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

Seraphim System

Closed without action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2017 (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 Seraphim System

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Seraphim System (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

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

21:18, 9 April 2017‎ Restoring reverted version without a consensus.
[1] Disruptive PROD
[2] Calling other user "genocide denier"
[3],[4] Edit warring

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

6 April 2017‎ Blocked recently for the same violation
Date Explanation

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 [5]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Ryk72 The matter of East Jerusalem is separate matter from the west bank though for example UK did recognized the annexation of the west bank it didn't extend this recognition to East Jerusalem as the international community considers Jerusalem to be Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) exactly for those reason such matters should be discussed on the talk page--Shrike (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Seraphim System

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 Seraphim System

Considering I left polite note on User:Shrike's talk page after they violated the consensus clause instead of proceeding to arbitration, and that I have not violated any of the ARBPIA rules, I must say I am disappointed by this tactic. I am new so some rules like learning when an article has already been reviewed for deletion I am still learning as I go along, but I am committed to maintaining ARBPIA rules. I do not believe in edit warring. I think this action by User:Shrike is motivated by trying to manipulate the consensus process on another page Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy and part of a pattern of disruptive editing and non-engagement on a very narrow range of topics. Seraphim System (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITION: I did not know that restoring another editors content was a violation. I have only ever restored edits when mine has been reverted. This may seem obvious, but since I don't edit war, I am not familiar with the intricacies of the rules in their applications. If it had been brought to my attention, I would not have repeated it. As a matter of principle, I don't think ARBCOM should sanction new editors for good faith mistakes. I also think User:Shrike should be sanctioned for his violation of the consensus clause, I assumed it was a good faith error notified him on talk and he still has still not corrected it.

As for genocide denial, I still consider the content of the page Racism in Palestine to be a form of genocide denial. It was not intended as a personal attack, but I understand it came across that way. I should have been clear that I was speaking of the content, and not the editor. Seraphim System (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: Is this going to be like the electoral college, where the admins ignore the popular vote?

@Kingsindian: I graduated from one of the top-ten social sciences departments in the United States. I am interested in looking into this more - what is the definition of "uninvolved"? Seraphim System (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL I have found out that a very similar issue was discussed and resolved several months ago. It was over the Jordanian Occupation/Annexation issue. There also User:WJBscribe sanctioned Huldra for an unintentional violation of the same Byzantine application of the consensus clause. There was significant objection from other admins. User:WJBscribe continued to push for his interpretation. User:Shrike started a new section to discuss the block on User:WJBScribes talk page with a strange remark about Hulda's gender. The block imposed by User:WJBScribe was overturned by consensus, and that outcome was accepted by User:WJBScribe.

I think I may have erred yesterday in filing a complaint at ANI. It was frustrating for me to be accused of making frivolous complaints. It it walks like a duck, and it talks like duck, most likely its a sock. Even the appearance of impropriety can taint impartiality. But maybe there were alternative paths of dispute that I should have preferred. Seraphim System (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

The edit in question brings a wikilink into alignment with its target article, which was moved on April 6, following a requested move discussion here Consensus for the move, and, presumably, for the change to any wikilinks targeting it, would appear, rightly or wrongly, to be contained within that discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @Shrike: I am confused by your comments. The edit presented in this filing is a simple change of a wikilink from "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" to "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank", reflecting a successful requested move of that article. This does not relate to "East Jerusalem". Is it possible that a different edit was meant? There may well be issues with this editor's edits, but the diff presented, for mine, does not add up to bubkes. It would be better for diffs like this disruptive PROD to be presented. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

The edit can be read as a technical violation, as WJBscribe does, or as an edit for which consensus had already been obtained, as Number 57 does. Most likely Bolter 21 was unaware of the article move, as he was away from Wikipedia during that discussion and played no part in it. In case of doubt, one should find in favor of the accused, not against. Zero^talk 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually finding this is a violation would set a dangerous precedent. If a consensus has been obtained in a RM or RfC, then an edit to implement that consensus is made and reverted, is it then necessary to start a new RfC to get consensus again? That would be quite ridiculous. Zero^talk 13:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: You wrote "I don't agree that a RM discussion is consensus for changing the name of an article and all wikilinks that point to it." You are wrong; it has always been taken as sufficient cause to change links. People who want to argue that the old article name should be retained by changing a direct link into a redirect or pipe can always make that argument, but they have an onus to make a case and just not liking the consensus name change doesn't cut it. The default practice is that when we change the name of an article we also change the links to it. It is a terrible idea to provide editors who disagree with RM outcomes with a mechanism for keeping the old name regardless. This area is becoming a true Theatre of the Absurd. Zero^talk 00:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

What I don't understand is why these things are not discussed like adults before bringing them to AE, or why the admins are going straight to sanctions, or worse, acting unilaterally for no reason. Why did El C block both Seraphim System and Avaya1 for the edits on Ariel Sharon, the former while they were even discussing on the talkpage? This is absurd.

For instance, a few days ago on the page: Jewish Voice for Peace, I reverted an edit of E. M. Gregory, who re-reverted me immediately. I did not report them to AE, and they did not revert their own edit. There was a brief discussion on the talkpage. MShabazz reverted the edit while discussion was inconclusive. As of now, the status quo ante remains. Now, if El C were watching the page, EMG would have been blocked because they violated the rule, and perhaps MShabazz would have been blocked for "tag-teaming" or "edit-warring" or whatever thing someone complains about. But I didn't complain about anything, and I don't want anyone blocked. The discussion is already talking place on the talkpage. So why is the admin intervening?

Wikipedia has a thousand rules and a million ways to run afoul of them. Thank god we don't file an AE report for every time someone breaks some rule. We don't sue people for every offence in real life either. Admins are not required to act on all reports. This kind of overzealous enforcement is very bad, and will make the area much worse to work in. Please, we are not children, where one has to go running off to mommy every time one's little finger is hurt. This kind of stuff will only breed more resentment and more reports. Already I'm seeing tons of frivolous reports. In real life, there are legal costs involved; but here there is only the cost of filing a report. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: AE does not work on the basis of voting, popular or otherwise. All you can do is to make arguments to persuade uninvolved admins of your case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: I'll respond on your talkpage so as not to clutter this page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I am a bit horrified as to what this area has become; from anyone can edit, to everything is chiselled in stone, (unless you discuss on talk.) And all this, when editors haven’t really asked for it.

As for this latest spat, I am at least partly responsible for it. When Bolter rv my edit, I made a mistake: instead of pinging him on the articles talk-page (which has 600+ watchers), I went to Bolters talk-page (which has less than 30 watchers), informing him about the RfC, and asked him to revert, knowing he had not taken any part in the RfC.

And I would have thought that with the RfC there was consensus for change, here. This was nothing like the [[Danzig]] or [[Gdańsk|Danzig]] example, here we had a straight link to the article. Do we really need to discuss that? How many times do we have to rerun this RfC? Huldra (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Kite, lol, that is exactly it. It is complete madness, IMO, but that is just my 2 cents, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Seraphim System

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

Whilst Seraphim System undoubtedly has an anti-Israel bias in their editing, in this case they were merely updating the link to reflect the outcome of an RM at the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank article; this report is frivolous at best. Number 5 7 12:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if follows that the link had to be updated after the move, linking to redirects is fine where appropriate. This was a matter upon which editors could legitimate disagree depending on the context of the article in which the link is used. Anyway, the possibility it might (hypothetically) have been straightforward to establish consensus to restore the reverted edit is no excuse for not doing so. I see a clear violation:
1. Huldra changes Jordanian occupation of the West Bank to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank [7]
2. Bolter21 reverts, changing it back to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank [8]
3. Seraphim System repeats Huldra's reverted action, without obtaining prior consensus [9]

Seraphim System has been blocked previously for breach of the same sanction, so is aware of it. I would therefore therefore propose a 48 hr block for a second offence. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I don't agree that a RM discussion is consensus for changing the name of an article and all wikilinks that point to it. We allow linking to redirects or using piped links according to editorial discretion. For example, there is consensus that Gdańsk rather than Danzig should be the name of that article, however it is right that East Pomeranian Offensive should use [[Danzig]] or [[Gdańsk|Danzig]], because that was the name at the relevant time. Updating links after RMs should, once it proves controversial (Huldra's edit was fine), be discussed in the context of the relevant article. WJBscribe (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WJBScribe. This is a violation and the edit summary accompanying the revert indicates that it is not merely a restoration of a link over a redirect. A short block seems appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear here, are we actually suggesting sanctioning an editor for fixing a double redirect, or is there an actual reason why that link should have been piped from the previous name? Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing a link is not the same thing as fixing a double redirect. WJBscribe (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I'm being dense here, but the article had been moved to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank on the 6 April. The disputed edit was on the 9 April. Is there any reason why the link should have been piped through the previous name? Because otherwise it is simply fixing a double redirect. I'm not involved in ARBPIA at all, so I may be missing something obvious. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I... think this is not an AE case. The for/against on the particular edits are within reasonable behavior EVEN IN a problem area such as PIA and the editors can all discuss this like adults on the talk pages. This dispute could have gone far enough to rise to disruptive and AE relevant but has not. AE is NOT supposed to be a super-veto venue for content or style disputes on problem areas. We're supposed to deal with individual or group misbehavior on topics Arbcom has had to intervene in previously. I recommend close no action, strongly urge the parties to use talk pages like you're supposed to and AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why fixing the redirect, even with their edit summary, is enough for a sanction. I don't feel there's a risk of future disruption that can't otherwise be avoided through conversation with the editors involved. I would also close this with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Razzieman

Block endorsed and 3-month topic ban imposed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (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 Razzieman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Razzieman (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:ARBAP2, specifically discretionary sanctions placed on United States presidential election, 2020 by Ks0stm on 6 December 2016

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

22:40, 10 April 2017‎ User removes info on Anthony Weiner
22:40, 10 April 2017‎ User self reverts
22:41, 10 April 2017‎ User removes same info, but this time reverts IOnlyKnowFiveWords
00:55, 11 April 2017‎ User reverts me, re-removing the Anthony Weiner info

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:58, 10 April 2017 , specifically to the 1RR restriction on the page in quesiton

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was inactive for over a year but returned in February 2017 to engage in a series of reverts. Was dormant until yesterday when they continued the behavior. Last 7 edits (and the only edits since January 2016) have been reverts or removals of material on American politics pages.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Razzieman

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 Razzieman

Statement by IP

So the comedian Bill Maher makes a comment that Anthony Wiener should run for President in 2020 because "He had balls, and he was an asshole" and, since we're OK with a "pussy grabber" we should have no issues with "a guy who sexts teens with a baby by his dick." This is covered by The Huffington Post and added to the article that Anthony Wiener is a speculative candidate for the 2020 Presidential Electon. Razzieman edit wars to remove that entry (which was probably a BLP violation!), is blocked for a month, and admins are now discussing a topic ban? Question to the admins - did any of you actually READ the facts behind this case or just jump in because technically the revert rule was violated? I'm having a hard time understanding why that material should remain in the article. I see no attempts at discussion with the user, the editor who added the information says on the talk page that Maher was probably joking, and Razzieman is blocked a mere 3 hours after being reminded of the DS? NeilN I think you have made a serious mistake. 2600:1004:B05D:87F8:C827:93B3:7C3B:3BF8 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the content is the whole point. Yeah this editor should communicate better but users should never be sanctioned if they're improving the encyclopedia. I think there's a essay about that somewhere ;). 2600:1004:B008:8835:E57E:7BB2:6B03:37C6 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have issues with this. User:IKnowOnlyFiveWords and User:EvergreenFir please justify why you feel that Anthony Wiener should be listed as a candidate for the 2020 presidential election based on crude Bill Maher jokes. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging user:Jim1138 who has also reverted to include this content. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment - it is a clear BLP violation for our article to call Anthony Wiener a speculative candidate for president in 2020 based on a joking invitation made by a comedian. And we blocked the editor who removed it. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Razzieman

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

Blocked one month to stop immediate disruption. Open to longer sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right about content, IP, but multiple unexplained reverts without even the most basic edit summary is problematic in this area. Can this editor actually communicate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on their talk page asking for a response. Their past edits are an odd mix of constructive edits, unhelpful edits, and outright vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse NeilN's block for the edit warring. I think we should give the individual a chance to make a statement (to be copied from their talk page of course), but if they don't indicate a clear understanding of what the problem is and how to correct it going forward, I'd strongly consider a topic ban. The American politics area is difficult enough without unexplained, drive-by reverting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe we've at this point left enough time for a response to be made, and the editor doesn't seem to be around. Given that, I'll close this request with a topic ban, unless someone shortly objects. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with NeilN's block. Considering they've only edited in this area since they returned to WP, I also believe a topic ban would be appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week and no reply. Agree that reverts were of problematic content, but lack of overall communication is troubling. Endorse block and recommend closing soon. El_C 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two options for whoever closes this thread: (a) close without further action since the block is already issued and no admin objects to it, or (b) keep the block in place and add a topic ban. I would support whatever topic ban User:Seraphimblade has in mind, but my own suggestion is an indef ban from all of WP:ARBAP2 across all pages of Wikipedia including talk, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Theadjuster

Appeal declined. Additionally, Theadjuster (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from BLP edits for 3 months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Theadjuster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: BLP violations User_talk:Theadjuster#April_2017_2

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

Notification of that administrator: Appeal copied over by me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Theadjuster

This entire warring scenario began when unidentifiable editors began deleting entire passages of my copy from politician Christy Clark's page under the heading of "controversies" and it so happens that the timing of these deletions aligned with the beginning of said politician's election campaign, toward reelection as Premier of British Columbia. I believe that a careful study of the copy and references will show that the copy is legitimate, and that the copy is situated correctly on the page, under "Controversies", and that the copy does reference a host of legitimate and verifiable issues pertaining to the history and performance of said politician.

Wikipedia guidelines are clear that contested copy (around tone, neutrality, etc.) should be taken up piecemeal and altered or improved if necessary but is not to be deleted en masse. Upon seeking higher Wikipedia Admin support to point out these infractions I was met instead with stalwart edit values and "good faith" suppositions, all of which were seemingly irrelevant as I could not "talk" with the original editors who deleted passages, when I visited their talk page I found no sign of activity. Also I am relatively new and did not even know how to find the talk page for CC until further along, despite best efforts to respond....Most recently my wife did chime in on my behalf, but this was out of her own insistence and not my bidding. Seems unfair to be further penalized for this, just trying to clarify a position that seems to be going unrecognized, or overlooked, or ignored... As for my Mediararus account I was up front with this from the beginning, it is connected to my first and forgotten account with Wikipedia, never used, but I logged in unknowingly with this account as I was logged in via gmail and then did not recognize the different User account until after a few edits. Not sock-puppeting! Never used this account before or since, you will see. And the account is linked to me and not to a made up profile. No intention of sabotage or hiding my profile at all. I don't appreciate the suggestions from editors which suggest otherwise--like a pack of wolves jumping on me, to conclusions... For what its worth, I've brought this matter to the attention of other media, taking an interest in this story, as it appears to others and not just me that this is was a case of political interference, ie. there is an agenda to clear the "controversies" section from Christy Clark's Wikipedia page, timely as it is, during her election campaign... I am still hoping that some reasonable Administrator might intervene here and take a good look at the history on the page--see who deleted what and how, when...verify for yourself if the copy is legitimate, well-cited, etc and if there is problem with tone/neutrality then raise in talk and let's discuss but PLEASE can we not see that outright deletion of verifiable content is not okay and suspicious--ie. not in good faith ??

Statement by NeilN

See ANI thread. User blocked after reverting an "admin action" edit I made. [10] Given this appeal and further talk page posts I recommend a topic ban from all BLPs of British Columbia politicians, broadly construed. Ideally, I'd recommend a topic ban from British Columbia politics, broadly construed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that before the revert that led to the block, I did counsel them on how to proceed and to drop the "vandalism" accusations. [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

I can't really say any more than I agree 100% with NeilN, and that I too would favour a topic ban from British Columbia politics, broadly construed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Theadjuster

Result of the appeal by Theadjuster

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

Endorse topic ban. Something, intuitively, seems not right. El_C 19:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The block is obviously justified for ridiculously blatant non-neutral editing, and a topic ban would be as well. Sandstein 19:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. It doesn't even have to be an admin. If someone removes material on BLP grounds, you need to discuss it and establish a consensus before restoring it. That's not negotiable, and those who do otherwise should expect to be sanctioned for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should be declined and believe a short topic ban would be appropriate as well. Seeing as there's no support for overturning the block, I'll close this accordingly. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JFG

0RR restriction reduced to 72 hours on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections by sanctioning admin and general agreement below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — JFG ^talk 14:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 0RR restriction on ARPAP2/1RR articles, following Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Is there an Admin in the house?; Link to the sanction notice: User talk:JFG#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

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

Notification of that administrator: Notified.

Statement by JFG

First of all, I admit that a technical 1RR violation occurred as reported, with a 17-hour interval between two unrelated reverts; I simply didn't pay attention. However, I strongly deny the purported pattern of 1RR violations which has been cited to justify the sanction.

This is a wikihounding campaign by SPECIFICO who has repeatedly accused me of violating DS or 1RR simply when she happens to disagree with my editing. She has been making unsupported DS violation claims and vague litigation threats against several other editors, e.g. most recently K.e.coffman here and Darouet there. I have warned this user repeatedly of the chilling effect she is creating, but she keeps trying to corner me on a technicality (and apparently succeeded today). Here are six instances of her direct accusations which turned out to be unfounded:

19 February: User Talk:JFG#DS violation (alleged two reverts, when only one edit was a revert)
23 February: User Talk:JFG#AE request (AE process opened by Steve Quinn and dismissed as a simple content dispute, but please open the "Unproductive aspersions" hat to see SPECIFICO's statements)
26 February: User Talk:JFG#1 RR violation at Russian (unspecified violation, no follow-up)
14 March: User Talk:JFG#!RR Violation -- please self-undo (lots of discussion among editors and admins about which edits should be considered reverts, no action)
11 April: User Talk:JFG#DS Violation at Russians (unspecified threat)
16 April: User Talk:JFG#Another DS violation at Russians (unsubstantiated accusation: one edit is a BOLD cleanup of the article, the other is an exempt revert arguing BLPVIO)

SPECIFICO never managed to find any genuine misconduct on my part. I consider this attitude to be disruptive and borderline harassment, however I refrained from reporting her behaviour and I treated it with as much humour as I could muster.[12] An editor once brought me to AE, and another to ANEW, and in both cases no violation was found; these were misunderstandings about what constitutes a revert. One of the reporting users graciously apologized but SPECIFICO piled on with a kind of "you'll get nailed next time" taunt, yet she never pushed the matter to WP:AE.

Please note also that I voluntarily self-revert when notified of an actual DS violation (for example self-revert + pursuing discussion), whereas SPECIFICO simply ignores warnings when she breaches revert restrictions (for example this thread or that one, ignoring self-revert requests and issuing threats).

SPECIFICO's hounding behaviour towards me has been so blatant that another editor, Factchecker_atyourservice, whom I didn't know, came to my talk page to joke about it by making a parody of her attacks. This thread is also worth reading, whereby another editor, Objective3000, admittedly sometimes in disagreement with me, considered that SPECIFICO owed me an apology for her aspersions.

Imposing a permanent 0RR restriction on me would be validating the chilling effect intended by one adversarial editor, in practice denying me legitimate editing actions towards article improvements in AP2 topics. Given the fuzzy interpretations of what is and is not a revert, I run the risk of being blocked for simply making a bold edit that somebody will construe as a revert of some content. Sanctions are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and this 0RR restriction looks like punitive treatment for a series of mostly-unfounded DS violation claims.

For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours. Furthermore, I request a strong admonition to SPECIFICO for a pattern of hurling baseless accusations at her fellow editors, thereby wasting everybody's time and energy towards unconstructive discussions.

Finally, I'm sorry for burdening admins with a rather lengthy statement; I felt I had to provide enough context to defend myself properly.

Statement by Ian.thomson

I admit that I had looked though and saw the multiple warnings, with diffs. The proclivity for manual reverts (along with SPECIFICO sometimes not linking to prior versions) makes it harder to sort through. There was a flame this time, and lots of smoke in previous instances. That said, my phrasing was "after multiple warnings," not "multiple violations."

JFG said For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours -- I'll go further and reduce it to 0RR on just the page in question for the three days. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: My activity at Alex Jones predates his involvement in the election and has been to oppose WP:FRINGE-pushing editors. My activity at Pizzagate was over BLP concerns and my continued activity is, again, discouraging conspiracy theorists (if it's not fringe, I don't really care what other editors do to those articles). My activity has more to do with conspiracy theorism than with politics, per se. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

Well a look at 19th of feb show this revert [13], followed by this [14] which JFG's own edit summery says is a "self revert". Yes it is a technicality, but it is two reverts.

I assume the warning on 23 refers to two reverts on the 22nd [15] and [16], opne was (it claims) a reversion of a banned user's material, but still (technically) two reverts.

I stopped here. yes there do seem to also be multiple reverts on the 26th as well. The two instances of double revert I checked are not really egregious, in that one was a self revert and thus only technical violations.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

Overturn. This was a rather hasty response to a nebulous charge. Are we really counting a self-revert as a violation of 1RR as the second revert? I noticed SPECIFICO leveling accusations of edit warring against JFG on the BLP notice board and no action was taken. There is a degree of forum shopping going on and it was unclear what action caused the imposing administrator to invoke a 0RR restriction. --DHeyward (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean block log for an editor accused of a pattern of edit warring? Not much of a pattern.

Considering the sanction request was made on the article talk page with no discussion and no diffs for a pattern of behavior (which is really a pattern of complaints), this is a rather egregious overreaction to a 1RR violation from an out of process sanction request. JFG has never been blocked for edit warring so the argument for a pattern of edit warring is rather ridiculous. This was an ill-considered sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the talk page for the article where this request was made has hatted the discussion as being out of process with a notice that bringing sanction requests to talk pages can result in sanctions. This sanction should have never been issued. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: As I said, the request was out of process. Had you acted earlier, the request would have been closed. An article talk page was a poor choice and many admin AC/DS sanctions that have come under scrutiny are those that occurred without input at AE or ANI. Everyone agrees that admins can act unilaterally. Virtually everyone agrees that discussion at AE is preferred for any actions that may be questioned. I would hope the imposing admin would lift their 0RR sanction and let it be discussed but if not, they should be prepared that the bar for overturning that decision is much lower than overturning consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: If the sanctioning admin had provided diffs or examples of the behavior they were sanctioning, it might be possible to address them. But the admin only said the current 1RR was stale. That diff is all that there is in the sanction discussion. And a clean block log. Not a lot of evidence to address. And we have editors saying a self-revert counts as the second revert in 1RR pages which is nonsense. I can only hope that diff wasn't used as evidence. --DHeyward (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that Ian.thomson has edited within the area of AP2 most recently in Pizzagate and AlexJones, both of which were prominent in the most recent US election. --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 72 hour agreement for lifting seems reasonable. --DHeyward (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I think JFG indeed violated 1RR restrictions on these pages previously. For example, one (revert of this edit) and two (clearly marked by JFG himself as a revert in the edit summary). Here is whole discussion if anyone would be interested in.

I also admit reporting JFG previously on 3RRNB here. Here is why. My reading of WP:3RR was that undoing work by previous contributors (plural) like here would be counted as revert. However, JFG insisted that one must provide exact edit (diff) by specific contributor (singular) that he reverted. I am not sure that JFG was right, but the closing admin (El C) decided he was right. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JFG

In considering this matter, please note that the sanction would apply to "articles" plural, not just "the article" as User:El C mentioned below. JFG has been active (without incident) at multiple articles where the sanction would apply. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not involved in this incident; but placed my comment here conservatively as I’ve been involved in articles, pro and con, with JFG. There are times that I think JFG makes changes to mainspace too quickly during a continuing discussion, which I find quite bothersome. But, I think that we have to take into account the effect of 1RR and DS. I agree that these must exist. It’s just that, at times, editing articles under DS is like dancing the tango in a minefield. Technical violations are going to occur. I may disagree with JFG on many edits – but, he is a valuable editor involved in difficult articles. 0RR seems excessive and damages his ability to contribute. I suggest a rainbow trout, or a brief 0RR as suggested below. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by JFG

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

I'd decline the request as invalid. The appeal does not indicate which specific sanction is being appealed. What I'd expect is a link to a statement by an administrator specifying a sanction. The talk page thread linked to in the request does not contain a sanction. This appeal is therefore invalid and can be closed. Sandstein 14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link now added by appealing editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still decline the appeal because it is mostly a series of attacks against another editor, substantially without evidence, see WP:ASPERSIONS. An appeal should only address the conduct of the appealing editor. Sandstein 20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: Although I closed the thread and sanctioned SPECIFICO [17] the original sanction itself by Ian.thomson is not out of process as admins can act on any action or requests. However I want to emphasize that article talk pages should not be turned into mini-WP:AE boards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~. I was the admin who has gotten many of SPECIFICO's requests to sanction JFG for 1RR violations, but all of these, save one, were not reverts. I'd wait to hear from the enforcing admin's reasoning before deciding. This sanction does severely handicaps JFG from editing the article on an equal footing. El_C 21:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

0RR for 72 hours (a sanction I often apply at at AN3) sounds like a fair sanction for making this mistake. JFG is cautioned to be more cognisant of 1RR. El_C 23:48, 22 April 2017 (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