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

Catflap08

Catflap08 blocked for a week for breaching their topic ban. Hijiri88 reminded that reporting TBAN vios is a breach of their IBAN and instructed to stop following Catflap's edits. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 21 February 2016 (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 Catflap08

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Catflap08: Topic ban (I) :

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

2016.02.11 Posting a request that other users revert a "white washing" edit that Catflap08 is not allowed revert because his TBAN "officially" bans him from "articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism", a misrepresentation of the topic ban
2016.02.18 Reposting the same, apparently on someone's recommendation; also requesting other users contact him about the topic by email -- a problem given his previously using email and meatpuppetry to get around our earlier IBAN

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The demonstrably false claim to having "retired" (his fifth or sixth in the last year) and continuing to accuse other users of "white-washing" without providing evidence are also concerning, but don't need to be dealt with because the posts themselves were clear-cut TBAN-violations and merit blocks.

@Looie496: Catflap and I are both subject to the same TBAN. Catflap violated it, and I reported this. I had to do this because if Catflap is allowed violate our two-way ban without consequences and I abide by it as I have always done, that sets a nasty precedent. Who should have reported the violation? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Looie496: did not understand its scope Don't be suckered in by wordplay. Catflap knows what a topic ban is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: Please leave me alone already and get back to building an encyclopedia. It's been almost a full year, and I still can't figure why you have made it your mission to drive me off the project. Would you like an IBAN? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: The vast majority of your edits to this page seem to be in relation to the e-cigs case, in which you are a key participant. But even if you were a regular innocent contributor to AE discussions, it wouldn't explain how literally every time I have posted in the Wikipedia namespace you have shown up and taken the opposite side of whichever one I am on, and it wouldn't explain why you think Catflap's repeated violations should be given a pass, but my reporting said should be met with sanctions. Since Catflap and I are both subject to the same ban, it is only fair that if I abide by it he should face sanctions for violating it, so my reporting him is clearly covered under BANEX. And by the way, I didn't violate the IBAN either: Catflap violated it roughly once a week before the ArbCom case, so my checking his contribs every now and then (once a month) to see if he's reverted any more of my edits is reasonable -- it's a hell of a lot more practical than monitoring all the articles I edited before my TBAN. Why do you think it took me more than a week to report the former of the two violations? And more to the point, why did no one else report the violation in more than a week? Who is going to monitor this case if not the users already involved? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: The ARCA filing was covered under BANEX because when I saw Catflap's edits it drew my attention to a problem with how both our bans are worded. They explicitly state that we are banned from ”pages related to Nichiren Buddhism”. I wanted the wording to clarified if we are in fact totopic-banned, and if ”pages related to Nichiren Buddhism” was really what was meant I probably would have requested an amendment to conform to more traditional TBANs. But asking for clarification of the parameters of one's own TBAN can't possibly be considered a violation of said TBAN, can it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: If you look at the ordering of events chronologically, my actions make more sense. I noticed Catflap's post from last week two days ago, and emailed Sturmgewehr for advice on what to do. He said that no harm could come from filing a request for clarification or amendment, because Catflap's narrow interpretation of the poorly worded TBAN actually makes a degree of sense. Certainly my requesting that both my own ban and Catflap's be clarified in their scope in light of this fell under BANEX, ~~and I don't think even AlbinoFerret would argue with that~~. So I posted a request for clarification. However, Spartaz then recommended withdrawing it and posting on AE instead. I fired ahead without putting a whole lot of thought behind what I thought would be immediately recognized as a clear-cut case. Admittedly, I probably should have thought twice about whether taking this advice would qualify as either a TBAN or IBAN violation on my part, but I stand by my convection that it isn't, in light of what has gone down with this dispute in the past. And on at note, regarding "precedents", you should take a look at the old Catflap IBAN violation filings. They were all filibustered and then later Catflap and AlbinoFerret were able to claim that Catflap never violated the ban because he had not been blocked, but my reporting on Catflap had supposedly been a violation because I had been blocked thanks to a technicality. Sadly it looks like history is repeating itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: They are if he gets away with them. I've been putting up with "mutual one-way" bans with Catflap for almost a year at this point. What's the point of having a two-way ban if only one party is expected to uphold it? ArbCom banned both of us from the same topic because they weren't willing to look into the content of our dispute and figure out who was at fault. But apparently no one is willing to enforce his ban because I was the one who reported him and I shouldn't have been reporting him despite his actions in question having serious implications for how the ban affects me. If the two-way ban in reality only applies to me, that implies that ArbCom and the admin corps decided that I was at fault and Catflap innocent, something that never happened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: You should ignore everything AlbinoFerret says, as he is a pathological liar. Take this for example. Click the diff he so flagrantly assumes you will not read and simply take his word on. You will see that Denniss final warning had nothing to do with Catflap, IBANs or ArbCom. It concerned another users dispute with me, sourcing problems and talk page etiquette. (I respected the final warning, and the other user received two blocks for a total of four days for repeatedly violating it, but thats completely irrelevant.) AlbinoFerret, who showed up on that ANI tgread as he has on all of my disputes over thenpast year, knows perfectly well that the "either user" he misladingly quotes refers to me and CurtisNaito, and has nothing to do with my IBAN with Catflap. Furthermore, the "final warning" predates the ArbCom decisiom by over three months! Could someone please block AlbinoFerret for this blatant partisanship and gaming of the system? I have no idea why this user hates me enough to so blatantly lie about me like this, but if you could advise me on how to request a mutual IBAN I would be grateful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Edited 09:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: If that is "tradition", then it should be stated in my TBAN and I should have been informed of it. I initially posted a request for clarification and explicitly stated that I was subject to the same TBAN with the same terms, because it had implications for my TBAN if Catflap's interpretation was correct (and his not being blocked in over a week appeared to support this). Spartaz then told me to withdraw it and report Catflap's violation to AE. If what you are saying is correct, then Spartaz explicitly told me to do something that would be a violation and merit a block. Surely exceptions to an unwritten tradition should be made when the violation was accidental and made on the direct advice of a sysop, and the violator was never informed of this tradition. I probably should not have assumed a two-way TBAN functioned the same way as a two-way IBAN, but I've also been threatened with blocks for reporting IBAN violations, so... could someone please clarify these rules somewhere on-wiki? I have read BANEX, and it doesn't record this "tradition", nor does it say anywhere that reporting IBAN violations is itself an IBAN violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. Sorry... I read the post I was pinged in, and then replied to that before reading the rest of the discussion. I see you have withdrawn your earlier statement. I will be careful in the future, about both reporting violations of a TBAN to which I am also subject and replying to comments that have been withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Catflap08

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 Catflap08

I am quite unsure if I should laugh or cry … maybe both. I asked this [[2]] which was moved to EAR and I was told in an email by what seems an admin to either seek the talk page (which due to the ban I refrain from doing) or turn to the Tea House. So asking questions about an edit is a violation of the TBAN???? This gets better every time. So let me get this right. I am not allowed to edit issues on Nichiren Buddhism. Fair enough. I do see an edit which in my eyes is highly problematic, I then go on asking on how to proceed, making clear that sanctions were imposed and I am advised to turn to the talk page (or Tea House) and THIS may be seen as violation a ban in itself??? Me making clear in my request that due to a ban I am asking for advice on how to proceed?? Maybe I should have made an edit, or a request, as a sock or unregistered user instead then?? So if I am prohibited to ask questions please let me know. Furthermore I do have the inkling I am watched closer by a certain individual than I would have thought. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Spartaz @ Thryduulf Hear, hear. I am writing an email to info-en-v@wikimedia.org … I get the answer as stated and now another ban follows … interesting to say the least that is. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved here from the result section - William M. Connolley (talk)]

@ EdJohnston I do get the message on what to do and what not – even though somewhat irrational. I do continue the discussion not over this bs in the Tea Room, but on the fact that if one emails Wikipedia officially asking a question doing so as advised and then get hammered afterwards. It annoys me that I sought an answer via official email contact and here I am ending up offering yet again a venue to somebody who got me banned. Get it? And you guys at wikipedia seriously wonder why number of editors is in decline??--Catflap08 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I add that in the very start of discussion nearly two years ago a person threatened me to get me blocked? That person has succeeded in doing so even though inflicted with a ban himself now. That very person now brings up all this as a result of me asking a question on how to report an issue that worries me as I find that bad faith edits have taken place. Bad faith edits on a subject that I care about, a subject that I was told to have had an impartial input, a subject that is on the fringe and now yet again being invaded by adherents of a “cult”. I stayed clear form editing the lemma on the cult in question in general – and sought to add references as much as I could, references published, references that appear to be reliable on the subject that I have been banned from. And let me be clear that I do not suspect that person to be a member of that cult. This person in my books seems to have severe mental issues for this is HOUNDING. Go ahead and get me blocked from whatever, I walk away from all this, keeping in mind that I worked on a contentious subject anyway and that advocates of a certain cult get their way in the long run. I was threatened elsewhere on the internet for hinting at published information with legal action. The person who started all this, most probably unaware of doing so, has made himself an accomplice of that cult. Well done you all. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to make things even easier on you to have me banned full stop. Please do feel free to check that single purpose accounts have been happily editing away on any issues connected to Soka Gakkai for years now – this seems to go on undetected. Any employee of Coca Cola editing in favour his employer will find tougher actions against them in place than adherents of a cult. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

Just pointing out that Catflap08 and Hijiri88 are subject to a two-way interaction ban. I think this report meets the WP:BANEX conditions, but thought it should be noted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

Both editors are in violation. Catflap08 is clearly in violation of the topic ban, and pretty clearly did not understand its scope. Hijiri88 violates both Arbcom-imposed topic bans by filing this report, and also violates the interaction ban with Catflap08 (which however is not an Arbitration ban). This report does not fall within the scope of BANEX, since Catflap08's actions, although violations, do not have any impact on anything Hijiri88 is permitted to edit. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

It appears that Looie496 is 100% correct. I took part in this Arbcom as an uninvolved party. Hijiri88 is himself subject to the same ban as Catflap08. Reporting a violation in the topic area of another editor is a topic ban violation. As it doesnt impact Hijiri88 in any way because he is topic banned in the area. BANEX provides no excuse for the report here in an area Hijiri88 is banned from, and so it violates the topic ban. What is even more troubling, is that after dozens of noticeboard sections, an IBAN and an Arbcom case Hijiri88 is still watching and yes hounding Catflap08, watching their every move in order to pounce. While Catflap08 has violated the topic ban and should receive some sanction, Hijiri88's behaviour in this shows that he still doesnt get it and a stronger sanction should be given to him. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, I seek no IBAN with anyone, this page is open to community members. My commenting on this section is not some dark plan to find you, I have replied to quite a few sections here in the last few months that had nothing to do with you. I dont even edit in the topic, and have not edited any articles you have edited.

But will go into greater detail. Hijiri88 is under the same Topic ban as Catflap08. This includes all noticeboard sections dealing with the topic. Starting a noticeboard section dealing with edits in the topic is a Topic ban violation. The exceptions are found in WP:BANX, none cover edits that the editor is not involved in. This is not vandalism, a violation of the IBAN between Hijiri88 and Catflap08, a clarification of the scope of his ban, or an appeal of his ban. The main issue in this whole disaster of noticeboard sections, Arbcom, and now here is these two editors just cant get along, nor leave each other alone. Its endless. While Arbcom didnt place the IBAN, they acknowledged it in the final decision. There may be a excuse for the IBAN violation, I am not really convinced there is as Hijiri88 didnt come across this during normal editing, he couldnt have, he is topic banned. The only way to find them is following an editor he has an IBAN with. But there is no excuse for the topic ban violation of starting a section here dealing with edits in a topic he is banned from. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf I think that warnings have already been issued. Numerous sections on other noticeboards failed to stop any of this ongoing problem, thats why it went to arbcom. I want to point out that Dennis Brown gave a more or less final warning to Hijiri88 here [3]. That says "If either editor pushes the boundaries of incivility, bludgeons a discussion, violates WP:IDHT, acts in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breaching any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors, then either myself or another admin should simply block for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks. It doesn't matter if there is another party that is equally guilty.". I think that covers starting a noticeboard section about another editor on a topic he is banned from, where the only way he has the knowledge of the edits is following an editor with whom he has an IBAN with. AlbinoFerret 13:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJonston But no one to my knowledge told Hijiri88 to start the ARCA section that is basically the same, and deals with the same edits.[4] If the AE is excused because he was told to come here, that excuse does not apply to ARCA. AlbinoFerret 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

This is a pretty simple TBAN violation, so that part is easy.

Regarding Hijiri88, it was not a good idea for them to file this complaint. Let's forget the language of BANEX for a moment, which anyway does not accept this exception. Let's look at the spirit of the IBAN and TBAN. The idea was for the two users to avoid each other and avoid the topic area. This request clearly violates the spirit. As to Hijiri's worry about "setting a precedent", that is unfounded. Just because a particular "crime" is unreported and unpunished in a particular instance does not make it ok in the future.

That said, I do not support any sanctions against Hijiri88, just an advice to them to leave this alone. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: There is no violation of the IBAN, so I do not see the "precedent" applying. As to the rest, I don't have anything else to add. The spirit of the IBAN and TBAN, as I mentioned above, is to leave Catflap alone and leave the topic alone. You should not be looking at Catflap's edits at all. Their violations aren't your problem. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235

Thought I should mention here that I've now archived the ARCA filing about this. For the Committee – Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I think you are alluding to me at the Teahouse, EdJohnston, where the conversation continues. I am not an administrator though I try to conduct myself responsibly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Curly Turkey

Regardless of questions regarding the appropriateness of this Request, it should be noted that Albino Ferret has a history of targeting Hijiri, and his persistence here should be read in that light. That he sees the need to habitually describe himself as an "univolved party" should draw the greatest suspicion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Catflap08

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

Waiting 24 hours for comment from Catflap08 but my initial instinct is that the violation is very clear and that some form of sanction/block is necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would like some input from more experienced AE admins. The language at BANEX relates to reporting interaction ban vios not tbam vios. Does reporting a tban vio mean the user is breaching their iban? Whatever outcome, it is correct that interaction banned users should stop policing each others' edits and they should not be following each other around. Catflap08 topic banned means topic banned entirely so you should take the whole area off your watchlist. Soliciting edits is exactly the same as making edits so its a clear tban vio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a clear topic ban violation by Catflap08 and I think a 1 week block would be the appropriate sanction to result. @Hijiri88:, Spartaz and others are correct that the exemption for reporting is related to breaches of the interaction ban only, so you have breached the interaction ban with this report. If you breach it again then I would certainly support a block, but on this occasion I am leaning towards a final warning (but could be persuaded otherwise). Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An unambiguous violation and pretty blatant attempt at WP:GAMING at that. As to the IBAN, that's tricky. I entirely agree with Spartaz and Thryduulf that Hijiri should not be filing these reports, but I am at a loss to see who else is going to since most people are so fed up with the pair of them that they ignore anything either says. We don't have an obvious venue for asking a neutral third party to review and, if they consider it merited, report possible violations, and frankly the chances of anybody wanting to get involved in this long-running feud are pretty limited. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Catflap08 made this comment on an article talk page, about a topic from which he is banned. We also have the present AE which was opened by User:Hijiri88. This looks to be two separate topic ban violations, one by each party. Also Hijiri8 violated his IBAN by posting anything at all about Catflap08. (If Catflap08 had directed any comments to him then the AE would have been OK, but he didn't). So I support blocks to both parties. We do traditionally forbid topic-banned people from coming to AE to announce violations by others who are under the same ban, so this is routine. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I did direct them here when they raideda request at ARCA, so some mercy might be justified. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if Hijiri88 was told to file here, then we shouldn't sanction him. But we could warn Hijiri88 not to file at any admin boards about a topic he is banned from. There is a separate question of what to do about Catflap08's edits. We might be reluctant to sanction him due to an inappropriate report, but it appears he is continuing to debate this issue at the Teahouse, even after an admin told him in the same thread that it was inappropriate, and after he knew an AE was in progress. So I'd go with a one-week block of Catflap08. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean

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 Athenean

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CometEncke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Athenean (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: [[5]] :

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

February 19, 2016 I find it concerning that the user reacted so strongly to getting the DS template. The user has been involved in many discussions on this noticeboard and surely knows that the DS complaint itself is a notification, not an accusation. Yet after receiving the notification, the user apparently took the time to investigate my edit history, then post a question on my talk page which the reader could easily take as asking whether or not I am a sock. Surely the purpose of notification is simply informational and was designed by Arbcom to prevent users from being unknowingly swept up in this system. It degrades the system if the mere act of giving a notification is cause for such a reaction. The user continued the same line of attack here [6].
February 19, 2016 And then there was this. NOT FROM Athenean, but certainly weird. I put a template on one user's page, and I get similar notes on my talk page from TWO users? I have no explanation for that. Does anyone?
February 10, 2016 WP:NPA violation attacking User:Volunteer Marek. Part of what led to my placing the template in the first place.
February 10, 2016 A second WP:NPA violation attacking User: Volunteer Marek
February 16, 2016 A third WP:NPA violation, this time attacking User: my very best wishes.
February 16, 2016 A fourth WP:NPA violation, again attacking User: my very best wishes. All four attacks were placed by the as-yet-untemplated, and therefore theoretically possibly-unaware, Athenean. BUT see this February 16 post by User:Athenean, which certainly suggests awareness. February 16, 2016

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [7]

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [8]; see also comments below
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on October 17, 2015 January 4, 2016 The discussions in question could fall under Balkans or Eastern Europe, or in one case possibly Macedonia, all of which are subject to sanctions. So I don't know if this constitutes awareness or not.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The atmosphere on the Putin article as a whole is TERRIBLE.

In addition to the personal attacks themselves, I believe the failure to strike them upon explicit request should be an issue. User:Volunteer Marek explicitly asked User:Athenean to strike his personal attacks [9] [10]. Yet they are still present on the talk page. Additionally, User:Athenean has continued to edit both the talk page and article after Marek and I requested that he strike the attacks [11] , and even after receiving the template, and I seconded Marek's request. [12] However, he has not struck them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

Discussion concerning Athenean

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 Athenean

Statement by Hijiri88

You are supposed to specifically link the restriction that was violated, not just the ArbCom case page. Scrolling down, I don't see any restriction or remedy being placed on Athenean during the case. Are you asking for the decision to be amended to place some form of restriction on him/her? Because I'm pretty sure this is not the place for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of the four "personal attacks", I see what might kinda-sorta be interpreted as borderline AGF-violations (depending on the background, which has not been explained, so we need to assume good faith on Athenean's part), and the only thing even approaching a "personal attack" is the phrase "talkpage trolling", but that seems like a fairly accurate, if inflammatory, description of what the OP has been doing on Athenean's talk page. Using a template once to notify a user of discretionary sanctions is acceptable, but edit-warring to keep the template on their page is extremely disruptive. What exactly is the problem here? Am I missing something? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Athenean

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

CometEncke I don't believe you are a new user. Please can you disclose your previous accounts and whether those accounts are subject to any blocks, restrictions or sanctions? Thanks. Please note that by inserting yourself into controversial areas you are not permitted to benefit from privacy under clean start. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards