Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Editor assistance (Request)
Content disputes
Resolution noticeboard (Request) Get a third opinion (Request) Request comments (Request) Formal mediation (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)

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 trancludes 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

Requests for arbitration

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab

Initiated by Sheriff | ☎ 911 | at 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Involved parties

• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Krzyhorse22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Krzyhorse22 (diff)
• Bbb23 (diff)
• Magog the Ogre (diff)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Krzyhorse22 has been reported under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab four times, on 20 November 2014 by Faizan, on 04 October 2015 by Smsarmad, on 24 November 2015 by LouisAragon and on 14 April 2016 by me.

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

Lagoo sab created a total of 100 socks between 2009 and 2013. The last confirmed sock of Lagoo sab was blocked on 6 November 2013. Krzyhorse22 was created on 29 August 2014 and there is a 9 months difference between the last sock block and the creation of Krzyhorse22. Considering the time difference, there was never going to be a successful CU because of all of the confirmed socks being stale. The cases only can be decided based on the behavioral evidence present in the filings and according to my analysis of all these four cases, there was more than enough evidence each time to block the user based on behavioral evidence e.g. WP:DUCK as many users have been blocked behaviorally in the past with fraction of the evidence presented as was presented in these filings. There are other editors who have expressed their opinions in those filings such as Magog the Ogre that evidence suggests that Krzyhorse22 is a Lagoo sab sock. The closing admin Bbb23 for the last filing has expressed in the past that I won't be the person evaluating the behavioral evidence. I'm familiar with the IP issues. He has also hinted that the location of Krzyhorse22 might be the same as Lagoo's previous socks but that is irrelevant considering the topics they edit. Based on that admission, i also had the feeling that nobody even evaluated the evidence presented in the last filing to decide whether there is a behavioral match except off-course Magog the Ogre who is not a CheckUser. Thus, i am requesting the committee to analyze the behavioral evidence presented in last four filings, more importantly the last two because they had bulk of evidence in them. Arbitration Committee is the last resort to resolve any matter on Wikipedia and considering the history of disruption by Lagoo sab socks previously and by Krzyhorse22, it is important that Committee reviews this case and give their final decision in this matter. If Committee finds enough behavioral evidence in last four filings then I am requesting that the decision by Bbb23 should be overturned and Krzyhorse22 be blocked, as the decision was only based on IP addresses which clever users can always change before attempting to sock, please also remember when deciding that it has been hinted by Bbb23 that the location is same. The policy violated by this user would be WP:SOCK by not declaring all previous 100 accounts and by not following the proper procedure for appealing the block and only coming back when the appeal is granted.

Response to statement by User

Dennis Brown:

Statement by uninvolved Dennis Brown

This has been to SPI four times, one of the Arb, Drmies has run a CU, Bbb23 has also run a CU. I can't speak to whether or not these two accounts (plus the 100) are the same, but I say that looking at the SPI archives shows more than a little good faith has been put into trying to make the connection. In fact, some evidence seem to point to different geographical locations. I don't think this is an Arb ready case and in fact, may result in a bit of a boomerang, as continually pounding someone and calling them a sock after multiple SPIs have not found a connection could be considered harassment, even if you do it in administrative venues. I would remind SheriffIsInTown that at Arb, just as at any admin-type venue, the behavior of all parties can be examined. Assuming this is dismissed (as I would expect), I suggest dropping the stick and accepting the status quo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Decline. If Krzyhorse22's edits are somehow disruptive, then the India–Pakistan–Afghanistan discretionary sanctions should be the remedy of first resort; if not, then holding yet another inquiry—when four previous ones have failed to produce any conclusive result—would be a waste of everyone's time. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Doncram

Initiated by Doncram at 14:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Doncram arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General editor probation (12 March 2013)
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Article creation restriction (12 March 2013)
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Sanctions (25 September 2013)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General editor probation (12 March 2013)

• Request release from probation

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Article creation restriction (12 March 2013)

• Request removal of restriction on creation of new articles

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Sanctions (25 September 2013)

• Request removal of topic ban (topic = National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) articles)

Statement by Doncram

For years I have abided by the restrictions, and have not appealed them though I could have a year later. Instead I have participated in other areas of Wikipedia, including at wp:AFD where per wp:AFDSTATS I have voted in more than 600 cases since then. I'm proud of my influencing numerous AFDs in a good way (see User:Doncram/AFDs). A large number of edits of mine stem from my participation at wp:Disambiguation Pages With Links; I won its August 2015 competition by disambiguatimg 1,780 articles. I have created almost 800 articles since the arbitration case, complying by submitting articles through AFC. Early on I sought to compensate for the effort imposed on AFC editors by myself participating as a volunteer there, but dropped that when it was suggested that my promoting others' articles as part of AFC work was not allowed.

About the NRHP topic ban, I substantially complied. My compliance was questioned a few times by a non-logged-in editor in cases usually resolved by my modifying a comment that I had made in an AFD or at a Talk page. And I did respond directly at wt:NRHP to a suggestion that a huge amount of past work by me was suspect, when that was a misperception, and my response did completely settle the concern. (Technically I should not have responded there, and I was given warning for that, but it seemed more honest than posing a clarification request here stating the response and asking if I could communicate it, and thereby indirectly delivering it.) A reason for my preparing this request now is that I wanted to be free to address Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of courthouse buildings in the United States: A, although that is now closed. I acknowledged in that AFD the relevance of my topic ban and addressed that in part by stating I would report myself (which this does). An ironic effect of the NRHP topic ban all along has been that I cannot improve NRHP-related articles which I created when there is a complaint that they are not satisfactory in some way. The courthouses article is an example. During its AFD I reorganized but did not add new NRHP material, but I would have preferred to be free to complete the expansion that was needed. Also over time I have noted factual errors in watchlisted NRHP-related articles that I would have liked to address. I would like to fix those problems, and I would like to resume my practice of improving NRHP-related articles created by myself and others where more sources have gradually become available online, or where I am otherwise interested.

For anyone now or ever concerned about my creation of articles, I would like to point out that in my entire editing history, by my analysis there have been only a handful of articles I created that were subsequently deleted, even though the NRHP topic ban prevented me from participating in AFDs since 2013. Also the community never addressed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Stub content debate remanded to community, but for what it is worth I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area.

I want to ask for some slack about the first comment I made in the recent AFD, in which TheCatalyst31 is correct in pointing out that I unnecessarily commented about my experience of the 2012 actions of another editor. I was embarrassed about the state of the article, and I reacted in part by putting fault onto them.

I wish I had not opened my mouth that way. Being reminded of the article, I would have preferred simply to fix it without saying anything at all, but given the topic ban I could not. It screamed at me that some explanation was needed, when the nomination was correctly pointing out that the title bizarrely did not match the contents, and also I wanted to try for a suspension/withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator (which was declined) so I commented. When making the comment I recall feeling that I had split the difference between saying nothing to explain the article's condition (which embarrassed me) vs. saying more (I don't recall what), but I regret that I showed my thin skin and included any trace of personalized comment at all. Granting this request would allow me to return and fix some other NRHP-related articles that I know have deficiencies and avoid exactly this kind of situation from arising.

As a mitigating factor, please note that after my initial comment, I think I acted reasonably:

• I tried to recharacterize the past more moderately: "I returned to the article in 2012 when my watchlist showed several changes starting with this one. As I recall I left the article again to avoid contention, until I came across it recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today or Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), which I browse frequently." (Saying this much should not have been necessary to start with either, but I was trying to replace what I said in the first comment. Saying essentially "Yep, contention happened but we don't need to go into it. And I haven't been hanging on whatever the NRHP editors are doing, it's just random that I noticed this.")
• I suggested that I would seek some resolution / permission (which I could not immediately do, as it took time to figure out processes here and look for past relevant similar requests) which is what this is now
• I acknowledged validity of some concerns and I edited at the article, reorganizing it without adding new NRHP material, immediately addressing some of them. I crossed my fingers about this being okay, ban-wise.
• As one editor put it, I was "skirting rather close to" my topic ban, but no one directly objected and I edited some more to respond to further comments that I agreed were also valid
• In my final edit in the AFD i provided a diff to final cleaned up list-article (readable by admins only, I presume, not readable by me) which showed the article cleaned up, organization-wise
• At least one editor "granted" that organizational concerns had been addressed, but still compared it to a wp:kitten (a kitten could be "roughly framed out" but "left 97% undone for other editors to deal with") and questioned whether I could "see it through" to an acceptable state by doing the "heavy lifting" needed.
• That's what I would like to do, in any other articles that are at all "kittenish"--and there are a few, none as poor as that one though--I would like to do the "heavy lifting" that this editor suggested was necessary.

Let me say more:

• I consider the 3 years since the arbitration to be more than a pause in contention. The time allowed me to disconnect from the area, and it may have allowed some others to let go of some stuff too. The continuing NRHP editors have done whatever they wanted, which is great. At this point, I would rather not revisit any of the pre-2013 drama, and I care less about what the NRHP editors do. I am quite happy to be out of various roles I used to play, like trying to accommodate new editors differently than others would. I appreciate not being blamed for anything new since 2013. I don't want to be blamed for anything else going forward either, and that includes my respecting the effective consensus that new short stubs are not wanted. (That's not so hard to abide by, either, as the short stubs that were needed for various purposes--like to avoid or settle contention from non-NRHP editors about disambiguation pages needed to support the NRHP area--were in fact all created.)

• I don't want the article creation ban continued because it gets in the way of my working effectively in completely unrelated areas. Like my creation of this was central in settling long-running contention between others about the Isle of Man area. Like allowing me to volunteer at AFC. And it is not necessary. I did in fact learn from using the AFC process, by my experiencing how uninvolved, non-NRHP editors viewed new draft articles. I likely will continue to use AFC or seek someone else's opinion when I am unsure whether a draft is mainspace-worthy, but the project is not served by requiring that.

• I don't want general probation continued because that is not necessary either. I have constructively participated for three years, including removing causes for contention in various areas. At this point I deserve to be allowed to get credit or not for my peace-making or other skills going forward, without anyone being able to characterize me later as doing okay but only because I was under special scrutiny, and without a cloud over me causing editors to have unnecessary concern.

If I wanted to come back earlier, I and others might have still been too raw. Give me some credit for removing myself for longer. But three years is an eternity, and I request to be trusted without any of these three restrictions. --doncram 19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Q: Just for fun: How many short stub articles, out of the 4,412 "NRIS only" articles that Dudemanfellabra links to below, would you guess were created by Doncram? An answer is here. --doncram 04:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TheCatalyst31

I was one of the folks who asked for this topic ban in the first place, and I'd still be very reluctant to see this lifted. The issue is not just the quality of Doncram's articles (though that was a pretty big issue as of when the ban took place), it's that he can't seem to get along with other editors working on NRHP-related articles. Before the topic ban, the project seemingly had a major dispute every other month, and we lost several productive editors to it; since the topic ban, we've barely had any conflict at all. Given that Doncram recently accused another NRHP editor of sabotaging an article, I don't see a change in that behavior, and I'd still be pretty worried about disturbing the peace. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

Given the issue brought up by TheCatalyst31, accusing someone of "sabotaging" an article for a simple move as recently as last month ([1]), I'd be very hesitant to advocate lifting the restrictions at this time. That's awfully similar to the behavior that led to these restrictions in the first place. I'd like to first see that Doncram has stopped taking disagreements so personally and is able to participate in discussion about them in a civil manner. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To reply to the request from Callanecc, while I said I would be hesitant, I'm not categorically opposed. I think the solution proposed here is a good way to test the waters, and I don't have any objection to it. Doncram, in the event it passes, I hope your return to this area is a successful one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, though, now that I think about it, the portion of the motion removing the topic ban allows Doncram to edit "stubs". Does this mean only stubs, i.e., articles tagged as such? It would seem to me to make more sense to word it to say "existing articles" if that's the intent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dudemanfellabra

Although I did not comment on the original arbitration request, my name was mentioned several times, and I was closely involved with Doncram before the ban/other restrictions. I believe, actually, at the time of the arbitration that I was taking an extended break from Wikipedia, largely due to the conflicts surrounding Doncram and WP:NRHP.

Personally I agree with TheCatalyst31 that the project has been running rather smoothly without Doncram for the past three years (wow, has it really been that long?!). Despite the recent comments that were pointed out above, I would be conditionally supportive of lifting the topic ban, though I would still like to see the article creation ban in place. We have way too many short articles (many of which were created by Doncram himself, which is relevant in my opinion) that can be expanded before we start worrying about creating new articles, especially the short template-esque stubs that Doncram was known for creating before the ban. I might support the idea of allowing Doncram to work on these stubs and otherwise re-integrate himself into the project. If the topic ban were to be lifted in this manner, I would still think the general probation requirement should stand. If he were to get into some contentious debate attacking the editor rather than the edits, I think the ban should be reinstated.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Doncram gives an estimate of the number of NRIS-only articles on this page that he believes were created by him. I have actual numbers here, generated by a script I wrote here. Of the 4386 articles currently listed on the page, he created 784, or roughly 17.9% of them. That's quite a lot higher than his estimate of 294, or 6.7%. Only two editors created more of the articles on that page than he did, Swampyank with 1169 (26.7%) and Ebyabe with 788 (18.0%). Just so everyone has the facts here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

If the ban is lifted (which seems fair enough given the passage of time without further incident) I would suggest a restriction preventing (a) title-warring or (b) the creation of context-free stubs, which were the main problems before. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ammodramus

I've been involved with WikiProject NRHP for some years, and have had a number of interactions, positive and otherwise, with Doncram. I'm inclined to concur with TheCatalyst and Seraphimblade: the project's talk page has been characterized by civil discourse and mutual respect over the past few years, and I question whether this would continue if Doncram's topic ban were removed.

One reason why Doncram's participation led to so much strife was his apparent unwillingness or inability to recognize that consensus could go against his position. When other participants joined in disagreeing with his chosen course, he tended to attribute it to "bullying" (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5]). Unfortunately, he again deployed this trope in his recent "harassing, bullying" comment at AfD. A one-time lapse in AGF is understandable and forgivable, but the choice of words suggests that he still perceives the project as dominated by active and influential bullies who find pleasure in ganging up on those who're actually trying to build the encyclopedia.

Doncram's user page does nothing to alleviate my concern. Opposition to bullying is laudable, when bullying is actually taking place; and expressing an opinion on the incidence and severity of bullying at WP is certainly allowable on one's user page. However, Doncram's past use of the term suggests that his world picture is one of "Doncram trying to improve WP despite persistent attacks by bullies". This does not bode well for the future of constructive discussion at the project talk page.

If Doncram's topic ban is removed, I'd support Dudemanfellabra's recommendation of a continuing article-creation ban. Although it was hardly the only source of strife, much of the contention at the WikiProject revolved around Doncram's mass-creation of what most members regarded as subminimal stubs. I don't share Opabina's optimism that Doncram will abide by "the minimal expectations for a reasonable stub", absent a strong and unequivocal policy to compel him to do so: while he was active in the project, he continued to create two-sentence robo-stubs despite fairly strong consensus against them. — Ammodramus (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I agree with Ammodramus, Dudemanfellabra and JzG that if Doncram's topic ban is lifted, it needs to be replaced with either a ban on creating articles entirely or, at the very least, a ban on creating basically contentless stubs. Whether Opabina's perception is true or not in the general case (I certainly haven't noticed any general movement away from the creation of "sub-stubs") really doesn't necessarily follow in this specific case. The determination of ArbCom was that Doncram was not helping the furtherance of the encyclopedia by creating such articles, and years of other activities says very little about what their behavior would be like in their preferred subject area if sanctions were lifted entirely. BMK (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a non-Arb agreement that Doug Weller's proposal seems apt. BMK (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Einbierbitte

I have been with the project practically from its inception. I have never had any acrimony or conflict with Doncram, but I note that he has acted against consensus. I think that the ban should be lifted with the caveats mentioned by Beyond My Ken. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Station1

Late on 25 April, Doncram made edits to Chicago Boulevard System that added information about a NRHP historic district and a proposed NRHP historic district.[6] He has also made several comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Boulevard System that rely on his link to a web page about the proposed district, as well as comments at User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#source denial?. Also on 25 April, he made edits to Taliesin (studio), a NRHP property. All these edits seem to me to violate the topic ban. Perhaps others disagree. I also noticed this edit summary includes an incorrect accusation. Station1 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Doncram: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• @Kirill Lokshin: Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Given the age of the sanctions and the absence of any obvious conduct issues for the past several years, I'd be inclined to lift them. However, I'd like to hear from some of the other editors who would be affected by this. @Clerks: Please invite Seraphimblade and WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to comment here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• It appears that these sanctions were last used in 2013, and Doncram's most recent block was a brief one for edit warring in 2014. Given the time that's passed, I'd be inclined to relax or remove the restrictions. I'm not convinced that one recent incident of frustration, with a reasonably constructive follow-up response, is a major concern. The community may not have had a formal discussion about stubs as recommended in the case, but standards have drifted upwards over time in any event. The minimal expectations for a reasonable stub created by a long-term editor are certainly much higher than they used to be, so I'm not sure that an explicit restriction on article creation is needed. However, I wasn't active at the time of this case, so I'd like to hear more input before making any suggestions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Also agree with Doug. Pinging Doncram to make sure you see this, since this request has been sitting for a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Good point, Seraphimblade. Since no one's voted yet anyway, I made the change from "stubs" to "articles". Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• It seem to me that enough timehas gone by to grant the appeal. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'd like to propose this:
  • remove the "general probation", unused since 2013
  • allow creation of non-NHRP articles
  • revise the NHRP topic ban to allow him to edit existing stubs but not create new articles.

Comments? Doug Weller talk 15:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• I support Doug's proposal. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Doug's proposal sounds like a good compromise. Seems reasonable. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Motion

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows: Remedy 2.1 - General editor probation is rescinded. Remedy 2.3 - Article creation restriction is rescinded The topic ban imposed by Seraphimblade is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed. The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.

Support

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
6. kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
7. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
8. Keilana (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
9. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Proposing this to get the request moving, I'm still deciding. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Nableezy at 22:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification EdJohnston

Statement by Nableezy

The longstanding practice on what edits are governed under the prohibitions passed as part of ARBPIA and ARBPIA2 was that it applied to all edits within the topic area, meaning pages that as a whole are a part of the topic area and any edit to them is covered (e.g. Hamas, Israeli-occupied territories ...) and individual edits that are about the topic to pages that as a whole do not fall within the topic area are also covered while edits to those pages outside of the topic are not (eg editing the Barack Obama page to edit material on his views and or actions regarding the conflict are covered but edits regarding his election to the presidency are not). The prohibition WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 however says that IP editors and named accounts with less than 500 edits/30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That on its face leaves out edits to pages that are largely outside the topic area but edits that very much are within the topic area. I'm requesting clarification on whether both sets of edits are covered under the prohibition, and if so suggest an edit along the lines of are prohibited from making any edits that could be ... replacing are prohibited from editing any page that could be .... This came up on AE, so thought it wise to ask for clarification here. I'm not entirely sure who needs to be a party here, I just added the admin dealing with the AE complaint.

@Kirill Lokshin: Sean's comment below has several examples, the ones I think are the least ambiguous are [7], [8], [9], and [10]. None of those articles can reasonably be said to be, as a whole, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, but each of the edits unambiguously are. Maybe Ed is right and this is premature, but I'm not too concerned about that specific AE. Regardless of how that is closed I'd prefer a crystal clear prohibition one way or the other, and this seems like an easy thing to make that clear. nableezy - 16:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

• User:Nableezy probably opened this due to some comments made in the thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wikiwillkane. The AE thread is still open. At the moment it appears that the AE complaint might well be closed due to an agreement by Wikiwillkane to cease all edits in the Arab-Israeli topic area until he has reached 500 edits. In my opinion this request for clarification is premature. In the past it has been agreed by the committee that some articles are under a topic ban only in part. Whatever the decision reached about partially-banned articles, the AE can go forward anyway since several fully-banned articles are named in the diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The thread at AE about Wikiwillkane has now been closed with a warning against any further violations of the 500/30 rule. I am unsure whether it makes this ARCA moot or not, since I think Nableezy would like the committee to issue a general ruling. The question (I think) is whether the General 500/30 prohibition and a typical ARBPIA topic ban have the same scope. That is, they both restrict all A-I-related editing across all of Wikipedia even when the entire article (such as Roseanne Barr) is not otherwise an ARBPIA topic. In the AE I found myself rejecting the arguments by Wikiwillkane who believed that adding mention of Roseanne Barr's speech to a BDS meeting was not an A-I violation. My view was based on what I consider to be common sense. The matter is sufficiently obvious that I don't think the committee needs to pass any motion to revise the wording of the 500/30 prohibition. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Recent examples: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

• ARBCOM authorized the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 restriction for the ARBPIA topic area as everyone knows.
• The restriction can now be implemented automatically by the server via extended confirmed protection (see WP:BLUELOCK). This automates the task of ensuring IPs and accounts that are not allowed to edit certain articles cannot edit those articles.
• Extended confirmed protection has not been rolled out across the topic area for reasons that are unclear to me at least. It has only been implemented on articles on request after the articles have been subjected to disruption. The ARBCOM authorized restriction will be enforced whether or not an article is given extended confirmed protection. If the restriction is not enforced by the server via extended confirmed protection, it will be enforced by editors. The effect will be the same but the cost is different. Extended confirmed protection automates the enforcement of a restriction that already unambiguously applies to thousands of articles.
• Extended confirmed protection is limited in the sense that it only works at the article level. So it could be argued that it can only reasonably be implemented on any page that "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". If extended confirmed protection had been rolled out across the topic area, Wikiwillkane, an editor recently brought to AE, would not have been able to edit the Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Omar Barghouti and the Judea and Samaria Area articles and no one would have had to waste their time reverting them.
• Extended confirmed protection could not have prevented the creation of the Dafna Meir memorial article created for one of the 230+ victims of the latest wave of violence and the associated image copyright violations. Editors have to enforce extended confirmed protection in cases like that and they will.
• Extended confirmed protection is also not yet smart enough to help with the examples above where content unambiguously related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is added/updated/removed by people whose edits would have been rejected by the server if they had made the same edit in a protected article. The 500/30 rule needs to be implemented at the content/statement level to provide the kind of protection it is intended to provide. Any weakness will be exploited by people who lack the experience or integrity to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Editors who ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE will relentlessly exploit gaps in the protection, gaps that currently have to be plugged by people rather than the server.

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Nableezy, can you provide some examples of the types of edits in question? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• 500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles). However BLUELOCK should only be applied to pages which are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to avoid a situation where we have Barrack Obama's article (for example) BLUELOCK'd due to a related paragraph. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• My first instinct was that this is scope creep. In particular, there is no way of informing newer editors of this restriction before they make an edit about the topic to some seemingly entirely unrelated page. But the examples offered are so obviously inappropriate that I do think they should be covered as a matter of common sense. I would hope to see people reserve strict enforcement for unambiguous cases, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed with Callanecc on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Motions

Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement

Statement

A1)

On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group. Users No action is required on the part of any current user. User accounts that meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group on their next edit. User accounts that do not yet meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group when they do qualify. The extendedconfirmed user group can be added by administrators to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria. A process for requesting this has been set up here, intended primarily to handle the case of publicly identified legitimate alternative accounts of users whose primary accounts do meet the criteria. Current uses As of this announcement, this protection level is authorized for use in the following areas: The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page. The Brianna Wu article. The Anita Sarkeesian article. Selected articles pertaining to Indian castes and their talk pages. Any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed prior to this motion passing shall remain in force unaffected. Expectations See proposals below (to be added as dot points). Notes

Support

1. Just a factual summary to accompany the proposals below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oops, I missed this subsubsubsection completely. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
3. As a statement of fact, I suppose. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
4. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Not entirely sure it's necessary, but no harm to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
7. per GW. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
8. procedural confirmation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
9. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
10. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• @Izno: Indeed, thanks, fixed :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Community comments

• " can be added by administrations to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria" - While "administrations" isn't particularly incorrect, I think the expected word is "administrators". --Izno (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Please find my comments in the Comments by Ryk72 section below. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Anita Sarkeesian was 30/500 protected by Ymblanter as a discretionary sanction (log) following the precendent of Brianna Wu. You may wish to amend the motion to account for this. BethNaught (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Done, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Extended confirmed protection

Imposition

This provision cannot pass. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

B1) Extended confirmed protection may only be applied as a discretionary sanction where there is a consensus of uninvolved administrators supporting its use. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. Support I would rather it be us only for such a nuclear option --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Until we have further experience with it, I would prefer that it should remain under arb com control. But as there does not seem to be sufficient support for that, at the very least it should require prior consensus of uninvolved admins. There are already too many problems with individual admins enacting sanctions, and this should be used only rarely. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Oppose We don't need a consensus of admins to determine if there is disruption requiring 30/500 protection. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Weakly - consensus of uninvolved admins can be difficult to come by in some particularly problematic topic areas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Weekly, primarily because full protection is already permitted as a discretionary sanction and that admin participation at AE is generally small. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC) A "consensus of uninvolved administrators" creates a special class of AE action. Courcelles (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC) See my comments below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Should not be required. As has been pointed out, it's not required for other forms of protection. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Abstain Drmies (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Tricky. While I don't readily see an occasion where a group of editors might see some use of this category as the best solution to a problem, I am not sure I am happy to see it barred either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

B2) Extended confirmed protection may be applied as a discretionary sanction by any uninvolved administrator at their discretion. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Weakly - I would be much more comfortable supporting this conditional on D1 (extendedconfirmed cannot be revoked under DS). Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. per above --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
2. See my comments below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
3. At the very least it should require prior consensus among uninvolved admins. it is unlikely to ever need emergency action. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
6. Keilana (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. As above. I think too novel to be applied by a single admin. However, discussion might make it useful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Requirements for use

C1) Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. I think it's important to hold the line on this. I would like this protection level to be used - at least at first - specifically where there is persistent socking, SPAs, meatpuppets, etc., and not merely for "disruptive editing" that happens to be coming from relatively inexperienced users. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Weekly my first preference, I'd like to see 30/500 used on pages where there is consistent socking and use of throwaway accounts rather than just new accounts occasionally breaking through the autoconfirmed barrier. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
3. very weakly, but if we are going to let admins do this in our name then we need real criteria --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
4. First choice. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Yes, needs to be spelled out. This is main reason it would be used. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
7. If individual admins are going to be doing it, as seems likely to pass, it needs definite limits. The ones set forth here are appropriate. Other cases if necessary can be dealt with by arb com. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
9. Keilana (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Don't think it needs to be spelled out this thoroughly. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2. We already have a standing rule that this be applied to all pages in the I-P topic area. Doing this article-by-article with these rules is too burdensome to enforce an existing decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
3. See my comments below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The above provision passes in preference to the two I'm hiding. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

C2) Extended confirmed protection may only be applied where other methods (such as semi protection) have not adequately controlled disruptive edits. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. Support kelapstick(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Second choice - although IMO the socking angle is more important than the failure of alternatives. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Close second choice, I'd prefer the use to be a little more limited, however I can live with this, primarily that other methods (semi) need to be tried first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Second choice. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC) First choice. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Second choice. Bit general but whatever... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose this is too open. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Again, we have a standing decision authorizing its use throughout an entire topic area. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC) See my comments below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Too broad, if it is going to be applied by individual admins. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Abstain Drmies (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC) C3) <no restrictions on use> Support Within the I-P topic area only. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose kelapstick(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC) While we don't specify what a full protection discretionary sanction can be used for, the protection policy is quite clear on what it can be used to control (primarily where there is no other means of control). 30/500 is very new and there isn't the guidance and culture around its use yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC) --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC) See my comments below. While I don't think we should create policy on where it can be used, I do think we need to say that it should not be removed where we've imposed it as a part of an arbitration decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 14:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Very much too broad. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Abstain Drmies (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Not sure what this question is aiming at Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

• Note that this is, in my mind, only applicable to the use of 30/500 when used as a Discretionary Sanction/Arbitration Enforcement. Should the community decide to extend the use of this protections use beyond DS/AE (and amend the protection policy), that is outside our remit. In other words, the committee does not own this protection level on the whole, but we can determine how it is used to for DS/AE. If that makes sense.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• @BethNaught: They don't affect the ARBPIA3 remedy. As Kelapstick says, the aim is to develop a structure for how to use this tool going forward in the DS/AE area. @Liz: The intention is to distinguish the PIA3 case - where this is already authorized and no consensus is needed - from other areas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Liz: I've clarified that, it was supposed to be as a discretionary sanction rather than as an AE action. Fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Courcelles: I think you may have misinterpreted, these provisions don't apply to a page or topic area which is placed under 30/500 by the Committee but rather to admins imposing it on their own cognisance in an area subject to discretionary sanction. I've (hopefully) made that clearer in the provisions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• We should ensure that people are not removing 30/500 protection from articles where we have imposed it; now that the technical restriction is in place, there is no reason to remove it and go back to the earlier state of affairs where edits were being undone if the editor did not meet requirements. That said, I feel strongly that the Arbitration Committee should not be creating new policies as we would be doing if we pass B1, B2, C1, or C2. The community is entirely capable of deciding how they want this new feature to be used, and codifying it in policy. The Arbitration Committee should not do this for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I think it advisable to go cautiously on this until we get experience. While GorrilaWarfare is correct that we should not in general be making new policy, this is so directly related to those matters which are under our specific control, that it is the most feasible way to proceed. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Community comments

• DS already allows that any "uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)". 30/500 is actually a step down from full protection. It allow admins to apply a protection to an article or topic at a level that is less restrictive than what is currently allowed. In other words, it adds a new scalpel to the tool tray that cuts slightly finer than one already on it. And, 30/500 isn't particularly exotic. It is the existing semi-protection, which is 4 days/10 edits, with somewhat more restrictive parameters. 30/500 should just be another option available to admins at AE, in addition to all the other ones already available. Zad68 14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment on B1 and B2. The alternatives offered are that "Extended confirmed protection may only be applied as an arbitration enforcement action where there is a consensus of uninvolved administrators supporting its use" versus "Extended confirmed protection may applied as a discretionary sanction by any uninvolved administrator at their discretion." There's an abyss between those alternatives, and I'm not 100% sure about leaving it all up to individual admin discretion, as Zad proposes, but I think it should be tried and then perhaps assessed in six months or so months. Also, I want to point out that caste articles are a special case (as are Gamergate articles, but that's not my baby). Bear with me and I'll explain:

After Zad68 had the first brainwave about Gamergate,[31] in May 2015, some of the caste editors and admins took up the idea with respect to caste articles. Please look at the caste AE decision, and you will see that four caste articles and one talkpage were immediately placed under 500/30 restrictions (Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar, and Talk:Nair), and it was emphasized that any placing of further caste articles under 500/30 should be within admin discretion. If it was to involve asking for consensus, going to AE, or any other of the usual pushing-a-locomotive-up-an-incline effort, there would be little point to the whole thing. It was so decided. Therefore, I'm a little alarmed to see ArbCom not only taking over the community's idea (you're welcome) but proposing in B1 that extended confirmed protection (from now on?) requires a consensus of uninvolved administrators supporting its use. I hope that's not meant to imply that admins in caste areas should henceforth be constrained by a consensus requirement. Caste articles are something so exotic to most admins that it's cumbersome and timeconsuming to try to get consensus for anything in the area. The original AE discussion, with its carefully detailed decision, should be enough. Note incidentally that there has not been a bonanza of 500/30 restrictions on caste articles since the decision in September 2015 — in fact I'm not aware of a single caste page being placed under the restrictions since then, beyond the original five. Caste admins haven't shown themselves to be trigger-happy. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC).

• Hi Bishonen, I share your concerns around unilateral admin action; especially as a discretionary sanction would not be reversible by other admins. Would "a consensus of 3 uninvolved administrators" bridge the gap? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I share some of Bishonen's concerns above. The matters of getting enough admins involved, and, maybe, determining who might and might not be "uninvolved" in some way could maybe be clarified. If we were dealing only with 3 such admins, for instance, 2 new admins coming in with opinions based on a poorly phrased story or article could basically overturn the reasonable prior consensus, and, maybe, screw up everything for a while. Also, meaning no disrespect to any admins involved, would possibly any admin who is from India, or of Indian descent, or similar, qualify as "involved" based on their involvement in the Indian cultural milieu in which the caste system was created? John Carter (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• John Carter, it would be a very terrible idea to sideline Indian admins, i.e. those few admins in this thinly-adminned area who know the subject best, as involved. I only wish we had more Indian admins active on caste pages, and more Indian admins altogether. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC).

• Wholehearted agreement with you for the most part. However, like with some of the religion articles and topics, there is a reasonable possibility that in some cases, like breaking or controversial stories or sources regarding such a topic, any individual's pre-existing biases might cause them to react more forcefully to a potentially dubious story than circumstances warrant. The same has been known to happen a lot in religion topics. One thing which I think might help a hell of a lot would be to have someone review the comparatively few obvious reference works out there that deal with the topic and find what they cover and where, similar to some of the pages at Category:WikiProject prospectuses. I looked at the list of such works, and libraries holding them, generated at WorldCat, and, unfortunately, don't find any copies within a few hundred miles of me. If anyone with easier access to them would review them, though, that might be very useful. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• John, how do you define pre-existing bias? Are we now going to require admins to identify themselves on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, language, race, caste, religion, tax filing status etc? Would this same yardstick be applied to American admins on WP:ARBAP2, all humans in the case of abortion, anyone who has filed an IRS tax return on WP:ARBSCI? —SpacemanSpiff 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• How do these motions affect the general prohibition in ARBPIA3? Do they forbid the use of 30/500 protection on relevant pages which have not yet been subject to disruption? If so, that contradicts the universality of the prohibition. BethNaught (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

30/500 is a new policy to Wikipedia, I think that it is very good, ArbCom should open a public vote about this group and its protection and policies. 333-blue 11:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I feel as if I missed something here. The last community discussion I remember approved 30/500 as a protection level to be applied by Arbcom decision only. All of the proposals here seem to be assuming that it will be applied without explicit Arbcom decision as part of AE, or even without AE. I have two questions. First - has there been a community discussion approving the extendedconfirmed/30-500 protection for general use, not as an Arbcom-imposed remedy? If not, there needs to be before this discussion takes place. Second - if I missed something and 30/500 has been approved by the community for general use, why are there discussions pertaining to it tucked away here instead on at VP? This is a really important discussion with wide-ranging consequences, and it seems really inappropriate to hash it out on this sub-subpage only frequented by a very select community. Taking myself as an example, I take interest in policy and particular interest in protection levels and watch the VP as a result, but only discovered this page accidentally by clicking through links from the Signpost. Given how few comments there have been on such important questions, I imagine there are many others like me. These discussions desperately need a broader forum and any decisions reached in this rarefied environment should be taken with a big grain of salt. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Liz

• B1) Extended confirmed protection may only be applied as an arbitration enforcement action where there is a consensus of uninvolved administrators supporting its use. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.

I don't understand this. I would think that extended confirmed protection provision could only apply to "a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee." This provision seems to say that a consensus of uninvolved administrators can apply extended confirmed provision on any article topic they wish, whether narrowly defined (by page, as in caste restrictions) or broadly defined (anything having to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict).

It seems uncharacteristic of ArbCom to encourage the regular application of a new restriction that has only now been implemented across several areas. I would think that ArbCom would prefer to see how the 30/500 restriction works in practice and then, later, consider it as a regular remedy admins can turn to in AE discussions. I would be remiss not to point out that sometimes AE cases have the participation of one or two admins and rarely more than four or five. So, a consensus of uninvolved administrators could, in practice, be one or two admins who are weighing in on a complaint. Personally, considering the wide impact these restrictions could have (especially on uninvolved IP editors since, thus far, these restrictions have never been lifted once they are imposed), I would urge the committee to set a higher bar for approval. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, at least specifying a minimum number of required admins to be involved to determine consensus, for instance? John Carter (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Liz on this point. My impression was that the community had only okayed 30-500/extendedconfirmed protection as an Arbcom (not AE) remedy. Am I mistaken? If not, can someone point me to the community discussion in which this protection level was approved for general use? A2soup (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Extendedconfirmed user group

D1) Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed user group as a discretionary sanction.

Support

1. I agree with the statement by NE Ent, and my preference would have been for this to be similar to autoconfirmed, where it was automatically added, but could not be taken away. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2. My far-and-away first choice on how to manage this is to make the extendedconfirmed usergroup technically impossible for admins to revoke. Failing that, I think it should be absolutely prohibited for any reason other than the explicit request of the affected user. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Removing it shouldn't be needed, topic bans would be much more preferable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
4. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Per kelapstick, Opabinia regalis, and Callanecc. 30/500 is a very binary thing: either a user meets the 30 days/500 edits criteria, or they don't. While I see the benefit to adding it (in the case of alternate accounts), I do not think it should be removed. If a user cannot contribute constructively to a subject under 30/500 restriction, they should be topic banned. Otherwise we end up with a confusing scenario where someone who is, say, disruptive in the Arab-Israeli conflict suddenly finds themselves banned from editing Brianna Wu. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This should be a community policy decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
3. I also think this should be up to the community; there is merit in both positions. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Undecided on this. can see both sides. am of a mind to have community-wide input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

D2) Administrators must not remove the extendedconfirmed user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article).

Support

1. @Kelapstick and Opabinia regalis: This proposal is different to D1. D1 is about removing it as a discretionary sanction, this proposal is about removing it as a normal admin action to avoid having to use arbitration enforcement procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Callanecc I see what you mean, maybe all these options are just confusing me. I thought the first one was all encompassing "just don't do it". --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

   We originally considered proposing this however the concern was that saying 'don't remove it at all ever, no, nope' would be stepping on the community's toes by creating policy for them rather than defining only how admins use it in our name (discretionary sanctions). Alternatively we can make another proposal stating that the user group is not to be removed except if the community authorises removal for an individual or a process for removal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

   I meant just don't do it as a means of AE/DS. And no more options, my head is already starting to hurt. If the community wants to develop a process for this, that's their prerogative. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

3. I also misread this (I blame Kelapstick, naturally ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
4. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Per my comments on D1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
8. . Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
9. This at least is an obvious and necessary precaution. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
10. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

As redundant to supporting D1. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah this seems to make sense, I guess. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Kelapstick. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

1. This should be a community policy decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• @Ryk72: The scope of this discussion is the usage of this tool in DS/AE areas - i.e., places that are already under arbcom's remit - and not to produce binding constraints on what the community might choose to do with it. My personal (strong) preference is to treat this as effectively a pilot project. Wait to see how this works in a few known trouble spots over the course of a few months - long enough for a few cycles of new users to pass the thresholds - before starting a broad community RfC informed by the experience gathered from the DS/AE applications. I don't think what we know so far from the previous implementations of the idea (manual reverting and edit filters) is enough information. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • To expand on my votes above: the implementation of this usergroup for the purpose of administering the PIA3 remedy comes with significant potential unintended consequences, one of which is the possibility to backdoor-enforce topic bans by technical means. This means that the entire editor base over the 30/500 thresholds has been newly exposed to an administrative "power" that didn't exist before, in a context where there is already common feeling that admins have too much power (regardless of whether that's true). Technically enforced topic bans have not explicitly been considered by the committee in this context, and IMO it would require an explicit affirmative community consensus before this user group could be used this way.

    More generally, I strongly oppose any mechanism that gives admins the ability to eject users from the (ahem) "established editor" group, which in the context of a heated dispute will inevitably be read as deeply disrespectful of the affected user's contributions. As it is not possible to revoke user flags for predefined limited time, this action would effectively put that user in the position of going cap-in-hand back to admins in the hopes of being readmitted to the club. As tempting as it doubtless sounds - "surely it's better to be half-blocked than blocked altogether?" - I think permitting the revocation of this right would be socially toxic far in excess of the possible advantages in borderline cases. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    • To the surprise of probably nobody who's read the above, I was the one who made the "nope not ever" proposal while we were first discussing this. I'm still unconvinced by the "creating policy" analysis; this user group exists entirely because an arbcom remedy effectively required it in order to be administered properly, and as a side effect, a new administrative power was created. Preventing the removal of the extendedconfirmed flag for any reason, pending development of community policy, would just be restoring the status quo ante. But "treat DS applications as a pilot project" has essentially the same effect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Re to NE Ent and Ryk72 admins are not permitted to remove the user group period was one of the things proposed in the original discussion however it wasn't included here given the issue with ArbCom creating policy for the community rather than defining how its/our discretionary sanctions are enforced. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Courcelles: The community can't really define what can and can't be done as a discretionary sanction or what can and can't be done as arbitration enforcement. So whether (even if) the community decided one way or the other we'd need to pass a motion or statement either confirming that the result of the community RfC applies to arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions or that it doesn't. These provisions only apply to 30/500 as it relates to arbitration enforcement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Community comments

Comment by Ryk72

Respected Arbitrators, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on these motions; but also must state that it would have been preferable for these decisions to be handed to the community as a whole.

Given that we have limited data of the effect of this type of sanction (and some of that data would suggest that it has not been a positive effect; serving only to entrench article WP:OWNership), I encourage taking the most cautious approach at this stage, by selecting the least permissive options (B1, C1, D1/D0*). The usage can be opened up once we have additional data & feedback (in 6-12 months).

I also encourage the removal of Talk pages, and of Brianna Wu, from A1. This level of protection for Talk pages is not required to protect the encyclopedia mainspace. Talk pages should remain open to allow good faith suggestions; bad faith comments by 30/500 banned editors can be simply ignored. The Brianna Wu article had no recent history of disruptive editing by 30/500 banned accounts, and was protected by a single admin acting unilaterally, explicitly on the basis of comments in unspecified Reddit threads. This would seem a poor, even quixotic, reason for such protection.

This level of protection will be used in topic areas which are subject to discretionary sanctions, where tempers are already heightened, and suspicion of admin actions can be high. To protect our admins from accusations of impropriety, I believe that it is important that we make the workings of this protection level as automatic as possible. I propose that we do not allow admins to either add or remove the user rights. Therefore, please add "D0) Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed user group."

This would mean that users either qualify for extended confirmed or they don't, only on the basis of their history. Users gaming the system or proving disruptive can be dealt with as usual (blocks &/or topic bans).

Apologies for the length; please let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC) - amended Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ryk72 at Brianna Wu I don't agree with your assessment of the history. Look here. On 11 April 2015 the article was at FULL protection. On 26 September HJ Mitchell tried stepping it down to SEMI, the only protection level available down from FULL. Two days later there was an article edit by an autoconfirmed but not extended-auto user that was so bad it had to be oversighted. HJM had to put it back up to FULL. On 10 March, 30/500 was applied via edit filter. Since then, there haven't been isues. The evidence shows that at that article, 30/500 is working great and allowing experienced editors to make direct edits to the article, whereas without it they had to wait for an admin to apply the edits for them. Zad68 15:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Hi Zad68, Minor observations - No changes were made while the article was under full protection, so no waiting for admin was required; 30/500 was applied 19 days before full protection was due to expire; we have no way of knowing if it was required - it's a long time from September to March. The unilateral decision is troubling, and "unspecified Reddit threads" remains a poor rationale for any protection. Caution is still preferred. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC) amended Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Commenting here as an administrator, not as an arbitrator, as it was in that capacity I applied the 30/500. Framing the rationale as merely "unspecified Reddit threads" is being willfully obtuse. As an experienced editor in this topic area, you know the many, many problems caused by new editors attempting to slur living individuals in this topic area and you know that it would be inappropriate to link to those specific threads due to BLP. When there is off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums, it would be irresponsible to "wait and see" if further action was needed to protect a BLP who has already been the target of onsite disruption. As far as the usefulness of the sanction, I can think of at least two disruptive editors from the talk page off the top of my head who were prevented from editing the article. If this sanction was so obviously inappropriate, then you should have appealed this at WP:AE when it was imposed. Or now. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• While my familiarity with Reddit is obviously not as great as that of those who actually use the site, as a casual observer, the whole "co-ordination of harassment" narrative seems terribly overblown - I have never seen a Reddit thread which suggests "let's go to Wikipedia and fuck shit up", far less one which suggests "let's go to Wikipedia and fuck this person's article up". I have seen a lot of disquiet with our articles; with admin actions or the lack thereof; and a good deal of satire (well deserved for the most part; and certainly no worse than WO or SLOWP).
  The biggest concern in this instance, however, would be that, at the time the sanction was imposed, only two active threads [redacted] were discussing that page in any manner; neither of these makes any suggestion of an attack on that page; both question the removal of a Talk page discussion about a potential COI, by the editor being discussed; which, in cynical minds, would raise the question of who exactly we are protecting. This comment would also, for those minds, raise the same concern that the person being protected is that editor, and not the article subject. I would prefer administrators, by virtue of making a decision collaboratively, be freed from the possibility of such cynical accusations. It may, of course, be that other Reddit threads exist which actually do contain evidence of an "off-site co-ordination of attacks"; if so, please feel free to contact me privately with details - I will be happy to sit in the corner wearing a funny hat - until then, I will maintain that we should be cautious in allowing unilateral administrative application of this protection level. Where we do have a well-founded apprehension of attacks against living persons that cannot be evidenced on Wiki, I'd prefer to see a decision involving more than one admin. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, we're not liking to offsite attacks and harassment. You know better than that. Gamaliel (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree caution is preferred. But when it comes to a BLP, that may mean being more protective then we would be in a case where such concerns don't arise. In particular, if we get even a very small number of edits which require suppression, it may very well mean we need to look at greater protection. Particularly in a page where the requirement for 500/30 is not excessively problematic (unlike if we were to implement it at, say, ANI). Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Echong what was said above, Brianna Wu is a LP and so it's likely many of the comments on the talk page of her article will relate to her or other LPs. Even though comments on talk pages have less visibility then stuff that happens in article, we cannot simply ignore BLP problems but have to deal with them including by deletion when they are severe enough. If this happens often enough, this suggests we need to stop it happening. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Jo-Jo Eumerus

Just a brief comment before I return to images and articles; I'd say that this protection/permission system should be used in the same way as any other arbitration sanction. That also means that removing the permission should happen as a sanction like any other AE topic ban or block as an enforcement measure. For example, if an account is banned from editing a certain area where 500/30 protections apply, withdraw the permission. When the ban expires or is successfully appealed, the permission can be regranted. If the community decides to extend extendedconfirmed and associated protection to non-arbitration uses they should have their own policy created. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by NE Ent

Please no, don't let admins take away the extendedconfirmed permission, because one of the unwritten rules of Wikipedia dispute resolution is anything that can be removed will be argued about incessantly to get restored. If an editor reaches 500/30 and hasn't figured out how not to act like a dweeb, the appropropriate sanctions should be applied everywhere, not just the 500/30 articles. NE Ent 20:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by T. Canens

There is at least one known incident in which two editors attempted to circumvent a similar restriction by creating articles with hundreds of edits, each adding a single word. The editors involved was indefinitely blocked as the actions were obviously in bad faith under the circumstances, but it is not inconceivable that a genuinely clueless new editor may attempt something similar, in which case removing the permission obtained from the artificially inflated edit count (until the 500 edits have been made in the normal course of editing) seems like an appropriate remedy. T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Salvidrim

Has the committee considered the possibility that it shouldn't be the one to decide when and how 50/300-protection and the extconf user-right should be used, but that this decision should be left to the community (just like it was last time we discussed protection levels with PC1/PC2 and user-right levels with Template-protection and template-editors)? Of course, ArbCom is always free to place articles under protection as remedies (50/300 or otherwise), and such Committee actions would be unrevertable (as all Committee actions are), but I guess I'm just a bit uneasy at this decision being taken mostly out of the hands of the community. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: We're not defining how the community can use it, in fact the provisions have been written in a way which allows the community to use the protection level however they wish. This discussion and voting is about defining how the extendedconfirmed user group and 30/500 should be used in arbitration enforcement where, once an admin action is taken, it is difficult to have it changed. And also to define what administrators are doing in the Committee's name. The community is absolutely able to define how and when 30/500 protection is used in its name and how and when the user group can be removed (and I sincerely hope that it does very soon). If the community decides that the user group can be removed then admins will be able to do this, just not (assuming that provision passes) as a discretionary sanction. When/If there is a community RfC, and the results of that are different to what ends up being decided here then I'd be very open to changing what we have done here, but until then some guidance from the Committee on what is done in its name and with its protection is needed IMHO. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Davidwr

Administrators should be allowed to remove this user-right as a less-severe substitute for a more-severe sanction that they are already authorized to implement, provided that the removal of this user-right, alone or in combination with other authorized actions, would be no more severe than the "more-severe" sanction or collection of sanctions that would otherwise be imposed.

For example, if an otherwise-well-behaved editor was repeatedly violating discretionary sanctions on an article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and as a result is already topic-banned, violating that topic-ban would normally warrant a limited-time block. However, removing this user-right for the shorter of the duration of the topic band or the duration of the block he would get if removing this user-right were not allowed is better than imposing a block: It allows the editor to continue contributing in other areas of the encyclopedia that are not affected by this user-right.

In other words, think of removing this user-right as a "mini-block" - a way to enforce an existing topic ban where the editor has violated the ban and where a "regular block" would be worse for the encyclopedia as a whole than removing this user-right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Implementation notes

For this (or these) motion(s) there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Statement

Support: 9

Oppose: 0

Abstain: 0

Status: Passed

Extended confirmed protection

B1

Support: 2

Oppose: 7

Abstain: 2

Status: Six support votes needed to pass

B2

Support: 4

Oppose: 4

Abstain: 2

Status: Four support votes needed to pass

C1

Support: 7

Oppose: 3

Abstain: 1

Status: One support votes needed to pass

C2

Support: 6

Oppose: 4

Abstain: 1

Status: Two support votes needed to pass

C3

Support: 1

Oppose: 8

Abstain: 2

Status: Can't pass

Extendedconfirmed user group

D1

Support: 7

Oppose: 3

Abstain: 1

Status: One support vote needed to pass

D2

Support: 9

Oppose: 1

Abstain: 0

Status: Passed

D3

Support: 0

Oppose: 5

Abstain: 0

Status: Can't pass

D4

Support: 0

Oppose: 5

Abstain: 1

Status: Can't pass

Requests for enforcement

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

FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

FreeatlastChitchat (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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

1. 4/18/2016 A comment which compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers". Obviously WP:BATTLEGROUND, obviously personal attack. A quite odious personal attack at that.
2. 4/18/2016 Response to request to strike the above mentioned PA. Some kind of unbacked accusation of meat puppetry or something. Even putting WP:ASPERSIONS aside, this speaks to the fact that the user has a battleground mentality and is WP:NOTHERE.
3. 4/18/2016 Doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attacks and further accusations that other editors are equivalent to "Holocaust deniers"

Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits [32] and [33] are a violation of it.

Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by User:Spartaz [34].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

1. [35] Blocked for a week for similar. Note closing admin's admonishment: "Imposition will depend on behaviour after return from block. Patience levels noticeably low so recommend keeping nose clean."

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

[36]

Basically the user's whole talk page is a billboard for warnings and sanction notifications.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

1RR didn't work. One week block didn't work. 0RR didn't work. Unless the user dramatically changes their approach to editing it's time for a topic ban at the very least.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to SheriffsinTown's accusations (which are actually sanctionable as well since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS) what I did is remove a whole bunch of POV text which looked like an attempt to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK. It's funny to be accused of "battleground" when I'm actually probably the one person on that article that is more or less uninvolved (I've edited it before in passing just in the course of my regular editing) and doesn't have a dog in this fight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh and Sheriff, can you point to exactly where "ARBPIA specifically prohibits such behavior"? Where does it do this "specifically"? And what behavior? I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel compelled to also point out that despite FreeatlastChitchat's comment, no one ever said that "Biharis were just killed in the process". Go to the article talk page. Press Ctrl-F, search for "killed in the process", all you find is FreeatlastChitchat making that false accusation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ffs. To those who are claiming that FreeatlastChitchat didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier - well, I guess you're right. He accused other editors of being the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Which is what I said above in my statement (to quote myself: "compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers"") . If you really think that makes it better than please, WP:WIKILAWYER to your hearts' content. Here is their statement:

"We have the same with Holocaust deniers ... So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this".

Now obfuscate and battleground' onward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[37]

Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

@Seraphimblade I am removing everything from my statement except the bare bones.

1. I have never called anyone a holocaust denier.
2. I have stated that some people who are denying the Bihari genocide (multiple RS call it genocide) are comparable to holocaust deniers in view of wikipedia rules i.e. the same rules of topic bans and sanctions should apply to both.
3. I stand by my statement that anyone who denies any genocide (Bihari or otherwise) should be treated as holocaust deniers are treated on wikipedia and he should be t-banned and sanctioned immediately. Not doing so will show that wikipedia is biased
4. I have stated that saying 150,000 people who were killed and raped were just a few hundred people who were just killed in the process is a very crass and inflammatory statement and should lead to a topic ban immediately.
5. I have stated that misquoting an editor or cherry picking their statements out of context is a very bad faith habit and should be avoided. I have given a detailed table below showing how KT has been guilty of misquoting and cherry picking.

KT's claim	Actual Statement/Context	Difference in meaning
fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT	To be frank I am surprised that a hoax and fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT is being given a dedicated RFC. As per WP:DENY we should not allow this to happen, the creator of the RFC should understand that if we start going through RFC's for every stupid hoax inserted by a vandal and a serail socker, then they actually win.	The actual target of the statement is the "vandalism" caused by a serial socker. KT or his editing has not been targeted. I am 100% clear in saying that the vandalism of a serial socker is the target of this statement not KT.
Policy-based discussion is not enough, "consensus" is required (to make edits)	I said "you need consensus to re introduce a sockers contributions" You said "I am not buying that argument". Nothing more I can say here I am afraid, no matter how much I try to work with you if you disagree with basic wikipedia policies such as consensus there is nothing we can do. feel free to edit the page as you wish, you clearly think that you own this article and I am sick and tired of editors who think consensus is not required. So GL with editing the page I'll wait for someone else to revert you.	A clear case of bad faith misquoting, what I said is the exact opposite of what KT is trying to push forward
you continue to make zero sense.	you continue to make zero sense.	An editor who only "comes alive" every three or four weeks to push nationalistic propaganda is trying to go against two RFC's and a long standing consensus and is edit warring on top of that. KT has failed to mention this teeny tiny fact.
you are in a delusion about how consensus works	What exactly are you aiming for here? That no content should be created until every single editor says "YES"? If this is the case, then sorry to say but you are in a delusion about how consensus works. There will always be POV pushers around and other warriors who will want their own version inserted. Consensus is usually reached without their input, rather despite their input. So when you see four editors agreeing to a basic statement, you should calmly back away and rethink your own position.	KT fails to mention that anyone having the view that "every editor" must agree before content can be added, does have a skewed view of consensus. When two guys(or the same number of editors) disagree it is a dispute. However if an overwhelming majority supports an edit then disagreeing with that edit does not break consensus.
you do not like to debate	you do not like to debate, you do not intervention. How would you like this article to be edited?	KT says he does not want anyone else to intervene in editing the article and he hats other people comments without their knowledge and goes against WP:TPO so of course he should be asked how he wishes for editing to happen.
What exactly seems your problem?" ... "why all this drama here?	why are you telling me to "let it rest" when I have not even "started" anything? I just requested you to involve/ping more than one user next time there is a controversial discussion. What exactly seems your problem? And why did you open this thread style discussion here instead of my TP? I mean if you have to talk to me, use my TP why all the drama here? I really don't care if you are a nationalist or not. All I see is that you have pinged a user multiple times without pinging anyone else and he has taken your side, so I kindly requested you to stop. I am quite sure that from on you will never ping Ghatus without pinging another editor, so there is not even a problem to discuss. Why are you prolonging this?	KT pings Ghatus to a controversial discussion without pinging anyone else. When this happens again and again(You can see that they commented within hours of each other here as well) I kindly request him to stop with a single line "please do not canvass". KT starts the drama at ReagentParks TP with a Long drawn out thread style discussion.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior which involved large-scale removal of sourced content from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and restoration of unsourced content. I am not sure what Wikipedia policies he is following to do all this. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits such battleground behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: If you see comment by Freeatlast, he did not call Marek a "holocaust denier", he just mentioned in the context that if someone denies holocaust then they are banned for that then why it is so that if someone denies genocide against Biharis then they are not banned? I don't see any accusation or blame towards another editor and i do not see him calling another editor a "holocaust denier". Marek is taking it "out of context" here! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Volunteer Marek: Ghatus did say that "in that process some Biharis were killed". I am sure Freeatlast did not mean that you said it when he mentioned that. Please don't think that all replies are directed towards you, especially when multiple people are participating in a discussion. I think Freeatlast made a general statement about the whole discussion after seeing Ghatus's comment. You clearly don't think before you make an accusation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• This AE was filed taking a comment out of context and twisting it to make it look like worse than it was. The latest comment by Kautilya3 is also nothing but taking comments out of context and making them look as bad as they can be made but if you go through those comments, they do make sense and these attempts are just nothing but making an opponent shut up from those pages to turn the consensus in favor of a specific POV. I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• There is nothing substantive in Nuro's WP:WALLOFTEXT except that he himself became sanctionable under WP:ARBIPA when he accused everyone opposing him as "Nationalist Pakistani POV" pushers. That after he was given WP:ARBIPA alert which was given to him after he personally attacked me. His claim that he never edited Yadav page is also not true, admins can check Yadav page history. Considering that, I am more uninvolved in this matter than him. As to my comments at ANI, I did what I considered right, if I supported an editor there, it was because that editor's point of view was right. Saying that everyone who is opposing him are following a political agenda is abominable and Nuro Dragonfly should be indefinitely banned from editing Pakistan/India topics no matter what he calls himself at his user page under the heading "A self-deception". He displayed bad faith in his comment and also he indulged in nationalistic slur. He also responded to a WP:CANVASS attempt by ArghyaIndian when he came to comment here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

Just a comment to clarify. I have no issue with the case or parties, but I don't think anyone called anyone a Holocaust denier. The statement was "we have the same with Holocaust deniers." In other words, the issue is similar to those who deny the Holocaust, not that anyone here is a HD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TripWire

A simple glance at Freeatlast's comment will tell the reader that he did not call anyone "holocaust denier" nor did he display any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So, that's that. But I am compelled to point out that the way VM is accusing everyone around him of WP:ASPERSION, he should be careful as he commonly violates this policy himself in routine:

• Accuses editors commenting on a RfC of tag-teaming despite the fact that OP invited editors on this RfC at "Notice board for Pakistan-related topics" diff

"And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual WP:TAGTEAM" [38]

• Again call editors commenting against him at the RfC of being 'friends', implying that they are tag-teaming:

"That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article" [39]

• Even casting aspersions right here at the AE board on editors for tag-teaming, even though all the editors are the same who were already involved in the RfC which caused this report:

"I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM" [40]

• And this really has to end. VM is continuously, despite being reminded and cautioned is casting aspersions and accusing everybody of everything that comes into his mind. It seems he is so sure that he'll get away with it that he consider himself immune to sanctions. I think he should be told that he isnt.

And before he accuses me of tag-teaming, I'd like to info that I am already involved at this board. A WP:BOOMERANG shall be in order here, I guess.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

VM, please stop WP:cherrypicking Freeatlast's words and synthesising a conclusion. What Freeatlast said was:

"Removing this (Bihari genocide) amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned (he says that those who deny genocide must be sanctioned). We have the same with Holocaust deniers (i.e. as Holocaust deniers are sanctioned, so must be Genocide Deniers, in this case ho deny genocide of Biharis - he is simply equating genocide deniers to Holocaust deniers and demanding equal sanctions for both), why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed?"

He further says:

"It is quite clear that no one is removing ANY part of the article (i.e Freeatlast is not denying or removing info related to genocide of Bengalis - hence not denying it). So it is quite clear that some deniers (yeah, some [genocide, not Holocaust] deniers) are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) (who deny Bihari, not Bengali genocide) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included."

I dont think he is labeling VM or for that matter anyone as a Holocaust denier. At most what he suggested was that those who deny Behari genocide (i.e. say it didnt happen during the events of 1971), should also be equated with genocide deniers and as such must be sanctioned as is in the case of Holocaust deniers.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• ArghyaIndian, Volunteer Marek made 49 edits at Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide (more than any other editor involved at the RfC) and 33 edits at the main space of the article and you still think he is an uninvolved editor?! I am sorry, but you surely are not here to build Wikipedia—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• ArghyaIndian, didnt you claim to be a new comer?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Nuro Dragonfly, it is indeed not at all strange that you having unable to get results at the ANI discussion against Freeatlast is now seen attempting to hound him here too. Who directed you here, mate? Didnt you decide to abstain from participating in the discussion which, in the first place, made you to report Freeatlast at the ANI? Also, your representative argument and casting WP:ASPERSION against editors as regards to their nationality and English can constitute WP:NPA.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes

Several contributors blame VM of "genocide denial". What genocide? They tell about genocide of Biharis population. However, vast majority of sources tell about genocide of Hindu, not Biharis population (e.g. There is an academic consensus that this campaign of violence, particularly against the Hindu population, was a genocide - from good summary review). Even Rummel expresses concern that the violence against Biharis was a "democide" which is not the same as "genocide": "How much of this was democide (intentional killing by government or its agents) is a question". One can find very few sources which call violence against Biharis a "genocide". Hence the current description of this simply as "violence" was correct. That is what vast majorty of sources tell. It seems that several contributors are trying to push their nationalistic views by including fringe or poorly sourced materials/claims, and blame VM and other contributors of "denying" these materials/claims. This happens on a number of pages, such as Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Mukti Bahini. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Rhoark

Though I find VM's positions on this article content unconvincing, FreeatlastChitchat's delcaration you deny one genocide, you deny them all. There should be no place on wiki for people who deny genocides is totally unacceptable. Editors must be prepared to continue working with those who reach different good-faith conclusions after examining the same evidence. Rhoark (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rhoark but don't you think that in basic etiquette some things are universally respected? I mean shouldn't editors first try to be a teeny tiny bit civil about an issue before coming to their conclusions? Does the opinion that thousands of people were "just killed in the process" not cross that line? You can see from the said TP that I did not just start throwing around accusations nor was I bible thumping. I was just saying that troll-ish comments like the one i mentioned should not be made on wiki and if they are, the editors should be sanctioned. And as this is my personal opinion, I have already said I will accept any sanctions that may be enforced due to my expressing this personal opinion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3

Freeatlast seems to have been around the circuit for a while, but his participation in South Asian conflict pages is only about a couple of months old. The pages include Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen conflict, Kashmir conflict, List of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Kulbhushan Yadav, Balochistan conflict and possibly other pages he is still discovering. On all these pages, his edits to mainspace are minimal, mostly limited to reverts in support of editors that accord with his POV. He probably knows nothing of substance on these topics. Given how limited his contributions are, he certainly throws a surprising amount of weight around on the talk pages.

• On Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, "fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT"
• On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, "are you a sock?", Policy-based discussion is not enough, "consensus" is required (to make edits).
• On Talk:Siachen conflict, you make "literally zero sense".
• On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, "you are in delusion about how consensus works".
• On Talk:Kashmir conflict, "you do not like to debate",
• On User talk:RegentsPark, "What exactly seems your problem?" ... "why all this drama here?".

I am pretty sure that his idea of "consensus" is for a bunch of editors to gang up and CRUSH the others into submission. He feels entirely free to target editors with his cutting, pointed, sanctimonious remarks as if he is a prima donna veteran of Wikipedia. With his accusation of holocaust denial, he has clearly crossed the line and the pity is that he doesn't even realize it. We certainly don't need such prima donnas on conflict pages that are already dealing with difficult subjects that need to account for multiple nationalist POVs. I recommend that Freeatlast be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to SheriffIsInTown, Freeatlast certainly knows ARBIPA standards and, if his remarks seem passable to him, it is only because the situation has degenerated to such an extent that this kind of behaviour has begun to look normal. We need to start somewhere in cleaning up the toxic culture on these pages, and let this be it. If we don't start enforcing them, ARBIPA sanctions become meaningless. By my own experience, such behaviour is almost never tolerated on India pages, where also all kinds of nationalists prowl, because loads of admins monitor them. In contrast, the South Asian conflict have become a lawless zone. We have to say "enough is enough." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ghatus

This editor (FreeatlastChitchat) is a habitual battleground editor. He was trying to create a false equivalence between the real victims of genocide ( with academic consensus) and those killed in other ways. There is no academic consensus that killing of "a few hundred" Biharis was a "genocide" from any angle as against the killing of "a million" Bengalis by the state with impunity. Anyone who opposed that PoV pushing was insinuated as a "genocide denier", though the case in reality was the opposite. One can not say that Jews also massacred Germans in some places and hence both are equally guilty. Hence, like Kautilya, I also recommend that Freeatlast is to be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. Ghatus (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by ArghyaIndian

I will like to draw administrator's kind attention towards SHERIFFISINTOWN's battleground behaviour (I also recommend that SheriffIsInTown should be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages). He said I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. clearly shows that he is just here to WP:TAGTEAM and defend a user who shares his POV (as VM said). A quick look here [41], [42], [43] will show that this user have long displayed an incomprehensible pattern of shielding editors (who shares his *POV*) from sanctions and downplaying their disruption. He's doing the same here! His comment adds no value to this discussion whatsoever. Maybe (*as also suggested by admin Spartaz*) administrators should consider banning him from commenting here at AE in the future. Contrary to what SheriffIsInTown said in their last lines, he reported me right here at AE asking a T-ban (when I have less then 6 edits to that page/talk page combined) just because I voted *Reject* in the RFC. He left no chance of threatening me and he intentionally targeted me again and again. Right here, he called User:Volunteer Marek (a completely uninvolved editor) a battleground editor, and on talk page he intentionally targeted User:My very best wishes [44]. Per Volunteer Marek and above users, this editor (FreeatLastChitchat) should be topic banned indefinitely. This user (Freeatlast) has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with over the top nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Based on the ample amount of evidences (I provided in my statement below in second report right here at AE), SHERIFFISINTOWN should also be Topic-banned (as also suggested by administrator SPARTAZ, but he is on wiki leave currently SEE.... Spartaz further warned this user on their talk page [45]). Also, SheriffIsInTown was previously t-ban by HighInBC for a period of one month from one page (It seems from his talk page) because of the same reason *POV Pushing* and *Edit Warring*. SHERIFFISINTOWN'S's long term Edit Warring (recent 3RR violation), large scale POV pushing on all the 1971 related INDIA-BANGLADESH pages, continuous violating WP:ASPERSIONS and his attempt of harassment are equally sanctionable as well. Please look at the edit diffs/evidences I provided below in my statement (right here at AE in the second report). Reviewing admin should take a look here at once (report filed by an uninvolved editor Mhhossein ). Also, Freeatlast is commenting on other's statement which as per the rule he cannot! In addition, his total word count is far more then 500 word. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

TripWire should be sanctioned per WP:ASPERSIONS for blatantlyattacking other editors right here at WP:AE. VM is a complete uninvolved editor who rarely have edited that page before. When a group of editors who shares same POV tries to hijack an convert a NPOV article into a POV COATRACK that matches with their POV, then uninvolved editor would come and oppose. Your long term pattern of TAGTEAMING and shielding each other, whenever anyone of you gets reported at noticeboard is soon going to WP:BOOMERANG on you. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This user is so disruptive that we see him on different noticeboards on weekly bases. Just look at his contributions to see how many reverts he does per day just to remove contents (that he doesn't like). Take a look at his block log once. He promised Slakr that he "will attempt to self-adhere to WP:1RR," what he failed to do on numerous occasions. A quick look at D4iNa4 statement (here) shows that this user has massively violated his 1RR restrictions on many articles and gone unnoticed as usual. Here on one administrator TP, he is canvassing him to come and defend him on ANI, see (ANI DRAMA(Take 2)). Apart from this AE case, there's currently two active WP:ANI thread where users have reported Freeatlast [46], [47] ) for his disrupting editing, as usual. I am confused how this user is surviving here. There are many users who had faced harassment from this guy and not limited to one or two. He is blatantly hounding User: Mhhossein. This editor pushed the 3RR rule right to the limit onBalochistan, Pakistan and Kulbhushan Yadav page. Anything short of an indef block seems a waste of time. SheriffIsInTown needs to be t-ban. No one mentioned him on ANI, yet this user went on there to shield FreeatLast and tried to downplay his disruption just because he shares his bias POV, When asked by an editor, what he is doing here, his reaction was How about you tell me why I should not get involved and you should?. Nationalist users like him are the reason why bullshit take it's place on Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the evidences I provided in my statement [48] which per me are more then enough to t-ban SheriffIsInTown (also suggested by admin Spartaz). In previous report, right here at AE [49] Administrator Spartaz was considering imposing 0RR restrictions on this user. Another administrator EdJohnston also suggested 0RR restrictions. Spartaz said Imposition will depend on behavior after return from block. but they are on wiki leave currently. Please also take a look at User Kautilya3 comment here on ANI. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nuro

Disclaimer: I'm Australian and have no cultural or religious affiliation with the subject matter TP debate or the two sets of nationals involved.

It is clear to me, by the written word, that this editors ability to make themselves understood properly in English, is extremely poor. They have continuously used inflammatory language, falsely made claims and invented accusations, against myself and others, in regards to consensus debating on the Yadav talk page along with TripWire. The arrival of SheriffIsInTown in the last few days, after I raised concerns on the AN/I page, and has joined their cause with vigor and quite a large amount of arrogance in their attitude and behaviour; all three of which I consider to be acting in coalition with one another, to aggressively push a Nationalist Pakistani POV agenda on WP, which has become my view after weeks of TP debate on the subject matter, to help build a consensus for the article to move forward.

It is bombastic in the amount of effort that the any three of these editors have used to attack any one who disagrees with their POV on how the article should read, which is to say quite poorly at present, and completely biased. All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim. I don't see the Indian contributors making such accusations and they have been more than willing to except these issues in this regard. The source material is appalling, with 2/3 exceptions, and reads as if a badly written spy novel (no pun intended) by very biased journalists with a clear agenda to promote nationalist propaganda about the matter. Both FALCC and TW have continuously tried to block any attempts to sift through the obvious bias in reporting and claim that they are factually correct, when 95% of all information is rejected by India, who have also made their own claims on the matter.

This is an article about Espionage between India and Pakistan...and as such the efforts to have a neutral POV are non existent. FALCC, TP and SIIT all use the Modus Operandi of bombarding other editors with WP Policies in a blatantly disingenuous manner, making erroneous claims about WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RECKLESS, WP:BIASED towards everything that is edited on the article not to their liking, and in the case of SIIT - who hasn't contributed to the Yadav TP but has done so on the AN/I, and another administrators TP - to support the others behaviour, after the fact, when it is raised as a concern, and furthermore does so which such vehemence, to then claim with absolute assurance that they are acting in good standing as dissenting voices on WP, as if they are attempting to achieve some revolutionary agenda in this place, as a whole for the Pakistani element he on WP.

I leave this ARE to those that are making their decisions on the matter and consider my involvement at an end, unless a non-involved editor wishes to ask me to provide some further explanation of what I consider to be disruptive behaviour. Again I state that the three editors mentioned by me are not to contact me for any reason, and any such actions will be regarded as harassment, as my patience is at it end with them, and I am disengaging from the situation for my own sanity. I leave with the note that I have not even edited the article page, and was only engaged in the consensus debate about the issues raised by another AN/I, that I was asked to help contribute to, and this was the result..

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 07:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: I was asked by ArghyaIndian to make a comment on this ARE instead of on the AN/I, for clarities sake. I also reject any attempt by SheriffsIsInTown of Canvassing and have given him 30 minutes to remove his harassing notice of such from my Talk Page, as he has been expressly told not to contact me, harass me as far as I'm concerned, for any reason, twice now.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 23:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

• Ah, FreeatlastChitchat--one of my favorite battleground editors. Marek, 0R was suggested but not imposed, it seems from the DS log. I think I already blocked FreeatlastChitchat once and I really don't want to do it again, but you can't go around calling someone a Holocaust denier; FreeatlastChitchat, you have been skating on thin ice for a while, and you shouldn't be surprised if you fall through it this time, though I for one will be sad to see it. But calling someone a Holocaust denier does no service to the victims of another genocide. Sheriff, if you want to bring Marek up on charges you will have to do so in a separate section--I doubt that this will go very far, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear that Freeatlast was suggesting that VM was to be included among the supposed collection of Holocaust deniers--and that comment itself, pace Tripwire's simple dismissal, is battleground editing. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I see a comparison to Holocaust deniers rather than directly calling someone one, but for clarity's sake, that's still quite inappropriate. It seems there's a lot of issue here with "Comment on content, not the contributor." FreeatlastChitchat, it would be very helpful if you could trim your statement to focus on the behavioral issues raised here, we don't decide content disputes at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Is there any area where FreeatlastChitchat contributes positively without this sort of extensive personal conflict that sees them constantly dragged to ANI and other forums? I do think that the arguments that they "technically" didn't call anyone a holocaust denier are somewhat disingenuous, the implication of the comment was pretty clear and unlikely to be interpreted in any other way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

ArghyaIndian

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 ArghyaIndian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

ArghyaIndian (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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

1. 00:50, 19 April 2016 Left a highly nationalistic slur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh using a proxied IP, This was also a bad faith message as well accusing a bunch of editors as Pakistani POV pushers. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits use of Wikipedia for political propaganda on nationalistic lines and instructs to display good faith to fellow editors while editing Pakistan/India topics. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
2. 12:59, 19 April 2016 Votes in the RfC signed in as ArghyaIndian using exactly the same nationalistic slur and bad faith message as was done using proxied IP at WP Bangladesh (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
3. 04:54, 20 April 2016 Left the same message using the same proxied IP with exactly same text as was used in above two edits, difference is this message was left after he was alerted about WP:ARBIPA so this is a clear violation of WP:ARBIPA after him being alerted about that. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
4. 10:34, 21 April 2016 Continues making highly controversial edits to a highly controversial topic 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though an RfC is going on at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide to which he participated. Instead of waiting for conclusion, he goes in and removes a huge chuck of text along national lines
5. 16:30, 21 April 2016 Does it again after being told that "Please refrain from major changes while the discussion is ongoing.", gets reverted again by an unrelated editor, Please note that this edit has an evidence of meatpuppetry in it as Arghya included the instructions issued to him by another editors in the edit. Meatpuppetry is sockpuppetry and sockpuppery was another decision covered by WP:ARBIPA#Sockpuppets.
6. 16:56, 21 April 2016 But does it again! (Remember others are waiting for talk and RfC but he keeps editing along nationalistic lines

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14:51, 19 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Requesting a topic ban for ArghyaIndian in topic area of India/Pakistan broadly construed based on evidence of nationalistic propaganda and assuming bad faith along national lines.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Diff of notification to the editor

• Note: Requesting @Laser brain: or another admin to restrict ArghyaIndian statement to less than 500 words so i can reply them keeping myself under 500 words. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply

• Arghya claims to be a newcomer yet cites policies like WP:BITE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and know that meatpuppetry is reported under sockpuppetry, each of which i did not know until very recently. Arghya claims that he copied/pasted the content from WP Bangladesh to the RfC and IP was not him but you see the IP's comment from WP Bangladesh was removed by me at 09:00, 19 April 2016 and Arghya added the same comment at the RfC at 12:59, 19 April 2016 so he is kind of giving a very lame excuse of copy/paste. Please also note Arghya did not edit between 2 April 2016 and 19 April 2016 and his first edit after 17 days was the vote at RfC. That comment is a clear example of WP:DUCK. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning ArghyaIndian

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 ArghyaIndian

This user is bullying me continuously from past one-two weeks. He is intentionally targeting me again and again. But lemme tell him, I'm not going to be bullied or threatened. He seems to be leaving no chance of WP BITING. I am not the only one whom this user has tried to WP:HARASS. This user has attacked and targeted many uninvolved users on article's talk page see and on their talk pages see. (*just because they opposed his strong POVish edits* (which are itself sanctionable since these pages are covered by ARBIPA and WP:NPOV is one of the Wikipedia's main pillar). Admins should take a look at the revision history of the page to get a better understanding of this user (along with his WP:TAGTEAM) attempt of hijacking and converting an NPOV article into a complete POV COATRACK, promoting fringe and preposterous theories. (All uninvolved users pointed out this on talk page including Ghatus, KT, Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, and so on).

• To administrators; please note that this user is intentionally trying to present me as a edit warrior and as a nationalist user here in a sheer bad faith (which I am not).

1. This IP is not myn. I just copy and pasted his comment at article's talk page because the IP was absolutely correct and a patrolling user Sminthopsis84 also agreed with the IP. They also suggested a topic ban for SheriffIsInTown. Again this IP is not myn as i already explained above. This Infact should be considered as obvious personal attack since this user is trying to connect me with unknown IP's based on his suspicion. They should report me at SPI noticeboard to clear their suspicion. Infact his unback accusations are sanctionable itself since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS.
2. SheriffIsInTown is intentionally distorting and mispresenting edit diffs as explained below.
3. 04:03, 20 April 2016 I created a new section regarding misleading figures in the lead that was recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk page [50]. Uninvolved editors Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes also agreed with me and Infact VM also asked me that which older version I have in my mind. Since the editors agreed with my objections, I tried to find an older stable NPOV version of the article's lead. I waited for a day and finally restored an old version 10:30, 21 April 2016, but by mistake I restored the wrong version but I quickly asked for the help on the article's talk page can be seen here. And I think that KT was aware of it and that is why he/she reverted me. I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead (as discussed and agreed on talk page) so that is why I made this edit (13:25 21 April 2016) but after realising that I did a mistake, I quickly self reverted this time within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016). But as I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead, I made this edit again ([51]) but unfortunately I again made a major mistake and messed my notepad stuffs while editing but before I could self revert myself, an patrolling user already reverted me ([52]). This time I made this edit correctly ([53]) and I was correct too. Many uninvolved editors agreed with me [54], [55].
4. To Administrators; please take a look here at once. [56], [57] MASS REMOVAL OF CONTENT by this user (that he doesn't like), large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He's doing this all from a long time now.
5. SheriffIsInTown tried to WP:HARASS other users including me with 3RR templates when they hardly made two reverts [58] but he WP:EDITWAR on these pages from many months, as noted by other users ([59], [60]). But I'll give recent examples. This user went on to remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini. This user did not seek talk page to address issues but instead was engage in intense WP:EDITWAR with multiple users, same is the case here.
6. As pointed out by uninvolved users [61] this person went too far in claiming that some parts were "irrelevant" and in saying that some parts were unsourced when the sources were there as external links. Other uninvolved users also pointed out the same, to quote; One thing I saw was your quest to remove certain relevant and sourced information from multiple pages like here.
7. This user made around 7 reverts on Mukti Bahini within 1½ day just to remove mass contents from lead (that he doesn't like), which is still there. These back to back 4 reverts are Infact very well within 24 hours. Clear WP:3RR violation.

• 18:16, 20 April 2016
• 18:20, 20 April 2016
• 17:31, 21 April 2016
• 17:50, 21 April 2016.

1. He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [62], [63] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was further warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [64].
2. For the sake of betterment and neutrality of this project area of India.Bangladesh.Pakistan, I highly recommend SheriffIsInTown be indefinite topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages (as reasons and evidences provided above). This user has a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with a strong nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrator Spartaz. Spartaz warned this user right here at AE that they are strongly minded to impose a T-ban if this user continue to make nationality based slurs. They further warned this user on their talk page [65]. Spartaz did not replied further because they said, they are on wiki leave currently. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• His further accusations are not worth replying. However, since he made strong personal attacks directed towards me, I'll reply.

1. I am on wiki from a while now. Many uninvolved editor called you a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor, so my knowledge of these policies is quite obvious.
2. As I already said, that IP is not myn. You have all the rights to report me and clear your suspicions. Then why you're not reporting me and instead hurling accusations at me?
3. This user further tried to WP:HARASS me by calling me a meatpuppet at ANI (but not reporting me at SPI, as I pointed out), clear personal attack, quite odious personal attack at that. Note that he called me a meatpuppet but is asking me how do I know about meatpuppet noticeboard (even though I gave him the meatpuppet/SPI noticeboard link through a google search). Clearly, he is trying to fool others here.
4. This user doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attack and with further accusations by calling me a meatpuppet again here, when I have replied him in straight and in befitting words at ANI. [66], [67], [68].
5. Further personal attacks by calling me a DUCK. This user has crossed all the borderlines of WP:PERSONAL, WP:HARASS & WP:BITE. These unback extreme accusations falls under WP:ASPERSIONS. I'll say again, this user should report me at SPI to clear his suspicions and after the result comes negative, this user either should apology or should be indefinitely ban.
6. If no administrator take actions against this user, then it will mean that such nationalist users like him have a free license to harass other users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing blatant POV across these ARBIPA articles (in an global source of knowledge) from many months now and his extreme POV edits has indeed gone unnoticed which has already ruined many articles (specially India. Bangladesh related). --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rhoark: His RFC was premature (as noted by other uninvolved users). As MVBW said on on article's talk page RfC does not ask well defined question. If, for example, the RfC was about changes in one specific paragraph, then indeed, it would be best not to edit that paragraph. One can not "freeze" whole page by starting an RfC. Furthermore, I only tried to 'restore old NPOV lead. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

More recent evidences of EDIT WARRING and POV pushing by this user.

1. This user suddenly intervened on Kashmir Conflict page and initiated WP:EDITWAR. He reverted one user and restored a POV version [69] to which he has gained no consensus on talk page. In fact there was a discussion going on talk page but this user never participated on talk page discussion but did blatant back to back reverts (see [70] ) with misleading summaries that he is restoring WP:STATUSQUO version when in reality that was a POV version to which he has gained no consensus on talk. His intervention and WP:EDITWAR led an administrator RegentsPark to impose restrictions on that page (see [71] ).
2. WP:EDITWAR on Bangladesh. See [72], again this user did not seek talk page to address issues.
3. WP:TAGTEAM WP:EDITWAR WP:3RR on Balochistan, Pakistan. See [73].

Further comments/evidences of WP:TAGTEAM and his desparate attempts of shielding editors (who shares his bias POV) whenever they get reported to noticeboards and downplaying their disruption in my statement in above AE case. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This case is pending from many weeks. Please review it and take actions against SheriffIsInTown. This user has started Harassing and attacking me again. This user has Infact abused warning templates. [74], [75]. Obvious HARASSMENT and obvious abuse of warning templates. My this comment [76] was in no aspect, canvassing. Both Freeatlast and SheriffIsInTown was harassing Nuro Dragonfly, he was about to take the matter to WP:ANI and I only suggested him to comment at WP:AE instead of WP:ANI. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

This does appear to me as a battleground request because SheriffIsInTown edit war on these pages for months, but reported someone who only started. In addition, after looking at changes by SheriffIsInTown on this page, it appear that he inserts wording like "a number now universally regarded as excessively inflated" and "however some scholars consider this number to be seriously inflated" in introduction, instead of simply providing a range of numbers - as the more NPOV version preferred by ArghyaIndian. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

Saying there are POV pushers in this area is calling a spade a spade, and no one involved appears to have any inhibition about editing while the RfC is open. This area needs more admin scrutiny than is seen through the keyhole of AE filings. Rhoark (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning ArghyaIndian

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

• @ArghyaIndian: Please try to cut down your statement to focus only on points relevant to this request, and to be concise and clear about what it is you're saying. @TJH2018: Please do not comment in other editors' sections. You're welcome to make a statement in a section of your own if you'd like to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Abbatai

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 Abbatai

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

OptimusView (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Abbatai (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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :

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

1. 14:20, 1 May 2016 1st revert
2. 15:17, 1 May 2016 2nd revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

1. [77] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing

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

*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [78].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ([79]).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[80]

Discussion concerning Abbatai

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 Abbatai

14:20, 1 May 2016

The first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead.

And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [81] and [82] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OptimusView

Abbatai still continues editwarring as an IP [83]. OptimusView (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Abbatai

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

• As Abbatai had previously added the "separatist" wording on 20 April, both edits were clearly reverts to a previous version, so this is a 1RR violation. The previous edit warring sanctions were many years ago, so I'm not inclined to factor them too heavily, but I think some time away from the topic area might be in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• The blocks were so long ago as to be almost meaningless here. While Seraphimblade is correct that the same "separatist" verbiage was added 10 days prior with the same citation (which looks to check out), and it was technically a revert, to me this fades a bit with time. Still sanctionable, but not as severe as other 1RRs I've seen that happen over a day or two. He might have thought it really wasn't a 1RR violation, even though it technically was. Since he hasn't been sanctioned in a very long time, and never for this particular Arb restriction, I would lean towards a very short topic ban, say 30 days, which would probably be adequate to prevent problems in the future. I won't argue against something somewhat longer, I just think that is proportional to the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

MarkBernstein

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 MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

MarkBernstein (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

Discretionary sanction (interaction ban)

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

1. Violation 3 May reply to DHeyward.
2. See also informal warning earlier in discussion [85]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[86]

Amended 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Discretionary sanction; topic ban, gamergate

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

1. Violation [87] -- both the edit summary and text explictly refer to Gamergate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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 MarkBernstein

The (modified) three-way topic ban between myself, Thargor Orlando, and DHeyward specifically allows participation in noticeboard and ArbCom cases in which one or all are a party. Moreover, asking an editor to confirm an interpretation of a statement, or to clarify a statement that might be ambiguous, does not infringe the topic ban. To make assurance doubly sure, I checked in advance with the administrator who composed and modified that topic ban whether it was intended to prevent my participation in a case to which DHeyward is a party.

MB: Is it the intent of your (modified) topic ban vis-a-vis DHeyward to preclude my participation in Arbcom cases in which DHeyward is a party?

admin: Absolutely not. I designed the topic ban specifically to allow both of you to participate in editing the same articles and specifically to avoid the situation where one of you was forbidden on commenting on an issue or an edit or a person who was not one of the two of you.

You may quote me on this on-wiki or anywhere else.

MarkBernstein (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I asked the responsible administrator whether the intent of the topic ban precluded participation in an Arbcom case to which DHeyward is a party They replied, "Absolutely not." I had stated this clearly here hours before @Kingsindian: added his predictable contribution. If the admin was correct, this complaint is groundless and disruptive. If he was incorrect. I cannot see that I can be blamed for relying on his explicit and emphatic instruction. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion above was by email, lest the query itself violate a topic ban. (Holy Kafka, Batman!) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: DHeyward asserted a fact in passing, in a large block of text. I merely asked to confirm that what he wrote is what he intended to write. This seemed uncontentious and innocuous; people do sometimes omit words or overlook ambiguities. It’s hardly disruptive. As to whether I might have asked on-wiki, I am glad to see you confirm my understanding of policy, but -- as you see here -- to ask on-wiki would have required a prudent editor to first ask another uninvolved administrator or arbitrator whether they were permitted to ask the banning administrator. Hello, Mr. Kafka! Meet Mr. Xeno! Email can be simpler, and other factors (these will occur to you) also commended it. If you wish, you are free to ask the administrator to confirm the quotations. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The scope of the ArbCom case in question explicitly excludes Gamergate, and both arbitrators and clerks have repeatedly asserted that the case is not related to Gamergate. Nor does it involve gender-related controversies. I have commented in a general way about threats against Wikipedians, but not all threats derive from Gamergate. (Arbitrators interested in off-wiki harassment may want to take a look at the customary sites, which have not been completely inactive overnight.) MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: On DHeyward, I have supplied the instruction I received from the responsible administrator. I had every reason to rely on them. On the discussion at AN/C regarding the employment of threats to coerce a Wikipedia administrator -- a matter which has now been confirmed -- I did not identify the source of any threats and, with the exception of the death threat that appeared on Wikipedia, have not characterized them. I believe I am permitted to pursue my research and to fulfill my professional obligations when publishing elsewhere. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The email exchange above dates from 3 May 2016, 11:05 AM EDT. My research interests include hypertext, knowledge representation, new media, and web science, and I publish results and commentary on these topics (which occasionally touch on Wikipedia) in a variety of places in the course of that work. Thanks for asking. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

In the last AE request, MarkBernstein stated that I was momentarily under the mistaken impression that the tridirectional DHeyward topic ban had been waived for noticeboard complaints. It had in fact only been waived for initiating noticeboard complaints. I would like to hear from Mark Bernstein if this interpretation is wrong. Because the comment in question here is clearly not initiating a noticeboard complaint. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Can MarkBernstein also tell us when this email interaction with Gamaliel took place? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

I'm also rather perplexed that MarkBernstein doesn't think that 1 and 2 are violations of his more recent topic ban. Either he doesn't think they're violations or he just doesn't care. I'm struggling to see how discussing Gamaliel's restriction from enforcing GamerGate arbitration provisions doesn't fall within "prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." The tban contains no exceptions for anything, and there's no way those edits fall within WP:BANEX. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Further topic-ban vios: 1 2 3. The contention that discussing Gamaliel's arb restriction from GamerGate isn't a violation of a tban from GamerGate is... interesting... GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Given that the relevant sanction between MarkBernstein and DHeyward is a topic ban and not an interaction ban, it's hard to see a direct reply from MB to DH as a violation per se. Nevertheless, MB has in recent days developed a habit of testing the edges of the topic bans to which he is subject, demonstrated by the following:

• [88] Musing about a topic he is banned from. Mark reverted this himself after a few hours and no responses.
• [89] Discussing Gamergate in a comment about Gamaliel's ongoing ArbCom case. Mark struck the portion mentioning Gamergate within minutes.
• [90] Discussing on Coffee's talk page a revdel on the Gamergate talk page. Mark reverted this comment in a few hours during which no one responded to it directly.
• [91] This actually was a per se violation of Mark's DHeyward topic ban, in which he directly quotes a statement from DHeyward (among other statements) and then casts aspersions about "red herrings" and "crocodile tears." He struck the portion quoting DHeyward when I reminded him that he was still subject to that topic ban.
• [92] Musing about possible threats made to Gamaliel off-wiki, presumably by Gamergate. MB may deny that he intended to implicate Gamergate in this comment but I don't believe that denial would pass the smell test.

In fairness to Mark, he has generally reverted/struck these offending comments on his own initiative. But while that might excuse a single violation, it begins to look like a deliberate effort to opine on a prohibited topic while avoiding sanctions after three or four occurrences. I think Mark ought to be dissuaded from this course of action. Whether that takes the form of a stern warning (although warnings have had less than stellar effectiveness with MB in the past) or something more serious is for wiser heads than mine. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

MB writes above: I have commented in a general way about threats against Wikipedians, but not all threats derive from Gamergate. True enough, but when he tweets a link to those comments with the caption Wikipedia: did Gamergate harassment successfully intimidate an Arbitrator? from the Twitter account listed prominently on his personal webpage, to which he links on his wiki user page, it's pretty clear that he intended those comments to pertain to Gamergate in violation of his topic ban. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

While I'm uninvolved when it comes to Mark, I (tried to) participate in that Arb case and mentioned Mark as the beneficiary of too much goodwill by an admin, which is not Mark's fault. The participation is still enough that I will stay on this side of the "results" line and just opine. I think if Mark had been named as a party to the case, it would be easy to overlook or even grant a temporary stay of the restriction while he participated in the case. Something to consider is the poorly chosen title of the case "Gamaliel and others", as Mark has been mentioned in interactions with Gamaliel several times, including by myself, although never in any way that indicates Mark did anything wrong. Judging from past cases (and this one) he could theoretically be added to the case with no explanation, or simply sanctioned without being formally listed as a party. This assumes he did something wrong prior to the case that would warrant sanction, something I have no evidence of. It is simply saying there is at least a possibility that he would be mentioned for sanctions, and would feel the need to defend himself or participate. I say this only because I think this AE case is just a tiny bit in the grey area. Honestly, Mark should have asked for a temporary lifting first, he should have known this would be seen as violating the topic ban, and I don't there there is any question these are textbook violations, but if I'm fair, I have to admit the circumstances here are very different than arguing on an article talk page. How much that should play into sanctions, I leave to those that are totally uninvolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by James J. Lambden

This is getting ridiculous.

@MarkBernstein: If “professional obligations” necessitate your posting to wikipedia, you must disclose any potential overlap - see WP:PAID and WP:COI. If not, it’s irrelevant.

The spirit of the restrictions are straightforward: avoid Gamergate and DHeyward. If you can abide by that I’m sure you can be productive elsewhere. If not, the community has better things do than police this “I’m not touching youuuu” nonsense.

Regarding “the instruction[s] received from the responsible administrator” you’ve been asked to clarify whether this came before or after you made the following comment (diff in Kingsindian’s section):

I was momentarily under the mistaken impression that the tridirectional DHeyward topic ban had been waived for noticeboard complaints. It had in fact only been waived for initiating noticeboard complaints.

Despite several posts you have not clarified. Please clarify so we can wrap this up. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Thank you for clarifying the dates. If that's the case the responsible administrator has given apparently conflicting instructions which you shouldn't be held responsible for. I suggest the complaints re: your interactions with DHeyward be dismissed and either the responsible administrator clarifies explicitly, on wiki, the scope of the interaction ban or another administrator applies a more straightforward restriction. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72

The diffs provided by NE Ent and Starke Hathaway are clearly in breach of the respective topic bans. The advice provided by the Admin imposing the "DHeyward" topic ban explicitly states that commenting on the other topic banned person is within the scope of the ban; the diffs show comment on that person.
I would suggest, however, that this is mainly supportive of the inadequacies of the topic ban itself; and demonstrative of the the inconsistent application of these bans thus far. I, therefore, recommend no sanction on the basis of the clear breach of the ban on commenting on DHeyward; but do firmly recommend that Admins should find consensus that this ban; and the corresponding bans on DHeyward and Thargor Orlando should be rescinded.
The clear, continued, breaches of the topic ban on Gamergate, however, I leave to the mercies of those same persons (tender or elsewise). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

Can we just be done with this now? Since MB's topic ban he's done nothing but dance around or step over the edges as the difs above show. The idea of TB is that an editor moves on to something else. MB is not moving on. It's endless innuendo and boundary pushing. We have a rather strange Iban from an admin who won't even respond that is basically unenforceable at this point and a Tban that has either has teeth or it doesn't. Capeo (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

Agree with Capeo. This is gaming the system, plain and simple. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

• MarkBernstein, can you provide a link to this discussion you had with the admin? I think it's important to see it in context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • MarkBernstein can confirm, but given the reference to "you may quote this on-wiki," I take it that this was communicated by e-mail or similar, not on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• MarkBernstein, just as a point of clarity, asking the sanctioning administrator for a good-faith clarification about the scope of a topic ban would not be a violation of that ban. "Asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" is explicitly listed as a ban exception. However, I do see some difference between the sanctioning administrator giving permission to participate in a case in general, and specifically replying directly to and arguing with another individual subject to the IBAN during participation in that case. I don't see anything in Gamaliel's clarification that would allow direct interaction, just general participation in the same area. The exemption is for "...commenting on an issue or an edit or a person who was not one of the two of you...", which seems to explicitly rule out commenting on an issue or an edit or a person when it is one of the two. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• If the admin that MarkB is referring to above is Gamaliel, then this is the most recent on-wiki clarification (November, 2015) of MarkB's interaction ban from DHeyward in the words of Gamaliel. He is allowing MarkB and DHeyward to open enforcement requests against each other, but "The topic ban on discussing one another otherwise remains in place." The original ban as well as the above revision can still be found in WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015 by searching for the word 'Thargor.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• While Mark doesn't outright say the word "Gamergate" (except when he does), it is blatantly obvious that that's what he's talking about. There are also the diffs of him plainly referencing DHeyward, without necessarily using the name. The sanctions he is under are bans from discussing the topics, not just mentioning the words, and these diffs would appear to show Mark testing the boundaries. While I don't think a block to enforce the ban is necessary or warranted here, it would be a good idea to formally clarify whether or not this is allowed under the terms of his active sanctions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Gala19000

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 Gala19000

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

Oatitonimly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Gala19000 (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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe (specifically concerning Turkish conflicts with Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian, and Kurdish)

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

• 3 November 2015 calls a user an Armenian nationalist
• 3 November 2015 calls a user a Bulgarian nationalist
• 3 November 2015 calls a user a Bulgarian nationalist again
• 8 November 2015 calls another user a nationalist
• 30 November 2015 calls a user an Albanian nationalist
• 18 December 2015 calls a user an Albanian nationalist again
• 28 December 2015 calls a user an Albanian nationalist yet again
• 7 January 2016 calls a Kurdish user a nationalist

• 13 January 2016[93][94] removes sourced content and puts unsourced claim, edit warring, breaks WP:3RR on Operation Steel
• [95][96][97] edit warring and removes sourced content on Zeitun Rebellion (1895–96)
• [98][99][100] adds WP:ALLEGED and removes sourced content on Battle of Holy Apostles Monastery
• 7 November 2015 replaces sourced content with unsourced claims on Siege of Berat (1455)
• 17 December 2015 removes sourced content on Greco-Turkish War (1897)
• [101][102][103][104] edit warring on Siege of Plevna
• 10 January 2016[105] edit warring on Greek War of Independence
• 13 December 2015 removes sourced content
• [106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113] removing sourced content, edit warring, and breaking three revert rule on Gülbahar Hatun
• 7 December 2015[114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128]24 January 2016 many instances of edit warring, removing sourced content, and adding unsourced content on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)
• 27 February 2016[129] edit waring on February 2016 Ankara bombing
• 6 March 2016[130][131][132]22 April 2016 edit warring on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) still
• 3 April 2016[133][134][135][136][137][138]3 April 2016 3RR broken on Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War
• 3 May 2016[139][140]3 May 2016 3RR broken on on Turkish War of Independence

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

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

• [141] warned about edit warring
• [142] warned about topic bans
• [143] warned about edit warring again and three revert rule
• [144] reported for edit warring on noticeboard
• [145] warned about topic bans again, by admin
• [146] reported for edit warring on noticeboard again
• [147] warned about edit warring yet again
• [148] warned about harassment
• [149] warned for edit warring
• [150] warned for disruptive editing
• [151] edit warring notice
• [152] edit warring notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This user has a tremendous history of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:PERSONAL, and WP:EDITWAR ever since joining wikipedia and has only gotten warnings, seems to think this is a game. An indefinite topic ban is strongly needed. Oatitonimly (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DatGuy User:Ferakp User:EtienneDolet User:KrakatoaKatie User:Amortias User:Mr.User200 User:Jim1138 User:Cahk These users have all been involved with Gala19000's tedious editing and given him various warnings, both shown above. I invite them all to come here and give their thoughts if they wish to. --Oatitonimly (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[153]

Discussion concerning Gala19000

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 Ferakp

I had a lot of problems with Galaa19000, I mean a lot of problems. I had to explain word by word all violations, but the user still continued to attack me and after I didn't give up and explained more clearly all violations, user disappeared. The user has played with many articles and involved at least in cherry picking, violated WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL. This user is cooperating with some other users who has just recently reported me after I warned them to not involve in edit wars and use the talk page.Ferakp (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinian Ape

The OP here is engaging in a canvassing attempt to rally editors whom they assume would support their Enforcement request by piling on the reported editor. I noted this earlier in here(see my original comment below) but the editor asked me in my talk page to remove my comment. I said I only would do that, if they acknowledge(in their AE request) that the canvassing behavior was wrong and pledge they won't do it again so that they inform pinged editors that there is foul play in notifications and they can act accordingly, that task is up to me now. Unfortunately Oatitonimly did not comply and I am re-posting it as I said I would. I will also be updating my AN/I request because the editor doesn't seem to understand why what they did was wrong, instead blaming me of gaming the system and any other violations they can think of.(though they deny it when they are called out.) You can check my talk page for the interaction between us.

As for the complaint, I assume the reason why any admin or editor haven't commented on it until the canvassing attempt by Oatitonimly is that there are too many diffs(many of them 6+ months stale), but at best it's just an example of a Pot calling the kettle black. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

My original statement: ‎

"‎@Oatitonimly, I wouldn't advise canvassing on the AE page, or anywhere for that matter. Especially since you were reported at AN/I for, among other things, canvassing.Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)"

Statement by Mr.User200

User Gala19000 have a Turkish history related activity, mostly a heavily Pro Turkish bias. Also his/her use of offensive words could be considered as evidence to block him for a period of time. I have seen many cases like this in Modern Middle East articles, and I recommend to keep an eye on another user: User talk:Zimimi.
Mr.User200 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Gala19000

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HughD

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 

HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Hugh (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed 

20 April 2016 extension of topic ban from August 28, 2016 to January 1, 2017,

imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive190#HughD_2,
logged at WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#American_politics_2

Administrator imposing the sanction 

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

Notification of that administrator 

notice

Statement by HughD

Respectfully request consideration of an appeal of the topic ban extension.

1. Proportionality. No disruption to the project or harm to the encyclopedia was reported. No uncivil behavior.
2. Incorrect interpretation of topic ban scope. No topic ban violation was reported. Institute for Energy Research, American Petroleum Institute, and Mother Jones (magazine) are not in scope of any reasonable, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:TBAN-complaint application to the topic of "conservative US politics from 2009 to the present."
3. Lack of notification and logging. No notice to topic banned editor of topic ban under WP:ARBCC. No notice to topic banned editor that climate change WP:ARBCC was in scope to a topic ban on "conservative US politics from 2009 to the present" under WP:ARBAP2. Topic ban extended to cover multiple content disputes of complainant and commenter and enforced retroactively to accommodate complainant and commenter use of behavioral noticeboards to select their collaborators on their articles.
4. Absence of due diligence. No consideration of the editorial behavior of complainant and commenter ("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. "). No consideration of context of harassment (commenter is a single-purpose account, serial noticeboard specialist whose sole project is harassment), and content dispute (complainant is owner, leading patroller, and sanitizer of articles on conservative American organizations; please see, for example, top two articles Club for Growth, State Policy Network, and about a hundred articles affiliated with the State Policy Network), improperly escalated to behavior noticeboard filing; please see only the most recent in along history of co-ordinating a campaign in pursuit of favored content at behavioral noticeboards at User_talk:Springee#Advice. Shortfall in goal of creating an acceptable collaborative editing environment. In one hour, enforcing admin banned three editors and extending a topic ban WP:NODEADLINE.

Thank you.

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

1 and 4 appear to relate to the prior topic ban extension I did, 2 and 3 to the one underway above.

re 2 and 3 you can't appeal a decision in progress, and I have not been involved.

re 1 and 4; there is an extensive warnings, blocks, sanctions, and findings history. Hugh appears just not to get it. Steadfast insistence nothing is wrong after that history brings into question motives and suitability for participation on an ongoing basis.

re 4 and other users, I did not see actionable problems or taunting. Other admins looked and don't appear to have. That is not excluding that such may exist, but users are not entitled to insist upon daylong situation history review deep dives for every sanction. At 45 min of history review the results seemed actionable and unambiguous. The diffs from the complaint were sufficient to uphold the claims and there was more in history review (plus the prior blocks and sanctions and their specifics, which took another 15 min or so).

Hugh is entitled to due diligence, not endless indulgence.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SafeHaven86

I'm the one who brought forward the complaint that HughD is appealing here. I find his 4th point, "No consideration of context of harassment and content dispute improperly escalated to behavior noticeboard filing..." to be incredibly odd and misleading. There is a context of harassment to be looked at here--HughD's harassing behavior toward me (see here)--but the idea that I am harassing him somehow comes out of nowhere and isn't an accusation I remember him making before. As for the "content dispute being improperly escalated," I also have no idea what he's talking about. We're not currently engaged in any content disputes, nor have we been for some time. I wasn't escalating anything by bringing it here, I just noticed he was repeatedly violating his topic ban and I was tired of him not facing any consequences for doing so. I would have much more sympathy for HughD if he had even once expressed humility or contrition about his behavior, but despite a growing block and sanctions log, I've never once seen him admit the tiniest iota of fault in any of his many troubles here on Wikipedia. His inability to self-regulate his topic ban unfortunately leaves no options besides a block. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I opined in the extension, I think the 6 month extension was actually my idea. The purpose was to not block Hugh and instead deal with the problem at hand, Hugh skirting his topic ban by making edits on political topics. These weren't blatant violations, like editing Ted Cruz's article, but they were in clearly political areas. Both AE requests were spent arguing why the admin were wrong instead of seeking a way to edit without bouncing along the boundaries of the topic ban. If an editor doesn't show a willingness to stay as far away from the area in which they were banned, our first concern is the rest of the encyclopedia. I thought an extension without blocks or other sanctions was pretty light. I stand by my previous statements and opinions, although I don't expect to post more about it, instead relying on uninvolved admin to review and decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ricky81682

In my view, this is moot in light of the closing above. The topic ban is now indefinite and expanded significantly and the editor is currently blocked as well. If there's an appeal on that decision (which given history is likely) then a explanation to justify that sanction request can be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved. I forgot that I responded in that discussion. Can't be involved and uninvolved and whatnot with all the repeated discussions. - Ricky81682 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

(Commenting here as I imposed the most recent sanction). I think the suggestion by Ricky81682 is a good one. I think, with the most recent sanctions I've imposed, this is essentially moot. HughD has indicated that he will appeal the most recent set of sanctions; if so, I think we should close this request and let him speak to why the current sanctions should be modified or lifted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by HughD

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