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	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave

Appeal declined. The requisite "clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved administrators at AE" to overturn this discretionary sanction is not present. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2019 (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: Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions being appealed: Discussion Log

Logged warning by Sandstein
Deletion of User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles by Goldenring

Administrators imposing the sanctions

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of those administrators

Sandstein

Goldenring

Statement by Dlthewave

I feel that the closing statement "Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.", which appears to be copy-and-pasted from WP:POLEMIC, is not an accurate assessment of consensus among the admins who participated in the discussion. Among other things, it implies that all four editors are equally at fault, which does not appear to be what the admins intended in their support for a logged warning. Although Goldenring did delete a page in my userspace under WP:POLEMIC, there was no discussion of my "attacking" or "vilifying" anyone and one admin even stated "Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion." There was no proposal to issue a logged warning to Dlthewave. (As a sidenote, I also feel that issuing a polemic warning to the other three involved editors instead of a warning related to talk page conduct was entirely out of left field, but that is something for them to address in their own appeals if they choose to pursue them.)
I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD.

Although this deletion may have been within Goldenring's editorial discretion, I would like it to be reviewed by other admins and preferably discussed by the community at Miscellany for Deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a Deletion Review here as suggested. –dlthewave ☎ 21:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: "If there is supposed misconduct here, take it to ANI, file a case request, hand out DS warnings and then take it to AE, etc" I've done all of those things, and you can read about it in the Signpost if you like. I've taken pains to focus on big-picture patterns instead of individual editor behavior, and no editors are named in the userspace page, however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost. –dlthewave ☎ 20:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I'm not sure where you got the idea that there were no actionable requests. A few examples: [1] [for_72bikers] [2]. You will note that this appeal is actually directly connected to the most recent AE request. More examples can be found in the AE log under Gun Control. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

After rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk · contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment here, I've also withdrawn the warning with respect to Springee. Clearly I should have read the enforcement request more carefully; sorry for that. I think that we should be more careful in the future as to whether or not to entertain enforcement requests directed at multiple editors. Sandstein 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bishonen, GoldenRing is correct that an action that has been labeled as an AE action may only be reviewed by way of the process described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals, that is, here at AE, or at AN or ARCA – but not at DRV. Bishonen, I recommend that you undo your temporary restoration of the page for the purpose of the DRV, or you may be desysopped for undoing an AE action out of process, as described at WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators. Any admin who acts on the currently ongoing DRV by overturning the deletion may likewise be desysopped. Sandstein 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than supporting lifting of sanctions for Dlthewave, I've largely stayed out of this discussion. However, I think Dlthewave is contradicting themselves. In reply to BU Rob 13 they said, "however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost". As one of the editors quoted in the article in question I asked that my comments be removed [[3]]. I specifically noted the link between the Signpost article and this user page. Dlthewave declined noting in part, "any link between it and our joint Signpost submission is tenuous at best." [[4]]. This contradicts the claims made in reply to BU Rob 13. Furthermore, it specifically accuses others of "whitewashing" vs simply making unsound arguments. I view it as something that either needs to be acted on or deleted. In a similar vein I take a dim view of the "firearms" reaction list on the "Hall of Fame" page [[5]]. Collecting material like this is needlessly antagonistic even though I don't think that is Dlthewave's intent. Springee (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I'm not sure why you've suggested deletion review here. AE actions cannot be overturned at deletion review, only at AE, AN or ARCA. Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action? GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: I will reiterate here what I've said on the deletion review: if you wish to use this material for valid dispute resolution (probably either an ANI or arbitration case request) and can outline a reasonable timeline for doing so (either on-wiki or privately by email), then I will self-revert my enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, for what it's worth at this point, that I agree a formal warning to Dlthewave was not warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee regarding my deletion at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dlthewave

The matter of the deletion itself should be deferred to WP:DRV as that venue is much better equipped for such reviews. Whether or not the action itself was appropriate should be discussed here or in a more general manner at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee (where Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions redirects). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Dlthewave

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

I commented in the initial thread, so I'm not sure whether my response should appear in this section, or above with GoldenRing's and Sandstein's. The deletion of Dlthewave's userspace subpage was arguably appropriate under WP:POLEMIC, and within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part. While I'm not sure I would have done the same, I'm comfortable leaving the page deleted. That said, I don't think a formal warning to Dlthewave is warranted; there wasn't really any support for such a warning amongst uninvolved admins in the previous thread, and it seems like overkill. The proper response to a potentially polemical userspace subpage is to delete it, which has been done. There wasn't any convincing evidence of a pattern of behavior warranting a logged warning on Dlthewave's part, at least not that I saw.
Regarding the logged warnings, I do take Springee's point that they perhaps paint the remaining 3 editors with an overly broad brush. There are clearly gradations of concerning behavior, with Springee on the mild end and Trekphiler/RAF910 showing a much more sustained and problematic battleground attitude. I'll leave it up to other admins whether we should modify the warning to exclude Springee, but it is worth considering while we're here. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is definitely a confusing situation. Reading the deleted page, it does seem borderline WP:POLEMIC so, perhaps, GoldenRing was right in deleting it. But, Dlthewave brings up a good point. If they do plan on making a future case then how else can they keep a record of the edits they see as forming a pattern? They could do it off-wiki of course, but isn't it better to be open about one's activities? While the deletion was within admin discretion perhaps, in cases of this nature, it is better to leave them as is with a note to the editor that they can't leave it sticking around for too long. Imo, the warning should be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind. Suggest dlthewave take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. An admin should be asked to temporarily undelete the page for purposes of discussion as soon as the DR is opened. But I don't have any trouble agreeing with Sandstein, Springee, MastCell, and Regentspark that dlthewave's warning should be withdrawn and struck from the log, and Sandstein has already done so. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Dlthewave:, I've temporarily undeleted your page for the deletion review. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Your deletion can't be overturned at Deletion review, GoldenRing? Are you sure? In that case, obviously I suggested it because I didn't know any better. A bit of bad luck that apparently nobody who did know saw my suggestion for Deletion review here at AE, some 20 hours before Dlthewave actually opened the deletion review. I'm not sure what should be the next step, considering there is quite a lot of discussion at the review already, and some disagreement about how to proceed. But whatever action is taken, rest assured I won't feel "undermined" by it, as somebody suggested there. I'm personally fine with whatever, although I want to apologize to Dlthewave for potentially complicating his situation. As for "Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action?", no, I haven't. If you're referring to my temporary undeletion of the page, for the deletion review only and with the front page covered by a template, per the instructions here, I can only ask you not to be so silly. If you're talking about my giving Dlthewave bad advice, well, I've explained how that came about (=ignorance on my part). Bishonen | talk 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What an absolute joy you are to work with, Sandstein. It's a wonder more admins don't flock to help out at AE, where honest mistakes get met with immediate threats of desysopping. I do want to point out that there's a pretty clear consensus at DRV that the page doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC. @GoldenRing:, do I understand correctly that you are not going to recognize that consensus because it is being discussed on the Wrong Page^(TM)? If this is the case, then I suppose we should tell everyone at DRV their opinions are not wanted there, re-delete the page, and then have the exact same discussion here. Or alternately, GR could rescind the deletion.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I not only agree that restoring the page for deletion review is not an abuse of process, but that deleting the page via AE would be an abuse of process. The way to remove userspace essays that are contrary to policy is MfD., and review of decisions there is at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, do you intend to delete under AE every page in an area subject to DS (such as AP or PIA) that you think might arguably be the result of an action that violation an arb ruling,? DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just noticed, Sandstein, that your closing at the AE Discussion used the wording of the arb case "for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, " but the entire discussion above about whether it violated POLEMIC is irrelevant, because the page is obviously related to WP. And the arb com wording continued " attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. " I do not see any editors named on the page in question. It was discussing edits. (Of course the editors were implied, because the statements wee linked, but nothing about the editors is question is said on the page, only about the edits. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been stalled for a month, the deletion review was closed as consensus to overturn, and we need to proceed in one or other way. I see consensus to withdraw the warning, and this has been already done by Sandstein. The situation is more difficult with the deletion of the page, but if I take into account all opinions at DRV and also that all uninvolved admins here who commented after the close of the DRV supported undeletion, I would say there is consensus to undelete. I will wait a couple of days before closing, may be somebody wanted to comment and forgot or overlooked this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support User:Ymblanter's idea of undoing the AE deletion of the page, based on the apparent consensus of admins in this thread. Arbcom is still debating whether 'AE deletion' can ever be considered to be an option, but there is no risk of any conflict with Arbcom if the present deletion is simply undone on the merits. (We would be closing as though AE deletion was really allowed, but this *particular* deletion was reversed through the normal AE appeal process). It appears that a deletion review has already occurred which supported restoration of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed closed it as overturn, and subsequently got strong objections from Goldenring concerning the restoration of the page (see their talk page), which I disagree with, but it is good to give another administrator a chance to deal with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the votes on the pending motion, we must proceed on the assumption that deletion of a page is allowed as a discretionary sanction. In my view, POLEMIC falls on the conduct side of the conduct/content divide: deciding whether a user page violates that guideline does not require one to make decisions regarding any encyclopedic content. Therefore, deleting a user page under POLEMIC does not fall into the category of deletions that may impermissibly settle a content dispute. Having considered the comments at the DRV to the extent they addressed POLEMIC (as opposed to the process issue), and after independently reviewing the page, I cannot say that GoldenRing's interpretation and application of that guideline is outside reasonable admin discretion, and that's all that is needed to sustain a discretionary sanction. Decline as to the deletion. As to the warning, the appeal is moot. T. Canens (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline this. I think it is within administrator discretion to consider this a violation of WP:POLEMIC. In particular, I note that the editor who create the page has stated that they intend to use it as background for an opinion piece in the Signpost. The spirit behind POLEMIC rather clearly is intended to prevent editors from putting others "on blast" without making a formal report at a noticeboard. I believe compiling a long list of diffs on-wiki in order to write an opinion piece that attacks a particular editor or group of editors is plainly at odds with this spirit. If there is supposed misconduct here, take it to ANI, file a case request, hand out DS warnings and then take it to AE, etc. Compiling a list of supposed wrongdoing and then litigating it in the court of public opinion at the Signpost is contrary to the spirit behind POLEMIC. All of this is without comment on whether the editor is correct in the pattern they're highlighting; it doesn't particularly matter whether they are correct when it comes to whether it violates POLEMIC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There’s definitely been no case request during my time on the Committee, unless it came during a period of inactivity for me. But ignoring that, if all venues have not found those diffs to be actionable, turning to the Signpost to make assertions about a behavioral issue - whether editors are named or not - goes against the spirit of POLEMIC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... and if they were actioned on, then the issue is resolved, and the list of diffs shouldn't be stored forever in user space to further litigate the issue unless new behavior emerges. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal has been open for more than two months now and needs a resolution one way or the other. It takes a "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved administrators to grant an appeal at AE, and I'm not seeing it. Barring objections in the next 24 hours, I'll close this as declined and re-delete the page. If arbcom wants to do something about deletion and DS, we can revisit this when they have actually done something. T. Canens (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Roscelese

There is a clear consensus to decline this appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2019 (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 administrators" 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: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Roscelese blocked for two weeks per AE report

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

Notification of that administrator: [6]

Statement by Roscelese

Once again, the reason for the block is false on its face - I very much did defend and argue for my conduct. As I said at AE, I discussed the reverts with the users who had made the edits I was reverting, sometimes even getting an explicit statement of agreement. The restriction was put in place to prevent edit-warring and reverting without discussion, not to prevent the reversion of drive-by destructive edits - which, when I reverted, I still explained fully in the edit summary. In fact, Newyorkbrad has specifically stated in the past, a propos of my restriction, that a talkpage thread which merely duplicates the contents of an edit summary should not be necessary. Moreover, the filing was pretty obviously bad-faith to begin with (Slugger falsely claimed that I wasn't discussing reverts on article talk which I did in fact discuss, and had never edited any of those articles before). My conduct was compliant with WP policy and with my own editing restrictions, and AE is not a block dispenser for winning what other users, oddly, seem to be seeing as personal battles rather than collaborative encyclopedia-building. In light of the fact that this is not the first time that Sandstein is blocking me on the supposed basis that I did not say things that I in fact did say, and of Sandstein's clear misinterpretation of the restriction, I'm pinging the admins involved in creating the restriction and the discussion that led to it. @DeltaQuad: @Salvio giuliano: @Courcelles: @Euryalus: @AGK: @Seraphimblade: @Doug Weller: @Guerillero: @Callanecc: @Bishonen: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend that the appeal is declined. I refer colleagues to the reasons for which I imposed the block in the thread above. Sandstein 17:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Roscelese

Result of the appeal by Roscelese

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

(Copied from Rosceleses' user talk) I've taken a look in detail at the four edits brought up in the AE report. The restriction specifies that Roscelese must discuss any content reversions on the talk page, with the exceptions of blatant BLP violations or vandalism. So, the question at hand is whether the reverts were discussed on the talk page, and if not, whether the edits reverted were blatant BLP violations or vandalism. (It would of course also matter whether the articles edited fall under the scope of the restriction, but Roscelese has not disputed that they do and they all seem clearly to be within it.)

*The first edit in the AE report was an edit to The Silent Scream: [7] on 24 April 2019. This edit was not followed by a discussion on the talk page, as Roscelese's last edit to Talk:The Silent Scream was on 11 November 2017. Roscelese's edit summary was "rv - neutral language". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this was a content revert and required discussion. This edit violated the restriction.

*The second edit was to LGBT rights opposition on 23 April 2019: [8]. The last edit to Talk:LGBT rights opposition was on 27 December 2017, so Roscelese did not follow up this edit with a discussion on the talk page. The rationale for the revert by Roscelese was "Even if it is decided to mention the "ex-gay" movement in this article, this promo is not the way to do it". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this would require a talk page discussion. This edit violated the restriction.

*The third revert was to Homosexuality and religion on 18 April 2019: [9]. The last edit to Talk:Homosexuality and religion was on 3 March 2019, so Roscelese did not follow this edit up with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert was "Rv - increases reliance on interpretation of primary sources, does not add any new information, just jargon". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.

The fourth edit was to Abortion and mental health on 11 April 2019: [10]. *The last edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health was on 21 January 2019, so Roscelese did not follow the revert with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert is "These claims are not in the NEJM article". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.

Roscelese's restriction requires that content-based reverts are to be followed up with a rationale and discussion on the article talk page, not somewhere else, so discussing it on a user talk page or a different article's talk page is not sufficient as the discussion on the article talk page is intended to involve anyone interested, not just the particular user who made the edit. These four edits were content-based reverts (even if judged only by Roscelese's own rationales for them) and all of them lack followup on the talk page, so they were correctly found to be violations. I would therefore decline the appeal and find the block to be valid. That you find the discussion to be "pointless" does not change the requirement to start it nonetheless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I was pinged about this) I would uphold the block per Seraphimblade's reasoning, above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After looking this over, I concur with Seraphimblade's reasoning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was also pinged and I also concur with Seraphimblade. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not pinged. If the issue was purely related to the first two diffs (we use "anti-abortion", not "pro-life", and the second one's just promotional, even if it doesn't rise to vandalism) I might think a two-week block was a little harsh, but the second two diffs are fairly obvious. So, I concur. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I share Black Kite's assessment of the first two diffs. I also think that the fourth diff, viewed in its context, is quite defensible: it reverts a previously reverted deceptive IP addition using a bogus doi, and the IP restoring that edit just expanded that doi into a reference citing AGF. The only reasonable inference is that the second IP has neither actually looked at the linked reference nor even the previous IP's edit summary (which claims to rely on a 2017 review when that reference is from 2006). Even when viewed in the most charitable light, this is grossly irresponsible source misuse that would earn the user a topic ban from the area. I do agree with Seraphimblade's assessment of the third diff, though it was a week old at the time of the report. Taken together, I find the two-week block to be on the harsh side and would have preferred a lesser sanction. That said, I cannot say that the sanction actually imposed is outside admin discretion, and I therefore agree with my colleagues that this appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevertBob

RevertBob is blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (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 RevertBob

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RevertBob (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:BLP, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018 - "Jeremy Corbyn is placed under 1RR indefinitely. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC). Note that page has a 1RR edit notice.

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

Revert1: 22:01, 2 May 2019 - removing "antisemitic" from newly added content describing an antisemitic passage in a 1902 book. Note edit summary - "ce" - this is not a copy edit. (as noted by SWL36 who reverted)
Revert2: 22:42, 2 May 2019 - removing "praised", again edit summary "ce" + (consecutive) 07:43, 3 May 2019 - removing "antisemitic" again this time with "let the readers decide" - which is somewhat mind boggling in and of itself - the passage reads "Jews dominated journalism and the world of finance and hence government policy" - so per RevertBob's reasoning (contrary to all sources here) this is up to interpretation? (reverted by Absolutelypuremilk [11])
Revert3 - 22:28, 3 May 2019 - removing "praised" and "antisemitic", this time with the edit summary "more neutral, allow readers to decide and shorter".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13:13, 1 September 2018 - blocked for violating 1RR on Jeremy Corbyn.

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

13:13, 1 September 2018 - blocked for violating 1RR on Jeremy Corbyn.

12:00, 31 August 2018 - alerted BLP.

19:07, 14 August 2018 - alerted ARBPIA (may be relevant for other conduct described below).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(Some of this may or may not fall under ARBPIA broadly or reasonably construed (always a topic of debate) - however I feel it is relevant for context here is any event). RevertBob is essentially a WP:SPA that only edits topics revolving around the antisemitism crisis in the Labour party (ignoring a mass of rapid fire minor edits back in July 2017). He also does quite a bit of reverting. I would like to point out the following behavior:

19:56, 10 February 2019 - restoring content that multiple RfCs (see Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7 (RfC.8, RfC.6, RfC.4, RfC.2) determined should be removed. Asked to self revert - [12] - did not. See subsequent discussion in Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 8#Edits against RfC consensus - Where RevertBob chooses not to respond. He does show up after a month (on 5 March) to challenge the RfC close.
20:48, 11 March 2019 - again - reinstating content rejected in RfC (Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / Oryszczuk).
19:54, 12 March 2019 - requests to self-revert and informing them of the RfC result were left unanswered on their talk page and removed with "taking out the trash"
18:14, 30 April 2019 - blanket revert including of content removed - 09:44, 29 April 2019 - per this RfC. See Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC consensus, random op-eds - where this is discussed (RevertBob still absent).
Communicating with RevertBob has been difficult - see 19:16, 27 March 2019 (3RR warning issued as a pre-requisite to a (not filed) EW report after he revert 3-5 times (depending how you count) in 24 hours on 26-27 March - removed with "usual unhelpful contributions".

In summary - the 1RR violation above is a redline and clear violation. Misleading edit summaries are also clearly in BLP DS. Admins may also consider taking wider action in light of RevertBob's general editing practices and patterns.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Discussion concerning RevertBob

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 RevertBob

The diffs on the Jeremy Corbyn page are in relation to long-standing content dispute where editors are placing POV/opinion as facts. It's very difficult to engage with editors when the same arguments conflating RS with NPOV come up time and time again[13]. RevertBob (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding additional comments by editor filing complaint:

1. This wasn't clear from the RfC close as they were closed as no consensus - no consensus for keeping or removing?

2. This was different text to the RfC as it had mixed outcome where for part of the text there may be potential consensus and part has no consensus. After seeking advice on ANI as further RfC was started here.

3. Already answered on point 1.

4. This was in response to blanket removal of content by here - a bit difficult to see the good faith removal amongst the blanket removal when done at such a brisk pace.

5. Icewhiz has templated me numerous times and gets a bit weary after a while. RevertBob (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RevertBob

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

@TonyBallioni:, this is your sanction, want to take a look? Sandstein 14:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1RR violation is bright line and I agree with Icewhiz that the edit summaries make it worse. Blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon

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 Tagishsimon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Natureium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tagishsimon (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions

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

[14] Here is the first time I've ever interacted with them that I can recall, where I bring up a concern at ANI and they respond to rudely dismiss me outright.
[15] I'm not sure how to describe this insult.
[16] Here they respond to me saying that I've been going though and improving some of the articles started by Jess Wade by pointing out faults with an article I just created, which turn out to be incorrect.
[17] Here I asked Tagishsimon to stop harassing me.
[18] Here they refused.
[19] Here they allege that I'm in a club with two other people they've been harassing. example allegation here
At this point, he was alerted about DS.
[20] Here, among other things, they say that it's my fault that Wikipedia is being dragged through the gutter as a hang-out for misogynists
[21] Here they say that their harassment is my fault
[22] Here they respond to me by telling me that I should go away and think about that.

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 [23].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Tagishsimon: I did not ask you to stop talking to me, I asked you to stop accusing me of things, which you have continued to do even here. Natureium (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. Is there no template for this?

Discussion concerning Tagishsimon

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 Tagishsimon

I think it's fairly clear that Natureium does not like receiving criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You're determined to have drama. Well, let's go for it.

There was, as you're aware, an ANI thread in which Netoholic was taken to task for targetting Jess Wade's work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Netoholic's_response

Natureium turned up to specify that, on the basis of nothing much, that all of Jess Wade's work should be subjected to close scrutiny. I objected to that, pointing out that Natureium had submitted no evidence to support their view, and asserting that exactly the logic they applied to Jess Wade could be applied to their own contributions.

Natureium seems to have become upset about comments I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Canvassing_allegations_for_Sarah_Tuttle in which I lump together the three editors who have taken it upone themselves to police Jess Wade's work.

Natureium then turned up on my talk page; it seems clear they're happy that they can criticise people, but I cannot. Oh wells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tagishsimon#Simple_request

And finally Natureium turned up ona thread I had started in WiR talk - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Jess_Wade - and addressed themselves to me as the initial poster.

None of this is me going out of my way to harrass Natureium. All of this is me reacting to Natureium's harrassment of Jess Wade.

I don't accept Natureium's bogus framing, and neither should you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be very clear, TonyBallioni, that I have not been targetting anyone. I responded to Natureium's ANI contribution; pointed out eslewhere that Natureium was one of three editors targetting Jess Wade; and responded to Natureium on my talk page and to their insertion in a thread I started, and more specifically responding to a post they made to me as thread starter.

and what exactly are these "horrible things personally"? I pointed out in the ANi thread that Natureium had provided no evidence; I provided some stats on Jess Wade's work, and I pointed out that an analysis of Natureium's work might yield the same conclusion about their work as they had reached about Jess Wade's work.

@TonyBallioni: May I insist, since you have raised it, that you produce diffs for the alleged "horrible things personally". --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have contempt for Natureium's framing of the issue. I have only sympathy for anyone who has to wade through this. It appears that Natureium feels it is fine to wander around denigrating Jess Wade's work & calling her a liar, but wants an admini-drama when on the receiving end of rebuttal criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not think accusing Jess Wade of lying is deplorable, then your milage varies from mine. [24] --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's weak on both counts, TonyBallioni. Please supply a diff for the alleged "horrible things personally", or withdraw the allegation. And, as I say, I have contempt for Natureium's framing of this matter. I don't find this a good faith report of harrassment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And with the best will in the world, one cannot accept a person saying "please stop" on page A [25] 18:51, and then addressing comments to me on page B [26] 18:56 "Did you not notice that that's untrue before reposting it here?". This is what I mean by having contempt for the framing. Natureium feign's a wish to stop the discussion, five minutes before wandering along to accuse Jess of lying, and me of being credulous for reporting on Jess's lie. And you can see none of this? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

El C, I think the issue is that Tagishsimon has been specifically targeting Natureium with personal attack based on their involvement in a gender related controversy where there are very strong opinions on both sides. The ANI isn't directly related to that, but was originally about Netoholic and Jess Wade. Natureium reviewed that thread and had some concerns, and when they expressed the concerns, Tagishsimon lumped them together with two other editors and started accusing them of horrible things personally. This kind of behaviour creates a chilling effect: it makes it seem so that any editor in a topic area who interacts with a high profile editor who has been covered by the media cannot review their content work. That is unacceptable.

On the broader ANI question, the failure of the original ANI thread (about a different, but related issue) in my view actually shows why AE is a better venue: this is a politically fraught topic area with editors having strong opinions on both sides, and all parties having allies. It is the type of situation that ANI is not designed to handle, but AE is. I would also add that if the original ANI thread were made here instead of at ANI, we likely could have avoided some of the drama of the last few days.

I'd urge other admins to take this complaint seriously: a good faith editor who is questioning content of a high profile editor in a politically charged topic area is being subjected to personal attacks on multiple pages, and when they ask the person to stop, all they get are more personal attacks. This should not be tolerated. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I’ve been asked, I find this statement to be particularly inappropriate, but I agree with Natureium’s analysis of all the diffs they have presented and find your response to El C in the results section really disturbing. You’re personalizing a content dispute and admit to having contempt for the fact that Natureium even bothered to request someone look at this as harassment particularly disturbing. Good faith allegations of harassment should be taken seriously, not treated with contempt. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of the diffs presented by Natureium speak for themselves and my comment was my analysis of them, which I believe to be fair. I will not be striking my statement. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

It might also be useful to note this comment, in which Tagishsimon claims to be extending good faith to Netoholic while simultaneously arguing that his behavior is pretty much indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling. It seems to be a way of making a personal attack while also trying to maintain plausible deniability that no such attack was made. With no further context, this comment might simply be dismissed as poorly-phrased yet well-intended. But Tagishsimon's aggressive battleground responses to Natureium make it much harder to see it that way. I will also add that I found the attacks on Natureium to be unwarranted and frankly bizarre. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tagishsimon

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

I thought this was being discussed at AN/I. Do we need to have it addressed at two admin noticeboards at the same time? (Not to mention the Rama RfAR.) El_C 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS still apply to criticism. El_C 23:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I can appreciate that, on pragmatic grounds alone, AE may be more suited to this than the current AN/I. I suppose I was just concerned with discussions being superfluously duplicated. On closer examination, sanctions may, indeed, be due in this case. I confess to not being too impressed with Tagishsimon extremely terse reply. It seems to be deflective and exhibits contempt for the process. El_C 23:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, melodrama is exactly what we're trying to avoid here at AE. I, for one, do not think calling someone's behaviour "deplorable" is especially civil. If that's characteristic of your manner of discourse with Natureium, then we have a problem. El_C 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, I'm not seeing Natureium accusing her of lying—always an act of bad faith. A claim can be invented accidentally, in good faith. El_C 01:38, 5 May 2019 (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