A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee Proceedings

[edit]	Case Requests
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open Cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Portals	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	05 Jan 2020	23 Jan 2020
RHaworth	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	14 Jan 2020	28 Jan 2020
Kudpung	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	28 Jan 2020	11 Feb 2020

[edit]

Recently Closed Cases (Past Cases)

Case name	Closed
Palestine-Israel articles 4	20 Dec 2019

[edit]	Clarification and Amendment Requests
Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

[edit]

Arbitrator Motions

Motion name	Link	Date posted
Ricky81682 unblocked	(link)	14 Jan 2020

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating steps and processes available before arbitration. The committee declines premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then follow the instructions below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over 1 hour will be removed. If necessary, prepare the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, email the clerks at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Don't open a case, even for accepted requests.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Don't remove requests from this page (for any reason) unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the number of arbitrators, respectively, who voted to accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts: WP:ARCA • WP:ARA • WP:A/R/C&A • WP:A/R/CL • WP:A/R/A • WP:A/R/CA • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page.

However, you may make comments on this motion in the section titled "Community discussion".

Unless it's in the "Community discussion" section where threaded replies are allowed, reply to another person's comment in your own section. See the relevant section of the arbitration guide.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Ricky81682 unblocked

Motion enacted Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Support

Ricky was a productive editor, and I'd be happy to see them return under the terms of the standard offer. I am confident that the "complete and utter idiocy" won't be repeated. – bradv🍁 15:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The request shows genuine remorse, his editing on other projects has been positive and there were no incidents here while blocked. Also, Ricky knows he is under a microscope even if this motion passes, so I don't think we need further restrictions than those proposed in the motion. Plus, there appears to be a strong consensus here that agrees that Ricky should be given a second chance. Regards So Why 21:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Per the appeal and the input from the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with both the appeal and the community input. Maxim_(talk) 23:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The project will benefit. –xeno^talk 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Per comments above as well as the community input below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Support unblocking per a convincing appeal, and after reviewing the community feedback. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I have concerns, but not sufficient to stop the appeal. Ricky, please prove me wrong. Worm^TT(talk) 09:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Edit wisely, Ricky. I hope and trust in your sincerity. Katie^talk 13:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
We haven't made it a formal topic ban, but I think it would be a very good idea to avoid anything to do with userspace drafts. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain/recuse

Arbitrator comments/discussion

I'm inclined to support unblocking based on Ricky's appeal below, but given that he is a former administrator blocked and desysopped under a cloud, we decided to post the motion publicly to hear any community comments first. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
As "one account restriction" was not defined at the link target, I updated the wording to clarify that they may not edit anonymously. Feel free to edit further. –xeno^talk 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Wordsmithed a little further to avoid repetition. And I have no idea whether they would be eligible for a rename, but I wouldn't want this motion to prevent that. – bradv🍁 15:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Community discussion

The following is the appeal sent to ArbCom by Ricky, copied here with his permission:

I would like to request an unblock on English Wikipedia. I was blocked in October 2016 by Arbcom pursuant to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ricky81682. At the time, I was an administrator here for almost a decade.

I admit that I was sockpuppeting and trolling around with various other accounts to make a point across the project. Basically, in mid-2016, I was in some very minor disputes with other individuals here and created fake accounts that added absurdity to this. It was purely a WP:POINT violation. Before that, in the years I have been involved in the project, I have NEVER done anything like that but I admit that I typically stayed away from relatively contentious editing disputes. For some reason, the issue of userspace drafts got me absorbed into complete and utter idiocy in a way nothing else ever has.

Of course, when caught, I first began to pretend like it was someone else editing on my devices rather than admit fault. In complete embarrassment at my childishness, I continued to try to deny my antics until I was eventually desysoped and banned.

I'm aware that I have no chance at ever becoming an admin again but I would like to be able to resume editing here. In the intervening years, I have focused on simple English and Commons and focusing on my core area of organizing and dealing with categories while staying away from the kind of bizarre silly disputes that got me in trouble here.

I hope that my years of service to this project prior to the many month-long idiocy, combined with the years of service since then, is sufficient evidence that I understand the seriousness of wasting other people's time and energy with such nonsense and will never engage in any antics like that again. Again, I'm aware the community will likely never have the confidence in me again as an admin which I only feel shame about but I would like to be able to edit here in good standing once again.

Thank you very much,

Ricky

– Joe (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

~~(Is this the equivalent of the "section titled 'Community discussion'" in the scary pink warning box above? If not, please move appropriately.)~~
Logged-out-Ricky is community-banned too (discussion), so this isn't solely arbcom's call. —Cryptic 12:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Cryptic: Joe Roe renamed the section for you. As I read it, that IP range was harassing Ricky, not used by Ricky. Isn’t that right? –xeno^talk 13:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah that IP isn't listed in the SPI. Was it later linked to Ricky? – Joe (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It was indeed used by Ricky - he edited a DRV logged out, and I noticed before it was oversighted that his IP was in the same range as the anon harassing him. I can go looking for the right drv subpage if someone with the special OS goggles wants to confirm that, but it'll take a while. I'd thought at the time that the overlap was coincidence - it's a very wide range - but behavorially it's pretty damning in the context of the other socks. (Also, it was mentioned indirectly in the SPI by User:SmokeyJoe, though as an IP it was of course not commented on by the CUs.) —Cryptic 13:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Turns out it wasn't even oversighted - [1]. —Cryptic 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Two or three ranges of IPs were trolling Ricky. Ricky was obsessed with clearing old abandoned drafts, fast. The IPs were countering with poorly-put counter arguments. In hindsight they read as sarcasm directed at Ricky opponents. At the time my suspicion was that Ricky was being trolled by a family member. There was no overt malice, but was SOCK violating and attempting to ridicule debating opponents. No objection to Ricky returning, if he stays away from abandoned drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the procedural point: although ArbCom is more reluctant nowadays to decide appeals of bans placed by the community, it still has that authority under the arbitration policy. Some long-time editors might remember the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC), which was a subcommittee created by ArbCom specifically to handle appeals of community-imposed sanctions. When BASC was dissolved, ArbCom passed a motion saying it would only hear certain kinds of appeals. No opinion as to whether the community ban falls under one of those categories, but it technically could be "solely arbcom's call". Or it could reroute that decision to WP:AN. It's up to them. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
When I raised this exact same point at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Indefinite community site-ban for Edgar181, Joe Roe was pretty emphatic that they don't have this power anymore, or at least wouldn't exercise it. [2] —Cryptic 12:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
So the community banned unnamed individuals and it later came to light that some of those individuals might have been Ricky81682? Was the amorphous ban ever converted into a named ban?

As to the procedural question, the Policy (ratified 2011) grants responsibilities, some of which the committee chose to download back to the community by motion in 2015. –xeno^talk 16:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
From what I understand, Ricky81682 was checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry in October 2016; however, it later turned out that an earlier ban was placed by the community in January 2016 not realizing it was Ricky81682 at the time, but later found to be Ricky81682. I don't think that the amorphous ban was ever converted into a named one; at least I haven't seen such a discussion. It's a very unusual situation, and because of that, I think the best solution is to have ArbCom decide this site-block/ban appeal in its entirety; no need to get WP:AN involved.

The committee still has the power to decide appeals of any community-imposed ban, but in 2015 it passed a motion to limit the types of appeals it considers (it can pass a new motion at any time to expand that scope to additional types). With that being said, this appeal does fall within the post-2015 purview of ArbCom because Ricky81682 is currently subject to a checkuser block, and I'm assuming logged-out editing is a factor in the checkuser block. I think there could be an argument to hold an WP:AN discussion on top of this, but that's getting a bit too wiki-lawyer for me. Just have ArbCom do the whole thing. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It was announced at AN, and the concept of them possibly having been banned while presenting anonymously was raised early in this discussion. It seems to me the fact the unblock has received support can be interpreted as support for vacating whatever portion of the 'unnamed' ban may apply to Ricky. –xeno^talk 14:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I remember Ricky being one of the good guys prior to his dramatic self-destruct, and I for one would be happy to see him back. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(assuming this is right place to comment) - Before my time, but this seems a reasonable appeal. I can't see how keeping him out would be preventative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The name Tippopotamus (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ricky81682/Archive) does sound familiar for some reason, but otherwise I remember this case very imperfectly. The appeal inspires confidence, though, and I hope the committee unblocks. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
As I understand it, the Tippopotamus account was a declared alternative account; it was included in the SPI for completeness. –xeno^talk 13:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is a very self-reflective appeal. Curiously Idon't remember the case at all, but theSO has been well adhered to, and I also hope thecommittee unblocks. ——SN 54129 13:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Well before my time, but enough time has elapsed for reflection and learning, and the unblock appeal suggests that has happened - I hope the appeal is successful. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The appeal looks appealing and with one account restriction, I will support their unblocking. They clearly need to restrain themselves though. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
A cautious yes if indeed there has been no socking since 2016 and there has been constructive editing on other wiki projects.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes they have been contributing to Commons, I support letting them back with the proposed 1 account restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It was disappointing when it was discovered that Ricky was using socks. It was even more disappointing to discover that he was sockmaster behind the IP's attacking himself. I had spent considerable effort in tracking down the IP's that were involved and proposed the ban linked by Cryptic above. Nonetheless, Ricky's service to WP prior to that insanity was already well over a decade and, to me, grants him a fair amount of good will for this appeal. If anyone is interested, I still have the page I created to log down all the IP's I could find. I went back to it and most of the IP's have not edited since the end of 2015 although some edited in 2016, but nothing later than that. I would not be opposed to Ricky being unblocked Blackmane (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
As I remember, I was one of the primary arbs reviewing the situation that was brought to me and I proposed some form of the original motion, or at least the idea behind it. It's been 4 years since, and with over 100,000 in contribs to other places since, I would be fine with this motion passing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Support He was a good admin and also a good editor. Socking was unexpected but I see no issue now. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 03:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Support People can learn from their mistakes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Support Everyone can make mistakes, even incredibly bad judgements such as socking. Most of our users that sock, though, do not have the giant repertoire of positive contributions that Ricky did. As such, I'm more than willing to grant this unblock request (don't think the one account restriction will be necessary after they return either, but wouldn't be a terrible idea for them to be open to random checks of their account for the first year or so). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Unblock with a provision that all edits must be done from this account – no alternate accounts or logged-out editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Editors involved in the discussions relating to userspace draft are well-aware of the antics that Ricky deployed to make a WP:POINT. I, for one, do not support punitive measures and would welcome their return despite their wrongdoing — however, I would prefer if they also had an indefinite restriction w.r.t. anything related to user drafts (userspace and draftspace), until we are sure they will not go down the same hole again. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Support - Assuming you are also soliciting community consensus to unban. Sufficient time served; I wish checkusers would have a permanent green light to make sure old tricks aren't revisited. Any next socking episode would be the last, I am sure. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Support - Ricky was a great editor and indeed a great admin and personally I don't see why they shouldn't be given a second chance. –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Support - As I would've expected from someone with so much experience, it's an appeal done the way an appeal should be done, and seems reasonable. Like QEDK and SmokeyJoe, however, I would've liked to see a condition (or explicit voluntary commitment) to stay away from userspace drafts given the context. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Support - I would like to see Ricky unblocked, he is an excellent contributor and I think we need to give people the chance to come back as productive members of the project. Everyone makes mistakes (said as someone who has made mistakes in the past!) and these should not hang over us for all time. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It's obvious this will pass, and I don't think it will be the end of the world if he comes back, and I'm well aware that humans (especially me) are imperfect. I won't pointlessly oppose to make sure I get attention (after all, this isn't RFA). I don't even know for sure why this particular unban request annoys me, but it's probably related to the fact that it's really annoying that intentional trolling, not caring one iota about wasting other people's time, and lying to everyone's face about it is now being spun by some people here as simple "mistakes". And while I'm sure the unblock request was wordsmithed quite a bit, it still has a whiff - to me, anyway, although apparently no one else - of "this crazy topic forced me do something stupid", rather than "I consciously chose to do something stupid". I would feel slightly better if he promised not to even try to be an admin again, and promised to stay away from the userspace draft issue forever, but support is so strong here that it would probably be smarter to just ignore me and say nothing at all. Grumble grumble. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

He does mention that he knows he has no chance of ever being an admin again, and I think the vast majority of the community would agree, I certainly wouldn't ever support adminship for someone who had committed such a serious breach of trust. I see your point about the word "mistakes". It is somewhat open to interpretation. These certainly weren't things he did by accident, but rather serious errors in judgement. However I do feel that the remainder of the appeal makes it clear they understand how thoughtless and infantile this all was. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Requests for 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 discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator,
request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions,
request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or
appeal discretionary sanctions 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. 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 request may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a discretionary sanction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of discretionary sanctions state the following:

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 discretionary sanctions 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

If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.
The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
More than one side in a dispute may have Arbitration Committee conduct rulings applicable to them.
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags, after which a bot should archive it in 7 days.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other discretionary sanctions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.

Notagainst

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 Notagainst

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Femkemilene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCC: Climate change

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

Examples of not trying to find consensus

Talk:Climate_crisis#Can_this_article_be_saved? Notagainst did a big rewrite of the article. Initial objections about POV were ignored and editing continued away from objections even after the discussion was started.
Talk:Effects_of_global_warming#Sense_of_crisis This pattern continued: Notagainst added a subsection, and continued expanding it (e.g. 1 January) during a discussion on whether it should be removed for being off-topic/POV.
Talk:Bushfires in Australia#Significant redirection of content? Further continuation, with Notagainst performing some 35 edits after this concern was raised. After tagging them, they continued to ignore the concern about POV and added more information to the section under dispute (12 January).

Examples of failing Wikipedia:Verifiability by misrepresenting sources

19 December Inserting statement that climate change is already driving mass migration with four sources, two of which don't talk about the past/current state at all. Also falsely claiming report is from IPCC, when it's instead from IOM.
19 December Leaving out important context (worst-case scenario). Removed verification failed tag on December 29 without correcting various mistakes.
19 December Inserted five sources, none of which supported statement. Later corrected, but I think still in violation with WP:NPOV.
20 December Amended number, but source (UN) still explicitly states this number is guesswork and the report cites works that describe the number as apocalyptic.
2 January Other examples of wrongful attribution: not scientific American, but somebody published by them.

Examples of personal attacks

24 September Personal attack directed at me: "it seems you just run with the bullies."
9 September, 28 September, 6 November, 6 November Personal attack directed at group of editors "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers." and Sounds like you might be a climate crisis denier? and more.
12 January Personal attack at me: what kind of person does that?.

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

15 July 2019 notified on talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notagainst is a prolific editor of some of the most widely-read pages about climate change. I regret that I feel obliged to ask enforcement instead of working together on improving this important topic. The disruptive editing consists of a persistent refusal to engage seriously in consensus building and objecting to community input. Furthermore, they are editing so much that other editors don't have time to verify, often with a high rate of mistakes. When other editors comment on mistakes or on other content disputes, the editor often continues editing the article in the direction other editors objected to. The editor also frequenty uses personal attacks, even after being called out on them. Frequent editor concerns are about POV pushing. That this type of editing occurs on widely-read pages makes it more urgent in my view.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning Notagainst

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 Notagainst

Statement by (username)

Statement by RCraig09

I encountered substantial and repeated violations by Notagainst in Talk:Climate crisis, ignoring repeated civil explanations by multiple experienced editors of how Wikipedia must be WP:NEUTRAL in describing climate change and not characterize it in WP:WIKIVOICE as a "crisis". (The Climate crisis article is about the term "climate crisis".)
Notagainst's posts include:

22 Sept: "Wikivoice is not a principle - it doesn't exist."
28 Sept: "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers"
29 Sept: "Your lack of logic is simply astounding"
7 Nov: "That's nonsense."
21 Nov: "There is no discussion of the climate crisis on the global warming page" — (In fact, Global warming neutrally describes what Notagainst characterize as a crisis, and discusses the term at Global warming#Public opinion and disputes)

I concur with Femkemilene. Notagainst is a prolific, methodologically careless, and stubborn author who plays loose with facts in service of an outside agenda, and engages in incivility in the face of constructive reasoned comments by experienced editors. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Notagainst

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

Xenagoras

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.

Appealing user: Xenagoras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: 31 hour block for WP:1RR violation on article Tulsi Gabbard.

 Block log.

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Xenagoras

This block by @Doug Weller is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption because I did not violate the WP:1RR editing restriction on Tulsi Gabbard with any of my today's 5 edits [4][5][6][7][8] there. These 5 edits are part of one series of consecutive edits that undid MrX actions in part and count as one revert. WP:3RR states, "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The user MrX that I reverted, confirmed to me that my 5 edit-sequence did not violate the WP:1RR restriction [9]. MrX [10] and myself [11] agreed to continue to discuss disputed content on the article talk page. The block also violates the blocking policy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK because the blocking admin did not give reviewable evidence or explain which of my edits violated any policy. Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I am sorry if I misinterpreted your statement as "confirmation", "I did not say that violated 1RR. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't in subsequent edits"[12] appeared like confirmation of 1RR not broken so far to me. All of my 5 edits happened in very fast succession to make it obvious that they are part of one editing sequence. I did not revert twice anything you wrote. My edit from 18:57 in section Early life and education that you refer to reverted your edit from 13:15, and you did not revert anything I wrote in that section Early life and education after 13:15, therefore my 18:57 edit was a singular revert of your edit from 13:15 as well as part an editing sequence. Xenagoras (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Moved to editor's section. Please comment only in your section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

It was clearly a 1RR block which I didn't think needed an explanation. Xenagoras made three edits, then MrX made one. Xenagoras made 2 edits after that with the last one being another revert. I have no idea why they still fail to acknowledge that. The issue isn't one of reverting the same edit twice, it's simply that it wasn't a string of five reverts, with a break of 14 minutes between MrX's edit and Xenagoras's fifth edit. That's plenty of time for someone who is editing an article that they clearly know is under 1RR and who has had a previous warning - see User talk:Xenagoras#1RR. Maybe if it had been just a minute or two a free pass with another reminder might have been ok, but that's just too long a gap. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

Xenagoras, you misrpesented what I said. I did not "confirm" that your 5 edit-sequence did not violate the. I wrote that I "did not say" that you violated 1RR. In other words, I was silent on the issue. However, it appear that you did in fact make a second revert [13]. While your 18:44 edit appears to be part of a series of edits, your 18:57 edit raises some doubts. - Mr X 🖋 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Xenagoras

The block will expire automatically at 04:00 hours UTC. ——SN 54129 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Xenagoras

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

Xenagoras violated 1RR, as Doug Weller has already explained above, but I'll do it again. I was going to give diffs, but I believe it's really more informative for my readers to look at the article history, here. The relevant edits by Xenagoras (five edits) and MrX (one edit) are currently twelve lines down, running from 18:34 to 18:57 13 January (UTC). Xenagoras's first three edits, 18:34, 18:40 and 18:43, count as one revert. Then comes an edit by MrX at 18:43, not sure whether that's a revert, and it doesn't matter. Xenagoras's fourth edit, at 18:44, is Xenagoras's second revert. But if that was all, I wouldn't sanction it, because they could well have made that fourth edit without being aware of MrX editing in between, both looking at the timestamps and looking at the text that was reverted.

However, Xenagoras's fifth edit at 18:52 is definitely a second revert. They're actually reverting what MrX did in between, so they were clearly aware of it, and can't reasonably have thought their five edits were consecutive. (I do not mean to say they're claiming it in bad faith, but that they fail to understand what "consecutive" means.) Xenagoras, you refer to WP:3RR for saying all your edits are consecutive, but that policy actually says "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." My italics. You violated 1RR, and the sanction was proper. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC). PS, no, I misread Xenagoras's fifth edit, and have crossed out what I said about it. Their reverts still weren't consecutive, and I don't believe they could have reasonably missed MrX's intervening edit. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

Uhm, Doug and Bishonen, given the timeline, and the fact that MrX's intervening edit was to a paragraph other than the one Xenagoras worked on next, I don't think it's reasonable to assume Xenagoras must have been aware of MrX's edit. I'd tend to assume good faith here and consider that Xenagoras was still genuinely thinking of his edits as an unbroken sequence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I pointed out that Xenagoras couldn't necessarily be expected to notice MrX's intervening edit when he made his fourth edit, Future. But his fifth edit was 14 minutes after MrX, and I think he should have checked the history in the meantime. But I'm not against assuming good faith here, even though I'm surprised Xenagoras still thinks all his edits were consecutive. I mean, I would have thought he'd at least have looked at the history when he wrote this appeal. But nm, if it depends on me I'll neither oppose nor support granting the appeal. I hope some more admins post before the 31 hours are up. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

I would sustain the block. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The block wasn't the type of clearly incorrect or abuse of discretion action that would necessitate reversal. It was a short block that's already expired. So, I would close this as moot, and Xenagoras should take it as a reminder to be cautious editing articles under 1RR, so as not to even inadvertently cross over that line. Articles under such sanctions are under them for a reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arthur Rubin

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: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from gun control; imposed at ~~Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#Arthur Rubin~~ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161#Arthur Rubin, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2015#Gun control

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

Notification of that administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&diff=935978650&oldid=935855599

Statement by Arthur Rubin

I realize that Wikipedia's (possibly consensus) POV on gun control differs from mine, and I have no intention of arguing the point. I would like to be able to discuss factual errors in gun control articles (although I don't intend to seek them out), and whether events (loosely) related to gun control should be in year and decade articles. My previous topic ban on the Tea Party movement has been reduced to a 1RR/week restriction. I'm not appealing for further revision of that because I believe that to be reasonable for most articles, if reversion of vandalism and spam are exempted. I wouldn't mind if this restriction was removed entirely, but I would settle for reduction to a 1RR restriction. This is, I believe, my first appeal of the January 2015 sanction.

Link to sanctions now fixed.

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Arthur Rubin

Result of the appeal by Arthur Rubin

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

@Arthur Rubin: It seems like you linked to the wrong AE archive page. El_C 02:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Since it has been half a decade, I, for one, don't object to revoking the ban by supplanting it with a 1RR restriction (which, itself, I think, can also be revoked after, say, a year of un-problematic editing in this topic area). This, of course, on condition that if tendentious editing resumes, including on talk pages, the ban is to be re-applied without the need for the same burden of proof as the 2015 case might have demanded. In other words, cautious editing should still permit for Arthur Rubin's perspective to be voiced, again, so long as it adheres to encyclopedic standards. El_C 02:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I would normally want to wait for a statement from the sanctioning admin, but as HJ Mitchell's activity seems rather sporadic, in this instance we're unlikely to receive one. Given that relaxing the Tea Party topic ban does not seem to have led to a repeat of the problems which led to that sanction, I would support trying the solution proposed by El C, that being relaxing the restriction to 1RR at first, with that to be possibly removed in the future as well if problems don't resurface. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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
This box: view talk edit

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Contents

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Motions

Ricky81682 unblocked

Community discussion

Requests for enforcement

Notagainst

Request concerning Notagainst

Discussion concerning Notagainst

Statement by Notagainst

Statement by (username)

Statement by RCraig09

Result concerning Notagainst

Xenagoras

Statement by Xenagoras

Statement by Doug Weller

Statement by MrX

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Xenagoras

Result of the appeal by Xenagoras

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arthur Rubin

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Arthur Rubin

Result of the appeal by Arthur Rubin

Navigation menu

Search