Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

My very best wishes

Not necessarily the best behavior, but not really a WP:AE issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 5 August 2022 (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 My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gitz6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: My very best wishes (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:BLPDS and WP:ARBEE

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

On 24 June My very best wishes (MVBW) made this bold edit [1], which he then strenuously defended against any attempt to modify and revert it. He particularly resisted my attempts to remove the (at first sight trivial) information that former Ukrainian ombudsperson Denisova had shared a database on war crimes with other government officials and prosecutors. That information had been published by New York Times on 2 May but had later been called into question and denied by Ukrainska Pravda, Meduza and by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova.

Contentious content:She shared this database with other government officials and prosecutors

Following my revert at 16:35, 8 July 2022, MVBW restores at 01:33, 22 July 2022 [2].
At 12:59, 22 July 2022 I open a section in the talk page "Communication with law enforcement" and revert at 13:01, 22 July 2022; MVBW restores at 15:24, 22 July 2022 [3].
Following my revert (mentioning WP:ONUS and BDR) at 15:46, 22 July 2022, MVBW restores at 21:19, 26 July 2022 [4].
MVBW restores at 19:44, 28 July 2022 [5].
MVBW restores at 20:06, 29 July 2022 [6].
MVBW restores at 03:49, 1 August 2022 [7]
MVBW restores at 00:06, 2 August 2022 [8].
MVBW restores at 09:59, 2 August 2022 [9].

I ~~would like to know if~~ believe that MBVW violated WP:ONUS, WP:NOCON, WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:BLPREMOVE by restoring eight times contentious materials.

In the talk page discussion MVBW refuses to get the point and repeatedly says that this article confirms that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors, exactly as the article in NYT said. To me this looks like WP:CPP. I ~~would like to know if~~ believe that MVBW violated WP:CIV and WP:NPOV.
MVBW repeatedly restores other contentious contents:

Denisova described as one of the leading voices of Ukraine’s suffering and outrage. Following my revert mentioning WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE at 17:51, 1 August 2022, MVBW restores at 00:06, 2 August 2022 [10] and again at 09:59, 2 August 2022 [11].
Allegation by Denisova that in many cases Russian soldiers called Ukrainian women "Nazi whores" and raped them “until they can’t give birth, or give birth to their children, etc. Following my revert at 22:17, 30 July 2022, MVBW restores at 10:32, 2 August 2022 [12].

At the same time, MVBW removes any information about Denisova's allegations of sexual war crimes not being supported by "sufficient evidence" according to the open letter by 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists (The New Voice of Ukraine), her allegations being "unverifiable" according to Pavlo Frolov, chairman of the Ukrainian parliament regulatory committee (Deutsche Welle and Wall Street Journal) and her allegations being "exaggerated" (Denisova herself in EuroWeeklyNews and LB.ua). These criticisms of Denisova's allegations are notable because they were one of the reasons for her removal from office on 31 May.

As these information had been added to the article/edited/restored by multiple editors, I ~~would like to know if~~ believe that their repeated removal was contrary to WP:CON as well as to WP:NPOV.

MVBW removes Pavlo Frolov's criticism of Denisova's "unverifiable" statements about sexual war crimes. Originally added/edited/restored by Mhorg, JustTheT, Gitz6666, Boynamedsue, Bobfrombrockley, the info is removed by MVBW at 23:04, 20 June 2022 [13], by Just Alabama at 12:34, 21 July 2022 and again by MVBW at 21:19, 26 July 2022 [14] because the opinion by Frolov is essentially a duplication (a duplication of the following info, which MVBW was also about to remove).
MVBW removes the analogous criticism made by 140 journalists and activists in an open letter. Originally added and edited by Boynamedsue and Gitz6666, the info is removed by MVBW at 17:20, 21 July 2022 [15] (with misleading edit summary: no mention of unverifiable allegations) and at 01:31, 22 July 2022 [16] (again with misleading edit summary).
MVBW removes the statement by Denisova about her reports on war crimes being "exaggerated" in order to help the military effort. Originally added, edit or restored by LilAhok, Gabel1960, Mhorg, Huldra, Gitz6666, and MVBW himself at 20:55, 15 June 2022 [17], the info is removed by MVBW multiple times: 22:49, 24 June 2022 [18], at 12:23, 27 July 2022 [19] and at 22:03, 30 July 2022 [20] (WP:POINTy edit as made clear by the edit summary since you appeal to "ONUS" in BLP).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I don't know about any BLPDS sanctions. Previously sanctioned in WP:EEML; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Biophys. With the username Biophys (battlefiled mentality and edit warring in the EE area).

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18 July 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@GizzyCatBella: Admittedly I have much to learn about WP policies and I appreciate this discussion also as an opportunity to understand what's permissible and what's a no-no here around. Note, however, that this dispute is not at all about content disagreement. In fact, I never tried to publish the info that Denisova did not share her database with law enforcement agencies (as reported by Meduza, UP, etc.). My arguments about the database were entirely based on policies (WP:V, WP:ONUS and WP:NPOV) as you can see from my edit summaries (e.g. [21], [22]) and from my OP [23]. I'm sure that such an experienced editor as MVBW was aware that per WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:BLPREMOVE contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. He knew that this info had become both topical to Ukrainian politics and factually dubious following Denisova's removal from office and the news reports published from 31 May onwards, and yet he restored the info eight times. As the info on sharing a database is by itself of scarce interest, clearly the reason why he was so eager to have it is that he was playing some kind of politics game in Ukraine: he was defending Denisova's reputation and/or defending the reliability of her allegations of Russian war crimes (such as "infant girl of 6 months was raped with a teaspoon", " nine-month-old girl is raped with a candle", "four of them raped the toddlers in pairs, orally and anally, while the fifth soldier was holding the mother", etc. [24] [25]). In both cases, this kind of POV-pushing is disrespectful of our policies and shouldn't be allowed in the EE area. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes, in your statement you say, with regard to the letter from 140 journalists, All I did was moving this info to a more appropriate section [186], contrary to claim by Gitz666. You then share this diff [26], which also I had shared, but that diff shows that you removed the following text:

Among other demands, they requested that she should publish only information for which their was sufficient evidence and check facts before making allegations, consider her language with care and avoid sensationalism and respect the privacy of those affected by sexual violence.

Also your edit summary is inaccurate/incomplete. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown I agree that this is also a content dispute, but perhaps it is not exclusively about contents. Let me explain.

The database thing is not mainly about contents. We shouldn't publish what NYT (and Denisova) said at the beginning of May without also publishing what Ukrainskaia Pravda (and Venediktova) said at the end of May, otherwise it would be like playing politics in Ukraine. We'd be saying "we don't trust your newspapers and officials, NYT says Denisova is great and we stick with our Denisova". WP:NPOV requires that either we don't publish anything about the database (which IMHO would be the reasonable thing to do) or we publish everything RS tell us about it.
Restoring eight times might be less than satisfactory behaviour, but maintaining that this source confirms that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors, exactly as the article in NYT said [27] [28] [29] is worse. It's impossible to discuss with someone who doesn't want to WP:LISTEN.
It's true that all the rest is related to content. People can disagree on whether we should say that she was one of the leading voices of Ukraine's suffering, report her allegations (Nazi whores, etc.), say that some of her allegations were deemed unverified or exaggerated by 140 journalists, by politicians and apparently also by herself. But as one of my favourite essays says, there must be a way of dealing with "civil" POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or manipulate Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil. I'm pretty sure that MVBW is a case of anti-Russian advocate, but there's no way for me to prove that apart from drawing your attention on the contents he promotes, which are always one-sided.

Anyway, if this request is unfounded I apologize for that. It was made in good faith. In the future I will avoid advancing others without first having asked the advice of an admin, as GizzyCatBella suggests me to do. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

Yes, we have content disagreements with Gitz6666 on page Denisova. We discussed them on article talk page, and all my edits have been fully explained there. There is also a related thread on RSNB started by Gitz6666, and I think the question he asked on RSNB boils down to this [31].

Speaking on the content I suggested to include, here is it: [32] and [33]. This is sourced to an article about Denisova published in New York Times [34]. Author is a regular and well established contributor to NYT [35], this is not an editorial. Note that the content I wanted to include is mostly a direct citation from the article. The article in NYT is not an advertisement. I did not use any potentially problematic sources, such as the article in Ukrainska Pravda or the posting in Meduza noted by Gitz666 (the latter does even have an author [36]). Please note that none of other RS contradicts information I tried to include from the article in NYT (two my diffs above), contrary to claims by Gitz6666. The only contributor who objected to including this material was Gitz6666. I do not think he provided any legitimate reasons for not including it; simply saying "WP:ONUS" is not a proper justification.

No, I did not object to including info about "open letter by 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists", and this info is currently included to the page. All I did was moving this info to a more appropriate section [37], contrary to claim by Gitz666. As about "exaggerated", the exactly meaning of this word is not clear, and I tried to refine what she said using more direct citation: [38], although I think that such citation adds little to the page and ultimately better be removed to provide proper balance on the page [39]: the page includes a huge paragraph about her dismissal, but tells almost nothing about her actual work during the war (this is something I tried to include, but Gitz666 repeatedly removed "per WP:ONUS").

If it helps, I can voluntarily stop editing the page about Denisova for a couple of months. My very best wishes (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown:. Thank you, I got your point. No more reverts. A consensus is needed for including this or any other content. OK. But the consensus building may take a lot of effort, depending on the subject and participants. If I feel it takes too much effort, I will simply edit something else. There is nothing so exceptional about this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

This appears to be yet another content disagreement brought to AE.

Sorry Gitz6666, you would like to know if MBVW violated this.. and that and that.. and something else? (!?) If you don’t know what has been violated, what are you doing here? Perhaps you should study our rules first or ask elsewhere? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 - I don’t believe this board has been set up to learn WP policies. The way you produced this claim appears to me like fishing for sanctions. You should deliver clear policy breach pieces of evidence, not ask questions. (This board is being abused too often in my humble opinion.)

@My very best wishes - Why should you voluntarily stop editing the page about Denisova for a couple of months? You folks should ask for input from additional users (RfC) and resolve your disagreements this way. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

The "remove on sight" aspects of WP:BLP apply to negative material - stuff that is potentially defamatory or harmful. It's hard to see how this could harm the reputation of the subject or any other living person, so there's no good-faith BLP objection and WP:BLPDS doesn't apply. That doesn't mean it should necessarily stay, of course, or that it was a good idea to repeatedly restore a WP:BOLD addition, but it's not a matter for AE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning My very best wishes

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

Yes, much of this is more a content dispute than anything. That said, My very best wishes' conduct is less than satisfactory, and Gitz6666's report is a bit weak in the area of deserving AE sanctions. Let me be clear: You should only report something at AE when it is a clear cut Arbitration violation that other venues can't handle. As an admin, if I had stumbled across that article while the reverting was going on, I would have full protected it and instructed the two of you (and others) go to the talk page and hash it out, as it is a pretty simple issue. I wouldn't have thought "I need to apply AE sanctions against someone", even though I'm fully authorized to do that outside of this board. MVBW, you are a bit too invested in this. Take it to the talk page, or take a break. Or break, then in a month take it to the talk page. But adding that information isn't an emergency, and AE/DS aside, when you get reverted, WP:BRD is pretty clear in that you are better off talking about it instead of edit warring over it. I think the deletion of it and claiming ONUS had a bit of grandstanding mixed in there, but still correct on a technical ground. In short, I see bad behavior, but I'm not inclined to block or tban anyone over it just yet, particularly since MVBW has offered to pull back from editing there for a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that says "if you use the New York Times, you must also use $x source" In fact, WP:V says "because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance." So it's about neutrality, WP:DUE and balance, which are content issues, not behavioral issues. We can not, and will not, tell editors that they must use particular sources at WP:AE. As for publishing "everything", that isn't entirely accurate, at last in the general sense, as we often exclude minority opinions in articles. Regardless, the talk page (and maybe an RFC) is the solution, not admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NadVolum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SPECIFICO (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: AP2

remedy the post-1992 American politics DS regime

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

6 August 2022 I undid a recent edit removing a lot of text in Julian Assange which had been there for a very long time. In accord with the active sanctions on that page my undo should not be reverted straight away without consensus. SPECIFICO knows this - he quotes the active remedies in the edit comment! NadVolum (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date 17 August 2021. Is this what you mean, an example of them telling others about the discretionary sanctions?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Sorry I'm having problems with this form. The remedy instructions and exemptions says to report immediately here. SPECIFICO quite often reverts other peoples edits and then stop anyone putting in the change unless there's been extensive discussions or an RfC establishing clear consensus against them.

There's no BLP issue. Neither the person who originally removed it nor SPECIFICO said there was a BLP issue. It has been there for a long time. NadVolum (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff showing notification

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

Responding to request of Dennis Brown:

In case anyone is not aware, this complaint is the fourth concurrent open thread in which NadVolum has filed complaints against me, for whatever reasons. The others are, 1 2 3. All of these relate to the BLP articles in the Julian Assange orbit, where there have been ongoing BLP problems that I would say may be underlain by a few editors' insistent and unduly credulous acceptance of various narratives of Assange and his supporters -- even when acceptance conflict with WP content and sourcing policies. The community's lack of endorsement of any of those complaints does raise the possiblity that the current complaint is part of a campaign of forum shopping by OP to vent their personal frustration with me over content issues.

For those who are not familiar with OP, this is a Single Purpose Account that has made very few edits outside of pages on Assange or setting the table to support content on the Assange page.

There have been discusions on the article talk page for some time about the importance of trimming Assange's personal biography page so as to include only the significant details of his life (including those at Wikileaks) but not the actions of Wikileaks for which there is no content linking Assange to those action. Similar issues arise in many bio pages of public figures in politics and related fields. @Softlemonades: removed some such content, for which as far as I can tell no prior discussion that would privilege it as established consensus, and as I stated in my edit summary undoing OP's rapid reinsertion, I think there should have been talk page discussion prior to reinstating that content. It's evident that I think that's consistent with "consensus required" -- I would hardly cite own edit as a violation of the page restriction, as OP seems to claim. It is also evident (though not discussed in the past 6 months) that non-Assange but Wikileaks content creates BLP problems for this article. We should not be including every adventure and every scandal of Wikileaks as if it is Assange's hand at work or Assange's personal responsibility. OP has participated in at least one such discussion and is aware of various editors' BLP concerns One such discussion is here. This issue has come up many times. Softlemonades raised the issue on the talk page after she removed the content, which is what prompted my revert of OP's reinsertion.

We also have OP very carelessly posting clearcut BLP violations on several occasions, e.g. when he stated as fact that Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange with a drone, offering a sheepish retraction at the bottom of this thread, saying he really didn't check into it. This followed a long discussion of the issue at the David Leigh (journalist) page and OP's own posting of related thread at BLPN.

Finally, OP went straight to this AE complaint without even coming to my user talk page to voice his concern or warn me that such a complaint was imminent. I can't recall the last time a complaint was made on any editor no attempt at prior engagement. It wastes lots of editor and Admin resources.

@Dennis Brown: Could you explain "out of process by the number of reverts"? I am not understanding that. My reading of the sequence is that Softlemonades challenged the BLP/Wikilinks content and then NadVolum reinstated it instead of going to talk. Meanwhile, when Softlemonades opened the talk thread, I undid what I believe was the out of process reinstatement of challenged article content (with the associated BLP issues). As I said in my edit summary, I think the reinstatement of the challenged content violated the page restriction "consensus required". SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Thanks for the reply. I am aware of that essay. In fact I made several edits to it a couple of years ago. However, there have been many discussions among longtime editors and among Admins in which that simplified rubrik is disputed or rejected, just as we have ongoing disagreement among Admins as to the definition of "revert". As you may know, there's current ongoing discussion of WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON at WT:V concerning the status of "longstanding" content that has not been positively affirmed consensus even though it's been in the article for a while. There is also discussion at talk page of the Consensus required essay. I don't think it's correct to state in absolute terms that my removal of the disputed content pending talk page was violating a consensus. Obviously, per my edit summary, I didn't think so at the time of the edit, and I am fairly experienced editing pages that require differentiating established consensus -- documented by prior talk page discussion, editing activity, or agreement in principle -- vs. content that's stayed in the article a while without much notice and attention. The Assange page's ongoing BLP issue viz a viz Wikileaks had been identified and repeatedly discussed on the talk page in the presence of OP. Editors never agreed, in effect, to transclude all of Wikileaks' controversies and alleged misdeeds into Assange's personal bio. As you already know, I do not agree that this Wikileaks content was consensus and I have not seen that essay treated as an absolute bright line, regardless of the content or circumstances. Anyway, that's why I did not hesitate to undo OP's reinstatement of the challenged content. And as I said, if he had informed me of his concern, I see no reason to think we would have ended up here at AE. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Thanks again for your reply. To be sure we are not talking past one another: No, I am not claiming there was consensus for anything. I said and still say there was no consensus for this BLP content that transcluded Wikileaks deeds and controversies onto the biography of Assange the man. Accordingly, when this was pointed out by Softlemonades and a discussion started on talk that it should have remained out. It's an ongoing problem that about half our editors would cite WP:ONUS to keep the problem text in the article as "implicit consensus" while half our editors would say to keep it out per ONUS. In this case, where there had been no affirmation of the content and the BLP problem had repeatedly been discussed and acknowledged, I felt that the immediate reinsertion without consensus in the talk page thread went against consensus required. Further, to be frank, it appears to have been another case of OP's long-voiced frustration and impatience with discussion and consensus-seeking on this page. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|Ealdgyth}} I think it's begging the question to refer to my edit as "this kind of edit warring". I'm careful not to edit war, and I and others have pointed out the issue relating to BLP material -- and prior and current talk page discussions of same. I've tried to present my view of the issues of implicit Consensus and ONUS and the ongoing discussions on WT pages about what constitutes implicit consensus for longstanding text, and other factors. I was the editor who requested DS page restrictions on this article due to repeated edit warring. As Dennis Brown points out, the CR page is an essay from one point of view, not a policy. I read the CR restricton in the context of the community's views on consensus, which do not provide a bright line rule such as 1RR. It's evident that my understanding is not something I cooked up to deflect responsibility for disruptive edit warring, because I cited CIR in my edit summary for the diff in question. I do not believe that any WP Consensus policy is intended to lock down content, recent or longstanding, that has been reasonably challenged. That having been said, any Admin who rejects my understanding and concludes that my handling of the content issue was disruptive is empowered by DS to sanction me on their own discretion, regardless of my intention or anything I say here. So I don't know that it's helpfiul for me to go on at length or repeat myself about the article, BLP, consensus, etc. and I'll stop. I'll only add that it's clear to me that this was a vexatious complaint by NadVolum after they failed to get me sanctioned or my BLP concern rejected in the 3 other threads they had open at ANI and BLPN at the same time they filed this complaint. Moreover NadVolum openly flouts BLP -- that was the subject of their trip to BLPN regarding David Leigh (jouirnalist) -- they recently posted another BLP violation, linked above, saying Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange. These overt and implied BLP violations have come up over and over on this page and a minority of editors there do greatly frustrate many others who do not share our concerns. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: With considerable respect for your efforts, I don't think it's fair to conclude that I am "doubling down" by stating my understanding and documentation of Consensus and BLP issues regarding this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Which Arbcom case, is being requested to enforce? GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the red-link above, that's confusing me. Thus my question, which Arbcom case is being referred to? GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I know which case. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend the disputing editors open an RFC at the Julian Assange page, in order to clarify the consensus-in-question. If there's doubts about what that consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: If it hasn't already been restored. I recommend that you restore the content-in-question (i.e. undo your revert). Then seek a new consensus at the Assange talkpage, to have the content removed. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation... per WP:BLPRESTORE, in situations where BLP does apply, the default when there is a conflict over BLP-sensitive material is to leave it out, not in. This is a specific exception to the usual WP:BRD procedure and the way we handle WP:NOCON situations. In order to restore the text in question you would have to argue that it is not BLP sensitive or that there is an existing consensus for it, and even then, one revert removing it wouldn't normally be WP:AE-worthy. The "teeth" of WP:BLPDS - the stuff that calls for an immediate AE action even from one or two bad edits - is intended for things that could potentially harm the reputation of article's subject. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

That isn't how it works and SPECIFICO knows it, as they were topic banned about two years ago for almost the exact same thing.. An editor removed long standing text (which implies it had consensus to be there), NadVolum reverts it back in, and SPECIFICO reverts it back out insisting on a new consensus. If SPECIFICO's edit summary was valid, it would give editors license to revert stuff they don't like out of controversial articles and require new, fresh discussions to find consensus for it to go back in, regardless of how longstanding it was. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nad - amend your request and replace the red text under “Sanction or remedy to be enforced” to link to WP:ARBAPDS. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A possible reason why NadVolum didn't bring this up to SPECIFICO before reporting to AE - SPECIFICO went to NadVolum's page a few days ago to accuse them of making personal attacks, and has not bothered to substantiate these aspersions - link. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NadVolum

In response to Aquillon, there is no BLP issue. Neither the person who originally removed the text nor SPECIFICO said there was a BLP issue and it has been around for a long time. In the discussion by the original person on the talk page Talk:Julian_Assange#Why_list_things_Assange_wasnt_actively_involved_in? you can see they talked about why if this was okay wasn't it okay to list all the major scandals and criticisms of Wikileaks too and I pointed to WP:BLPPUBLIC for that. They said at the end of the back and forth that their problem was bloat - which I can sympathize with to some extent but this is not the way to deal with that. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Gooday, I was following the instructions on the talk page under "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

So that's what I did. It isn't as if SPECIFICO hasn't removed new text and warned people against adding it again and often an RfC is needed to establsh consensus before it can be put in. I think I'd prefer it left the way it was before and any discussion be about removing the long standing text instead. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reponse to Mr Ernie. It sounds a bit in what you say like I was involved in that previous discussion. I wasn't and didn't even know abot that. I looked up SPECIFICO's log when raising this and I didn't see anything about it. NadVolum (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Guerillero, I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking for. Discretionary sanctions as talked about at the top of this page sounds fine to me or is there a list of possible sanctions I should try to choose from thanks? NadVolum (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jéské Couriano. Yes that sounds right, I see that WP:ARBAPDS was linked to in that text on the article talk page. NadVolum (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SPECIFICO I guess people can check most of it themselves but about the BLP violation I changed a sentence which had just been inserted saying "WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to share a claim by Assange that Hillary Clinton had wanted to attack him with drones." Assange did not claim that bit of conspiracy theory. The source cited this other conspiracy site that I did not recognize as such. This had nothing to do with anything else. And yes I did come here straight. SPECIFICO does not edit in a collegiate manner. they are very non-neutral on the topic [40], and slags off editors that don't agree and engages in canvassing [41]. Worse than that I think they are a clear case of following WP:DE like a rulebook. fFr instance one of those things they complained above about me going to ANI was them not bothering to give a decent reply about what BLP problem they were supposed to be fixing with their edits[42]. And they couldn't be bothered to find a source and said the actions of a grand jury are SKYBLUE in another.[43] NadVolum (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a previous discussion in December 2021 in which SPECIFIO talked about removing non-biographic content Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_35#Trimming_and_relocation_of_non-biographic_content. They removed all mention of the US diplomatic cables incident after stopping inclusion about the unredacted files and password being released. The content has finally been included after an RfC, see Julian_Assange#Release_of_US_diplomatic_cables which covers that content complete with the unredacted cables. As to going to their talk page and asking for a revert - I haven't seen anything here about being sorry they made a mistake or would have reverted! NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why admins are so unwilling to do anything about SPECIFICO. Maybe you think they are doing a good job stopping Julian Assange's followers turning his article into a hagiography and biasing any connected articles? If that was just what SPECIFICO was doing I certainly wouldn't object. But they seem to be acting out of hate for Assange and determined to do anything they can to remove anything that might be in his favor even when well documented and obviously relevant and due. And that includes disruptive editing techniques to try and get their way and remove editors they don't like. NadVolum (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

Based on the linked DS alert and the talk page notice referred to, I have to assume this is being filed under AP2 as the case and the post-1992 American politics DS regime as the remedy. @NadVolum:, when you file a request here, you are obligated to link the case and specify the remedy you're filing under. (For bans under DS, link to the DS authorisation and the ban notice/thread.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I encourage SPECIFICO to admit, as quickly as possible, that their understanding of the CR restriction was incorrect. I hope to see NadVolum commit to politely bringing up possible 1RR or CR violations at the offending user's talk page before bringing the issue to the next step of conduct dispute resolution. It would help if we discussed formalizing the CR restriction and including a link to the explanatory essay WP:Consensus required in any talk page banners or edit notices, as the text commonly used (and used at Talk:Julian Assange) is not explicit about how removal is handled. Assuming SPECIFICO and NadVolum can both own up to handling this imperfectly, I ask that admins refrain from sanctions in this matter and nudge us all to move on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ActivelyDisinterested

Eeurgh I came across this and was involved with the discussion on the talk page. I'm unsure if there was a BLP issue here, but the content was definitely highly skewed to paint as much blame on the articles subject as possible. I would still object to the content as is because of that (although that's not relevant here). It doesn't look like this is the only page with this issue. I dropped out once it became apparent that we were just going in circles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

The number of times I see a report and think you know if you just apologize and say my understanding was wrong and Ill be mindful to make sure I follow the rules as you have just patiently explained them to me this would be closed without even a logged warning, but if youre going to argue no Im right and this is why youre going to get sanctioned increases by one more. Oh, and you could still probably say that and this would still probably be closed with at most a logged warning to be mindful of the CR restriction. nableezy - 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

@NadVolum: please specify the remedy to be enforced or I will close this thread --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO definitely reverted out of process, the question is whether there is a BLP issue at hand (or other exemption), which I don't see at first glance. He needs to come here and explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I appreciate the detailed reply, and I note the frustration and sincerity, but as I noted, the revert really was out of process, a technical violation by virtue of the number of reverts. Again, a BLP exemption didn't seem obvious for that exact revert, and you didn't seem to claim or explain it if you thought it was. As for reverting back simply because you felt that was the prior consensus, that gets muddy for admin, who would have to dig into determining and sometimes guessing consensus. This is why we have bright line rules against multiple reverts. I get your frustration, I do, but I need to focus on this event, not just the past. Was there a specific reason you had to revert instead of going to the talk page? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[44] Major edit to consensus/stable version. [45] revert of that edit. [46] You reinstating that edit after it had already been reverted. Is there a BLP issue specifically with the content of that edit? Can you point me to a specific discussion and consensus that the removal of material was necessary? I'm not trying to oversimplify it, but yes, on the surface, it appears you were out of process. Keeping it short, can you show the discussion/consensus or BLP issue? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way, material was removed, then that removal was challenged as inclusion was considered consensus. The only way your additional revert would be considered kosher is if you can show a prior discussion establishing consensus to remove it, per WP:Consensus required, an essay, but it sums it up. Without that consensus (or other exemption), then yes, your edit is a problem. That's how CR works, to preserve the status quo unless a new consensus is demonstrated. Deleting material isn't given special privilege over adding it, unless 3RRNO exemptions apply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one has to ask why CR was implemented in the first place, and I feel that edit warring was the primary reason, particularly slow motion edit warring which doesn't cross the bright line of 3RR. There already existed policy to prevent undue negative material from being piled on, and I don't agree with your take on this, and from my eyes, your revert was a violation of CR. What I have to consider is "What would the greater community say", and I think they would disagree with you, saying CR was designed to specifically prevent these types of reverts. It appears nothing was so urgent that it required you to do the 2nd revert on the material, and while you claim it was "consensus", you haven't offered any proof. I can believe you believed the 2nd revert was acceptable, but from my understanding of policy, it was not. I want to leave this open for other admin to opine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear this was a policy violation. The real question is, what do we do about it? Ealdgyth is correct in that it would have been better if NV had requested a revert, but all this had been previously discussed on the talk page (and the consensus was clear) in late 2021 and there has been contention between these two for some time. As SPECIFICO hasn't indicated they understand the problem (and has, in fact, doubled down), this forces our hand and requires a response. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Doubling down" might be a bit strong, but my point is, you are holding to the idea that there is nothing wrong with your editing. If you were a new editor, it might be possible to just log a warning and move on, but you've had problems in the past, and really should know better, so I don't think the community is going to accept a warning as adequate. This is putting me in tough position, as a good solution isn't obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is similar to what Dennis came to - the CR is designed to prevent this sort of constant low-grade edit warring and make folks discuss on the talk page. While it would be nice if NV had given a chance for a self revert, that's not required. Consider this notice to NV that not everything on wikipedia is written in the rules and that being kind and discussing one-on-one with another editor before escalating to a noticeboard or other public venue is the kind thing to do. But that doesn't change that I agree with Dennis on idea behind CR is to avoid this sort of edit warring. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Clarks

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 Kendall Clarks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kendall Clarks (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: 500/30 Rule

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

Users that edit Arab-Israeli content must have 500 edits, this user does not, in the following diffs he is editing A-I content:

[47] 6 August

[48] 15 July

[49] 15 July

[50] 15 July

[51] 15 July

[52] 15 July

[53] 15 July

[54] 14 July

[55] 29 June

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

Was told at his talkpage by two separate users that he is not allowed to edit A-I content:[56] yet he has now continued to do so after previously violating the 500/30 rule and also violated the 1rr and 3rr in July.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Kendall Clarks

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 Kendall Clarks

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kendall Clarks

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

Ghazaalch

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 Ghazaalch

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NMasiha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ghazaalch (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/Iranian politics

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

Ghazaalch makes up WP:ASPERSIONS in RFCs against other editors:

"...And RFC is the ideal place for him and the other Pro-PMOI users as I said in a previous arbitration, because finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources. One of these voters, for example, is NMasiha who has appeared after a year to vote in these RFCs. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)" [57]

What Ghazaalch is saying about me here is false (despite Ghazaalch's baseless character attack, I made edits to the PMOI article in February [58][59], and in its talk page on May [60] and June [61][62], and have also edited other articles in this area although most of my edits are in the FaWiki). This is poisoning the well and can wrongly influence consensus of RFCs.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I know there were other AE cases, but don't know if there are sanctions.

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

[63] Recent AE report about Ghazaalch

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[64]

Discussion concerning Ghazaalch

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 Ghazaalch

This tool shows that NMasiha's first appearance in 2022 in this page was to vote in an RFC. I am not talking about other pages.

Concerning RFCs being an ideal place for pro-MeK users, see El C's comment here where they talk about a super-trim RfC launched ... which only redacted longstanding, agreed-upon text to one tenth of its original size.(link to the "super-trim RfC" that admin El C was referring to) and now the same supper-trimmed section (cult section) is subject to two new RFCs ([65][66]) in spite of the previous ones([67][68]) to reduce the small section even more. Because the pro-Mek users (Now led by Fad Ariff) don't like the MeK group to be called a cult in spite of numerous sources confirming that.

Here I am quoting Vice regent's objection to another RFC attempt that aimed at removing cult description([69]):

...I provided 15 scholarly sources that argue that MEK meets the definition of a cult. Despite this they amassed 10 votes in support (proposal "A" in this RfC) but Vanamonde closed the RfC as "consensus against proposal A" because "sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor".

Here is another objection by another user([70]):

regarding the RFCs, there was a trend of launching super-trim RFCs aimed at "railroading"[71] the opposing side. This made El_C suggest the idea of having an "outright requirement" for Stefka Bulgaria to avoid super-trim RFCs (he was "instructed" to avoid it). "New restriction proposal" suggested by me, contains the context to the discussion over those RFCs.

Statement by MarioGom

And RFC is the ideal place for [...] Pro-PMOI users as I said in a previous arbitration, because finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources.

This part is a well established pattern by now [72]. Although, to the best of my knowledge, there's been not enough presented evidence about the participation of currently active and non-(p)blocked users in the off-wiki coordination that has been going on for years in the page. MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iraniangal777

Disagreeing with Ghazaalch in those RfCs is enough to qualify anyone as a "pro-MEK user", where "finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources". Nonsense. Editors in those RfCs have adhered to using reliable sources and even helped fix WP:RS problems.

Muddling RfCs with Ad hominems like this (or disrupting the natural development of RfCs [73][74][75][76][77][78], or edit-warring while using trumped-up edit summaries [79][80] - all of which were noted in my last report about Ghazaalch) nullifies any meaningful attempt to solve a content dispute in that talk page. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ghazaalch

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

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