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

Kevo327

Kevo327 warned and 1RR/72h applied to Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 28 August 2023 (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 Kevo327

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NMW03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kevo327 (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

14 August Restoring clearly POV language with the edit summary "comment on talk first with good rationale" (implying that these edits did not have good rationale [1], [2]).
17 August Reverting the restoration of a POV tag in the same article, after preventing a user from removing the POV wordings.
17 August Restoring POV scare quotes and reverting perfectly fine edits simply because they were not discussed beforehand.
17 August Reverting the same user and restoring UNDUE wording in lead.
4 August Restoring an exceptional claim with problematic sourcing. See below for more explanation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

4 December 2020 Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring in several AA2 articles

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 January 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kevo327 has been repeatedly reverting edits made by Paul Vaurie on various articles with strange and demanding edit summaries. Kevo327 restores obvious POV wordings ("Ethnically cleanse the region of indigenous Armenians", "so-called 'eco-activists'", and "Many observers do not believe that Artsakh Armenians can live safely under President Aliyev's regime" among others) and tells Paul to discuss the edit first "with good rationale" in the edit summary. When Paul approaches Kevo327 about the revert, Kevo327 tells him to "gain consensus first" [3] before making an edit. In the third diff, Kevo327 reverts Paul again, restoring POV scare quotes and irrelevant material that was removed by Paul, demanding that the edit be explained in the talk page first. In the fourth diff, Kevo327 again reverts Paul, for the third time in a single day, and restores UNDUE wording in lead and irrelevant content in the article. Again, they demand that Paul discuss the edits in the talk page first.

In the fifth diff, Kevo327 restores an exceptional claim one minute after posting a reply to my explanation of why the content was problematic. The source Kevo327 added, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) was a copy-paste of an article from Al-Masdar News, which actually cites SOHR as its own source. So, there's no actual source and these two articles cite each other as their source. Moreover, Kevo327 claims the source to be an "extremely reputable source" [4]. I find it weird how any editor can believe either Al-Masdar News (See #Notable reports, fake news and disinformation) or SOHR (See #Accuracy) can be described as such. In our discussion, Kevo327 ignores this citogenesis and tells me "If you can't grasp this, I suggest you disengage from the discussion" [5] and later "What is this and how do you expect others to see good faith in your comments? Because you just jump the ship every time your previous argument fails, and try to come up with something new to keep arguing." [6]

Kevo327 is obviously here to spread their POV and not contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. They are uncivil, do not assume good faith, and carefully edit war to not pass 3RR. Their behavior violates the recent WP:AA3 case's principles of Standards of editor behavior, Edit warring and Tendentious editing. Additionally, they were warned last year for using the CSD process politically. NMW03 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC); edited 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About this: I only added diffs to the quotes above. I have not changed any word or sentence in my comment. I put the added diffs inside <ins>. NMW03 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for taking your time to review the report. I think this is also relevant.--NMW03 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning Kevo327

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 Kevo327

Going through the diff list provides:

Paul Vaurie had not participated in the talk page discussion and when asked to do so, said "I don't want to get involved in a content dispute right now". But Paul Vaurie proceeded to remove content that was well sourced.
Paul Vaurie kept adding the POV tag without explaining what was a POV violation, which is required for using the tag. Instead, Paul added the tag, was reverted and asked to discuss on talk, and then added the tag again, never explaining the reasoning. So, it was Paul Vaurie that was edit warring.
NMW03 refers to these are "POV scare quotes" but that is completely false. WP:NPOV is "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and the reliable sources put these terms in quotes ('Azerbaijani "activists" are blocking the road...', '...claims that the Karabakh Armenians were "illegally" extracting gold from mines...'. I had pointed this out to NMW03 but they still reverted.
Paul Vaurie removed cited content and an entire section that had been on the article for years without any consensus, or reason besides being "unnecessary". By the way, why is NMW03 reporting incidents they weren't involved in on behalf of other users?
As I explained on the talk page, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a very reliable source. I had checked the WP:RSN to verify this, and came across and informative discussion where multiple users agreed that when SOHR and Al-Masdar report identical things related to Syrian affairs, these can be considered well cited. In another discussion, another user pointed out that when it comes to Syrian news, there is either "pro-government Masdar or pro-opposition SOHR" to chose from. In this case, both sources reported the same thing.

As if making an enforcement request over content disputes wasn't bad enough, in 3 out of 4 articles NMW03 has linked in their diffs list, they haven't even made a single comment on the respective talk pages. Maybe they should start discussing content first? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NMW03 now changes their comment after my response despite violating WP:TALK#REPLIED. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc Here are additional details of NMW’s conduct:

12 August – it was actually NMW first who re-added the POV tag with no valid reason [8]. Initially it was added by a non-EC WP:GS/AA user [9]. Bear in mind, NMW reverts users just for being under WP:GS/AA [10], but in this instance, when it suits his POV, NMW restores a non-EC user's added unexplained tag without valid reason.
13 August – NMW removes "scare quotes" on 3 different articles [11], [12], [13]. The supposed "scare quotes" are actually sourced and used by reliable sources.
14 August – I point out to NMW that these aren't "POV scare quotes" as they're directly used by RS [14]. But NMW proceeds to revert and edit-war (the quotes are still removed) [15].

All while NMW hasn't made a single talk comment in any of the articles above. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Vaurie

Will you stop dragging me into this? I have no interest in any arbitration/enforcement type of stuff. The way I see it is that some people have contrasting views on what should be in the page, and that doesn't require enforcement but simply dispute resolution. However, there are many problems with Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present), including POV weasel words, which R.Lemkin and Kevo327 must recognize, and stop reverting constructive edits which really do not need discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary by Callanecc

I've been looking into these diffs and related examples for some time now. This is where I got up to:
- Paul Vaurie:
  - On 25 April Paul Vaurie raised a non-specific concern on the article talk page regarding the POV of the article.
  - Paul Vaurie raised a concern on R.Lemkin's talk page (12 August) regarding reference bombing and NPOV the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) article. On 15 August R.Lemkin replies and asks Paul Vaurie to engage on the talk page, Paul Vaurie replies and says they are disengaging as they don't want to get into a dispute.
  - On 14 August Paul Vaurie raised a concern about Kevo327's revert and the POV of the article. Kevo327 replies that due to the dispute on the article Paul Vaurie should have sought consensus for large changes first and to check talk page archives to see what already had consensus
  - On 14 August Paul Vaurie added a {{POV}} tag to the article with no further comment in the edit summary or article talk page.
  - On 15 August R.Lemkin reverts the POV tag and asked Paul Vaurie to engage on the talk page in the edit summary.
  - On 17 August Paul Vaurie readded the POV tag. During the period between adding and readding the POV tag Paul Vaurie's only comment on the talk page was TL;DR. Learn to be WP:CONCISE, please.
- Kevo327 (in addition to anything above):
  - On 17 August Kevo327 reverted Paul Vaurie across three different articles. On 17 August Kevo327 readded quotes to "eco-activists" which have been labelled WP:SCAREQUOTES by NMW03. Kevo327 justifies the quote marks as they appear in the source.
  - There has been some discussion/disagreement on whether SOHR is a reliable sources with different editors pointing to different reasons why it is or is not reliable. That should be a discussion on RSN (and Kevo327 has pointed to two of them).

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kevo327

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

I've posted a summary of my thinking so far in a statement above so it doesnt't fill up this section. I'm still looking but any further comments on my points in particular anything I've missed would be helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding where to from here following Z1720's comments:
  - I don't believe that any action is necessary against PV at this point but they should be careful about editing in contentious topics per Z1720's comment.
  - Tamzin suggested in a separate thread that 1RR might be useful on this topic so she may want to weigh in? I didn't agree at the time but I'm more in favour of it now than I was. It would likely need to be 1RR/week to have an impact given that the reverts were over a longer time period. I'd suggest it should probably be time limted rather than indefinite (3-6 months or liftable by any admin?)
  - Regarding the Kevo diff Z1720 (are there supposed to be two different ones @Z1720?) linked I agree that it is problematic and there's a similarly concerning comment [16] on my talk page. I'm not yet convinced that there is a pattern of comments like this and further evidence in this area would be useful in determining what if any action we should take.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I still think a 1RR is a good idea. I'd prefer 24h or 72h over 1w, just because on an article that's getting a reasonably large number of edits, keeping track of what counts as a revert over the course of a week can be complicated. But I think any 1RR is better than nothing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there were supposed to be two different links, I can't find the other link right now but I'll add it in when I do. I don't think the second link makes much of a difference; it's similar behaviour to the first one from what I remember. I like the 1RR/week, even if it is difficult to keep track of, as editors familiar with the topic area can help us if there are any concerns. However, the timeframe is not a big deal for me so if others like 1RR/72 hours I will not be against. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with 1RR/72h. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after reading the above and various talk pages:

I do not see any concerns with Kevo327's reversion of Paul Vaurie's edits: I do not see consensus on the talk page about keeping the POV banner and PV seemed to remove sourced prose. Under WP:BRD, neither editor did anything wrong in this situation, although I wish PV would engage on the talk page more thoroughly if they want to edit in this contentious topic.
The scare quotes concern should be discussed on the talk page, and perhaps an RfC should be opened to get wider community input.
I think Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) needs to be put on a 1RR restriction for all users until the content dispute dies down, in order to prevent reversion cycles.
I'm not happy with these two diffs of Kevo: [17] [18]. I'd like to remind Kevo to avoid comments like these.
Kevo's comment, "NMW03 now changes their comment after my response" links to a diff showing NMW03 adding links to diffs to support their claims. It was probably better for NMW03 to note this addition below their comment, but I don't think it violates WP:TALK#REPLIED.
I agree with Callanecc that if users are concerned about the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, they should open a new discussion on RSN.

Let me know if there are additional questions or concerns I should look at. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NMW03: concerning Dsrlisan85's concern on Callanecc's talk page, I do not know what progress Callanecc has made on this, so I will reserve judgment if/until one of the two of them brings it here. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outnproud

Outnproud indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action shortly after this was filed, closing as there isn't anything else to do here. Hut 8.5 16:48, 23 August 2023 (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 Outnproud

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Outnproud (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/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation

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

12:15, August 22, 2023 Personal attack and personalization on article talk, "Reading through your comments, you sound like a Bond villain "do a preponderance of highest quality sources (translation: scholarly) raise this issue ? [...] I could be misremembering (but I don't think I am)". So in a Bond-like response, there's a useful four-letter word and you're full of it. We know what you're trying to do with your blocking tactics; nobody's buying your bull[useful four-letter word]."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 14 June 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Outnproud is an SPA who began their editing at FA J. K. Rowling with edit warring,12:31 13:20 (after the 12:44 CT alert) and is now unhappy that consensus has not developed for their desired change to an FA, on a topic that was well covered at last year's Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Outnproud

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 Outnproud

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Outnproud

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

Fowler&fowler

2020 Delhi riots extended-confirmed protected; no other action taken. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2023 (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 Fowler&fowler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Fowler&fowler (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

Less than one month ago, Fowler was brought to this noticeboard for behavioral issues. At the time, they promised to improve their behavior, and the report was closed without action.

In that report, I had brought up their edit warring, especially when the edits are not exactly in line with what they want [19]. That pattern is repeated here. In these edits, Fowler has made reverts ignoring the 1RR restrictions on the page due to their disagreements with the material.

[20] First revert today
[21] Second revert today, in violation of 1RR restriction on article

A separate set of violations, see caveat in additional comments.

[22] Also, first revert on 12th
[23] Second revert in violation of 1RR restriction
[24] Third revert in double violation of 1RR restriction

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Warned in October 2022 for "personal attacks and incivility" involving WP:ARBIND.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For context, my involvement began when I made an edit to the article, to substitute a word in the lead that could be easily misinterpreted, to a wording supplied by a third editor. Fowler objected, and despite there being little to no grounds, I accepted their request for giving them time till the 16th of August. In the meantime, Fowler continued to revert sourced material others inserted in other sections, insisting on maintaining their preferred version. When asked to discuss their reverts, they again asked to wait till the 16th, and I was fine by it. See Talk:2020 Delhi riots#Inaccuracies for context.

Since then, Fowler has been making multiple edits on several pages, however, has chosen not to reply to the discussion that they had help up with requests of additional time. I reinstated the clearer wording today, due to Fowler's failure to discuss. They reverted me again in violation of 1RR, saying they had discussed enough (they had not discussed any further after asking for more time), accused me of edit warring, and threatened me with "A trip to the wood shed". These actions are in stark contrast to their promises for good behaviour on this thread when they were under the threat of sanctions.

In most of these reverts that were made in violation of the 1RR restriction, they used marked them as good-faith edits - Therefore they cannot use the argument that these were exempt from 1RR under WP:NOT3RR. As full disclosure, the second set of edits includes edits of an editor by a sock; However, The sock was not indicated as being so at the time, and Fowler did not make any indication they even had any suspicions of the user being a sock. Since there is a long term behavioural issue being brought up, this should not affect the fact they reverted edits, accepting them as good faith, while breaking 1RR. Even if admins accept this line of reasoning, today's violations still remain.

In light of these recurring violations, I request a 0RR restriction on Fowler&fowler, or if the admins wish to see these violation of CTOPS restrictions more leniently, at the very least 1RR.

@Bradv and @Extraordinary Writ - Fowler seems to have doubled down instead of admitting their error; Instead of reverting their edit, they reverted another editors edit with a "self revert" edit summary, and then had to be asked again again to actually do the revert.

Their response focuses more on trying to paint me as some sort of agenda warrior than accepting their own violations; They have made several allegations without bothering to substantiate any of them, making accusations of WP:HOUNDING and WP:BAIT; A simple interaction timeline shows how laughable the first is; And to accuse me of baiting, for their own reverts breaking CTOPS restrictions after failure to discuss? Their abuse of the label "Hindu Nationalist POV editor" has been previously also noted, with attempts to escape admin action by casting aspersions on those they disagree with.

In all, their battleground mentality and failure to accept their violations of the existing page sanctions merits atleast a logged warning, if their self reversion is deemed to be enough to not be sanctioned more hashly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [25]

Discussion concerning Fowler&fowler

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 Fowler&fowler

I wasn't really aware of the 2020 Delhi riots, until March 2, 2020, when @Kautilya3: made a post on my user talk page requesting help on that page. See here. If you scroll up in archive 23 of my user talk page, you'll see that I was busy at the time at FAC with very different kinds of subject matter (archbishops of Canterbury, volcanoes in South America, and so forth). The Delhi riots was a fraught topic area that people were afraid to edit. An editor user:DbigXray who had edited the page earlier had been outed by some Hindu nationalists and had to leave Wikipedia. That is the kind of article in which my help had been sought. I devised a strategy for editing the lead neutrally, utilizing the reports of the large number of international reporters that had been present in Delhi at the time (for an unrelated event—the visit of Donald Trump). The strategy evolved over a few weeks in the presence of a large number of editors, including several administrators and I rewrote the lead in their full view, with the help of some other editors. They were pinged when I posted the guidelines on 5 April 2020: Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_17#Fowler&fowler's:_Developing_the_article_main_body,_and_eventually_rewriting_the_lead_(in_POV-embattled_India-related_articles). As far as I am aware, the guidelines have been followed for the three and half years that have elapsed. This is not an article that I have edited much since that time, except for occasional reverts. I certainly did not remember that it had a 1RR restriction until admin @Firefangledfeathers: reminded me on my user talk page a little while ago. I immediately self-reverted.

CapnJackSp (talk · contribs), CJS hereafter, is a user with almost no history of any purposeful engagement with me on Wikipedia. The editor interaction analyser is very interesting: except on one page, Talk:Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction railway station, where I was pinged by @Fylindfotberserk:, CJS have followed me on every other page of our mutual editing interest. See here. My first memory of them is on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi where they appeared a few months ago. I had written the lead of Mahatma Gandhi in an admin-supervised revision some four or five years earlier. It had stood the test of time until March or April of 2023 when an editor, with no history of editing either the page or the talk page, objected to one sentence in the lead. I began to compile sources supporting that sentence. There are now some 30 of the best quality sources found anywhere on Wikipedia. My interlocutors are not satisfied. I am waiting for admin @Abecedare:'s opinion. They might have been called away by RL. See Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#F&f's_sources:_Gandhi's_last_fast_&_cash_assets_owed_to_Pakistan. That is when CJS appeared. They too had no history of editing Gandhi or the talk page. They soon posted on my user talk page, giving me advice about behavior. When I asked CJS if they had looked at the sources, they said they hadn't found the time. But have found the time to come after me with unparalleled focus and dispatch both in the previous ARE of a month ago, where they were the most prolific of the editors asking for a pound of my flesh, and now in this one. I am incredulous that they know so much about my edits for someone who has not only had no interaction with me but has not edited our pages of mutual interest beyond the barest of ritual edits. 2020 Delhi riots is another page in which they had no history of any editing. CJS seems to be following me around and looking to bait me. I request that editors I had pinged on April 5, 2020, several of whom were administrators, take a look at CJS's editing history: @Kautilya3, Slatersteven, DIYeditor, RegentsPark, Abecedare, DougWeller, El C, Anachronist, Drmies, Johnbod, and Vanamonde93: as well as @331dot:, with whom I have been interacting on the article's talk page.

Proposal I am flat out of time for digging out diffs, but I request that these editors examine CJS's history, and if there is evidence of POV promotion, that CapnJackSp (talk · contribs) be topic banned from South Asia-related articles broadly construed. In my own view, born of a 17-year-long intuition on Wikipedia. they are very cautiously, but doggedly, promoting the Hindu nationalist POV on Wikipedia's controversial pages. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Also pinging @Courcelles: who closed the last ARE. As far as I am aware, I've been bending over backwards to be polite to other editors and to listen to their arguments. See [ But it doesn't mean that editors examine my user page for the pages I have edited and play gotcha to make a point or trap me. For example, no sooner had one new editor, Imaginie (talk · contribs) been blocked than another new user Padurina (talk · contribs) appeared and began to edit the 2020 Delhi riots in the third or fourth edit! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you for your statement. I have self-reverted. As you state, I was using Twinkle in which the 1RR warning does not appear during the revert. I may have been aware of the 1RR restriction long ago, when I made nearly 200 edits in the article; but since April 2020, I have made but 29 of which the last 20—made during the last 18 months— were reverts. I apologize and will be especially careful from here on out. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:F&F)

I've been involved at the disputed article for a couple years now, and I'm just now learning that 1RR and 24h-BRD are in place. Since the AE log was properly updated and the page edit notice in place, I think admins are procedurally permitted to sanction F&F. The talk page notice is not required; see WP:CT#Enforcement of restrictions, which requires only formal awareness and the edit notice.

That said, I urge that we give F&F a pass here. I, and other editors with experience in ARBPIA (where 1RR is automatically enforced), know that best practice is to inform an editor of a 1RR breach and give at least a short time to allow for self-reversion. It's a nice moment of "I disagree with you, but I get that people forget and mistakes happen". For an article like this one, where editors are less likely to be sensitive of potential page restrictions, I think the courtesy notice is doubly needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bookku

On side note: In previous ARE, I had made some points, seem still pertinent, hence I would encourage both sides to go through them again. Happen to observed instance of some digression on part of F&F -seem to have been also noted by other users in that discussion- at WT:INB#RFC- I hope and wish F&F will continue to work on avoiding digression. Bookku (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

To be honest, I was intending to keep as far away from this as I do the general topic, but now I see we're talking inclination to sanction. This is the second time Fowler has been dragged here recently (that I know of), yet he's one of the few solid guys over at that department. If we are, then I must insist that the characters who just keep rolling up waiting to drag Fowler to this board should be those that face increasing scrutiny every time they do so. Everybody knows the topic area is a mine of blackhat advertising, ethnoreligious bigotry—in which Wikipedia articles can and do have RL consequences—caste warriors and COI spamming. It is the Mos Eisley of our project. The dogs on the street know this. Editors know this. Arbcom knows this. And the bloody Admins here know this. But so few of any of these editors are willing to dirty our hands on the subject that all we can do is wring our hands on the touchline and complain about the harsh language. Meanwhile, we emasculate and drive away those editors who understand the nuances and minutiae of this ~~blighted~~ contentious topic and by doing so reward their editorial opponents. I am no particular friend of Fowler—if casts his mind back to some of our encounters at WP:FAC I'm sure he'll testify to that—but I for one am sick of seeing the same small pool of editors get reamed in high profile topics, mostly over trivia, with them eventually walking away and leaving it to crumble.

'Inclined to sanction', pfft. SN54129 19:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Padurina

As someone who's been around the Wikipedia block for a while (as a lowly IP editor), I finally took the plunge and made an account when I realized most pages had slammed their doors on IPs. In my short time here, I've gotten quite the crash course from Fowler&Fowler on Wikipedia policies. It's a real head-shaker when someone who practically sings the Wikipedia rulebook suddenly belts out, "Oops, wasn't aware I was bending a rule. My bad!" Time for F&F to tango with the consequences of their whoopsies – let's see those dance moves.Padurina (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddy1

CapnJackSp complained [at 08:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)] that Fowler&fowler made several allegations without bothering to substantiate any of them, but then said that Fowler&fowler has displayed a battleground mentality and that this merits at least a logged warning.^[26]

But is not CapnJackSp also making an allegation without bothering to substantiate it? I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with Fowler&fowler; I have not noticed this alleged "battleground mentality". I am not convinced it exists.

If the extent of this alleged "battleground mentality" is what Fowler&Fowler wrote on this page, then CapnJackSp should have read Wikipedia:ANI advice before participating. I am sure that advice also applies here.

It might be best to accept that both have faults and drop this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Fowler&fowler

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

The 1RR sanction does not appear to have been correctly applied to this article. While it is shown in the edit notice, it does not appear either on the talk page of the article, or, more critically, in the AELOG as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging. In my opinion, the complaint of Fowler&fowler violating 1RR is unactionable. – bradv 16:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I looked at the history of the edit notice, and failed to notice the earlier entry in the log. – bradv 18:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding the somewhat complicated history here, El C properly logged the 1RR (under the article's previous name North East Delhi riots) in 2020 (diff), and Anachronist then added the forgotten editnotice in 2021. This all seems fine procedurally. That said, while the 1RR was violated, it doesn't appear to have been a willful violation (especially since Fowler&fowler was using Twinkle, which doesn't show editnotices when reverting), so I'm not inclined to sanction anyone here so long as F&f self-reverts and commits to being more careful about this issue in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan to close this without action in the next day or so unless any other admins want to weigh in. If either of you really has serious concerns about the other's long-term behavior, a separate report (amply supported by evidence/diffs) would be a better place for that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Feel free, as far as I’m concerned. There’s nothing meriting a sanction here. Courcelles (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Fowler&fowler has self-reverted I also don't see any need to issue any sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be tempted to look a little closer at the filer of this complaint and what appears to be tag-team editing on that article with two new accounts, User:Imaginie (since blocked as a sock) and now User:Padurina, which looks distinctly suspicious to me. I wonder if switching this and other articles to EC protection in the same way as ARBPIA may be a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite, good eye. Padurina is Prince of Roblox and blocked. ECP seems like a good call. Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have ECP'd the article and will be keeping an eye on the filer and possible future issues. I think this can be closed now, as there is clearly no reason for any sanctions otherwise. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2023 (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