Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:01, 22 April 2011

WP:AE

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Jaakobou

Closed without action, but please be more careful.

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

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Jaakobou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nableezy 13: 29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

21 April 2011 Revert of edit made by me

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Notified of interaction ban on 29 November 2010

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jaakobou has not edited the Gaza War page since early May 2009. Shortly after I edit the page the user reverts my edit. WP:IBAN specifies that if editors X and Y have an IBAN in place, editor X may not undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

Statement by Jaakobou

I had realised the error a split second after pressing the 'save' button (to fix an issue of deleted content) and immediately clicked the 'stop' button on the browser. I refreshed the history page a number of times and also opened my user contribution page to make sure that the edit did not take place -- or, in the case that it had, in order to revert myself. Both pages showed that the 'stop' has successfully stopped my edit and I had no alternative but to assume I had successfully avoided possible drama. I would have reverted it then had it appeared on my browser and would have reverted it now, but it was already reverted. I have no plans on reverting or creating any IBAN issues regardless if I feel that content has been removed or any other issue. Apologies to everyone involved -- this will NOT happen again. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC) +fix 15:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC) +declaration of intent. 15:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC) + shorter, better 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou

Result concerning Jaakobou

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

Jaakobou's response is fair enough, I think. Shall we close? NW (Talk) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Multiple slips would of course strain credulity, but Jaakobou's response seems fair. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imalbornoz

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Imalbornoz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pfainuk talk 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Imalbornoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary_sanctions

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

A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits, which is described by WP:DE as disruptively refusing to engage in the consensus-building process (January 2011).
A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
19:18, 30 March 2011 Wikilawyering over the precise definition of "prevalence".
19:18, 22 April 2011 Includes a direct accusation of bad faith against me (that I take my position purely through some kind embarrassment about the conduct of my country's soldiers 300 years ago, as opposed to the genuine concerns about the weight, neutrality and accuracy of certain points in the paragraph concerned that I have repeatedly expressed).
[1][2] Edit warring to a two-week old version of the article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 01:43, 16 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Warned on 20:37, 18 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Warned on 19:33, 15 January 2011 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Discretionary sanctions to be imposed on User:Imalbornoz.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This has proved a particularly intractable content dispute, but its intractability is made far worse by the fact that Imalbornoz (and fellow editor Richard Keatinge) have proven themselves unwilling to engage in the consensus-building process. You'll see several things in the discussions I linked above. There's WP:OWN violations (see the title of this section for a typical example - Curry Monster is essentially told that he is not allowed to be WP:BOLD). You will see in the discussions above lots of times when asked for objections, these editors cite lack of consensus consensus. When pushed, they state that things are "required", or "very notable and relevant" with no argument whatsoever backing that up.

It takes literally weeks of asking to get an argument of any kind objecting to any proposal - which would seem to be exactly the "roadblocking" that Vassanya described in the warnings provided. And even then it is generally couched in the sort of bad faith accusations that you saw in the diff from this evening.

Today, Imalbornoz has twice reverted a work in progress because, he said, the Great Siege of Gibraltar took up one third of the history scetion. That was the only objection expressed. Never mind that it was very much a work in progress and that the Great Siege would not have been a third of the length in the end (and Imalbornoz had been told that). Never mind that the Great Siege was one of the most significant things to have happened to Gibraltar in the last three hundred years (and thus given lots and lots of weight by reliable sources), and that the reverts remove it from the article altogether.

Note in that diff that there is no constructive criticism. It's all about "[w]hat I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section" and "[s]omeone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable". This is entirely typical of the sorts of responses we get. The article is at a standstill because of this egregious "roadblocking", and I and Curry Monster have asked repeatedly that it stop.

For me, that accusation of bad faith this evening was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even taken alone, this is something that I should not have to put up with on an article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, particularly when the editor concerned has been warned under those sanctions. But I believe the above demonstrates that it is not the only problem with this editor's behaviour here. As such, I would now like to ask that discretionary sanctions be applied.

Note that I will be going away on Sunday for a week, and during that time will almost certainly not respond to discussion. Note also that Curry Monster has a bereavement to deal with at the moment.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Imalbornoz

Statement by Imalbornoz

Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz

Result concerning Imalbornoz

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

[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]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 * Agreed. Multiple slips would of course strain credulity, but Jaakobou's response seems fair. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 {{hab}}
+==Imalbornoz==
+''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
+===Request concerning Imalbornoz===
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ''[[User:Pfainuk|Pfainuk]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Pfainuk|talk]]''</small> 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Imalbornoz}}
+<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary_sanctions]]
+<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
+#[[Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_22#Wot_Discussion.3F|A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits]], which is described by [[WP:DE]] as disruptively refusing to engage in the consensus-building process (January 2011).
+#[[Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_22#Back_to_mediation|A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits]] (March 2011).
+#[[Talk:Gibraltar#Explanation_for_Reverts|A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits]] (March 2011).
+#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=421529170&oldid=421518698 19:18, 30 March 2011] Wikilawyering over the precise definition of "prevalence".
+#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&curid=298738&diff=425385208&oldid=425376669 19:18, 22 April 2011] Includes a direct accusation of bad faith against me (that I take my position purely through some kind embarrassment about the conduct of my country's soldiers 300 years ago, as opposed to the genuine concerns about the weight, neutrality and accuracy of certain points in the paragraph concerned that I have repeatedly expressed).
+#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&diff=425317563&oldid=424937557][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&diff=425386175&oldid=425377088] Edit warring to a two-week old version of the article.
+; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
+<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
+#Warned on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Imalbornoz&diff=402621981&oldid=402556713 01:43, 16 December 2010] by {{user|Vassyana}}
+#Warned on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGibraltar&action=historysubmit&diff=403069419&oldid=403064568 20:37, 18 December 2010] by {{user|Vassyana}}
+#Warned on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=408068580&oldid=408066765 19:33, 15 January 2011] by {{user|Vassyana}}
+;Enforcement action requested ([[WP:BP|block]], [[WP:BAN|topic ban]] or [[WP:SANCTION|other sanction]]) :
+<!-- Tell us here what action you ask administrators to take. -->
+Discretionary sanctions to be imposed on [[User:Imalbornoz]].
+; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
+<!-- Add any further comment you have here -->
+This has proved a particularly intractable content dispute, but its intractability is made far worse by the fact that Imalbornoz (and fellow editor Richard Keatinge) have proven themselves unwilling to engage in the consensus-building process.  You'll see several things in the discussions I linked above.  There's [[WP:OWN]] violations (see the [[Talk:Gibraltar#OMG.2C_Wee_Curry_Monster_has_done_it_again.21.21.21.21.21|title of this section]] for a typical example - Curry Monster is essentially told that he is not allowed to be [[WP:BOLD]]).  You will see in the discussions above lots of times when asked for objections, these editors cite lack of consensus consensus.  When pushed, they state that things are "required", or "very notable and relevant" with no argument whatsoever backing that up.
+It takes literally weeks of asking to get an argument ''of any kind'' objecting to any proposal - which would seem to be exactly the "roadblocking" that Vassanya described in the warnings provided.  And even then it is generally couched in the sort of bad faith accusations that you saw in the diff from this evening.
+Today, Imalbornoz has twice reverted a work in progress because, he said, the [[Great Siege of Gibraltar]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGibraltar&action=historysubmit&diff=425317659&oldid=425075312 took up one third of the history scetion].  That was the only objection expressed.  Never mind that it was very much a work in progress and that the Great Siege would not have been a third of the length in the end (and Imalbornoz had been told that).  Never mind that the Great Siege was one of the most significant things to have happened to Gibraltar in the last three hundred years (and thus given lots and lots of weight by reliable sources), and that the reverts remove it from the article altogether.
+Note in that diff that there is no constructive criticism.  It's all about "[w]hat I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section" and "[s]omeone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable".  This is entirely typical of the sorts of responses we get.  The article is at a standstill because of this egregious "roadblocking", and I and Curry Monster have asked repeatedly that it stop.
+For me, that accusation of bad faith this evening was the straw that broke the camel's back.  Even taken alone, this is something that I should not have to put up with on an article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, particularly when the editor concerned has been warned under those sanctions.  But I believe the above demonstrates that it is not the only problem with this editor's behaviour here.  As such, I would now like to ask that discretionary sanctions be applied.
+Note that I will be going away on Sunday for a week, and during that time will almost certainly not respond to discussion.  Note also that Curry Monster has a bereavement to deal with at the moment.
+; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
+<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
+<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+===Discussion concerning Imalbornoz===
+====Statement by Imalbornoz====
+====Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz ====
+===Result concerning Imalbornoz===
+<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

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