against Neuraxis and that Ignocrates came in after the fact to advise of his pet essay POV railroad.
18 June 2014 further input with that individual
29 July 2014 obvious really pointless derogation taking place after I had unfortunately reacted to his rather pompously self-righteous overreaction to reasonable criticism which led to the two week block to one of the few editors whom has recently shown any sympathy for Ignocrates
19 August 2014 stalking at ANI in his first edit after two weeks of inactivity in a thread I had started about perhaps topic banning another editor in which he advises that other editor to take it to ArbCom specifically implicitly me to ArbCom. It is also worth noting that he as he said in the discussion with Neuraxis rarely if ever comments on the noticeboards or his edit history in general shows no particular interest in them except when evidently I have been involved in those discussions which I believe could reasonably be described as stalking. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19 August 2014 continuation of stalking above
19 August 2014 further violation specifically written after his stalking above was questioned at ANI on the user page of the editor against whom complaints were made once again "Just in case" Ignocrates were to be sanctioned to take it to ArbCom.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have been tolerant in the past of Ignocrates' attempts to cast himself in a dubiously defensible light. At this point I believe it more reasonable to adopt a strictly zero tolerance attitude toward further such contact from him.John Carter (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see direct evidence to support the claims of the respondent regarding what others think and find it strange that anyone would submit their interpretations of the comments of others as evidence. I believe a review of the SPA question asked in the arbitration is relevant in helping assess how closely individual opinions relate to the opinions of the broader community. And the diff linked to below was discussed at Worm's talk page in the same short section with the response of "reasonable" from Worm. Reading that full thread and noting the use of names might be useful as well. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I have expanded the descriptions in the hope that the context clarifies the nature of the problematic behavior. Ignocrates has been rather careful to avoid naming me in particular in his edits but I believe the edits taken in context and with a review of the broader history of his own edits would clearly demonstrate that the only way he could have come to those discussions would be if as Worm had implied on his talk page or if he had actively been reviewing my edits for some reason. I regret to say that having had no prior experience trying to raise such cases and the roundabout nature of Ignocrates' use of language it can be less than apparent. @EdJohnston: and @Worm That Turned: may be able to provide some better indication as to how they came to their conclusions that the behavior of Ignocrates did constitute an interaction ban better than me given their greater degree of familiarity with them and I am pinging them for their input. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Ignocrates

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 Ignocrates

The following additional links are relevant: User talk:Worm That Turned#Gentle reminder?, User talk:EdJohnston#Please advise. Most of the rest of this complaint is nonsense; or trolling. The issue comes down to deciding when it is ok or not ok to post at ANI. Dave raised the one legitimate issue (imo): Is it ok to post at ANI when John Carter is the subject of the ANI? Dave thinks it isn't; I think it's a judgement call, and I explained my reasoning on his talk page. And lest we forget, John Carter has a diff of his own to explain. It's curious that he failed to mention it. I believe a WP:Boomerang is in order, and should at least be considered. That's it. I'll respond to specific questions from AE. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This recently deleted comment at ANI is also relevant: diff (referring back to diff). That's not good practice on a noticeboard; it should have been lined out. Ignocrates (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC) It might also be helpful to re-emphasize the importance of decorum during this review process. Ignocrates (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This block is obviously relevant. Again, curious that it wasn't included. Ignocrates (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Moved here by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose as long as we are here anyway, we might as well discuss John Carter's violation of his T-ban from the same arbitration case. Ignocrates (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, I already explained the reason for the first diff. I returned to editing and decided to check ANI for the hell of it. This case was at the top so I read it. Unfortunately, the editor missed my point completely: don't feed the beast at ANI. Frankly, I felt a measure of pity for the guy; it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. How this has anything to do with John Carter is beyond me. JC wanted him sanctioned, and I agreed diff; a sanction was necessary to stay consistent with the precedent established by ArbCom. It's true that I don't edit in this topic area; so what. Comments from uninvolved editors should receive more weight than those who are invested in the outcome. Ignocrates (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Under WP:IBAN, "editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". John Carter has not provided any evidence clearly indicating that Ignocrates has breached this limit. When two editors are under a mutual interaction ban, the first to comment on a particular issue cannot preclude the second from commenting on the same issue, especially regarding a general subject where both have actively edited. More needs to be shown than simply labeling an edit "stalking". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

It is easy to establish that some of these threads are relevant. I would start with the link to ANI thread, it depicts Ignocrates following John Carter's edits. It is also obvious that he was pointing to his feud with John Carter. Per IBAN he was not allowed to refer to John Carter. Fearofreprisal has been a member for over 6 years and Ignocrates never posted on his talk page, he posted only when he got to know that this person has issues with John Carter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ignocrates

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

It is not clear from the request, and I can't readily imagine, how exactly these edits by Ignocrates are supposed to constitute an interaction with John Carter, who is not named in any of these edits. I would take no action except a warning to John Carter not to make any more meritless interaction ban complaints, because such complaints are contrary to the purpose of an interaction ban of separating the parties from each other. Sandstein 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the analysis by User:Worm That Turned at User talk:Worm That Turned#Gentle reminder? I also find Carter's diffs (above) 1-6 persuasive, except for #3 (a note left for Smeat75 whose significance I don't understand). On this basis I'd favor a one-week block of User:Ignocrates for violating the interaction ban. I'd also warn John Carter that he is trying to avoid Ignocrates the questions he asked at ANI are not a good way of doing it. When Ignocrates shows up on User talk:Neuraxis to recommend one of his essays after complaints about Neuraxis's conduct were made by John Carter, and when the subject matter (chiropractic) has nothing to do with early Christianity (the area of common interest between Carter and Ignocrates that led to the past disputes) it's hard to explain unless Ignocrates was following the edits of John Carter. If you've been instructed to avoid somebody you should not be following their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent this from going nowhere, if EdJohnston is convinced based on his analysis of the edits at issue that a banned interaction has taken place, then I do not oppose the proposed sanction. Sandstein 06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, thanks for your reply. In the absence of other admins commenting here who are firmly convinced of an actual violation of the interaction ban, I suggest that this be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So closed, then. Sandstein 05:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness

Not actionable because this is not an arbitration enforcement request. Sandstein 03:35, 29 August 2014 (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 Supreme Deliciousness

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Supreme Deliciousness (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: Syrian Civil War sanctions:

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

03:39, 11 May 2014 an attempt to add Israel as belligerent on map
18:05, 25 August 2014 changing main belligerents on the map in violation of WP:SCWGS and community consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel that Israel is not a belligerent in the war.
18:07, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
18:11, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
18:12, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
18:12, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
18:12, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
18:13, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 2010 - 1 month topic ban under ARBPIA sanctions.
January 2011 blocked for 2 months under ARBPIA on Hezbollah article.

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

Supreme is warned on editing Syrian Civil War articles by user:FutureTrillionaire on 17 October 2012.
Participating in major discussion on Syria's maps (among 8 users, closed by administrator) June 2013, which reached a consensus that Israeli-controlled part of Golan Heights should be shown as "striped" in regard to Syrian Civil War events (SCW topic under ARBPIA at the time).
On April 2014, Supreme Deliciousness is attempting to change maps on Wikimedia commons, in order to add Israel as belligerent of the war [2], thus affecting the wikipedia articles. He is blocked by user:Magog the Ogre for disruptive editing on contested topic (see wikimedia block log).
Supreme Deliciousness is notified on WP:SCWGS sanctions by user:EvergreenFir on 11 May 2014, following Supreme's edits (SCW topic already under SCWGS).
Supreme participating in secondary discussion on Syria's maps without mentioning the first (participating among 5 users, no closure, "white Golan Heights" map changes shortly reverted [3]) 11 May 2014 (SCW topic under SCWGS).
Supreme is trying to convince a map editor user:Joan301009 on wikicommons that "There is consensus to have the Israeli occupied Golan Heights in white, can you edit it?" 23 August 2014; despite being aware of the problem in such statement, and consequently deliberately adding "Israeli-occupied" key to relevant maps [4].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Supreme Deliciousness is a veteran editor at Syria-related articles. In the past, he was involved in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine related incidents and was sanctioned in May 2010 [5],December 2011 (by arbitration committee on ARBPIA) and finally 2 week block for disruptive editing in August 2011. It should be pointed out that since 2011 User:Supreme Deliciousness indeed turned more careful for the next couple of years, but his dedication to Syrian related topics, unfortunately brought him to engage on Syrian Civil War related topics. It is important to note that ARBPIA sanctions in regard to Syrian Civil War had initially been applied in March 2013, and were superceded by WP:SCWGS in August 2013, as a community sanction.
Over the past months of 2014, User:Supreme Deliciousness has engaged into a systematic campaign (similar to previously defined "tendentious behaviour") to picture Israel as a participant in the Syrian Civil War, despite the fact that WP:SCWGS is specifically drawing the borderline between generally preceding Arab-Israeli conflict and the current Syrian Civil War - and i quote "The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic." (amendment of WP:ARBPIA on June 2013).
User:Supreme Deliciousness is certainly aware that he is working on the Syrian War topic area, and that he violates the precise nature of the SCWGS sanctions and a long-standing consensus that Israel is not a belligerent in the Syrian War. Supreme Deliciousness' actions to misleadingly put Israel among major combatants in the Syrian Civil War maps is clearly deliberate and systematic.GreyShark (dibra) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [6].GreyShark (dibra) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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 Supreme Deliciousness

Statement by Zero0000

I'm an "uninvolved admin" in Syrian matters, but since this case involves Israel I will be conservative and comment only in this section.

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. In fact I think Greyshark does not provide any evidence of a behavioral problem. Greyshark claims that SD is trying to portray Israel as a combatant in the Syrian civil war, but none of the diffs indicate that. There is a map of Syria showing who is in control of different regions, and SD wants the map legend to indicate the state of the Golan region rather than leaving the map with a region of unique color whose nature is not given in the legend. One can argue for or against it; it is certainly not a behavior issue. At Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Military_map_issues you can see that some other editors have the same opinion as SD and that SD agreed to visually separate Israel from the Syrian War combatants using a dotted line. The question should be solved by consensus on a talk page or content noticeboard. Zero^talk 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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

I'm closing this because this is not an arbitration enforcement request. The enforcement of community sanctions should be discussed in whatever community forum may be appropriate for it. Sandstein 03:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Darkness Shines

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: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

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

Notification of that administrator: notification.

Statement by Darkness Shines

Since the TBAN was imposed I have brought Rape during the Rwandan Genocide to GA status, and the Rape during the Bosnian War article is now a GA candidate, I have expanded and replaced most of the references on the article, removing primary sources as well as newspaper references and replacing them with academic sources. This is a controversial article and I have managed all that work without losing my temper at anyone. I should like the chance to do the same thing with some articles dealing with human rights abuses in the region covering the TBAN. I have also created a few stubs and another article which appeared at DYK, Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War. I believe the TBAN has now become punitive and not preventative, as I have had but one drunken outburst since it was imposed. The following users requested I let them know when I file an appeal, so am pinging them. @RegentsPark: @Drmies: @Bbb23: @Vanamonde93: Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx: It most certainly was sourced, "the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months. [sic] Yet in an interview with me in Dr Geoffrey Davis , who was working in Bangladesh in 1972 suggested this number was far higher." Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 120. On "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". see Women, Migration, and Conflict: Breaking a Deadly Cycle p50, "94% of displaced households", and that is the source used. On 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse, cite to Physicians for Human Rights estimates that during the conflict, between 215,000 and 257,000 of them were subjected to sexualized violence, and now you can say sorry, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, what source misrepresentation? That is a PA as it is not true. I just wrote the quote above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc‎

As I said when DS asked me on 8 Aug, I would have been happy to lift the TBAN myself if there was nothing of the same behaviour as what led to the ban. However I found some edits of concern so wasn't willing to lift it myself. Now I see why he reacted the way he did but comments like this are just not acceptable under any circumstances. Having said that, if other admins agree that the TBAN can be lifted I'd be quite happy to do it myself but I like some agreement to do it.

Whether it's still required, if others agree I'd be quite happy to lift it as a second chance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkness Shines

Statement by Shrike

I think DS did a good work on those articles. So he should be given a second chance.--Shrike (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

For what damage DS may have caused, the penalty may not quite fit the crime at this point. One voice for "second chance" on this. Collect (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

I haven't always gotten along with DS in the instances where we have interacted, but he is an excellent content contributor and I do not believe he deserves a TBAN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

The TBAN had other issues besides personal attacks. See insertion of unsourced figure of 200,000 rapes at result/DS. Consequently, I looked at Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War to spot check fact figures; I looked at no other article. There's a claim in the article that "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". There's also a claim of 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse. The latter claim can be bound in Reis/PHR report on pages 4 and 59, but it is not on pages 17-18 as claimed in footnote 15. I did not find any support for the first claim of 94 percent. The PHR report does state that 94% of households (a household comprises more than one person) surveyed had one or more incidents of (not necessarily sexual) violence (eg. pp 2, 71). Page 47 states, "Regarding sexual violence, 9% (94) of the 991 respondents reported one or more war-related sexual violence experiences." See also Table 2, page 44, that breaks down the type of violence in households.

I'm concerned that DS is not accurately reporting statistics and that there could be an extraordinary POV bias.

Consequently, I would not lift the TBAN.

I'll commend the claim of only one recent civility incident, but I did not examine civility. Glrx (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I looked over the original AE request, and given the outrageous conduct by Darkness Shines which led to the AE enforcement request, as well as during the AE enforcement request, and given that this was only a few months ago, I strongly recommend denying this appeal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines

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

Note: Without assessment of the request, the relevant TBAN was applied by Callanecc here and modified here (original AE request that let to the TBAN here). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note at the outset that I participated in the administrators' discussion that led to the ban being appealed. The appeal does not address the reasons for the topic ban, so we may assume that their validity is uncontested. Instead, the appeal argues that the topic ban should be lifted because of good article work done by Darkness Shines, and no loss of temper on their part. However, as Glrx points out, the topic ban was not (only) imposed for deficiencies in self-control, but also for edit-warring and misrepresenting cited sources. Because the appeal does not address this misconduct, we can't establish that the ban no longer serves a preventative function. I would therefore decline the appeal. Moreover, Darkness Shines writes in their appeal that they had a "drunken outburst" since the ban was imposed. In my view, people susceptible to drunken outbursts on Wikipedia, however rarely, should not edit sensitive and controversial topics. For this reason, too, I would decline the appeal. Sandstein 19:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Darkness Shines now says (on 19:37, 30 August 2014) about their source misrepresentation that contributed to Callanecc's decision to impose the sanction is at odds with my assessment of their editing in the previously mentioned administrators' discussion. This indicates, to me, that the ban is still needed to prevent similar misconduct by Darkness Shines in this topic area. Sandstein 19:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a slightly more refined restriction that we could impose to recognise DS's improved conduct since the topic ban and allow him to make constructive edits but to keep him away from the conflicts that got him the topic ban in the first place? DS, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WarKosign

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 WarKosign

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IRISZOOM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA:

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

14:53, 30 August 2014 He changes it to being something according to "Hamas Ministry of Health" (which is not true, while it's run by Hamas, also UN and other NGO's back up the claim).
22:08, 30 August 2014 He removes how many civilians died (including children and how many of the total were Palestinians) and changes it to being "most of them Palestinians".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

17:26, 21 July 2014

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. See this from 17:26, 21 July 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WarKosign is trying to diminish the fatalities of the Palestinians civilians, while he keeps the one about Israeli ones. As a result of his actions, as I wrote on the talk page, we can only read now in the lead: "that the percentage of how many were civilians is disputed, though the health ministry, UN and NGO's back it up. We are not even given an estimate anymore in the lead but just the total of Palestinian dead and that the number of civilians is disputed. The Israeli side's fatalities is given as a fact." This is a serious NPOV problem. I wrote to him to warn him of his 1RR violation and said he should self-revert but he responded by saying: "Feel free to report, along with your own edit warring."

Besides getting blocked, he was also warned for edit warring in the same article on 22:32, 4 August 2014 by admin Ronhjones. There is also an Editnotice on the article which gives info about the rules. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As said, the number is backed up by UN and NGO's, and reported much in media, and you can therefore not say that the numbers only come from Hamas. As you know and mention, the numbers is visible in the infobox and a table in the rest of the article. Removing it from the lead is unacceptable. By making it "clearer" that it's not "unversally agreed", you first change it from being a fact to being something only according to Hamas. Then you say you wan't to remove "unbased information", when you in fact you removed the whole part of the numbers of civilians.

The number about the total of Palestinians killed is not disputed as everyone put nearly the same number but it's a serious POV violation diminishing the civilian casualties of Palestinians, which in the end meant removing it totally, and that while keeping the info in the same place about the Israeli casualties! --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it was and is wrong to force your view, which included violating 1RR, on the issue of Palestinian civilians deaths (perhaps the biggest issue in this Gaza conflict) but I agree with what Nishidani and Kingsindian wrote on this issue. So I reported it because forcing your view on an issue and breaking 1RR is unacceptable and keep in mind WarKosign didn't want to revert himself though I told him to do so or get reported, which he welcomed. I think it is totally wrong to edit like that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-sche, as you know, there was an active discussion on the talk page but WarKosign kept forcing his view on the article, which also lead to a a violation of the 1RR. If he had accepted to contribute on this issue in a better manner, by discussing more and self-reverting his violation, this vouldn't have escalated to here. It was after he ignored my advice to revert it, that I went here to protest against his 1RR. Keep also in mind that the problem with the first edit was not only the name of the ministry but also that he made the claim to look being something that was only according to Hamas, which actually was the worst part. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Yes.

Discussion concerning WarKosign

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 WarKosign

Neither of the edits in question is a revert, so technically 1RR is not applicable.

Some background: Me and several other editors made a big effort to shorten and simplify the lead paragraph while keeping it NPOV. Here are two of the most recent talk page sections dedicated to the effort [7] [8].

An IP user noted that there is an arguably incorrect statement in the lead saying that "most of the casualties were Palestinian civilians". I argued in the talk page that while it is obvious that most of the casualties are Palestinians, it is far less obvious that most of them are civilians, and thus it is incorrect and POV pushing to make this blanket statement. The infobox and the casualties sections represent this claim far better with 5 different counts. User:GGranddad was making an argument for inclusion of the statement and even provided a single source that actually says that most of the casualties overall were Palestinian civilians. User:GGranddad was soon after blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of User:Dalai lama ding dong and his edit adding the statement was reverted, while User:AcidSnow restored his version and User:IRISZOOM suddenly began contributing to the talk page - something he/she never did before - and continued arguing the point from that very point where GGranddad stopped, making me suspect it is another sockpuppet.

To the edits in question: I did not remove the problematic statement since it had one source, and the sources that usually contradict it (ITIC and IDF) did not provide a new number of dead militants while the number of Palestinian casualties increased, technically making Palestinian civilians a majority among casualties. Other users gradually added more and more information into the lead. As Methodology section says, "there has been little discrepancy between Gaza Health Ministry count and the counts of human rights groups and the UN, which use the former figure as preliminary and conduct their own investigations." so saying that Hamas-controlled ministery of Health is the source is correct.

The first edit was to make clear in the lead that the information is not universally agreed upon in a short and clean manner. The alternative as I wrote repeatedly in the talk page was to copy the casualties table into the lead.

The second edit was to remove unbased information (where did these percent come from?). I even increased the number of Palestinian casualties - hardly POV pushing to diminish it.

WarKosign (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: All the sources but ITIC give numbers above 2000, and ITIC's total number hasn't been updated in a while - the date in the casualties table refers to the civilians vs militant count, the total number is not given in the cited source at all. All the sources that are up to day are relatively close and 2100 was lowest estimate of palestinians, not including israeli casualties, so "at least 2100" is less of misrepresentations than "at least 2000".

Statement by Shrike

@Penwhale:This clearly content dispute there is no source misrepresentation all NGOs base their data on their Health Ministry also most of the sources say so.That the data coming from Palestinians. For example the first source[9] "The national" quite clearly says

The war killed more than 2,140 Palestinians and injured more than 11,000, Palestinian health officials said.

--Shrike (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: What include and how to include this clear nature of content dispute.He correctly stated what was written in the source.--Shrike (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Though I and WarKosign often disagree, I have generally found him amenable to reasonable argument on the talk page (where he participates a lot). Sometimes the argument takes a while to get through, but I have not found him to edit war much. He does have a clear bias, but that is the norm rather than the exception in this area (I also have bias).

A couple of comments on the content part of the dispute. Regarding the methodology for counting civilian and militant deaths, it is complicated. In a nutshell, Gaza health ministry gives figures, UN and other human rights orgs take figures from there and conduct their own investigations, finally giving a preliminary figure. These sources give ~2100 killed (70-75% civilian). On the other side, Israel says about 50% are combatants, based on intelligence reports. There are various other issues involved.

As to what the Gaza Health Ministry should be called, it was decided that "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Palestinian Health Ministry" should be used. See here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Sandstein's comments regarding the second edit are not correct. The France24 reference was already present in the lead, added by someone else. The statement for which it was added as support has since disappeared from the lead. The reference itself is obsolete and should be removed. The statement "mostly Palestinians" is simply WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR and a fact not disputed by anyone; it does not even require a source per WP:LEAD. About the "2100 killed" claim, it is a summary of the "Casualties" section, where almost all (except ITIC, which has incomplete figures) say >2100 killed. Whether or not there is misrepresentation or minimization elsewhere is a different matter. I would find it really ~~funny~~ absurd if WarKosign was banned for allegedly inflating Palestinian casualties, given that everyone agrees his bias is in the opposite direction. Kingsindian (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have made clear (I hope) the comments regarding the second edit are off the mark. The first edit is problematic, but it could be easily solved with some paraphrasing and discussion on the talk page, where WarKosign participates a lot. This should have never escalated to WP:AE. To have a topic ban based on one edit would be too harsh and nobody would be safe in this area. I am thinking of my own neck as much as WarKosign's, since unnamed parties have been dropping hints about my actions from the opposite POV. If there is long-term disruptive and tendentious editing, evidence should be presented. Kingsindian (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

The first edit is clearly a misrepresentation of the source. Contra Shrike, although the article attributes one set of figures to "Palestinian health officials", it says "mostly Palestinian civilians" on its own judgement and "The United Nations says about three quarters of the Palestinians killed have been civilians". (The UN has a very large presence in Gaza and doesn't need the Palestinian authorities to roughly estimate the fraction of casualties that are civilian.) Omitting this key assertion of the source is an obvious misrepresentation. Zero^talk 06:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike:: NPOV requires more than just reporting something that a source supports. It also means conveying the context provided by the source. In this case the most notable issue about the casualties, as determined by hundreds of reliable sources, was elided. Zero^talk 07:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Though I think WarKoSign edits to ensure the priority of the official Israeli viewpoint on the page, his style of working is, generally, infinitely better than the numerous disruptive or blatant POV-pushers active on that and sister pages recently, few of whom share his readiness to discuss collegially. I agree with Kingsindian's summation. The evidence is too thin to warrant the kind of sanction proposed. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by -sche

Although he has discernible sympathies for one side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, WarKosign is a reasonable editor and regularly participates in discussions on Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict in which consensus wordings of various sections of the article are hashed out. The same discussions (1, 2) which concluded that Gaza's health ministry should be called the Gazan Health Ministry showed that there were a number of other names people might plausibly find in references or think to use, for which reason diff 1 is something I would have simply amended, with links in my edit summary to the aforementioned discussions, no further action necessary. Diff 2 was a reasonable attempt at replacing disputed information (disputed in that different sources give different numbers, and in that editors disputed the numbers' inclusion), which was already present in detail in both the infobox and the article body, with just the facts that sources from all 'sides' agreed on; discussion on the talk page seems to show consensus for just such a 'just-the-agreed-upon-facts' approach. I agree with Kingsindian's analysis. This should not have escalated to AE, and the evidence is too weak to merit the sanction that is proposed. I echo HJ Mitchell's concern that this may be "tactical use of discretionary sanctions to eliminate an opponent". -sche (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning WarKosign

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

If 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Palestinian has the correct number, then I think more than 2000 should be used (as not all sources agree with at least 2100). Regarding the 1st edit, that is blatant misrepresentation of the source. I'd support some form of TBAN in lieu of this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support a topic ban for three months or so. Misattributing statements to a source is, in my view, sanctionable misconduct if done repeatedly or with a disruptive purpose. In the first edit, WarKosign attributed the statement that mostly civilians died to the "Hamas Ministry of Health", an attribution the cited source does not make (although it later cites "Palestinian health officials", i.e., not necessarily Hamas officials, for casualty numbers). Likewise, with the second edit, WarKosign attributes the statement that most of the more than 2,100 dead were Palestinians to another source, which in fact talks about "more than 2,000 people" and says nothing about which side most of them belonged to. This creates the appearance that WarKosign just wrote whatever they considered correct or appropriate without bothering to look at the cited references or supply new references of their own. Such repeated sloppiness in the use of sources, whether intentional or not, is not acceptable when editing sensitive, contentious topics. Sandstein 07:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The edits are cause for concern, but are they an isolated incident or part of a wider pattern? I'd like to hear more on that before lurching straight to a topic ban to assuage my concern that this is a tactical use of discretionary sanctions to eliminate an opponent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs

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 Baseball Bugs

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NE Ent 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Baseball Bugs (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/Manning_naming_dispute#Baseball_Bugs :

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

[10] thread on ANI discussion behavior on Chelsea Manning page, specifically appropriate use of gender pronouns

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[11] warning for previous violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Baseball Bugs

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.1 by Baseball Bugs

On that same ANI page, I am asking for either my ban to be rescinded, or the user in question [Int21h - see below] to have the ban extended to him, as he has made the same statements that I allegedly made that got me banned a year ago. I ask for fairness and consistency. If it was BLP-violating hate speech a year ago, then it still is, and a random handful of users don't have the right to decide otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Baseball Bugs

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

Int21h

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 Int21h

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Int21h (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/Manning_naming_dispute#Tarc_topic-banned :

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

20:29, 1 September 2014

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Disruptive_participation_by_Tarc, ArbCom ruled that the statement "Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe" was "inflammatory and offensive" (added 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)) when applied to Chelsea Manning, a living transgender person (end addition). This ruling was also applied to insisting that Chelsea Manning is male: "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so".

Int21h engaged in exactly parallel behavior, even to the extent of using animal analogies in an attack against a transgender subject, stating that "Painting a horse does not make a zebra" and further stating, "Chelsea is a male, not a female, therefore the proper pronoun is 'they' with accompanying cases. From wikt:she: 'A female person or animal.'".

I request that given the exact parallel, Int21h should be subject to the same remedy that Tarc was for such inflammatory and offensive attacks against a transgender subject: a topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not aware of any except Tarc's, but they may exist.

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

Was given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 1 September 2014 by Penwhale: 1 September 2014

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

ArbCom established a precedent that contradicting the gender-identification of a transgender person was "inflamatory and offensive" in the instance of Tarc's comments. Beside applying similar discretionary sanctions in the case of User:Int21h, I ask that ArbCom confirm that in general contradicting the gender-identification of a transgender person is "inflamatory and offensive", whether in an article, on a talk page, or anywhere else, and affirm that such comments may be removed from talk pages under the provisions of our Biographies of living persons, specifically under the sections titled Non-article space, which allows removal of personal attacks against a living subject from talk pages and also under the heading Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

EdJohnson, I have to say that if BB is restricted from participating in discussions about transgender interpreted over-broadly, it seems he would not be able to appeal related decisions. I am sure WP policies don't allow an interpretation so broad that he couldn't edit his own appeal! Yworo (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff of notification

Discussion concerning Int21h

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 Int21h

Statement by Knowledgekid87

This was brought up at ANI where a majority of editors agreed that it was not hate speech. Tarc made a total of three comments that were intended to be offensive, all that was seen here was one that was from an opposing point of view. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the user was aware of sanctions on the article as Penwhale gave the notice after the comment was placed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that Tarc has denied [12] that the reason given above is why he was topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

Unfortunately, most of the issues brought up at ANI happened before the alert was given, and as such I do not think anything is currently enforceable. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this comment from Int21h, "Bring it on.", I suspect that Int21h will insist on his or her right to make such remarks about living transgender individuals. A clarification as to whether willful misgendering constitutes "a personal attack" against a living subject under the BLP, allowing such comments to be removed or redacted from article talk pages could easily prevent future disruption in the subject area. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is who are the ones that are going to go through each comment to make sure it is ok to post? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also WP:CHERRYPICKING you are taking the "Bring it on" comment out of a larger discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement.2 by Baseball Bugs

To Penwhale [above]: Whether actionable at this time or not, do you agree then, that the editor's words would have qualified for sanctions a year ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Valeron [below]: I was topic-banned for just such an "absurd" accusation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...Baseball Bugs can't request to have his own ban lifted here at AE since it was issued directly by Arbcom as part of the Manning case. He would have to use WP:ARCA to appeal his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
- Where they will continue to support the false pretenses under which I was topic-banned. A total waste of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And where do you get the idea that I'm engaging in a "transgender dispute"? My complaint is about unfair and unequal treatment of those accused (falsely, at least in my case) of bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProtossPylon

I feel that we've been creating a battleground out of a non-issue. The unnecessary zebra remark notwithstanding, Int's original comment, regardless of its correctness, makes it perfectly clear that he intended to start a meaningful discussion in an attempt to neutralize the article; not that he was deliberately attacking the subject - an allegation that Yworo was making in the ANI thread. This is at odds with Tarc's comments, which were vitriol-filled argument bait. Int has also not repeated this kind of discussion at all, so I fail to see the point or effectiveness of a topic ban. ProtossPylon 01:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnValeron

This discussion, which has spilled thousands of words on Wikipedia today, has nothing to do with proving that the accused is guilty. It's a case of the accuser trying to save face after lodging an absurd accusation. JohnValeron (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

Misgendering is bad. Casting aspersions is bad too. Saying "Chelsea is male" is an opinion and we do not punish thought-crimes. Comparing Chelsea to a pig is hate speech. Throwing around words like transphobia because people don't believe the same way you do is casting aspersions. I say topic ban both Int21h for disruptive editing and Yworo for casting aspersions and let's call it a day.--v/r - T P 02:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the morons who can't read - I haven't said a single time that Int21h called anyone a pig. If you don't get what "contrasting" is, you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.--v/r - T P 03:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Int21h

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

I agree with User:Penwhale. Int21h can’t be sanctioned under the Manning case because he was not alerted of the Discretionary sanctions until *after* the diff that people claim to be inflammatory and offensive.

User:Baseball Bugs should not be commenting on any transgender disputes, or discussing anyone else’s transgender topic bans, per the wording of his own ban: "...topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed." His ban applies to all pages of Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards. See WP:BANEX for the only exceptions. Baseball Bugs can't request to have his own ban lifted here at AE since it was issued directly by Arbcom as part of the Manning case. He would have to use WP:ARCA to appeal his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2014 (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 430: / Line 430: @@
 ====Statement by TParis====
 Misgendering is bad.  [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Casting_aspersions|Casting aspersions]] is bad too.  Saying "Chelsea is male" is an opinion and we do not punish thought-crimes.  Comparing Chelsea to a pig is hate speech.  Throwing around words like transphobia because people don't believe the same way you do is casting aspersions.  I say topic ban both Int21h for disruptive editing and Yworo for casting aspersions and let's call it a day.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 02:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
+*For the morons who can't read - I haven't said a single time that Int21h called anyone a pig.  If you don't get what "contrasting" is, you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 03:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
-:That was Tarc who made the pig comment though Int21h made no such comment directly linking Manning to that of an animal. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 03:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====
 <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

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