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

WP:AE
WP:ARE

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

Ecrusized

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 Ecrusized

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:

09:05, 2 November 2023
10:16, 1 November 2023

Move warring over the title of 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:

17:23, 30 October 2023
17:01, 30 October 2023

General 1RR violations:

21:12, 2 November 2023 - Removed Wagner group from infobox
08:11, 2 November 2023 - Restored "Current extent of the Israeli invasion of Gaza" to the infobox, as part of a broader reinstatement of the live map
20:35, 1 November 2023 - Changed "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed"
11:56, 1 November 2023 - Removed "Clashes erupt at the Israeli–Lebanese border" from the infobox
09:50, 1 November 2023 - Removed citations from the restored inclusion of Houthi's in the infobox
18:24, 31 October 2023 - Removed Houthis from the infobox

These are all comparatively minor, and I wouldn't have come here except for the fact that when I approached Ecrusized about the issue they declined to self-revert or address the issue in any way, instead removing my comment saying Stop leaving me talk page messages please. I had previously approached them about some minor canvassing issues in the topic area; they also removed that comment, saying Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages.

There are also some WP:ONUS issues, restoring the live map despite an ongoing dispute about whether it is verifiable and no affirmative consensus to do so. However, the edit to restore the map was not a 1RR violation.

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 12:04, 4 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one Ecrusized, I left you four notices. It was after the third that you asked me to "Stop leaving me talk page messages please":

Alerting you of ARBPIA
Warning you about canvassing
Informing you that you had violated 1RR and asking you to self-revert
Notifying you of this discussion.

Per our policies, you are able to ban me from your talk page yourself, with the exception of required notifications such as #1 and #4, and if this is what you want please say. However, this is a double edged sword; any issues, even if they are as minor as a single 1RR violation (for a post-report example, this revert is a 1RR violation), must be taken to a forum like this one rather than being resolvable through a talk page conversation. I would recommend against this, but it is your choice. 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Over two years ago I was blocked for 48 hours for overreacting to someone accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Regarding the current situation, I inspected your edits after you reverted me and engaged in canvassing. I would have preferred to resolve the identified issues on your talk page as I have with others. However, that stopped being an option when you declined to discuss the issue - although I believe this can still be resolved without sanction if you recognize your violation of 1RR and commit to doing better in the future. 14:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: May I have 200 words to reply to your comment? BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal Certainly. Use what you need but try to be concise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, although Levivich beat me to it - and probably did a better job of it, too.

What we have here are minor behavioral issues - canvassing and 1RR violations - that become serious when they refused to communicate about them. Further, they reacted this way immediately; message one and two were left together, and were the first messages I have ever left on their talk page. They immediately reverted them, with the edit summary Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages - which makes me wonder if they even read the messages I left, as the warning about canvassing included a custom note.

I agree with Levivich that what needs to be done here is ensure that they are clued in about the requirements to communicate and to respond to valid behavioral concerns. Perhaps a trouting would be sufficient for this, although given their response on this page - throwing accusations of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE for bringing up these issues - makes me wonder if a formal warning is required to get it through to them that this behavior won't be tolerated in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12:47, 4 November 2023

Discussion concerning Ecrusized

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 Ecrusized

User BilledMammal has been harassing me on my talk page since yesterday morning over a single revert I made which they did not agree on. They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one. They then resolved to examining my contributions from the previous week in an effort to find violation that they might use against me (in bad faith). Hence they've opened this notice in an effort to have me blocked. Again edits here are wholly unrelated to the dispute they've had with me. I wished to stay away from this notice entirely in the hope that the user would go away. I have no further comments and do not wish to be involved in this at all. Ecrusized (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User @Veggies: have told them to take a breather because of the battleground behavior they've shown in the same said dispute they've had with me. It might be appropriate to give them a temporary topic ban from the said article. I would also like to have them blocked from editing my talk page because of their constant harrasment. Ecrusized (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not considers the edits of excessive citation cleanups as individual reverts. Rest of those reverts were made in coordination with users at the talk page.Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:, :Removed "Clashes erupt at the Israeli–Lebanese border" from the infobox (moved to location). Ecrusized (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Informing you that you had violated 1RR and asking you to self-revert This is blatantly false. You can only notify someone on 1RR's or 3RR's within 24 hours after that post. You decided to report my alleged violations from 2 days ago. Ecrusized (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Are you going to comment on anything about you deciding to inspect my edits all the sudden, within minutes after entering into a dispute with me? It seems that you were previously blocked for abusing the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement just like you are right now. This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE behavior. You are attempting to get users who disagree with you blocked by gaming the Wikipedia system WP:GAME. Since you were previously blocked for the same issue, it might be appropriate to have you permanently blocked. Ecrusized (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If @ScottishFinnishRadish: is satisfied with my statement, I have no further comments on this issue. I will pay more attention to 1RR from now on, notably if they are regarding removal/change of citations, and/or single word reverts, for which I was not paying enough attention prior to this notice. Ecrusized (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the new statement my @Levivich: (who is an editor involved in the same said dispute I previously mention having had with @BilledMammal:).:

I did not consider non controversial edits, such as excessive citation cleanups as reverts, as @HJ Mitchell: states. Such as this one. Nor this one, where another user had restored a file, but forgotten to restore it's legend. So I restored the legend as not to leave it incorrectly in the article in its current form, Levivich considers this another 1RR violation...

As far as I know, non controversial moves do not require a move discussion. I moved, the title "ground operations" to "invasion" considering it a non controversial one. (Which might as well be since the article was moved to the said title with 15 support and 0 oppose under 24 hours in the subsequent discussion.) Something else to note here is that the moves listed 13-14 October are regarding a different article than the one following 27 October. Which is when the large scale ground incursion in Gaza began but the prior article was regarding limited raids. Hence the previous naming disputes. Ecrusized (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s concern regarding my unwillingness to discuss this issue at my talk page with BilledMammal on Saturday, when this notice was opened.

On that day, I made a revert and entered into a content dispute with user BilledMammal. Subsequently they left me 2 large blank template warnings on my talk page. This is despite them being aware of the fact that I was away from my PC, and having a busy Saturday. So I reverted their warnings from my talk page, which I found to be retaliatory filings for making a revert they did not condone. Afterwards, 2 more warnings, the one regarding the ECP disputes here were left on my talk page. Again, I considered these retaliatory filings by BilledMammal, noting the previous 2 warnings and reverted them. --- Had the ECP warnings been filed by BilledMammal prior to the previous 2 warnings preceding them or not being followed by the content dispute they've had with me, I would be more than willing to discuss it in my talk page. However, under this context, I automatically assumed it to be a retaliatory filing. As Levivich has stated, this is the first time I am participating in a Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement dispute, furthermore the Israel-Hamas war article is the first ECP article I have been extensively editing. Ecrusized (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've learned about the rules of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I will engage in dialogue, including with users whom I may be in dispute with from now on. Ecrusized (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Ecrusized is WP:AWARE of "arbitration enforcement Israel Palestine" a/o Oct 17 Special:Diff/1180609306, Special:Diff/1180609996. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*adjusts spectacles*

At 2023 Israel–Hamas war:

addition by editor 1, 18:24 Oct 31 first revert by Ecrusized - that's Ecrusized's 1RR for the day
addition by editor 2 (CB cite expansion), 09:50 Nov 1 revert - that's a 1RR violation, 2nd revert in 24hrs
addition by editor 3, 11:56 Nov 1 revert - 2nd 1RR violation, 3rd revert in 24hrs
"militants killed" and Israelis "abducted" had been in the article for at least 3 weeks (Oct 10), 20:35 Nov 1 revert removing "militants" and changing "abducted" to "captured," which is POV-ish, but also the 3rd 1RR violation, as this is the 3rd revert in the preceding 24hrs (09:50 Nov 1, and 11:56 Nov 1, are the other two)
an edit by me, 08:11 Nov 2 revert, 4th 1RR violation, and 3rd revert in preceding 24hrs (11:56 Nov 1 and 20:35 Nov 1 are the other two)
addition by editor 4, 21:12 Nov 2 revert, technically not a 1RR violation because the prior revert was 24hrs and 37 minutes prior.

All of the above reverts are over infobox parameters.

At 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:

Editor 1 moves from "invasion" to "ground operations" (Oct 13)
Editor 2 from "ground operations" to "ground operation" (Oct 14)
Editor 3 from "ground operation" back to "invasion" (Oct 14)
Editor 1 from "invasion" back to "ground operations" (Oct 14)
Ecrusized moves "ground operations" back to "invasion" (Oct 30) - no edit summary, but it's a revert
Editor 4 moves back to "ground operations" (Oct 30)
Ecrusized moves from "ground operations" to "ground offensive" (Oct 30) - 1RR violation, 2nd revert that day. Edit summary "Looking for a concise name until discussion is opened." which is odd because it's not any more concise than the previous title, but the rest of the edit summary, "Title should clarify a single ops for the time being.", which shows intent to revert the move to "ground operations" (plural)
Ecrusized opens RM a few minutes later proposing a move from "offensive" to "invasion".

Plain-old move warring, also moving a title from A to B, then opening an RM proposing a move from B to C, is kind of WP:GAMEy (because you'll get consensus for either B or C, with A not considered unless someone else notices and brings it up). It should have stayed at A and the proposal should have been from A to C. The RM ended up being SNOW-moved to C anyhow.

Here is how Ecrusized describes this AE at the article talk page, which I think gives a window into the mindset. Infobox parameter edit warring and move warring are disruptive, but these examples aren't that disruptive and there are other good edits besides. I think as it's a first trip to AE for a relatively inexperienced editor, just needs to be clued in to expectations about these sorts of things in this topic are. Take 1RR seriously, especially invitations to self-revert. Don't blow them off. Levivich (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ecrusized

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

Unless I'm missing something, the actions complained about took place on or before 2 November but they weren't alerted to CTOP until today (about 40 minutes before this request was made)? If so then there isn't anything to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting CTOP sanctions demonstrates that they're clearly aware of the CTOP sanctions. I'm interested to read their statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized, you have no statement on why you've broken 1RR multiple times? This isn't really an "ignore it and it goes away" situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized, please do not comment in other editors' sections. All replies should be in your own section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot seems to hinge on how we define a revert here. By a strict definition, any removal of content could be a revert. Are there diffs of the edits that were reverted here? Especially as no two of the edits are the same. It doesn't seem like Ecrusized has been edit warring over the inclusion of exclusion of particular content. I'd also be interested in any evidence that these edits are disruptive in and of themselves if anyone wants to present any. Otherwise I'm not sure anything here is actionable, at least not beyond the level of words of advice from an admin about the 1RR and general expectations in CTOP areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
courtesy ping @Levivich and BilledMammal:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern is the unwillingness to engage on their talk page. Editors must be able to engage when dealing with CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they might be more willing to take advice from an uninvolved admin than from an editor they perceive as badgering them? If we can solve the problem with education and advice rather than enforcement, that would be my preference; which is not to say that we can't use the stick if the carrot is ineffective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't always an involved administrator handy, and I've always thought it best when things can be solved without admin intervention. I think an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up, even by those who disagree with them on content, and an informal warning to keep an eye on 1rr is sufficient here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Infinity Knight #2

Appeal declined. Infinity Knight is cautioned that further appeals made prior to six months from today's date are likely to be considered disruptive and lead to further sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: Infinity Knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Infinity Knight (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: You are indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.; You have been sanctioned because you have repeatedly attempted to weaponize administrative processes within the topic area, after a previous warning:

Attempt to sanction topic-area opponent for policy-compliant edit (I AGF on this one, but presented for context)
Warned by Bishonen for civil POV-pushing in an attempt to sanction a topic-area opponent
Attempt to sanction the same opponent as in (1), under the same misapplication of policy, for conduct that was even less objectionable than the first time.
More selective misapplication of policy, this time against the admin who told you that you were wrong in (3)

Previous appeal

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Infinity_Knight

Administrator imposing the sanction

Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Johnuniq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrators :

[1]
[2]

Statement by Infinity Knight

Regarding (1) & (3), I visited Tamzin's talk page under sub-section titled Inquiry I used the phrase "Are there any concerns related to original research? Your input is appreciated". I did not support or recommend imposing sanctions on another user.

Regarding (4), I acknowledge that exercised poor judgment in relation to (4). Tamzin mentioned that my involvement in administrative processes related to this topic area lacked the necessary detachment. Nevertheless, I hold the view that administrators should be accountable to the community. It is essential to emphasize that I did not endeavor to "misrepresent policy".

Tamzin mentioned that my involvement in administrative processes related to this topic area lacked the necessary detachment. I was directed to the AE discussions by ScottishFinnishRadish here, the idea of "draconian" measures caught my interest. As a WikiKnight, my main objective is to foster a positive and harmonious editing environment on Wikipedia while upholding the platform's fundamental content policies, such as neutrality, verifiability, and reliability.

Finally, I will abstain from commenting during AE discussions unless an administrator requests my input.

Having been part of this community for some time, I would value an impartial assessment of the provided diffs. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Didnt we just do this? nableezy - 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

This catches me midway through my drive to WikiConference North America, so I can't respond at length, but I think my response to last week's appeal still applies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

I don't see how this materially differs from the previous appeal. As Johnuniq said in the that appeal: There has been too much wasted time dealing with this user….[3] I suggest they appeal after several months of editing in other areas. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity Knight

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight

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

This is the same appeal as the one declined last week. @Infinity Knight: unless you have substantive new material to provide this will at best be closed with no action. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless some significant new information is provided in the next day or so this should be speedily declined. I would also suggest requiring a minimum of six months quality editing in unrelated areas before the next appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this over again after a week is pretty disruptive and shows blatant disregard for the time and patience of other editors. I strongly support Thryduulf's suggestion of six months of quality editing in unrelated areas, and/or in the sister projects, before the next appeal. At least. A block for disruptive editing isn't off the table either, AFAIC. Bishonen | tålk 20:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Brandmeister

Brandmeister is topic-banned from all Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict-related articles, broadly construed. Number 5 7 15:04, 14 November 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 Brandmeister

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Brandmeister (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

19:43, 7 November 2023 under the excuse of "rimming excessive details", Brandmeister removes any mention of Melikdoms of Karabakh, Siege of Stepanakert, and the Shusha massacre from the lead

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23 October 2023 Page ban for 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh and its associated subpages by Vanamonde

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

A broad TBAN for Armenia-Azerbaijan articles was considered in the discussion for Brandmeister's page ban and Brandmeister linked the AA3 page when asking about the page ban's scope

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Last month, Brandmeister was given a page ban for an Armenia-Azerbaijan article, for making offensive statements (comparing ethnic cleansing victims to economic migrants), misciting sources to push a POV, forum shopping, and boomerang after reciving a logged warning.[4][5] The consensus of the previous AE discussion was that another warning would be insufficent, but a broad indef topic ban would be too much at that point.

And now, a few weeks later, Brandmeister made a huge POV pushing edit on the Battle of Shusha (2020) article lead just in time for it to appear on the main page for "on this day". Brandmeister claimed to be removing excessive details, but the edit didn't even do that because the article still has the same 6 paragraphs when it should be 4 at most (MOS:LEADLENGTH). In actuality, Brandmeister's edit removed mention of Melikdoms of Karabakh, Siege of Stepanakert, and the Shusha massacre from the lead, but lines like "Until the middle of the 19th century, the city was considered the cultural and political centre of the regional Azerbaijani population" were kept in the lead. It would've been one thing if this were a true trimming edit that condensed the background of the lead, but Brandmeister removed the massacre of Armenians in 1920 and the siege in 1991-92 that are directly relevant to the conflict, while keeping that the city was considered so special by Azerbaijanis in 1800. This is very clear POV pushing. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Brandmeister

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 Brandmeister

Regarding the edit in question MOS:INTRO says clearly that "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and that "Editors should avoid [...] overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Here quite clearly melikdoms of Karabakh, siege of Stepanakert and the Shusha massacre are not directly related to the 2020 battle itself and belong to the Shusha article itself. From a NPOV point too, it's better to explain such details within relevant context rather than in the succinct summary style of the lead section. All three topics are already mentioned below in the article anyway, so if anything, this should be discussed at article's talkpage rather than bringing the issue here. Brandmeister^talk 00:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron, for the record, the wording "self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh" is not my introduced change, it was already present in the article's previous version as edited by KhndzorUtogh. The Republic of Artsakh article itself defines it as a breakaway state. Brandmeister^talk 11:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron, HJ Mitchell, I provided an edit summary for my edit, particularly citing WP:DETAIL. On a general note, it strikes me that a single edit after which I dropped the issue is suddenly considered a sanctionable POV pushing. WP:POVPUSH has been clear on that: "the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view", with an italic emphasis on the word "aggressive". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3#Tendentious editing also describes it as "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing". Personally I've never reported a user over a single edit during my 10+ years of editing. Brandmeister^talk 20:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

I don't think that trimming of excessive background information from the lede by Brandmeister was selective. He removed the details that had no direct relation to the 2020 event, but left the part that said: Until the middle of the 19th century, the city was considered the cultural and political centre of the regional Azerbaijani population, as well as one of the two main cities of the Transcaucasus for Armenians. As one can see, significance for both Azerbaijani and Armenian population remained briefly mentioned after the edit by Brandmeister. The lede is not supposed to contain too much information on the history of the conflict, which I believe was the purpose of Brandmeister's edit. Grandmaster 09:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "self-declared / self-proclaimed" is a regular term used to describe this entity by the mainstream international media, for example CNN: [7], BBC: [8], Al Jazeera: [9], Reuters: [10], The Financial Times: [11], The Washington Post: [12], etc. Grandmaster 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Brandmeister

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

The selective removal of information of information on ethnic cleansing from the third paragraph (removing reference to ethnic cleansing of Armenians but retaining the details of it happening to Azerbaijanis) is pretty clear POV pushing and shouldn't be tolerated. I'd support widening the topic ban to all Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict-related articles. Number 5 7 01:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57 hits it on the head, plus they changed Artsakh to self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh for not much reason. Support topic ban. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: Sure, but why add in another reference to Artsakh being "self-proclaimed"? Does it need to be qualified at every mention? Your statement seems to boil down to "this was a completely neutral edit, nothing to see here", but I don't know that I buy that (despite some of the changes being uncontroversially positive). Why did you remove the references to the Shusha massacre of Armenians, but not the 1992 expulsion of Azeris? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with my esteemed colleagues and fellow root vegetable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit itself doesn't raise any eyebrows for me. Pruning lead sections is a normal part of the editorial process. But making an edit you know is likely to be controversial, at a time when the article is about to increase in visibility, and when your conduct in the topic area is already under scrutiny strikes me as poor judgement at best and tendentious editing at worst. I'd be willing to listen to a defence but so far I see a good case for the proposed topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Number57, not acceptable - topic ban from the whole AA area. Enough is enough, I think. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other admins above - topic ban from the entire area seems sensible at this point. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SamwiseGSix

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 SamwiseGSix

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS

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

[13] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI;
[14] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI;
[15] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI.

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 [16] 29 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If Anthroposophy cannot be called pseudoscience and quackery, then nothing can.

@SamwiseGSix: As I told you at Talk:Rudolf Steiner his racism/anti-racism is a mixed bag. Take racial evolution out of Anthroposophy and there is no Anthroposophy left.

@Theleekycauldron: I have posted at WP:FTN and WP:RSN about it, but most people don't seem to care.

And the point of my mockery is not mocking them as a person, but showing that their POV is so utterly absurd for those from the reality-based community that it is highly incompatible with Wikipedia (see WP:LUNATICS for details). Yup, Anthroposophists perceive Wikipedia as unjust and me as Mr. Injustice, but there is no way Wikipedia could write articles about Anthroposophy which they would like. I'm simply human, and the failure to get the point time after time wears my patience down. And that's what they did: they politely refused to get the point each and every time. "You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic." Robert A. Heinlein.

They want to insert a wedge between WP:PSCI and WP:NPOV. All their edits are like asking a Catholic church to preach Salafism, or asking a Baptist church to preach Santeria. In the end, Wikipedia has a POV, and that POV is WP:MAINSTREAM.

Comments like "the importance of a fair NPOV for this page in this historic/pivotal time and moment, including helping solve for human x-risk" ([17]) are the kind of comments wearing down my patience. The editor has been formally warned that discussing the "human x-risk" is highly off-topic. N.B.: repeating this argument is their response to a level 4 warning. Certainly nothing I say matters to them. In their mind I am the Big Bad Wolf, and they will never listen to anything I say. They are only here to push a POV and defy our WP:RULES.

About [18]: for me it is crystal-clear that they consider the guideline WP:FRINGE as an affront to Anthroposophy. My remark was making them clear that they cannot eat their cake and still have it. E.g., I don't like the article abortion. But since I'm not editing it, I don't create troubles in respect to such topic.

Their whole attempt to blame me for not solving existential risks and for the problems of Anthroposophy at Wikipedia is shooting the messenger.

Have you read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" If Anthroposophists don't complain that Wikipedia wants to destroy Rudolf Steiner, we are doing a bad job. If anything can be said about the two men is that Chopra is considerably less fringe than Steiner. Chopra never belonged to völkisch Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant.

"but not specifically warned against mentioning x-risk yet " ([19])? See [20]. This farce has gone too far. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21] 13 November 2023.

Discussion concerning SamwiseGSix

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 SamwiseGSix

Hello everyone - simply seeking a NPOV here leveraging mainstream academic research, as the first intro sentence of the second paragraph is currently classifying the topic of the article flatly and comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience' despite the founder's many leading anti-racist statements for his time, as both academic critics and proponents acknowledge. A more balanced WP:NPOV with fair recognition of WP:PSCI would arguably concede classifications of pseudoscience in many areas ('much of Anthroposophy is pseudoscientific') as currently written in the first intro paragraph, but avoid a comprehensive classification of 'racist pseudoscience' [period .] as currently written in 2nd paragraph, which would be ignoring the academic research; much of which highlights the many leading anti-racist statements for the founder's time, often well ahead of his contemporaries/predecessors (President Wilson, K. Marx/Engalls et al on race etc) often still cited academically today. This flat/comprehensive classification results in an unfair spin, arguably not adhering with the WP:NPOV standard for the Encyclopedia. I hope this makes sense overall? Not seeking to flout any rules or 'whitewash' (this term generally implies the coverup of a scandal or crime of some kind, right) in any way but rather simply seeking to bring a reasonable, balanced NPOV standard into play including in intro of second paragraph.

In considering the science, a significant amount of peer reviewed academic research has been published that empirically measures the positive affects of applying these insights in fields including education (3000 Waldorf Schools around the world, NYTimes and Independent.co.uk coverage etc), environmental conservation (Rachel Carson 'Silent Spring' impact w/ Marjorie Spock et al), banking (economists co-published with admins at central banks etc) and more. Although some of the related ideas from the movement are classifiable as 'pseudoscientific' by today's standards (as the intro paragraph does) there are many aspects of the body of work here that are scientifically measurable by our academic standards and significant minority opinions today. The comprehensive and wholesale classification of the entire movement and body of knowledge as just flatly 'racist psuedoscience' [.] is then arguably very unfair, and very arguably does not adhere to Wikipedia's very important WP:NPOV community standard. Please do let me know what your thoughts are - I do very much hope to be able to continue contributing constructively to Wikipedia including on this important page, which also does deserve the treatment of a fair NPOV standard, thank you for your time and consideration. (I'd been as a new editor mocked/insulted quite consistently by the filing editor as the talk / RS pages etc unfortunately show - I thought not specifically warned against mentioning 'x-risk' yet)

As quick final supplement this journal article helps highlight the anti-racist statements and also underscores through deep rationality the importance of a fair NPOV for this page in this pivotal time and moment, including helping solve for human x-risk: "The Urgency of Social Threefolding in a World Still at War with Itself".. Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy. https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SamwiseGSix

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

I recognize that keeping the pseudoscientists out is probably one of the longest standing aspects of Wikipedia subculture, but boy do I not like the conduct of either party at Talk:Anthroposophy. I'm not going to deny that a large extent of SamwiseGSix's contribs seem to be POV pushing against the scientific consensus (although, as one user noted in the RSN thread, they're doing so with what at a glance look to be rather reputable sources) – but goodness, tgeorgescu, an editor of your experience should know better than to spend that much time and ink mocking a new user's beliefs and throwing every template you can find at them (and apparently the contents of a whole essay). Stuff like this isn't exactly helpful, either. If you think you've found a troublemaker, and you can clearly see that talk page discussion isn't going to turn up positive results, post to a noticeboard or find an admin on your own. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go along with leeky here - when things start going around in circles in a discussion, the best thing to do is to get outside input. Frankly, I don't care enough to dig further into the details about what Anthroposophy IS to figure out if it is really fringe or not - not an area where I care to invest my time. But the way this dispute has been laid out, it doesn't make it easy for me to see that either editor is "wrong" enough to sanction. Frankly, tgeorgescu, your way to setting out the dispute is unhelpful. Why are you constantly quoting other editors - the use of quotes of other editors just serves to obscfurcate the issue rather than ellucidating it. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

82.45.48.180

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 82.45.48.180

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 82.45.48.180 (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/The Troubles

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

19:04, 23 October 2023 States as fact in Patrick Ryan (Irish priest) that he was a "terrorist", he is also a living person
14:39, 30 October 2023 Repeats previous edit
14:40, 30 October 2023 Repeats previous edit
17:22, 13 November 2023 Repeats previous edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked on 03:21, March 31, 2023

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

Notifed at 14:44, October 30, 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been using a variety of IP addresses since February 2023, including 82.46.125.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.141.173.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.158.169.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have created a page at User:Kathleen's bike/IPs that shows the editing similarites between the IPs, a sockpuppetry report would achieve little at preseent since people are allowed to use different IPs. However it does demonstrate the long history of disruption from this editor. They have been directed to WP:LABEL/WP:TERRORIST three occasions by three different editors, on 13:05, April 30, 2023, 14:58, May 11, 2023 and 14:44, October 30, 2023. Their user talk page messages of 09:46, April 30, 2023 and 14:58, May 11, 2023 show they receive messages, so there can be no excuse of being unaware of the objections to their edits. The history of the four known IPs show this disruptive editing has been going on for a long time, and in my opinion needs to be curtailed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning 82.45.48.180

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 82.45.48.180

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 82.45.48.180

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

This is a long history of nationalist POV-pushing across several IPs. A particularly troubling detail is that it's the same few kinds of edits each time (viz. terrorism-labeling, nationality-warring, and the fringe view that "British rule" is an inaccurate way to describe pre-Republic Ireland), showing that this editor is not taking the hint from reverts, nor from Ad Orientem's block in March. I am inclined to block the IP for 3 months, with the understanding that that should be treated as an indef against the editor behind the IP—but will hold back at least briefly to give them a chance to explain why such a sanction is not necessary to prevent disruption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tamzin here - unless the editor-behind-the-IP weighs in with something super-contrite-and-game-changing, a three month (or more) block seems sound. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:21, 14 November 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