Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive235

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#Amendments :

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

1. 30 May Clear-cut reflection on my general competence as an admin

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Several earlier enforcement measures

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

N/A

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

The posting admin already has a grudge here against me, but that notwithstanding, he has erroneously posted two items to the main page in the past few days against consensus or when clearly not ready. This is a direct (and ongoing) dereliction of duty. Per WP:ADMINACCT, anyone is free to question the actions of admins and in particular those who demonstrate "repeated or consistent poor judgment". Asking for another admin to post ITN items is common sense in this situation where we are seeing inappropriate use of admin tools time and again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem I'm not "attacking" anyone, if so that would be subject to WP:NPA. I'm arguing strongly, but actually I'm usually the one on the receiving end of NPAs, which I rarely do anything about because I rise above them. We disagree on the approach to some items at ITNC, but then I'm not alone in disagreeing with you either, yet that goes unnoticed... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, Black Kite makes a good point. I made no general comments on anyone’s competence, I made some very specific comments relating to a Kimberly of bad judgements made by one specific admin in one very specific part of the project. One of these mistakes has been rectified but the other remains. And this comes on the back of other such errors that nearly led to the admin in question being stopped from making such edits in the past (especially after turning the text purple when Prince died). The issues are very specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Masem, trying to control what people can and cannot say is censorship. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have to agree this is a clear-cut violation. I have seen TRM getting more out of line lately at ITNC, of which some I would chalk up to some poor interactions towards TRM by at least one user LaserLegs (talk · contribs) who is very ornery with TRM; I was attempting to mediate that through this section (diff of last added comment to that section) on WT:ITN. But TRM has gotten more out of line and there was no reason at all to jump on ed17 here in the manner spoken. This alone is a problem but I would also consider that TRM's attitude outside of of this specific incedent makes it moreso . (See this ongoing discussion WT:ITN#Do away with significance as a criterion altogether where TRM is pretty much attacking anyone disagreeing with their stance) While TRM's behavior in that convo is not directly covered by the AE remedies, they are very hostile and one small step away from what the modified AE remedy covers. Add to this statement towards ed17, and something needs to be done. There's no collaboration happening here. --Masem (t) 14:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: That brings up the question of where do we draw the line. I agree the restrictions on TRM do not prevent them from stating that an admin misposted ITNs before and so may want to recheck their work in this specific posting. But where does one draw the line between "specific" and "general" competence that TRM should not discuss? The last think we want is any user under an AE restriction to toe that line, hence why we consider AEs to be broadly interpreted. I don't think we can draw that line in any clear way. --Masem (t) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have gained a thicker skin so I wouldn't have brought these up in isolation (and as I noted, in the midst of conflict with LaserLegs), but I will point out, in the WT:ITN discussion above, that TRM accuses me of trying to censor discussion [1] and [2] which itself is a violation of "posting speculation about the motivations of editors". (My whole point of the discussion was to diffuse the problem). I've trying to support TRM before, but this is the behavior they were cautioned about at the ArbCom case. --Masem (t) 17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I see no conflict between myself and TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of TRMs points were superb in the ITNC discussion (as is evident by those who have argued along his lines) and I'm afraid that I don't see anything other than somewhat-heightened levels of bludgeoning in the discussion.
• As to Ed17's original diff, it's usual TRM-stuff and IMHO, TRM's statement does not qualify anywhere close to a personal attack.For one, I would agree that there was not any consensus to post.
• Overall, the encyclopedia would be miles better, without any remedy being enforced here.At best, an admonishment, nothing more than that.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction was against TRM's "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence". He was not commenting on motivation or general competence, rather the admin's specific lack of competence in this area, which was demonstrable, fair comment and not covered by the Arbcom restriction. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that Sandstein involves himself below in the space for uninvolved admins. He and TRM have considerable history and his comments should be above the line. I could also have posted below, as I'm uninvolved in this dispute, but I regard myself as involved because of my longstanding collaborative work with TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, in what way is it a "clear violation"? There's no speculation about motivations and there's no comment about general competence. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, Arbcom were careful to prohibit comments about "general competence", not comments about "competence". If you can't appreciate the difference, that's a problem with your comprehension, not TRM's actions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, re INVOLVED, Sandstein rushed to impose a one month block on TRM, following a complaint by the same admin at AE in March 2017. That action was heavily discussed and criticised by many at AN. In a triumph of diplomacy, The Wordsmith stepped in and reduced the block to a week. Here again, we have Sandstein going for (at least he didn't enact this time) a heavy-handed option, despite no blocks for the best part of a year and despite his lack of comprehension of the terminology used by Arbcom. There's a history. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really hesitating to say anything here but I feel there are editors that hover in the Main Page areas and wait to see if they can provoke TRM into violating this sanction so he will wind up here as often as possible. I don't think the initiating editor of this complaint is one of them but that this does stem from such interactions. It makes the ITNC and MPE and similar areas feel like exercises in eggshell-dancing, sometimes. At the risk of wikilawyering: There is nothing in TRM's statement that reflects on The ed17's motivation and the latter makes no complaint of that so this is only about "general competence." There are three parts to the statement TRM made about ed17: that changing an ITN blurb was a "rogue admin action", that ed17 had made a previous error, and that other admins were more experienced in ITNC. While all of those statements might be perceived as slights, none are reflections on "general competence." At the most expansive reading of TRM's statement, the first two parts are characterizations on actions and the third is talking about topic area experience. Experience and competence are not synonymous and any admin should be prepared to admit they are not, in fact cannot, be experienced in every area. In the absence of evidence that ed17 is objectively experienced on overriding a developing consensus on ITNC blurbs, to sanction TRM for this statement is broadening the restriction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the interaction but Sandstein should not be weighing in here as an uninvolved admin. He and TRM have had negative personal interactions (for example, arguing at ITNC and on other users' Talk pages) unrelated to this filing and I don't believe he can neutrally make judgments on this situation. Also, anyone who wants to collaborate on a proposal to nuke ITN and DYK permanently, let me know. There's a remedy for you. --Laser brain (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: A block of a month is on the table for this user. I don't see any harm in deferring this decision to truly uninvolved admins who aren't likely to have an emotional horse in this race. Maybe you have a thicker skin than I, but I doubt my ability to render a neutral opinion about sanctions on someone after they'd called my contributions pointed, irrelevant, unhelpful, and terrible in multiple unrelated discussions. These are "direct interactions", so please look again at the links I provided. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Masem's question ("But where does one draw the line between 'specific' and 'general' competence that TRM should not discuss?"), statements like "...another rogue admin manoeuvre from an admin who has just recently made an error here, and who, in the past, has demonstrated that they should perhaps leave this part of Wikipedia to other, more experienced admins..." is clearly over the line. It is a clear violation of "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the other statements again and thinking about this for a while, I have` changed my mind and that decided that I agree with Dweller and NeilN on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Dweller said, better than I could. Factually pointing out that another error was made, and how even more could be avoided, is nothing I'd like to see sanctioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting only on the involvement issue, the diffs posted above regarding Sandstein's supposed involvement are obviously not diffs showing involvement. Merely participating in the same discussion, without any substantial disagreement or direct interaction, does not make one involved with respect to an editor. Neither does an admin acting in their administrative capacity and being insulted for it, without any response. An editor cannot make an admin involved with respect to them merely by being rude to that admin. If they could, very, very few admins could act with respect to TRM. If there's additional history regarding Sandstein/TRM that I'm not aware of, maybe there's a discussion to be had, but Laser brain's diffs are utterly unconvincing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: If calling an admin those things leads to that admin being automatically involved, any editor could just insult every admin willing to sanction them, becoming literally unblockable. Absolutely not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to Laser brain's comment, the disruption caused by this incident is enough that Sandstein ought to let other administrators handle this case. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got pinged from another user, so I guess I'll comment.

This is a ridiculous way to handle dispute resolution, something that Wikipedia utterly fails at. Completely and utterly fails. You have WP:NPA but you have no method to deal with the kind of low-level hostility that we get from users like TRM (who, btw, adds a lot of value to the project as well). Wikipedia is a social project, it has to be with this kind of mass collaboration, and all you can offer people is "turn the other cheek". Fail. How the hell is this at "ArbCom" in front of a panel of "supreme admins" (or whatever). This is low level municipal court business. We lost an admin who actually DOESN'T go off the rails and post crap articles with dubious consensus over this. Fail.

I'd written a whole other thing, and decided this situation was so absurd I'd rather comment on that instead. Let me know later if I'm t-banned or i-banned or something. FFS. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If I had a problem with the way TRM interacts with me, I'd take it here, or to his talk page -- and I expect he'd do the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of even having an ArbCom if we are going to ignore a clear cut violation of a sanction? The rest of this nonsense about allegations and counter allegations of provocations and involvement is just a sideshow. Either the rules apply to everyone or we scrap ArbCom and just admit it's all just a popularity contest. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here as I am uninterested in taking admin action in this case. Sandstein, with respect, I think you should leave this to other folks to act on. You aren't INVOLVED, and policy does not require you to stay away from this, but it would be the wise thing to do. The ultimate purpose of this board is to help the community spend its time productively, and I believe that purpose would be better served if other folks adjudicated here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRM's remarks to Ed were unpleasant, but I agree with those who have argued that he did not violate the provisions of his editing restriction. To me, the larger issue is Ed's hastiness in immediately opening this AE thread. In my opinion, he should have been more focused on undoing his error at ITN. This should be closed with no action, and I will object very strongly if Sandstein issues any sanctions whatsoever. Lepricavark (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I call on Sandstein to recuse themselves, even if by the letter of policy they aren't required to, as the appearance of being involved is what matters. I don't really see a violation by TRM here,(he was responding to a specific action, not speaking generally) and I am dismayed that there seem to be those who are waiting to jump on every move he makes that potentially may be a problem. Don't we have better things to do? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather sad that editors sit and wait for TRM to say something and then immediately without delay pounce and open a thread the moment he says something they disagree with, Sad state of affairs really, The comment wasn't a violation of the ban and infact this whole case is try and further censor TRM from saying anything .... Similar to Cass tbh. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a run-of-the-mill disagreement about a specific issue under discussion. Not actionable. — JFG ^talk 06:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I agree that this is a violation of the restriction that "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." Based on the principle of escalating sanctions, I think that a block of one month, following up on the previous blocks of one and two weeks, is appropriate. Sandstein 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, even if WP:ADMINACCT applies here, the specific restriction against The Rambling Man overrides the more general provision of WP:ADMINACCT. This means that The Rambling Man may still question or criticize admins, e.g. in the form of "hey, I think you made an error at X", just not in the form prohibited to him, i.e. by way of "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence". It's quite possible to hold admins (or other users) accountable without imputing nefarious motivations or questioning their competence. Sandstein 14:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Dweller above, to my recollection my previous interactions with The Rambling Man were in an administrative capacity, including the first block for a violation of this restriction. Per WP:INVOLVED, this does not require me to recuse myself. Sandstein 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One could argue that this isn't a reflection about general competence, but merely one of previous admin actions at WP:ITN/C. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite see the difference. Sandstein 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's an obvious difference between "you've made a mistake with this action at this page, and it's not the first time either" and "Your admin actions are wrong everywhere", to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As per the text of the sanction, I don't see this as a violation. The text prohibits TRM from two things "speculation about motivations" and "reflections on the general competence [of editors]". There is clearly no speculation about motives here and the competence part seems to be qualified by applying only to admin actions in ITN (and not to, say, editing competence or admin competence in other areas). --regentspark (comment) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• TRM walks a fine line sometimes but I don't see a clear crossing over into sanctionable territory in this particular instance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no speculation, and the reflective commentary is regarding specific admin actions around ITN, not general competence. Stephen 02:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No violation here, lean instead toward WP:ADMINACCT. The statement in question was about a "rogue admin manoeuvre" and suggestion on what "they should perhaps" do. No need to wield baton here.—Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• While there's nothing to do here as the restriction was in no way breached, TRM usually makes his points without being tetchy, and gets a better outcome when he does so; I'd ask him to remember that. Fish+Karate 09:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Talatastan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

1. 03:09, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics
2. 13:00, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics
3. 15:40, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For the record, I warned the user he is not allowed to edit in ARBPIA per 30/500, but he ignored me and continued with his behaviour.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

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.

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS; logged AE warning: "not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Wikipedia per this AE thread. Diff of notification: [4]"

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

1. had a content dispute with Guy, which Netoholic discussed with Guy at his talk page, in this section. This was fine, with respect to the warning.
2. this diff at ANI, 21:10, 25 May 2018, continuing that content dispute (whole thread, permalink as it is now).
3. this diff at COIN, 19:37, 2 June 2018, continuing that content dispute

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)

• Previously brought an action here, and was given a warning under the discretionary sanctions for conduct in the area of conflict, linked above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Guy's OP at ANI said:

Netoholic has spun out a section from criticism of Wikipedia. He is rather determined to include an off-wiki personal attack by Brian Martin (social scientist), a promoter of conspiracy theories, the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and anti-vaccinationism, who was upset that I edited our article on him .... He asserts that "Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Wikipedia", but the section on Martin does not appear to be anywhere else, but instead to have been written by Netoholic himself.

He's also pushing criticisms by the Discovery Institute and Conservapedia. There is a clear lack of consensus on Talk for including this stuff, but he seems to think it should go back in "per WP:NPOV" ([5]). I disagree.

I also commented on an AE case he raised against SPECIFICO, noting that the case, combined with an earlier one, might amount to vexatious abuse of process - as a result of that thread he was restricted from abuse of noticeboards. So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea.

In my view, Netoholic's response to that at ANI (linked above) was solidly in the territory of the AE outcome linked above, and I noted that at the ANI here (initially wrongly characterizing the AE action as a TBAN, as noted by User:Bishonen, and which I corrected here to reflect the warning)

Netoholic did not respond to that, as you can see at the ANI thread. In my view Netoholic pushed that content dispute with Guy further in the comment at COIN, which was also pointless as I pointed out here.

I just want to repeat what Guy wrote at the end of his comment: So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea..

And he has now doubled down on this strategy of finding ways to use noticeboards to attack Guy.

As somebody who who works a lot on COI issues, I find their crying COI as a bludgeon to be pernicious. In any case, they have completely ignored the warning about using noticeboards to win content disputes.

• Netoholic's response was not what I was hoping for. Instead of reflecting on the warning and stepping back at all, they have gone deeper into "combat mode." And deeper into la la land; the "entrapment" thing is just weird. I have no more to say here unless asked: Netoholic has shown you their approach to the project. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DS alert for ps; DS alert for blp per User:TonyBallioni. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Sandstein, the locus of this complaint is the page Ideological bias on Wikipedia, which Netoholic created in this diff on 22 May 2018. If you look at their contribs from around that time, there is a strong focus on the "liberal bias" in the American news media, academia, and with the creation of this page, WP, analyzed from the perspective of American politics.

  • liberal bias in American media

  • On May 20, Netoholic filed an EWN case about edit warring over the content created by an IP in this diff series at the page of New York Times journalist Nellie Bowles, which includes this blp-flagged diff, about a correction issued on her reporting about "far right conspiracy theories" on Facebook. (Netoholic did not participate in the edit war nor on talk). It is worth reading that whole thread to see how this was clearly a thing about "liberal bias" for Netoholic. See comments by User:DougWeller here and about the poorness of the sources for which Netoholic was arguing on behalf of the IP, and their explicit relationship to contemporary politics was commented on by User:Bishonen here.

    liberal bias in American academia

  • On May 15 Netoholic created Passing on the Right a book that said there is liberal bias in academia. Big long discussion at Talk:Passing_on_the_Right#Sentence_in_lead with User:Tryptofish about whether the lead should say that there is liberal bias in academia and the book describes it (Netoholic's stance more or less) or whether the book says there is liberal bias in academia.
  • diff on Political views of American academics
  • Their last edit, two hours before this diff creating]] Ideological bias on Wikipedia, were to that talk page, here.

    liberal bias on Wikipedia

  • so we have the creation of Ideological bias on Wikipedia and quite sure the key bit of that is "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased"...."The implication, per the authors, is that "many contributions are needed to reduce considerable bias and slant to something close to neutral""
  • On that same day, they posted this comment at AE with respect to Factchecker at your service, in which they placed FCAYS in their "bucket #2 which is "2) feelings of being cornered (as when there one person is outnumbered)"

The purpose of showing you that, is to show that there is a strong line through Netoholic's editing - even clear on a single day of editing, about "liberal bias" in the media, in academia, and here on WP. That falls squarely in the realm of American politics, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll further note that the inclusion of the section on Brian Martin in the "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" page sticks out like a sore thumb. The article by Martin about the WP article on him (author's version, freely available) doesn't use the word "ideology". It does talk about "bias".

For some background here, Martin describes calling anti-vaccination pseudoscience "pseudoscience" as "suppression of dissent" source and source) which is indeed a fringe view on medicine.

It is utterly unsurprising that he considers the WP article about him "biased". I am quite sure that any academic reading that paper will read it with Martin's clearly disclosed conflict of interest in mind; because the source is so deeply conflicted I am rather surprised to see anybody here wanting to give it much WEIGHT.

But it never fit in the article on ideological bias in WP and its inclusion there does seem very POINTY.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• diff Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Per [6] discussion with the TonyBallioni, he and others provided extensive clarification that the warning was to encourage me to "think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards". He also said in response to "Do you disagree that, as worded, even posting to a board to defend myself in a report someone else created would be a violation of the warning? -- Netoholic" that "I do disagree with that reading, and I don’t think any admin would read it that way." Also, per Legacypac - "Even a recent topic ban proposal from Admin boards allowed the exemption for replying to filings". I'd like to point out that my concerns about the wording of that warning have been prophetic as demonstrated here.

In both cases, the ANI and the COIN, I was mentioned by name (pinged) there and, as is appropriate and acceptable, gave a minimal response directly to the point of concern. I did not ask for or imply that any specific admin action be taken against anyone.

I believe Jytdog is WP:FORUMSHOPPING in regards to COIs - a subject area he has previously been TBAN'd from (later lifted with a stern warning). I would also offer that it seems likely that Jytdog, who has already once tried to mistake or misrepresent this warning as a TBAN, might have created that COIN post in order to entrap me and give justification for his filing of this AE. -- Netoholic @ 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I'd make is that COIN is not, strictly speaking, an "administrative board" (not an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard subpage), which I think also illustrates a second time Jytdog's lack of competence (or intentional misstating) has been an issue in relation to the warning. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TenOfAllTrades gave a lengthy comment based on things I didn't say - first, my simple grammatical choice not to explicitly mention AE as an admin board for brevity (which I would think be obvious and not need to be stated here on AE), and second, speculation that I am "wikilawyering". That's not the case - I have learned from this warning. Certainly, the point of all discussion boards/pages is to try to resolve inter-editor conflicts, so how does one distinguish attempts to "further inter-editor disputes" and genuine attempts to resolve them instead? I would say "furthering" is when one asks for negative consequences against the other editor (win-lose), and resolving is when one seeks a win-win outcome. In the ANI and the COIN, I participated, when directed there, to seek win-win resolution for the editors involved for the benefit of the project. -- Netoholic @ 06:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread has stood for 9 days and no admin wanted to take action, why bring the exact same issue here? The WP:BLPCOI issue here is really difficult to interpret. The source in question comes from Social Science Computer Review which is peer-reviewed journal and has an impact factor over 2, and it criticized JzG's editing mentioning his nickname. The author has had some controversial views regarding vaccines and autism, and in the paper he was unhappy how JzG covered the issue in Wikipedia. The actual editing of his BLP happened in 2016. I doubt ANI or AE are the best places to discuss BLPCOI, but it's fair to say the claim that "he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute" is untrue. Also admins don't have any privileges in BLP or content disputes.

Jytdog called the source a "lunatic fringe paper" at ANI.[7] Way to treat a BLP issue.

However, unlike Netoholic sees, COIN is an "administrative board" for all relevant purposes. But the warning for Netoholic wasn't really well-thought. Only disputes are brought to administrative noticeboards. So, obviously when Netoholic responds to someone else's filing there someone could say he's "furthering inter-editor disputes" in pretty much all instances because the boards deal with disputes. --Pudeo (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that there is a problem here, but I also think that there are significant ways in which this is not "ripe" for AE. (Put another way, Jytdog, in my opinion you jumped the gun a bit.) My interactions with Netoholic have been primarily at Political views of American academics and Passing on the Right, and those pages do fall within the scope of American politics. Netoholic's characterizations above, of how Jytdog has treated him and of how dispute resolution works, are clearly off-base. And I do get the clear impression that he has been cherry-picking material from sources to push a US-conservative POV: in multiple parts of society – academia, Wikipedia, etc. – there is a bias against conservatives. And he can get somewhat battleground-y when challenged about it. But, all of that said, I've been seeing evidence that he has been making a good faith effort to take on board the criticisms that have been made of him, and that recently he has been trying to do better. That's why I think that this AE filing is premature. For one thing, I would cut him a little slack about the times when he has not replied at noticeboards, given the warning he got. More importantly, I'm seeing some significant evidence of him making an effort to work collaboratively at fixing content that needs fixing. Please see Talk:Political views of American academics/Archive 2#Representative presentation of sources (permalink). It begins with my raising the concerns about cherry-picking. Then in the "Source examination" subsection, I spell out what I think the sources really say. But see how Netoholic responds to me in the source examination: exactly the way we would want an editor to do. In the next several days, I plan to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of that page. In the past, that would likely have led to edit warring. But let's wait a couple of days, and see whether that happens now. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Aside. Netoholic asserts that his behavior on WP:COIN is outside the scope of the warning he received at (and for) his behavior at WP:AE (this page): diff of warning. That warning cautioned him "not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Wikipedia" (my emphasis added).
  His assertion is based in the presumption that "administrative boards" must be interpreted to mean "exclusively WP:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages". As WP:COIN is not a subpage of WP:AN, the warning he received must therefore not apply to any of his conduct there.
  This selective interpretation of "administrative" is clever but fails in at least two key respects. The first is that WP:AE is not a subpage of WP:AN, yet that is where the behavior leading to Netoholic's warning occurred. It is implausible and inconsistent that the closing admin, on observing misconduct at WP:AE, would both warn Netoholic to avoid the same type of misconduct and circumscribe that warning to avoid application to WP:AE: the noticeboard where the most recent misconduct had occurred. The only reasonable inference is that "administrative" includes WP:AE (and other process pages dealing with user conduct), and is not intended to narrowly specify WP:AN and its subpages.
  The second is that using Wikipedia's administrative processes – on any page or noticeboard – to further inter-editor disputes is generally a bad idea. Avoiding such conduct shouldn't require explicit, page-specific warnings anyway; an experienced editor who has received such a warning should know to tread carefully—especially if that warning is less than two weeks old.
  TLDR: Wikilawyering about the scope of the warning is an irrelevant red herring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks a bit convoluted, but since TonyBallioni issued the warning, I'd defer to their decision about what to do here. Sandstein 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Having briefly looked at the diffs, I don't think this is enforceable as an AE action as they were not related to AP2, which is the only area Netoholic is formally aware of (they are covered by BLP and likely pseudoscience, but they haven't received alerts for that, Jytdog, given their apparent editing in both of these areas, you may want to make them aware).
  In terms of the substance of the warning: it was primarily intended towards filings, but as I told them it could be factored into sanctions if they were acting in another disruptive way at a noticeboard (a part of my quote they left out). On that point, I can only say I'm underwhelmed by the wikilawyering here (yes, COIN is obviously an administrative board), and accusing Jytdog of entrapment without any evidence or diffs seems like aspersions to me. It's been established by this point that admins can issue regular admin actions based off of complaints at AE if there is grounds for it, but they don't fall within AE's scope. Because of that, I'd like to here more opinions from other administrators and editors on this matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this now per Tryptofish. The diffs in question are in DS areas they weren't aware of, so weren't actionable as AE in my view, and Tryptofish gives a strong enough analysis that I'm find not taking any admin action at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement

      Protection log for Jordan, discussion at [8]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[9]

Edit notice template should be removed as the page is not protected as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The page should also not be protected to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it is illogical to do so. Jordan gathers around 6,000 views/day-it is a high level article. 5 out of 95 paragraphs in the article discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this somehow makes it part of the conflict? If we want to apply the same criteria here then why aren't the United Kingdom and United States articles protected? The protection is intended to quell disruption, which does not exist on the Jordan page. The protection would only prevent IPs and new accounts from contributing to the article-which is what I am mainly concerned about. I was advised to take this issue here by @Alex Shih: after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: why not apply the same criteria to UK? The country that gave rise to the conflict, or the US that is nowadays directly involved? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Isolated incident that could take place in any article. Again the question that everyone here avoids, why not also UK and USA articles? If the protection wouldn’t be accepted there then it should not be accepted here. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general I have no opinion on this matter, but as background I did ten of these requests in a relatively short timeframe, and all ten seemed reasonable (and still seem reasonable). Given how much nonsense was thrown around at the time (with certain admins quitting over DS notifications) I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and place (and later keep) the notices. It's not a hill I feel the need to die on, though, and I'll respect any consensus reached. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I should have asked Makeandtoss to get a consensus somewhere, as is usually my reply; I'm not in the habit of making an edit for one editor, then immediately reversing it because another asks (i.e. I don't edit war with myself). I suppose Maile66's responses kind of did that. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment narrowly as an arbitrator on this. Discretionary sanctions are applied to the topic area "broadly construed". None of the restrictions in that edit notice are discretionary sanctions, so we don't need to talk about that anymore. All the restrictions in that edit notice are only applied to the topic area "reasonably construed". This difference in wording was very intentional. Since these restrictions are more draconian, they are intended to apply to a smaller set of pages than the discretionary sanctions. It is ultimately up to uninvolved admins to decide what "reasonably construed" means. Whereas you only need to look for some connection to the topic area, however small, to meet the "broadly construed" standard, you should ideally be evaluating an article more holistically for "reasonably construed". The exact placement of the line is ultimately up to you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'd decline the appeal, which I understand is directed against the existence of the edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jordan. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 provides that restrictions apply to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Jordan is an Arab country that borders Israel. The countries have been officially at war until 1994, see Israel–Jordan peace treaty, and I understand based on our article Israel–Jordan relations that bilateral relations remain shaped by the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. In my view, therefore, Jordan is very much an article that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit notice is correct. Probably extended confirmed protection should be enabled also, as provided for by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sandstein 11:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, Israel also has the edit notice and the protection, which also appears correct. Sandstein 11:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideally, the template should be excluded from the Jordan page because the Arab-Israeli conflict is, presumably, only a small part of what defines that country. With apologies for editorializing, this is the problem with blunt instruments like the DS notice requirement. A few edits in the sanctioned area that could easily be handled by templating users becomes a big notice on a peripheral article that probably scares away legitimate editors. In this case, I say toss out the notice. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Sandstein, the 500/30 prohibition applies regardless of whether or not ECP in enabled, and we will block editors for violating it repeatedly on numerous articles that are unprotected. In terms of ECP, I think our recent practice has been to enable when there has been a violation of the restriction that is noticed. This would seem to qualify. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, per Seraphimblade below, if we find that the article is not part of ARBPIA, and I can see an argument either way on that, the template should be removed with all of the restrictions removed, not just 500/30. If it is within the scope, then I think ECP should be applied as this is a confusing situation for new editors as to whether or not they can edit an article, and comes from the difficult situation we are in with this area now, where protection isn't mandatory but the restriction as worded applies whether or not protection does.
    In terms of the article itself, while I did link the above issue, I'm not currently sure as to whether or not it is reasonably within the scope. As Sandstein noted, until 1994 they were at war, but tensions have died down recently, and the majority of the article isn't about it. The tricky thing here is that the prohibition applies to pages, not sections. How to enforce that is a difficult question. From a philosophical standpoint, I don't like the idea of entire countries being under ECP. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure how you enforce something like this on a section by section basis. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Makeandtoss: I actually think your point re: the USA and to a lesser extent the UK are valid, and were one of the main reasons along with Seraphimblade's comments that I expanded further here. I'm less convinced that the diff I linked above could happen in any article. Having reread the article I'm inclined to say that the article as a whole falls outside the scope both given the developments since 1994 and the fact that the article is not, as pointed out below, primarily or solely within the conflict area (i.e. Jordan is currently at peace with Israel and it covers the conflict as a historical part of the country rather than being devoted to the conflict itself.) To go off a point being made at the ARCA, this falls within the sanctions broadly construed, but not necessarily reasonably construed, and after further thought, I'd be inclined to remove the template and rule that the article about the country as a whole falls outside of the scope (which, in my mind, would also mean the 1RR bit would not apply). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A final note here: if no consensus is reached or if consensus is that this is part of the scope, I support restoring ECP immediately. I think the current situation we have in this topic area of "Wait for disruption until protection, it might bite the newcomers, but we'll block your for editing articles we knew were eligible for protection if you aren't extended confirmed and you continue to do it." is ridiculous and is one of the most confusing parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict from both an enforcement standpoint and for new users. As I said above, I'm leaning that the article on the entire country is not in scope, but whatever the case, the status quo should not stand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think, generally speaking, to apply discretionary sanctions to an article like that, the article should be primarily or solely within the conflict area. A geographic area certainly could fall within ARBPIA in that way (I would certainly say, for example, that Gaza Strip almost certainly would), but I'm not so sure in the case of Jordan. Reading through the article, I'm trying hard to find very much in it that falls under ARBPIA, but I certainly wouldn't say the majority of the article content does. There's information on Jordan's structure of government, an outline of its legal and justice system, history from antiquity to present, climate, whatever else have you. I think application in this case is too broad, and that we should instead handle editing problems on the covered sections of that article as such. So I'd lean toward granting the appeal insofar as "300/50" has been applied to the entire article, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm undecided whether I think Jordan should fall under the "reasonably construed" language of the remedy or not. In a sense, every nation is involved in this conflict in some way, as they all vote on UN resolutions etc. There is a spectrum of involvement, from Israel itself, through to nations whose only involvement is voting on non-binding resolutions at the UN. At some point on that spectrum, a nation becomes "reasonably construed" to be related to the conflict. On the one hand, Jordan's geographical proximity to Israel; the historical war between them (formally ended more than two decades ago); and Jordan's ongoing involvement in the relations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (our article Israel–Jordan relations describes peace between them as a "major priority" of Jordan) are factors arguing that Jordan should be included. On the other hand, Jordan is one of only two (out of 21) Arab League members of the UN who recognise Israel and maintain diplomatic relations; Jordan has given up its claims to territory lost in the 1967 war; Jordan has historically co-operated with Israel, even when a formal state of war between them existed; there is considerable economic co-operation between them; and so on. I'm still thinking about where in all this the line should fall. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On reflection I would accept this appeal. Some edits to Jordan may still fall under ARBPIA DS and related articles (such as Israel-Jordan relations) should be subject to the general prohibition and the general 1RR restriction, but Jordan should not. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions :

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

Source distortion

1. 15:28, 4 June 2018 Wholesale distortion of a source cited to insert something made up into the article, see below for explanation

1RR violation

1. 21:05, 3 June 2018 Straight revert of this is the 1st revert at East Talpiot
2. 16:22, 4 June 2018 Straight revert of this, along with this contiguous partial revert of this is the 2nd revert at East Talpiot

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Banned from B'tselem for two weeks 13 January 2018
2. Blocked for two weeks 15:51, 25 January 2018
3. Topic banned for two months 17 July 2017
4. Blocked for 72 hours 2 August 2017
5. Topic banned for three months 05:28, 27 July 2016, adjusted on 28 August 2016 to a 0RR restriction for the remaining period of the initial ban

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, listed above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The first edit noted, that at Beitar Illit regards Debresser inserting into an encyclopedia article material that is completely invented. The source cited discusses a legal battle about whether or not land used to expand a different outpost was legally registered as the private property of a Palestinian farmer. It says nothing, I repeat nothing, about whether or not the land used 30 years prior at the founding of the settlement Beitar Illit was appropriated from two Palestinian villages, which again has nothing to do with whether or not the land was privately owned. Debresser has invented a dispute about one topic using a source about a completely different topic.

The second set is a straightforward 1RR violation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

Don't know how I missed this. I checked like 10 edits back to make sure that I was not violating any rule, but my previous revert was edit number 11. :( Self-reverted now that I saw the diffs. If Nableezy would have provided them on my talkpage, as I asked him to, this could have been avoided. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Initially topic banned from quotation marks, later all style issues.

WP:AE/Archive188#Dicklyon_and_Darkfrog24, logged at

Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2

But the best summary of this multi-chapter story is probably this comment But the best summary of this multi-chapter story is probably here

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

There is currently no enforcing admin; the initial enforcing admin quit and no successor was appointed. I have notified the initial enforcing admin nonetheless. If his wishes are still to be left alone, please respect that.

I want to rejoin my colleagues at WT:MOS and resume work on writing-related articles. I've also got some essays that have been on hold because they cite examples from articles that deal with style issues. Over the past several months, I've updated the Euryarchaota subcategory, earned a barnstar, done some work at 3O[10][11] and WP:RSN, and helped compose articles that made In the News and Did You Know, in addition to Wikinews. I am currently in the weird position of being allowed to make corrections to any article's grammar and punctuation but not to explain those corrections if asked.

I also want you to acknowledge that this punishment was never necessary. I didn't do any of the things I was accused of. I'll address any specific one, but the original complaint violated the length limit by over 9500 words after a previous attempt got the accuser boomeranged, so it'll have to be point-on-request or we'll be here all month. I wasn't ready for a case that size, and I can believe your colleagues weren't either—one of the admins later said something to the effect that he didn't even read the complaint—but I want my name cleared. For now, just the big ones: When I asked the then-enforcing admin why I was t-banned, he said, "Because you falsified an ENGVAR claim—you lied when you said British and American punctuation styles are different, just to make trouble" exact words here. No I didn't: Among the many sources that address this, here is an easy-to-read chart and formal style book. Whether you think I'm right or wrong, I am absolutely not fabricating anything. There are times when you can get punished on Wikipedia for saying water is wet, but "Water isn't wet; you made that up!" does not benefit the project. But what if the admin didn't really mean it like that? My best other guess as to why I am being punished is what SlimV said, that the volume of my and the accuser's and a third party's conversations was the actual problem.

• This was the first I'd heard that anything like that could even affect third parties, let alone bother them.
• My relationship with the accuser has changed. Back then, I thought we were two people enjoying a spirited discussion about something we both liked. I no longer think so. Our interactions since then have been few. He has been ordered to leave me the hell alone, and, mostly, he has.
• Five years ago, I adopted a personal policy of not initiating a discussion about lifting Wikipedia's ban of American punctuation unless I had a previously undiscussed source or other evidence to present. Repeat: I have not initiated such a discussion since 2013. The fact that other Wikieditors who don't know me or each other keep doing so is not misconduct on anyone's part. I've been staying away from WP:MoS entirely, so for all I know, WP:LQ has already been replaced.

If the enforcing admin was being serious/literal, then lift the topic ban and expunge my record because I can prove I didn't do it. If he wasn't, lift it for the reasons provided. If you feel the need for some kind of transitional period, then lift it for article space for now (allow me to return to articles about writing) with an automatic total lift (allow me to return to Wikiproject MoS) in two months. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You want to know how I've changed? SMcCandlish is trying to bait me into writing a long, boring post, refuting every fib he's telling one by one so that everyone's eyes glaze over. I'm not going to fall for it this time. If any admin asks me to, I will refute SMC's post in whole or in part. Just allot me the necessary time. He's betting that you'll skim his post without looking into what actually happened.

I am not the first person he sicced with a false misconduct complaint after disagreeing with him at WT:MoS. The fact that I defended that other guy may be one reason why he targeted me in 2015. When he can't convince someone that he's right, he abuses the disciplinary system.

Dicklyon, Tony1 and SMcCandlish are three MoS regulars who are in favor of keeping the British-only rule. They are not unbiased or representative of the crowd at WP:MoS. I've done some okay work with all of them over the years. I request permission to neutrally publicize this appeal, call in character witnesses, or both so that you get more than just their side of the story. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:, if that's really the problem, it has such a simple solution: Just tell me. I have had to dig through reams of disinformation to figure out why those admins made the decision they did. If the real problem is that none of my guesses are right, if you know something I don't, then do Wikipedia a service and state it plainly here and now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by all this talk of "relitigation." This is the forum for appeals and it's my appeal date. What exactly about this is supposed to be disruptive?

As to why I've brought up the original accusations: It's because they are too personal and too foul and requiring me to live with them forever is too much to ask. I never lied. I never harassed anyone. The person I was accused of harassing wrote me a thank-you note. I'm concerned that if I say anything that could be read as a confession to any part of that lie-fest back in 2016, it will be read as a confession to the whole thing, and then it'll be used to attack other people at WT:MoS. You should not ask me to pretend that I am an evil person just to get the punishment lifted.

So can anyone here say, "Darkfrog24, we acknowledge that you were accused of battlegrounding, lying, X, Y, and Z. We took a look and we find that they are completely false. But we still have concerns about accusations A, B and C. Can you explain your actions here?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim and Thryduulf: I cannot address all the accusations that were made against me and keep it short. It was twenty pages long. The accuser really should have been told to leave and come back with something shorter, but we can't go back in time and change that now. So, Thryduulf, if you have any particular brick that you need me to show is as thin as a playing card, I will do it, but you do have to say. I also have a full point-by-point rebuttal to the whole thing but it is very long. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlocierekim:I was wondering what you were talking about with "Trump references" and I just saw I had the wrong link in there. It was supposed to be a link to SlimV's comment, the same one as below. I have no idea what that other link is or how it got mixed up in there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I was unblocked on the condition that I not disruptively refute the accusations, not that I never refute them at all or plead guilty or pretend that I did it. That accusation extended to actual real-world crimes and, on top of everything else, I'm concerned about being sued or arrested. If here at AE is not the designated place to appeal an arbitration enforcement sanction and get my name cleared, then just direct me to the correct part of Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth and Goldenring: Painful as it is to hear that, I think what you're saying is actual progress. As for listening, I read every word of a SMcCandlish's twenty-page treatise about how disagreeing with SMcCandlish about quotation marks meant I was an evil person. Every. Damned. Word. There is no way to accurately describe that experience and stay within our civility rules. You should hope you never have to go through anything like that.

There is simply too much volume for me to just figure out which part you think is true. Do you actually think I'm lying when I say "British and American English quotation mark rules are different"? Do you actually think asking someone "Are you okay?" is gaslighting if I do it or that looking up someone else's sources and talking about them out counts as ignoring those sources? Because I was literally accused of all those things—that's not hyperbole, that was in there. Say you really think I did it I know where we stand.

Or, better yet, say that you don't. Say "Wow, parts of this complaint are real baloney. You know what? Darkfrog, we'll say on record that you didn't do any of this weird shit. There was no gaslighting, lying, POV-pushing or battlegrounding on your part. Here is the part I think is real."

I can't read your mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: as noted in the appeal, I resigned from taking an active role regarding this sanction months ago. I did this because I did not have time to deal with the endless relitigation framed as clarification requests. Post my topic ban, she was blocked until she acknowledged she understood the reason she was topic banned and agreed to stop disruptively relitigating it. Appeals were declined by arbcom twice based on no evidence of understanding why the topic ban was placed, no acknowledgement that her actions were disruptive (none of the edit warring, the battlegrounding, or the relitigation), and a desire to carry on where she left off. This appeal is just more of the same. Either this is deliberate WP:IDHT or it is a severe case of WP:CIR.

At minium this appeal needs to be declined with prejudice, but I'd be very tempted to reblock indefintely under the same conditions as last time with no appeals permitted for 12 months. If an appeal is just more of the same, then the interval until the next would be doubled.

Darkfrog exhausted my patience long ago and so I do not intend to contribute further to this request. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to post here again, but after DF24 left a message on my talk page [12] saying she is "trying very hard to forgive [me]", I came to see what might have prompted that, and found only more evidence of just not understanding anything people are saying to her and more screeds against SMcCandlish.

Darkfrog24 in answer, again, to your bolded question: All of the accusations against you are real and have been backed up by evidence multiple times. For the avoidance of doubt that includes: gaslighting, lying, POV-pushing and battlegrounding.

@GoldenRing, NeilN, Dlohcierekim, Ealdgyth, and Sandstein: If I wasn't involved here in any way (although I am only involved in an administrative capacity) I would be issuing an indefinite block round about now for T-ban violations, CIR, NOTHERE and exhausting the community's patience. This to be appealable no sooner than 1 year, with the explicit note that appeals that do not exclusively address why the block is not needed now will be declined. I would also very strongly encourage that this be supplemented by an indef one-way interaction ban preventing Darkfrog24 from interacting with and/or commenting on or about SMcCandlish, this to be appealed no sooner than 12 months after any unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DF24's troubles escalated to an indef ban because of inability to hear or admit what she was doing wrong. That obviously persists in this appeal. WP:OFFER suggests that she should "Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." By denying that such behavior ever existed, she is going the opposite direction. Dicklyon (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that where she links "exact words here", no such words are to be found. WTF? Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please lift these sanctions and let this editor get to whatever they want to be working on. If they go right back to litigating LQ and other disputes at WT:MOS, their behavior can be re-examined. I feel that they got caught in a quagmire of bureaucracy and a no-win situation. There's no need to continue punishing them. --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Yes, I read everything. I just think that, after a while, everyone (with the exception of full-time trolls and vandals) should be able to sort of "hit the reset button". They've clearly exhausted the patience of anyone who has the power to make it so, but I thought I'd register the opinion anyway. --Laser brain (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of the "colleagues" Darkfrog refers to were put off by her relentless and disruptive campaigns at style-guide talkpages, pursued with a battleground mentality. At least to me, she appeared to be determined to drive a wedge between what she sees as US style and other styles. This was very destabilising, coming after the site had spent many years developing a trans-Atlantic style guide—a tricky task requiring international collaboration and a willingness to engage in practical compromise. If MOS has had successes, this must surely be one of them. The German Wikipedia has an annual brawl over German vs Austrian varieties, I'm told, but rather less destructively; our MOS ended up being locked several times due to squabbles in which I believe Darkfrog was a protagonist. Tony (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More relitigation and "trying to get justice", and dwelling on me in particular. No acceptance or recognition of why the bans and blocks were imposed. Same as in the previous rejected ARCA requests, and in the four nearly back-to-back AE reports, and all the argumentation with admins over the terms and reasons for the sanctions. It's Just an unbroken cycle of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Literally nothing has changed in DF24's understanding or approach, despite a thick stack of stern warnings.

• 2017-12 [13] Same projective accusations, while trying to appeal her indef (this was actually a TBAN violation). Same reason for this block and almost another.
• 2018-01 [14] Claims MoS is (not was) "[her] normal editing"; eager to get back into it. Feigns (really has?) confusion that she is allowed to muck with quotation marks, just not allowed to cite offsite sources for her changes. This bears no resemblance to any remedies in any of these actions (or common sense). Talking about MoS was another TBAN breach.

We're now deep into WP:CIR territory. It's a "long game" to return to her PoV stuff, as admins have suggested (e.g. [15]). Or it's a constitutional inability to accept things she doesn't agree with or like. Or DF24's ability to understand plain English is too poor to be constructive in MoS and punctuation matters. Any would be a CIR issue in and of itself, though that last one topically localized.

DF24 keeps claiming I've been administratively warned to leave her alone, and implying I'm harassing/stalking her. Total fiction.

• What actually happened: an admin suggested that others should stop talking about MoS/quotes stuff on her page [16]; so we did.
• We two had a couple of brief unrelated interactions after that, which stopped quickly due to her negative reactions.
• I let her know I'd blanked my evidence stack since it seemed to be a source of stress to her (see edit summary for prophetic words). Her angry response.
• I offered a retraction of and apology for something [17] (which she'd demanded repeatedly – [18] as well as in AE and ARCA). DF24 reacted negatively, with the "admins told you ..." fiction again [19]. I emailed ArbCom about my peace-offering (not her response).
• No interactions since then (2017-09) until this AE.

WP:DR won't work if one party will brook no resolution. "Stay off my talk page" cannot be used to thwart DR attempts. I and some admins suggested a oneway IBAN before. This stuff is just really inappropriate, the more so the longer it goes on. If DF24 can continue to publicly focus on me, it'll be impossible for her to get out from under her self-made cloud. Editing under my real name, I'm starting to have concerns this might escalate offline, too, but that won't be a WP/ArbCom problem.

The request should be denied. Timespan until next appeal should be lengthened (2 years?), for everyone's sake. Forbid relitigation. And add a long-overdue, oneway IBAN. Whatever DF24 says next time, I don't see a return to style-related editing [read: squabbling and "slow-editwarring"] ever being viable for this editor, because of the activistic, deep-convictions nature of the behavioral problem. It's a stick the editor doesn't appear able to drop.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Word-limit extension requested. Since DF24 has (again) tried to put me on trial in her stead, I've had to both respond to her request, and defend myself. I got this to under 700 580 words.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Laser_brain: Did you actually read all the "I just still don't understand" stuff she's been doing with every admin who'll listen for 2+ years now? The remedies in this case are entirely preventative, not punitive. This is someone who really badly wants to get back to what got them into the hot water to begin with (even aside from the years of increasingly creepy projection about being harassed, which is a different issue). I can't think of a request like this which has been answered in the affirmative without a really detailed justification (about the specific good it will do for the project), a showing of understanding of the problem and how it will be avoided in the future, a plan to ensure that it won't, and clear evidence that the person is long "over" the matter, doing great work, and highly unlikely to be problematic in this regard again. Here, we have the exact opposite of all of these things. And this hijacking of the appeal to again make her WP:SYNTH arguments about "American" this and that – the route that led her into the boiling kettle in the first place – is not just self-defeating of the request, it's actually another TBAN violation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, something I missed: The "smoking gun" boomerang DF24 links to (because if I ever did anything wrong, everything I say must be ignored) – WP:AN lifted it (retroactively to when it was imposed) as an invalid admin action [20]. And we all already know that, because she brings it up again and again and I point this out again and again. So, more WP:IDHT and WP:GAMING and WP:WINNING. When have we have enough of this?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24 has added: "SMcCandlish is trying to bait me into writing a long, boring post, refuting every fib he's telling one by one so that everyone's eyes glaze over." More strange, ad hominem handwaving; that's a literally impossible interpretation, since it cannot be the case that I want DF24 to relitigate in detail when my entire point (for a long time) is that she won't stop relitigating. More importantly, it's been the point of everything every arb and admin has been telling DF24 since 2016. I'm just going to ignore all the aspersions and accusations and conspiracy theories in her posts about me, above; I don't get particularly undies-bunched when clearly angry people say something that sounds angry. However, it does all clearly demonstrate the untoward dwelling on a personal vendetta half of the problem, and similar material has been why several of the administrative actions were taken against DF24 in this sorry saga. I've seen plenty of AE commenters get sanctioned on the spot for less hostile but equally unproven allegations as hers. This is a behavior case, not a MoS-as-topic content case; this could as easily have been about Game of Thrones or any other topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: (well, @all, really) I guess the issue is that (long before now!) DF24 has gotten so close to what you might call "part-time but long-term troll" in effect if not intent that it's not clear what the difference is. Or, rather, it's not clear that the community needs to split that hair. The disruption level is just too much. The entire time, everyone's been telling her how to push the reset button and exactly where it is, but she just won't do it. She insists on being ruled blameless and getting to hang someone else in her stead. That's not fixable.

"The accuser really should have been told to leave and come back with something shorter" – except I didn't actually present evidence in the AE. I said I had a bunch of unsorted evidence half-prepared for an RFARB, at another page. AE admins chose to examine it anyway and found it convincing. The diffs (i.e. the recorded DF24 behavior/actions), not anything I said about them. Second, DF24's still dwelling on the "gaslighting" thing, despite it being unconditionally retracted [21] in a very conciliatory way. I.e., she's pestering AE to flush something already flushed, to force me to bend a knee I've already bent; it's some kind of public-shaming and vengeance/justice kick.

This is why I keep suggesting a "no more rants about SMcCandlish, no more relitigation, or your next appeal will be automatically hatted" solution. Just make it a condition that she cannot mention me (by name or otherwise) or the topic of the ban (including the evidence), only her own behavior and community perception of it and how the former will change. Otherwise the 13th appeal in 2027 will look just like this one (or worse). I advocate a solution like this instead of blocks, because the blocks aren't working, the pattern is cyclical, yet the editor is productive in unrelated editing.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot help but note that the user still does not get what they did wrong, and seems to even by telling porkies about what happened (well at least what it was they were blocked for). I am not seeing any reason to grant this appeal, as the user looks as if they will go right back to the editing style that got them the block in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Slatersteven. Darkfrog24's appeal is a call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's no longer necessary. The evidence appears to show that it was necessary at the time it was imposed, and the statement of appeal itself indicates that there's been no change of view by Darkfrog24, meaning that the sanction remains necessary. I suggest that this appeal should be denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This appeal appears to be precisely the behaviour that the Tban is designed to prevent. Instead of a clear explanation of how the sanctioned behaviour will be avoided we have relitigation of the rights and wherefores of the ban. I also am unimpressed by the use of the appeal as a platform to attack DF's opponents in this area and on its own this should be enough to doom the appeal. While reasonable latitude has to be given around a Tban to allow someone to appeal it properly this seems so far beyond that line that I wonder whether a further sanction or block should follow. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't read the appeal in detail yet and would first like to hear from the sanctioning admin, Thryduulf. Sandstein 07:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on Thryduulf's comment and the previous AE thread I agree with Spartaz and would decline the appeal. Sandstein 09:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also decline this appeal. It is simply relitigating the original topic ban and the editor was unblocked on the condition that they cease to do so. I would like to hear from Dlohcierekim, but I am sorely tempted to reimpose the block. GoldenRing (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If the appeal had stuck to the first paragraph, I might have been inclined to support. But spending three-quarters of the appeal relitigating the topic ban really shows that they don't understand why they had issues and show no change necessitating relaxing the topic ban. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing I've seen further changes my mind, and while I would not agree with a reblock, the behavior isn't helping that case. Drop the hyperbole. If you want to address the behavior going forward, say "I understand that my behavior was perceived as disruptive and I will not engage in such behavior again. If someone tells me I'm engaging in such behavior, even if I disagree, I will stop it to avoid disrupting others." The important thing is to understand that your argumentation style and discussion style on the subject was disruptive to other editors. You don't have to grovel, but pledging to listen when others tell you you're disruptive would go a long way. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear from your behavior here that you understand that yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not ping me back here for more of the same "I was wronged, the decision was all wrong, other editors are out to get me" posts. Those sorts of posts make it clear you haven't taken anything on board, and are only going to lead to reblocking. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• reply from Dlohcierekim (If this is in the wrong place, please move it. Responding to the ping). Oh, dear God, so much text! Is this ArbCom? No wonder I've gone cross-eyed, and find it hard to get along. A momentary skim leads me to agree that this is yet another relitigation. The horse is so dead it is no longer suitable as 1) an organ donor or 2) even dog food. I don't get this "best summary link" at all. Looking at the unblock, maybe I was snookered, in effect if not by design in unblocking. What I find troubling is that Darkfrog 24 "has some essays ready to go". I get the impression there is an uncontrollable obsession that prevents DF24 from letting go of the subject. Ever have a scab you can't stop picking? Could someone please point me to the relevance of the Trump references in so far as TBAN's and sanctions are concerned? ( from what I hear in the news, the Trump-Putin election thing likely happened. I only hope FSB hasn't infiltrated Wikipedia.) Setting that aside, and returning to MOS, I see no benefit in lifting the TBAN, per comments above mine. Per this part of the unblock discussion "Darkfrog24 should probably enjoy this early Christmas present, and just get down to constructive editing in compliance with their topic ban. The stubborn determination to ignore good advice unless it is phrased as an "order" does not bode well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC) @TenOfAllTrades: I hope not. Not snookered, I mean. This is a great opportunity to shake off the past and leap forward into a newer, clearer, brighter day!" -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC) I urge DF24 to find something else to do.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Further perusal has not changed my opinion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems fairly clear that this appeal is going to be denied; I do think we should give some thought to the terms on which it is denied. I see three options:

• Just deny the appeal
• Deny with another moratorium on further appeals (12 months? 2 years?)
• Consider this appeal a breach of the unblock conditions and reimpose the block

I'm generally reluctant to indef someone who is not entirely disruptive, but at some point, enough is enough. GoldenRing (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Darkfrog24: You have already appealed this ban to the arbitration committee – twice – and been denied. There is nowhere else. This noticeboard is powerless to overturn your ban on the merits, even if anyone here thought that was a good idea; you have exhausted your avenues of appeal on the merits. The only avenue left to you for this to be lifted is that you understand the problems you caused and know how to avoid them in future. Clearly you don't. GoldenRing (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Darkfrog24: This is the last time I'll say this (I hope): We understand that that is how you feel about this. But you have exhausted every avenue of appeal and been denied every time. So even if we thought there was a possibility that the original ban was unjust and wanted to wade through it all again to figure out the precise rights and wrongs of it all – for some here it would be the nth time of doing so – there is no point because we are never going to over-rule the arbitration committee's decision. Appeals to ARCA are final. No matter how unjust how think it is, your only option from here is to figure out why people are so upset with you – and from what I can see here, it's pretty universal – swallow your pride and come back in 12 months with a proposal that actually convinces us that relaxing the ban would be a good idea for Wikipedia. As things stand, your statements here are only hardening people's opinions against you. That is part of the problem you need to recognise. GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we now decline the appeal, prohibit any further appeals for 12m and block DF for one month for a Tban vio in her appeal and for using AE as a platform to attack her enemies. Thoughts? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will do so today if there are no objections from admins. While a block does not have full support, editors are warned that "[d]isruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose that, though I think there is a big argument to be made for making the block indefinite as an ordinary admin action, for breaching the unblock conditions. GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Thryduulf's proposal of a one-way IBAN has merit - if only because it'll help Darkfrog24 focus on the right issues when it comes time for the next appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed with the one-month block, and also not opposed to an indef block and/or interaction ban if anybody deems that helpful. Sandstein 16:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to see it come to a block, but I must say this has become quite wearing, and DF seems to not be hearing anyone. Willing to let it go as a simple denial with the understanding that returning to this matter anywhere for a year would be grounds for an instant block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Dlohcierekim#The_right_thing for you consideration. I feel I'm done with this matter. If anyone wants to move that thread here, please do. I'm gonna try to use my remaining wikitime for today productively.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

My Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

NadirAli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA :[22] "You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning."

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

• 7 June: Helping an editor with the "article's talkpage" and "last stable version" of the article (Kashmiris) directly related with the subject where he is topic banned.

This topic ban violation was pointed out by other editor to him,[23] but as usual, his WP:IDHT approach continues that he denied any topic ban violation.[24] My Lord (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Site banned by Arbitration committee in 2007.[25]
• Topic banned in 2014 after getting unbanned.[26]
• Blocked for topic ban violation for a month in 2014.[27]

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

Obviously aware per this participation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[28]

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.

As far as I can see the topic ban had a very narrow scope in that it only applied to India-Pakistan conflicts. That left the rest of the India-Pakistan topic area pretty wide open to these users to edit. The diff that My Lord has produced for NadirAli here is dispute resolution advice on a user's talkpage [29] and has no relation to any India-Pakistan conflict. The topic area in question is the racial origins of Kashmiris, one of those facets of the region that have never been contentious between India and Pakistan. NadirAli has not gone into even that topic, merely advised a user on the best course of action to solve their disputes. What I am seeing in both this case and the Mar4d case below, the filer is exerting a deliberate effort to get these users blocked on a very subtle ground that any edits by these users in the India-Pakistan topic area are off-limits for them when the topic ban is actually very narrow in scope to India-Pakistan conflicts.

I am also very concerned now that I have gone through My Lord's editing history. This AE report is itself a clear display of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. But there is more.

My Lord's editing behaviour reveals a tendency to assume bad faith of others[30], he restores contentious unsourced terms (calling them "sensible")[31], he accuses others of violating 2RR on pages where there is no 2RR[32], accuses others of edit warring[33], threatens others with reports[34].

His editing style[35][36][37][38][39][40] and way of talking[41] is also very aggressive.

Worryingly he also has a tendency to cite non-existent talkpage support for consensus-less addition of his new contentious material. A basic example is this[42] where the discussion he cites in his edit summary does not have any consensus for his content. He was already told quite clearly by administrators to get consensus for that content.[43] He has also repeated this behaviour at Kashmiris, where he cited a discussion which does not actually support his preferred version.[44] Another example of his disruption is that he unilaterally removes[45] material which was originally merged into the article per an AfD.[46]

Perhaps the filer's behaviour should be treated the same as the 10 recently mass topic banned editors?

Farhan Khurram (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something but this looks a bit specious to me. In fact, it looks like someone trying to get people sanctioned in the same manner that the sanctioned group were doing. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: wouldn't that be a matter for WP:ARCA? - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any comment about this particular complaint, but I would like it clarified that all Kashmir-related pages and Balochistan-related pages should be off limits for the sanctioned editors. Kashmir is certainly the theatre of a proxy war between India and Pakistan and their respective ideologues. Balochistan is also getting there due to repeated accusations of Indian involvement by Pakistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, I don't know. I am just giving my view based on my experience editing these pages. Even remote areas of these regions are now getting caught up in the conflict. See these cautions for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @GoldenRing: this was your ban. Sandstein 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm feeling that I lack the brain space to process this well at the moment. My reaction is that this is near the edge of the tban but so tenuously connected to it that it shouldn't be considered a violation. But I'd like others to form their own judgement. GoldenRing (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

My Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBIPA : [47] "You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning."

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

Saw this on WP:ARCA and thought about pointing out here:-

1. [48] 19 May
2. [49] 19 May

   Both edits are about a Pakistan Air Force base that has played significant role in both Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

3. [50] 18 May

   Chuck Yeager was an American advisor to the Pakistan Air Force during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Exactly that is the thing Mar4d is talking about in his edit.

In short, all 3 edits were violation of the existing topic ban.[51] My Lord (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[52]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[53]

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.

As I have just said in the above report, this too looks specious and behaviourally similar to what the previously sanctioned group of people were trying to do, ie: run to the drama boards at any opportunity, however tenuous, that might result in an "opponent" being sanctioned. Eg: just because Yeager was in combat and just because a base was used in a war does not mean that the edits in question related to the conflicts for which the topic ban applies. Blimey, if we adopted that logic then these people would already be unable to edit anything with the word India or Pakistan in it because, hey, those two countries were involved in conflict that is subject to the ban. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @GoldenRing: this was your ban. Sandstein 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per my comments on the request above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

יניב_הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

1. 20:47, 2 June 2018 Partial revert of this, specifcally the removal of (including food and medicine)
2. 18:04, 3 June 2018 revert of this

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked for 72 hours for violating discretionary sanctions in the topic
2. Blocked for 48 hours for violating 500/30 rule in topic area

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, still on this page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Talatastan

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Straightforward 1RR violation. Note the user has still not commented on the talk page for the revert on the food and medicine (see here)

@Sandstein:, the user still has not commented on the talk page about his or her repeated reversions, and says on his or her user talk so what about that. Almost every edit made by this user is a revert and there is nearly no talk page justification for any of them. I think a reminder that they need to justify their reverts would be useful. nableezy - 18:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

Sorry, I'm not aware of "partial reverts". Obviously it wasn't my intention to revert this. I simply removed this small information which seemed superflous and POV. Everybody can see it was an honest mistake (this, on the other hand, was an intentional and full revert). In any case, with a simple message in my talk page explaining the problem and asking me to revert myself would have been enough. It's not necessary to make a report at AE because of something that can be easily solved with dialogue.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Yeah, I also knew this was going to happen again. That's because people like you keep making lousy reports to get rid of a competitor. Unfortunately such behaviour is very common in ARBPIA. BTW, everybody can see the so-called "partial revert" [of this entire content!?] was not intentional or motivated by bad faith. It's pure nonsense, just like your last report against me (when I didn't break any wiki rule or policy, remember?). As a matter of fact, I'm not the user edit-warring in this article, and definitely I'm not the only one challenging your extremely POV content. But for some people is easier to make reports than debate. I can't understand how it's possible to make unjustified reports at AE without consequences for the accuser.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I'm not making mistakes on a regular basis. Please, look at my contributions and see if "I'm not here to contribute" like they say (which is nothing more than a subjective opinion to begin with).--יניב הורון (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Pay attention to your own edits before judging others. As I explained you here, you broke third ARBPIA bullet. As you can see, everybody makes mistakes. Make sure you don't do it again.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Not only that, Nableezy already made three different reports to block or ban users in just two days for minor violations or no violations at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think such behaviour shows much willingness to hold a dialogue. It looks like wikilawyering activism. I understand I made an honest mistake by not realizing that removing two or three words from an entire paragraph could be considered a "partial revert" (not to mention he didn't give me the chance to revert myself!). But if I perceive another user made a mistake regarding ARBPIA restrictions (which is not very difficult to make among literally thousands of edits), I leave them a warning or polite message in the talk page first. I don't rush to AE and see if I can get rid of another editor who doesn't share my political views. Is it possible that sometimes the user who is making the report will be sanctioned? I mean, someone can make reports against you all the time for minor things (that MANY people do) and claim "See? Just the fact that me and my friends made x reports against him in a couple of months proves that he is a monster" [even if some of those reports were baseless and didn't end up with sanctions].--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't this user been reported for vagrant editing before? As far as I encounter him he appears to read down a number of editor's contribs and then revert many at sight without an intelligent edit summary, or indeed one that shows he hasn't even read the source. Just today see this. He's not here to build anything or collaborate constructively, and pleading for 'honest mistakes' when you turn a deaf ear to requests for an explanation is a contradiction in behavioural terms. Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OtterAm:'the usual gang of partisan editors' (only those who keep a keen eye on Palestinian matters are 'partisan') You don't have to assume good faith, I guess, but for the record I have better things to do that comb daily through other editors' contributions. I made a note here because the editor in question reverted with a false edit summary an edit I made. I can't help noticing that. In Yaniv's favour is the fact that, on my page, he notified me I had (inadvertently) broken the ARBPIA3 rule, a thing some militants would have immediately brought to AE. I still think his editing bears scrutiny, since most of the revert justifications are subjective, rooted in dislike, and not soundly based on policy. This has been consistent pattern, and at a minimum he needs some sort of warning apropos.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein a quick glance at this editor's talk page shows they have been making these "honest mistakes" since March. What makes you so sure they will suddenly self-remedy their behavior?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OtterAM, six. That is how many times this editor has been warned or blocked for edit warring or violating ARBPIA since March. This does not even include the times he just removes text and fails to engage in discussion entirely, as per WP:BRD. Yet, in your totally unbiased assessment you believe undiscussed reverts and edit warring is healthy for the I/P area? Oh boy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In case anyone doubts the numbers:

1. edit warring at Dennis Pranger on 3 March
2. violated Arab-Israeli remedy on 11 March
3. 1RR violation at 2018 Gaza border protests on 31 March
4. edit warred at the page above, again on 13 April; blocked for 96 hours
5. broke 1RR at Iran-Israel proxy conflict on 12 May
6. edit warring at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party on 31 May

• GoldenRing I urge you and other admins to consider the long-term behavioral pattern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reported him about 6 weeks ago: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#יניב_הורון...User:Huon prediction that we would end up here or at AN/I again soon turned out to be 100% correct, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see by the current diffs, the issues at hand merely involve "content dispute" and should be resolved on the relevant Talk-Pages. Moreover, Yaniv Huron should also take greater responsibility when reverting, to make sure that he does not infringe upon the 1RR rule in Palestinian-Israeli articles. No need for punitive measures.Davidbena (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Whenever a request for discretionary sanctions is brought before this board, it is my view that the acting and non-involved judges should examine the ulterior motives behind such a complaint. I am of the impression here that some of the editors complaining against the new editor may actually feel "threatened" by his posts, due to some spatial dissonance that is often found between editors of different political affiliations and backgrounds. Our job, as editors, is to make good and qualitative, collaborative editing. Anything short of this would, in my view, be detrimental to our encyclopedia. In short, all persons here should be encouraged to work together in WP:Good Faith.Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:, the essence of this complaint differs from the one made in April, when Yaniv was blocked 96 hours for edit warring. This complaint, however, involves merely a revert or partial revert on a restricted page that may have been unintentional on his part. Generally speaking, Yaniv's edits are constructive and good, and we ought not to discredit him for his constructive edits. [For me, and I say this for יניב הורון (Yaniv), a general rule of thumb is not to be quick to delete another's edit unless it is a flagrant error, or in bad grammar, or an incendiary statement. Disputes about content should be discussed in the article's Talk-Page].Davidbena (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the usual gang of partisan editors is combing through יניב הורון's edits to try to find anything they can to get him kicked out. If you look at Nableezy's block log, you can see what I mean about the long-term partisan edit warring over the same issues stretching back to 2010.

Obviously different editors come to Wikipedia with different points of view. However, it would be more productive for different editors to work together to build an encyclopedia, rather than expending their energies trying to get each other thrown out.

From יניב הורון's explanation above, it's pretty clear cut that this was simply a mistake. Given the large number of edits that יניב הורון has made recently, the majority of which are quite good, it would be hard to avoid occasionally make mistakes like this. OtterAM (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I for one think this topic benefits from יניב הורון's presence. The edits in question don't seem to be edit waring, so much as a mistake. I've perused יניב הורון's contributions, and most of it helps to preserve the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia. Nableezy has recently been dragging a bunch of editors to WP:AE over relatively minor infractions - however he/she and the other editors on his/her side seem equally likely to make mistakes. OtterAM (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Just a typical example of an edit that keeps Wikipedia encyclopedia-like: [[54]]. Here יניב הורון's keeps Wikipedia's treatment of a fringe theory "the Khazar hypothesis" in line with the guidelines. יניב הורון does a lot of reverts that remove stuff like this, which can accumulate in articles on such topics at an alarming rate. OtterAM (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial reverts are sometimes controversial. An edit can be made as a simple improvement to the text, and turn out to be a partial revert. Especially in view of the fact that the usual camp of editors is reporting this, I'd keep it to a warning to be more careful in the future. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• In view of the statement by יניב_הורון I would close this request with no action, trusting that יניב_הורון will make no more such mistakes in the future. Sandstein 17:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't examined the user's history in this regard, and would not oppose sanctions by admins who consider them warranted. Sandstein 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• יניב_הורון, it seems you are making these kinds of mistakes on a regular basis? [55] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If this was a first-time mistake, I'd certainly argue for leniency. When the same user was blocked for 96 hours in April for a similar mistake, I'm starting to wonder whether the topic would be better off without them for a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GoldenRing, do you want to take action here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NeilN I would close with a logged warning, I think. If no-one does so by the end of today UTC I'll do it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Firkin Flying Fox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

Gaming 500 edit rule: The following edits in sequence are representative of the users contributions following his return from a hiatus to reach 500 edits as that was now the requirement, and note this is an editor who had been here for years and made well-formatted edits from his very first edits:

1. creates article at 00:09, 8 April 2017
2. Bolds title, same minute
3. adds an aka, one minute later
4. ref, one minute later
5. reflist, same minute
6. another template, same minute
7. in progress template, next minute
8. adds a sentence, guess he's not the fastet typer as that took 3 minutes
9. ref next minute
10. another sentence, with ref, again 3 minutes
11. removes one of the refs from the above, same minute
12. removes a blank space, two mintes later
13. removes two words, two minutes later
14. adds sentence, one minute later
15. slight change, adds ref, one minute later
16. whitespace removed again, two minutes later
17. whitespace removed again, 8 minutes later
18. starts to add template to ref added in the last edit that didnt just remove whitespace, one minute later
19. continues on that same ref template, next minute
20. one more time to the same ref template, next minute
21. nope, not done yet, one more edit, same minute
22. man we almost had it, but one more same template, next minute

The same story played out at BGUSAT, where between 21:50-21:54 7 April and then between 23:57-00:07 7-8 April he stretched this series of minor edits into 19 edits. Same thing at Wepemnofret where adding a single reference took eleven edits.

Since reaching the 500 edits the user has been singularly focused on reverting in the ARBPIA topic area, gaming the 1RR:

1. 01:51, 5 June 2018
2. 24+3.5 hrs later

And finally I'll make note of the obvious, that this is a NoCal100 sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 for evidence. This account specifically was previously found to be operating through open proxies and satellite services and a public wifi hotpsot at an airport, so I dont know that a CU will determine proof positive that he is NoCal, a user who is literally involved in every single arbitration case about this topic area, first as Isarig, then as NoCal and Canadian Monkey (2 for 1 is impressive), and then as Brad Dyer, but I'd ask you consider the evidence provided there as well. Either way, the account gamed the 500 edit restriction and has since been nothing but a revert warrior. Just peruse his contributions since he hit the 500th edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Notified of discretionary sanctions 16:48, 13 March 2014‎
• Notified about the 500/30 rule 22:06, 9 July 2016‎

Not a discretionary sanctions request though, this regards gaming the 500/30 restriction.

Additional comments

The sockpuppetry has never been dismissed. The first time raised it could not be confirmed as he had only operated from an airport. The second time the open proxies were blocked and he vanished for some time again. And based off the rather poor typing (and his trouble copy-pasting) in most of his comments I'd wager he is still editing through his phone to evade CU. All that can be ignored though, the user gamed the 500 edit restriction. That has previously resulted in an editor having the extended confirmed right removed until they petitioned to have it restored following making actual substantial edits. nableezy - 09:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:, repeatedly using upwards of ten edits to add a single reference, when the user has previously demonstrated an ability to format them correctly in one go is not what you are looking for? What would convince you on gaming? Here are 8 edits strictly removing the word "the". 7 straight in2 minutes, thats almost AWB speed removing bolds. 7 more in two more minutes to add wikilinks. How would you like me to demonstrate that the user has gamed the 500 edit restriction? nableezy - 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are edits, not reverts. nableezy - 21:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

A master game player attempting to wikilawyer his way to getting his opponents banned. I have not gamed anything- I was informed I need to have more than 500 edits to be able to edit certain topics [56] - so I did , getting there by , among other things, creating several new articles [57], [58], [59] , and improving others: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same_Old_Lang_Syne&type=revision&diff=741960917&oldid=741376168

This was done over the course of nearly 2 years - I must be really inept at gaming, if this is what I was trying to do. I mean, what is the point of making two edits within 2 minutes, supposedly "trying to game the system", and then waiting a few months for the next edit?

Not content with this, he is also forum shopping , using allegations of sock puppeting, which have been investigated in the past, and dismissed.

the only thing worse than this wikilawyering is the outright hypocrisy. These two edits are supposedly "gaming the 1RR restriction" -

1. 01:51, 5 June 2018
2. 24+3.5 hrs later [different edits , made more than 24 hours apart], but look at his own editing on an article subject to the same restrictions:
3. [60] - Revision as of 23:51, 3 June 2018
4. [61] - Revision as of 05:45, 4 June 2018

- A clear 1RR violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firkin Flying Fox (talk • contribs) 09:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the outright lying - " The first time raised it could not be confirmed as he had only operated from an airport" - the first sock puppet investigation was done in October 2013- by which time I had been editing for more than 2 years. Does anyone seriously think I had 'only operated from an airport" for 2+ years? Ridiculous.

Thanks, @GoldenRing:, I fixed it. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of the 500/30 rule, but the point is to 1) make it harder to create sock puppet accounts and 2) make sure new editors have a chance to learn some of our many, many ropes before getting involved in a subject that could get them banned or blocked. Upon cursory look, it seems FF has been here since ...2011? Everyone makes a mix of big and small edits. Unless there's some big reason to think that FF is either a neophyte or a sock, cut him a break and call it a day. I have to admit my own bias on this particular subject, but FF raises the idea that the complaint was filed to artificially remove someone who disagrees with the filer from the conversation. That is one of many things that could be going on here. That is not what the disciplinary system is supposed to be for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI. I noticed two other accounts making rapid +1/-1 edits a few days ago. One was a new user and one had been around for a few years without having enough edits to be autoconfirmed, much like the case here. I do not have a baseline for how often this editing pattern shows up but three in as many days seems odd enough to comment on. Actually two was enough – see User_talk:Bishonen#Autoconfirmed_games Jbh ^Talk 02:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I lean toward Bishonen's concerns. We know that people create "sleeper" accounts. This one talks the wiki talk a bit too much to be an editor that inexperienced. (A long-time account doesn't equate to experience if it has no edits until a huge spurt puts it over the 500 mark). We all (or most of us anyway) sometimes do a series of short tweaks, but that diffed sequence is downright strange if taken at face value. That kind of trivial one-character-at-a-time futzing has sometimes been declared disruptive because it hits people's watchlist again and again for not legit reason, and also tends to induce repeated edit-conflicts. Anyway, I agree with the idea this should probably go to SPI, and isn't (yet?) an AE matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see anything actionable in the "gaming". It's not clear which conduct policy it could violate. If ArbCom says that you need an arbitrary number of edits to edit a topic, then we can't really fault editors who really want to edit the topic for trying to reach the magic number of edits as quickly as possible. The WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 sanction itself does not address this.

  Revert-warring in the ARBPIA area could be actionable, but we'd need more evidence for that. As to the socking allegation, this should be examined in the currently open SPI case. Sandstein 13:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: Regarding "gaming", standard discretionary sanctions ("refrain from gaming the system") covers this. I and other admins have removed the extended-confirmed right from editors who have obviously gamed their way to 500/30. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I definitely remember during the Gamergate situation several editors that were determined to have gamed the 500/30 system by lots of gnomish edits. The reason 500 edits was put in place was to make sure they had some type of reasonable edit history we could judge if they were an SPA or the like. --Masem (t) 00:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Sandstein; everyone knows where SPI is and they are much better equipped to look into socking than us here. The allegation of gaming 500/30 is one I think where we need to assume good faith; some editors do edit like this, massing lots of edits on smaller changes. So while it's possible they consciously made more edits than necessary to make those changes, it's also quite possible they didn't. We have certainly seen far more egregious examples of gaming the restriction (and per NeilN I am not always averse to removing EC edit rights in obvious cases). And as for the edit-warring, a single example of two reverts in 27.5 hours, not reverting the same text, is not a thing sanctions are made of. GoldenRing (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Firkin Flying Fox: I think one of your diffs regarding Nableezy's alleged 1RR violation is not the diff you thought it was. GoldenRing (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't look like gaming to me. Firkin Flying Fox appears to edit only sporadically so we can't conclude that their edits are solely to get to the 500 mark and then unleash themselves in this restricted area. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest no action here. The SPI will probably have to rely on behavioral evidence as CU data is likely stale. Perhaps HJ Mitchell, who helped out in prior incidents, would again help out with the current report? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]