From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Darkness Shines[edit]

Blocked indef; one year under AE rules. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Darkness Shines[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced 
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12 May 2015 tendentious editing. Reappears on article talk after three weeks to make a declaration that he will be inserting the image yet again when he has been told by multiple editors that it is against consensus, and does it immediately.
  2. 13 May 2015 You're obviously an idiot. non constructive to say the least.
  3. 13 May 2015 And what the fuck is that fo? Edit summary: dick.
  4. 27 April 2015 When is this constant hounding going to be fucking stopped? He is told in ani: Request has no merit but he continues it several times all over the place. Exemplary assume bad faith over an extended period.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 15 May 2014 Darkness Shines is blocked for two months and topic banned from WP:ARBIPA related pages.
  2. 8 December 2012 Darkness Shines is warned under ARBPIA for his inappropriate comment.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them 
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

His tendentious editing, assuming bad faith, and uncivil comments discourages collaboration acutely. He has been advised to avoid these multiple times before and in the light of the fact that he just returned from an indefinite block and still repeats similar behavior recklessly is a serious concern in my opinion.

@Kingsindian: The diffs and case evidence presented is entirely of Darkness Shines and is related to his interaction with McClenon as well as Fut. Perf. It is his attitude that is disruptive. Wikipedia is not therapy. Making tendentious edits, assuming bad faith and being uncivil towards Fut. Perf. and McClenon is entirely on him. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush and RegentsPark: the block was made by Callanecc, because of DS's conduct towards Robert McClenon not Fut. Perf. I had not even considered that diff in adding the request here. The diffs I added also contain interaction with McClenon. While there is criticism of Fut. Perf. here, it does not resolve the concern raised about DS, and clearly ignores that the other side includes McClenon here. There were other uninvolved editors on the page,RfC was suggested, instead he tendentiously inserts the image a 7th time. The restrictions were placed on him due to his own actions. --AmritasyaPutraT 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Messaged on his talk page.

Discussion concerning Darkness Shines[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Darkness Shines[edit]

Statement by Fut.Perf.[edit]

This is actionable under three different provisions at once: as a breach of the civility parole imposed under the BASC unblock, as a matter of WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and possibly under WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions too. On the civility side alone, I'm finding a 72h block as imposed by Callanecc remarkably light, given that Arbcom prescribed a block sequence for infractions that should escalate to indef in at most 4 steps [1], and given the long history of prior blocks and recidivism for the same issue. DS has had more than 30 distinct blocks, not counting the indefs for his various sock reincarnations, and the latest few NPA blocks among these were of 7 days (at least three times) and 14 days respectively. In addition, this most recent outburst is the immediate continuation of the pattern of hostile edit-warring and tendentious misuse of sources discussed only a few days ago at ANI, in a thread that unfortunately sank into the archive without action, but where at least one uninvolved admin observer (User:Akhilleus) opined that the pattern of disruption was enough to justify a reimposed indef ban.

In terms of WP:ARBIPA, keep in mind that DS is already indefinitely topic-banned from all India/Pakistan topics and that the article Female infanticide in India is merely an exception, granted for him to try to bring it to GA status. At the very least, this exception ought to be rescinded at this point. Reasons:

  1. In the seven weeks since his unblock, DS has in fact done nothing to improve the quality of the article at all. Every single edit he has made to it was a hostile revert to his old version [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]; he did nothing to address any of the quality issues noted in the GA review. (In fact, you will find that he has barely done any constructive content building anywhere else either; virtually all his mainspace contributions since March have been reverts.) This: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] is the total of his contribs to the talkpage during the same time; it shows constant hostility and refusal to address other people's concerns.
  2. As a result, the GA push has effectively failed. The GA nomination was rejected [19], and there are no signs of resuming work on it anywhere.
  3. In the specific matter of the image in question, he has conducted a slow but persistent edit-war, reinserting it 7 times since March [20][21][22][23][24][25][26] (plus at least twice before his block [27][28]), against a growing consensus of pretty much everybody else on the talkpage (at least four other editors having spoken out against its use).

Frankly, I can't see any reason why DS was unblocked in the first place; the project will clearly be the better off the sooner his inevitable reimposed indef will come. Failing that, for now, a block of a duration commensurate with his prior block log and a scrapping of that topic ban exception should be the minimum. Fut.Perf. 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:: it is hardly for me to say, as I'm obviously involved here, and it's commonly known that if it was up to me DS would have been indef-banned years ago, but it's my impression that for clear-cut violations of restrictions that come up at AE standard minimum block lengths start somewhere around 2 weeks. That would also be the minimum kind of block length that would follow logically from the prior block record. Fut.Perf. 21:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc:: it is of course true that the arbs have specified a progression to indef in several steps, implying several further chances, but that's the provision for infractions that are just one-off lapses in civility. What we have here goes significantly beyond that. It's a pervasive, structural pattern of disruption, involving low-quality content editing, source distortion, inability or unwillingness to constructively engage with other editors over content problems, and long-term edit-warring, with personal attacks coming just as the icing on the cake. Ed is spot on in saying that short blocks seem of little use here. Surely, the BASC decision cannot be construed as protecting DS from sanctions that admins would be justified in imposing on any other editor under comparable circumstances? Fut.Perf. 09:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of procedural fairness, could somebody give DS a talkpage note that this is still open and sanctions beyond the present block are being considered? (I'd do it myself, but he doesn't like me posting there.) Fut.Perf. 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: Can we get some action here soon-ish? DS is back from his 3-day block, and is immediately back to exactly the same behaviour in yet another case: edit-warring [29][30][31] to reinsert an image that's apparently been misattributed to the wrong historical situation (explanation here: [32]). Again, DS uses blanket Twinkle reverts, without any effert at all to engage with other people's arguments, in fact without even a word of explanation. (Note that this is now no longer in ARBIPA but in ARBEE territory, another area from which he has previously been topic-banned.) Fut.Perf. 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
So what's going to happen now? It's been four days since the last edits in the admin section below; we have a consensus of three admins favouring an indef block, with one considering alternative restrictions instead. DS has declined to comment [33] and has given no signs of willingness that he might somehow modify his behaviour. We are, in short, back at exactly the point we were at before and after every single one of the 31 blocks in the past: waiting for the next time DS will act disruptively. Fut.Perf. 10:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
And .... we're still waiting. And DS is still edit-warring messed-up and ungrammatical POV content into articles without talkpage participation and with false edit summaries [34]. Fut.Perf. 17:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And.... while we're waiting (still), DS has again broken his existing IPA topic ban [35] (not for the first time, and after being clearly warned against skirting around the edges of the ban just at the last ANI thread a few weeks ago [36]). Fut.Perf. 20:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: About your two points: What, a single edit to an article can't be revert-warring? Of course it can. It is edit-warring if it is done as a continuation of others reverting back and forth over the same edit, and especially if it is coupled with other signs of disruptive and aggressive editing, as in this case: (a) insertion of obviously POV-motivated material in the lead, (b) blanket revert of multiple passages at once without explanation, (c) refusal to discuss on talk, (d) false edit summary involving a blatantly false invocation of WP:BURDEN (as the material in the lead that DS was reinserting was a very recent, undiscussed addition, which the previous editor had removed by reverting back to the longstanding version of the lead, so WP:BURDEN would have applied the other way round if anything). Such an edit is an instance of edit warring especially if it occurs as part of a pattern of an editor doing virtually nothing but hostile reverts of this sort, as DS has been doing ever since his unblock. Your second point: what, my noticing his TBAN violation supports a "suspicion" that I am following him? Don't be ridiculous – of course I have been following his contrib history; who wouldn't? I am interested in documenting a systematic pattern of abuse in his editing, and of course I have an interest in seeing how he reacts to these proceedings, so of course I check his edits. Bad edits need cleanup, and bad editors need scrutiny, that's what we have contribution histories for. – You, RegentsPark, have long displayed an inexplicable pattern of shielding DS from sanctions and downplaying his disruption, but in your desperate attempts at defending him you are now taking recourse to methods of dishonest special pleading that make me lose my patience with you, fast. Maybe you should consider keeping out of anything DS-related in the future, if you want to retain some credibility. Fut.Perf. 23:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: what, no admin wanting to take further action? What about yourself? You, too, clearly advocated a renewed indef block. Why are you suddenly talking about your own subsequent inaction as if it was a reason for dropping the matter? Fut.Perf. 05:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

I am uninvolved in this matter, but I have had interactions with DS in WP:ARBPIA (mostly disagreements). While Fut. Perf. was of course within his rights to edit any article which he wishes, and DS does not own any article, it seems a bit strange for him to focus on DS's edits so much. The disagreements with DS on many articles are not straightforwardly changing "wrong" edits. The picture at Female Infanticide in India is a good example. While I am of the opinion that the picture shouldn't be included, I can see DS's argument that it is just an illustrative picture, and is not meant to show actual female infanticide. It seems to me that DS has become exasperated by Fut. Perf's perceived following of his edits. Surely, Fut. Perf. can give the guy a break, though he is of course not required to. Kingsindian  02:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone[edit]

Recent block has likely increased the chances of further blocks. That's why I think that the requirement of 3 blocks before indef is still fair. Maybe he has some plans for better. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: DS has not contributed to any WP:SPI since his return, and last SPI contribution goes back to November 2014,[37] but given that sockpuppetry is on a rise, I think that we should wait for his statement. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Fut.perf: I have notified him.[38] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Glrx[edit]

Uninvolved but have commented on DS at AE and ANI.

ARBIPA. Still reading/digesting diffs, Female infanticide in India, and GA review. Absolute population sex deltas in FiiI (25, 35, 50 million) are very troubling; saying infanticide is underreported (male+female infanticde is 111 per year) gives implication of 50 million female infanticides. Article on India's population, Demographics of India#Neonatal and infant demographics, gives more neutral view and states, "These [female infantcide] claims are controversial. Scientists who study human sex ratios and demographic trends suggest that birth sex ratio between 1.08 to 1.12 can be because of natural factors, such as the age of mother at baby's birth, age of father at baby's birth, number of babies per couple, economic stress, endocrinological factors, etc." Compare also Female foeticide in India. The FiiI article could have a much better PoV, but I don't believe DS is the one to bring it. The interaction between DS and FPaS clouds many issues (see Kingsindian), DS has some traction (OR for sex deltas on years rather than sources), but I continue to get the sense that DS edit wars without understanding the underlying issues (see, for example, Talk:Female infanticide in India#Why do you keep edit warring OR into this article? where infanticide not related to sex is not addressed). As I understand it, the article was an exception to the TBAN. I'd remove the ARBIPA exception because the GA failed, DS did not significantly improve the article, and DS said he would no longer edit the article.

I read clause 3 as applying only to civility blocks. The grant allows DS to be rude three more times, but it is not a license for (slow) edit warring or going against consensus. Three days may be light given the history, but the block length under clause 3 is not an issue for me. There can be an advantage to starting with a short duration: 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and done would keep the civility issue current.

There are significant problems with DS's editing: neutral point of view (WP:5P2), civility (WP:5P4), understanding, edit warring, and consensus building. Twenty-two blocks in 3.5 years. I'm sympathetic to an indefinite block but this venue seems wrong, and there was little interest at ANI. Glrx (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark[edit]

I don't like this 'editing under restrictions' thing because it rarely works. It is relatively easy for the other side in a dispute to take the editor to AE and, given the tendency on Wikipedia is to look unfavorably toward any editor who is under arbcom sanctions, sooner or later the restricted editor ends up banned. For example, the complaint filed by AmritasyaPutra would likely have got little traction on ANI but here it resulted in an immediate block. (I also don't see why there is a civility restriction on DS when his ban was for socking. Ideally, the only restriction that should have been placed on DS is "one sock and you're out". And, as OccultZone points out, DS has been a consistently good sock finder but is barred from filing SPIs. Go figure that one!) There is also the history between FPAS (who, imo, in every non-DS matter is an excellent admin) and DS that colors any interaction between the two and I suggest not giving excessive weight to FPAS's opinions about DS.

As Girx identifies, there are significant problems with DS's editing, which doesn't fit the mould of polite non-commitalness that we're constructing through various arbcom rulings. But, this tendency to be draconian toward anyone who doesn't fit the mould comes with a cost and particularly impacts editors like DS who take (as Girx identifies) a 'blitzkrieg' approach toward editing. An approach that involves throwing a lot of stuff at an article and then fighting anyone who tries to clean it up. On the face of it, this sort of editing is troubling but, from a larger perspective (the 'forest' so to speak), it is actually quite good for the encyclopedia, particularly if it does not come from a single well-defined POV (and, while he may push certain views in specific articles, it is hard to identify DS with any agenda). We get a lot of material on subjects that are only peripherally covered, if at all, in other encyclopedias and we have something to prune and refine and shape into something encyclopedic. Unfortunately, when we toss these sort of editors out of Wikipedia, we end up tossing out the baby as well. Meanwhile we are left with the polite POV pushers who collect enough fringe sources to make their material look mainstream and, because they are polite and do not attract block ready admins, they are very hard to combat. (I know, none of this is appropriate here. But it seems to me that we're continually fighting the wrong battles on Wikipedia!--regentspark (comment) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The latest report by FPAS and the comment by User:Heimstern exactly illustrates my point above. DS reverts FPAS once. FPAS comes running to AE. and Heimstern says "edit warring - let's indef block". This wouldn't even merit a blink in the normal course of editing. At least for content focused editors (as opposed to wikispace focused editors). --regentspark (comment) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc:. Reviewing the sequence I can see that your block was actually independent of the AE report so I stand corrected on that point (and, under the conditions laid down, is probably a warranted block). But, the larger point is still valid. Most of what DS has done would not be sanctionable (or even worth examining) in the normal course of editing (particularly FPAS's last report). --regentspark (comment) 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Re your last two postings on this case. In the first you accuse DS of edit warring with this diff as your evidence. I'm sure you know that there is no way that a single edit on a page over the span of a month, on an article that an editor has edited a sum total of two times in the last six months, can be called edit warring. I hope you're not just throwing dirt around in the hope that no one looks beyond your words. That, combined with your latest post, which accuses DS of breaking his IBAN, certainly gives the impression of hounding. Perhaps DS is breaking his IBAN - innocuous though that edit appears to be - but, considering that you've never actually edited the page in question, it does add credence to the suspicion that you're following DS around. That is not becoming of an involved admin. Perhaps the appropriate outcome of this enforcement request would be a ban on FPAS bringing or commenting on any action against DS. --regentspark (comment) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: FPAS, I've said this before but I'll say it again. I think you're a great admin - except for this apparent vendetta you have against DS. Clearly, DS is going to be site banned sooner rather than later so there isn't much point in defending him - "I come to bury DS, not to praise him" :). Rather, it is this relentless 'digging for dirt on DS" that is concerning. On Wikipedia we, too often, take whatever an admin says at face value and, when those words are exaggerating or misstating the situation, that needs to be called out. Perhaps your motives are pure, perhaps I am completely mistaken, but this is what I'm seeing. --regentspark (comment) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush[edit]

I am with RegentsPark on this. A big part of the problem here is FPaS, who seems to be stalking DS, and other people are piling-on for what are often very minor things. The Heimstern example given is a classic: I wouldn't have survived 5000 edits if that was applied to me. Content creation is a world that too many policers do not understand and if someone was stalking me as FPaS has for a long time been stalking DS, I would react very similarly to DS. In situations such as this, the stalker has the advantage because we all makes mistakes in content from time to time but the stalker only has to find one to push the button. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Akhilleus[edit]

I'm puzzled why this section is still open and no action has been taken. From my perspective, the solution is obvious: if someone returns from an indefinite block and immediately starts edit warring, swearing at other users, etc., it's time to reinstitute the indefinite block. I would have done this myself, as I noted at ANI, but I've posted on the talk pages of one or two articles that DS has edited, so I held off from blocking him for fear that I might be accused of being "involved"....too bad, it would have saved time.

As Fut. Perf. notes, DS is a problematic editor and his edits need to be monitored. His conduct is objectionable, but the more serious problem is that he simply doesn't understand some of the topics he's trying to write about, and so he misrepresents the sources he draws upon. Insulting editors is inside baseball; it doesn't really matter to most users of Wikipedia, who barely ever bother to come to an article talk page. But bad content misleads readers, and in a sane system would be sanctioned more harshly than being mean to other editors. At any rate, if this process fails to mete out an indefinite block to DS, I'll make sure to pay some attention to his future contributions, just as Fut. Perf. is. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Darkness Shines[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Was already in the process of blocking for this edit when I saw a note on their talk page about this. Blocked for three days per item 3 of BASC unblock conditions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I originally closed this however I've been asked to reopen it on my talk page. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Surely Callanecc's 3-day block is the minimum that should be considered. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you want to propose an alternate duration? Based on on what you have said, I assume you must be thinking of a month or more. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've now read some past discussions and have reviewed Darkness Shines' block log. Between November 2014 and March 2015 DS was under an indef block. On March 26 the BASC accepted an appeal under a set of conditions that he has now violated. (More details were in the April 26 ANI). I recommend that the indef block be restored. Short blocks (say from 1 day to one month) usually are issued in the hope that the editor will take note and return to editing with a different approach. It seems to me that short blocks have no power to motivate DS one way or the other. Either we accept his presence, and put up with the constant stream of problems that seem to follow him inevitably, or issue an indef block. After 30 blocks and the failure of the last reprieve it appears that the time has come for an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The unblock conditions said after 4 offenses the block becomes indef so he gets a few chances (I wouldn't have had it that way but it's not m call). We could impose three blocks with long durations, however my approach would be (and is) that instead we impose three blocks (no more than 1-3 months) in the hope that they'll get the point if they don't then it's indef with appeal to BASC. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • My reading of the unblock conditions would be that the four blocks rule is a floor, not a ceiling. That is, if DS makes an edit judged to be grossly uncivil or a personal attack, he is definitely going to be block, and a fourth instance of such will definitely result in an indefinite block. I don't read it as prohibiting harsher sanctions if the need arises. Since this request shows a pattern, rather than a single instance, I wouldn't read Ed's proposal as out of accordance with the unblock conditions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
          • As one of the drafters of those restrictions, my personal view is that they apply to blocks for incivility/personal attacks only - a second block for such must be longer than the first, a third longer than the second, and a fourth indefinite. They do not specify the starting duration, other than it may not be indefinite, nor do to they preclude blocks (of any length or number) for reasons other than incivility, should the community feel that justified. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
            • So, everyone, do we have any sort of consensus here about what should happen? I'm tending toward Ed's view of reimposing the indef block based not so much on DS's incivility as his slow edit warring as shown by FutPerf. Alternatively, I would favour a lengthy block, at least a month, plus seeking consensus for the topic ban exemption to be rescinded. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
              • I also agree with Ed that restoring the indef is appropriate. We should also remove the topic ban exemptions. T. Canens (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
                • With the case DS's return to edit warring, I believe the case for restoring the indef is now solid. @EdJohnston:, @Callanecc:, do you have anything to add at this point? If not, I plan to go ahead with the indef. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
                  • I still don't think an indef is necessary. I'd rather (re?-)ban them from ARBEE, and remove the ARBIPA exemption for Female Infanticide in India. Plus possibly also looks into other sanctions (such as 0RR or 1RR (per 7 days maybe)) as I agree that they are still a useful contributor they just have problems working with others. I'd like to hear from Darkness Shines though - perhaps if it was a binding, through blocks, voluntary restriction to get a consensus before reverting (except for WP:BANEX). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm open to removing the exemption/s to the TBAN but I can only (unilaterally) remove the SPI exemption the exemption for Female infanticide in India needs to be removed by consensus if we want to go down that route. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @RegentsPark: Darkness can report socks, that's one of the exemptions I gave them to the TBAN I imposed and I don't see that there is a need to remove it. I disagree that if taken to AN or ANI it wouldn't have resulted in sanctions, I would have blocked for personal attacks whether the restriction was there or not. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting to keep this from being archived without a close. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This complaint about Darkness Shines has been open since 13 May (two weeks). User:Callanecc issued a 3-day block that has expired. There doesn't seem to be any single admin who wants to issue a further block. FPAS can't act on this due to being involved. User:Heimstern Läufer and User:Timotheus Canens who were in favor of blocking are not very active at the moment. Please respond if you want to do more here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am in favour of reinstating an indef with a recommendation that any appeal should not be lodged before an elapse of a full 12 months and would be heard at Basc (or whatever formal system is in place by then). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Kudpung's input suggests strongly that there is consensus here is in favour of an indef block. I am now doing this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett[edit]

Blocked one week by User:Callanecc. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 20:51, 26 May 2015 Editing on WP:GGTF
  2. 20:51, 26 May 2015 Edited again
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. January 2015 Topic ban enforcement block for 48 hours by Sandstein
  2. February 2015 Topic ban enforcement block for 72 hours by Coffee
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

First diff edit summary is a strange feeling, but certainly one worth another punt at AE. Clearly has no intent on respecting topic ban

Eric's and Cas' comments about contrition and unwittingness are is a bald faced lies. As mentioned directly above, Corbett clearly knew he was editing on GGTF saying that it was "worth another punt to AE". Corbett knew exactly what he was doing and knew this would be brought to AE.

As expected, Corbett's fanclub has arrived to extol his virtues. Corbett's contributions do not negate his willful disruption and disregard for his topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Eric Corbett[edit]

EvergreenFir is quite right in claiming that I unwittingly posted on a page I ought not to have done, but we all make mistakes. Eric Corbett 01:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cas Liber. There's a mechanism in place, and it's designed to punish the likes of me, WP pariahs. Just the way it is.

Statement by Cas Liber[edit]

Contrition has generally been looked upon favourably in arbitration-related issues and it has been four months since the previous block. The bulk of Eric's editing recently has been about content improvement and review sprinkled with some amiable banter. Given the comment wasn't aimed at any editor in particular I'd recommend clemency in reviewing this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir - this probably would have gone unnoticed if you hadn't adopted a battleground mentality and diverted everyone's attention yet again. What does it serve? You feel better having initiated this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush[edit]

@EvergreenFir, I'd hesitate to call a strange feeling, but certainly one worth another punt at AE a "bald faced lie", nor does there seem to be any lying in Cas Liber's comment. Eric Corbett has all sorts of topic bans etc in place and has to step round things on all sorts of pages. That's why you see him so often saying that he can't comment because he might unwittingly step over the line, eg: here. Give me some time and I could find diffs where he muses on whether he can or cannot say something: judging how far one can go can be tricky.

FWIW, I know that feeling because I've got the most ridiculous IBAN sat against me, given that the person involved is never going to find a way back on to this particular project. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: now you are calling it "wilful disruption". Even if it was, I've seen much worse. I'm not commenting on the pro's and cons but rather on your comments, which seem somewhat misinformed. Certainly, you should be apologising to Cas Liber. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: Eric Corbett may not have the page on his watchlist. I had commented there shortly before he did and it is entirely possible that he was looking at what I was up to. We cross paths quite often. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GregJackP[edit]

Eric is one of the best content editors that we have, and considering all of the others who have done far more without repercussion, why are we even considering taking action against him. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

It looks to me like two diffs of one edit have been presented above. Will this drama never end? How about everyone just stop playing GOTCHA! With Corbett and rising to the bait? WP:IGNORE!!!! Montanabw(talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Milowent[edit]

As Mr. Corbett didn't know where he posted, how can he punished for this? Was his post a positive contribution to the discussion? No, but how can he be faulted for this, since he didn't know where he was posting? He likely forgot about the existence of the GGTF, and didn't even know what a girl band was. We all make mistakes. Surely, if the edit doesn't fit, YOU MUST ACQUIT!--Milowenthasspoken 04:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Knowledgekid87[edit]

Eric was topic banned from the GGTF and he posted there, did anyone here expect any other result? I see no evidence of WP:BAITING, the discussion was about girl bands. I also don't buy the argument that this was all some mistake, he edited twice and make a remark about the AE in his edit summary. If the edit had not included the edit summary and a self revert was done, then yeah I could see this as some kind of mistake made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328[edit]

One need not be a criminologist to see this matter as a triviality, a mere trifle, unworthy of enforcement. It is comparable to driving 1% over the speed limit, and enforcement of such minor infractions is widely seen as unwise. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]

If people truly believe that this editor should be allowed to post in the gender gap topic area, they shouldn't be opposing the enforcement of the topic ban- they should be opposing the topic ban. Clearly a violation of the topic ban, whether a just topic ban or not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gobonobo[edit]

It was established at WP:ARBGGTF that Eric Corbett "is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic". Having him belittle another editor by referring to their contributions as "absolute bollocks" right on the GGTF talk page suggests a return to the antics of last year and open mockery of that ban. He also violated the topic ban in April, daring anyone to block him "The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything. Now block/ban me, and see if I care." This is an ongoing problem. gobonobo + c 05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO[edit]

That second diff is a heinous offense! How dare Eric go and properly indent his comment with a colon to show who he was responding to! I trust that Eric did forget to not edit that page and suggest he dewatch it to avoid posting there in case he forgets again and responds to a comment he notices was made by one of his "fan club".--MONGO 06:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir made two personal attacks in her report, calling first both Eric Corbett and Casliber "bald faced liars" (striking Casliber and adjusting the wording to reflect this attack was towards Corbett), then referred to anyone against action to be taken on Corbett as members of his "fan club".--MONGO 12:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Only in death[edit]

@RegentSpark: "Tbans are tricky because they call for a level of self control that is hard for mere humans". Tbans are not tricky, they are simple. Do not edit the topic. Do not watchlist the pages. Do not skirt around the topic in an attempt to push the boundaries. If you want to say Eric Corbett lacks the self-control to adhere to a topic ban, well his lack of self-control is well documented and unsurprisingly leads to escalating blocks and more drama. He should either be blocked indef or released from every and all sanctions/restrictions - because he is both incapable or unwilling to adhere to them. There is no middle ground where Eric 'suddenly gets it'. Where blocks succeed in modifying his behaviour. Its a continuous and time-consuming issue that has been going on for years. Seriously, either block him completely or we should write a special 'Eric Corbett' policy page which basically says he gets to do whatever he wants. I actually favour the second choice as it would at least result in some improvement to the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle[edit]

The block is fully in accordance with the ArbCom decision. The edit was on the very page that he was explicitly topic banned from, a bullseye hit. It is the user's own responsibility to ensure that they are abiding by the topic ban and to be aware of what page they are editing. Doing otherwise would render topic bans utterly unenforcable. Yes, the second edit is trivial, but the first edit is a clear violation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss[edit]

I am an uninvolved editor, taking nothing personally, who agrees with Spartaz. If EC forgot to unwatch the page, that's a fair indicator of how seriously he took the ban. And, given that editsum, the notion of a mistake stretches common sense to the breaking point. Madness! ―Mandruss  02:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The edit summary made is perfectly clear that Eric Corbett knew this was a controversial (if not a flagrant violation) comment due to the topic ban and I'm fairly sure we've had the it was a mistake excuse before (page title should have given it away). Block length increasing in duration per the arbitration decision to one week. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Without commenting on the actual result, this AE request was open for just 6 hours, whilst half the planet was asleep. It is hardly surprising that there was no discussion in this section. This also gave no time to discuss the actions of the filing party, including falsely accusing an uninvolved editor who commented here of being a liar. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • General comment: AE is a tool that gets to be operated by the first admin that sits in the seat and turns the key. It's supposed to be a quick and low-overhead way to deal with ongoing issues. It requires only the judgement of one admin for action to happen. While sometimes admins can choose to wait and see what others might think, it's not required. While I would not at all have taken the action Callanecc did, their action was absolutely within the parameters of what can be done here. And why the hell would Eric still have that page on his watchlist... Zad68 17:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I was wondering the same thing. Why does he still watch that page? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    He might have forgotten to remove it from his watchlist. --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On the face of it, this is a violation. But, the post is innocuous and given that it might have been posted in error (perhaps EC could explain the AE edit summary), it doesn't seem worth acting on. But, yes, it is a violating the letter of the ban. --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no point on commenting on Eric's violation, as the block has already been lodged. I think that, at the very least, Evergreen Fir deserves a stern warning about PAs - it is not appropriate to be calling others "bold-faced liars", even if one of the references was subsequently struck. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it won't help Eric but it is worth discussing. How else will the blocking admin, or other admins for that matter, figure out whether their interpretation of a violation is in consonance with that of the community? --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Point taken (and agreed). My two cents, then: I think the topic ban was poorly written and Eric's blocks have been, for the most part, purely technical in nature. That said, this is the second time that Eric has accidentally posted at GTTF. The first time he reverted himself, this time he didn't. Whether or not it was actually an accident as a moot point - after the first time it would have been proper to take the darn page off the watchlist. Karanacs (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Tbans are tricky because they call for a level of self control that is hard for mere humans and that leaves them open to cries of foul from editors who are looking to get rid of the tbanned editor. While it is hard to fault an admin for following the letter of a tban - doing otherwise will invite charges of 'fanboy/girl' or 'apologist' :) - in marginal cases like this one, it is better to wait and let consensus develop before acting. Unless there is a good reason to do things quickly, why be hasty. --regentspark (comment) 19:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
When a user has been told to stay off a page and ignores that then they have no recourse to complain if they get blocked. The edit summary for the first edit can only be read to suggest that he was mistakenly posting by bending AGF beyond breaking point. There is no need for consensus here as the behavior was so blatantly breaking the topic ban. Perhaps you should move your comments to the involved editor's section as you are behaving like Eric's advocate not an uninvolved admin. Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC) edited to fix template @RegentsPark: Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Thanks Spartaz for your usual thoughtful comment. I am completely uninvolved here. Not so sure about you though. (You seem to be taking this rather personally!) Best. --regentspark (comment) 01:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Gamergate hatting thing has blown up again[edit]

Discussion of notice moved to subpage. Zad68 20:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not an actionable request at this point. Fut.Perf. 16:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Excuse my informal address here; previous cases of this kind were handled by informal appeal on a community sanctions page which has now been superseded, so I'm unsure what else to do.

The upshot is that it was established that off-topic discussions and other disruptive sections which are frequently created on the talk pages in the Gamergate topic could be hatted (usually collapsed), and any disagreements over an instance of hatting could be handled on the community sanctions page.

Well that's broken down rather egregiously and we now have arguments about arguments about hatting, all on the talk page itself. It's a mess.

Perhaps a new rule could be made to clear up this mess, before it has to be resolved by a formal filing about disruptive conduct. --TS 16:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony, if you see a discussion being unhatted at Talk:Gamergate controversy and judge that to be inappropriate, consider reporting that at AE. Use informal language if needed. Since the 500 edit rule was only imposed on 17 May, the benefits (or not) of that rule haven't had time to fully sink in. Nothing that has happened at Talk:Gamergate controversy since the 17th looks worrisome. You might be thinking of an issue that was summarized by User:Johnuniq at User talk:Chrisrus#Topic shift 2. That issue has not continued since Johnuniq's post on 13 May. In my opinion the 500-edit rule could imply that unhatting will become less of an issue, because the off-topic threads were often started by inexperienced editors. Many of those editors are now unable to post on the talk page at all. Some people might consider that restriction on new editors to be excessive though I consider it merely a proportionate response to a severe problem. The restriction might go away after a while. I suggest this report be closed for now. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It does sound as if you're on top of the situation. Unless somebody else has serious concerns that aren't addressed above, I have no objection to closing this report. Thanks. --TS 21:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin please collapse this 52,000-byte section as an AE action. See my list at User talk:Chrisrus#Topic shift 2 for previous attempts. That list stops at 04:06, 13 May 2015. Since that time, Chrisrus has made 15 edits at Talk:Gamergate controversy to add a total of 13,720 bytes, almost all of which appear to be continuing the unproductive meta-discussion. The plan of gently talking editors through the issues to achieve a good outcome has been given enough time, and closure is needed. No doubt everyone has good intentions at gamergate talk, but perpetuation of pointless discussion drives away good editors—after a while, civil repetition becomes highly disruptive with worse effects than a few uncivil outbursts. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The relevant principle that can be cited in this context is here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I don't know what current practice is on that page, as I deliberately stepped back a few months ago to give new editors a chance. But during the period immediately before and during the Arbitration case we had a pretty aggressive policy of restricting discussion to the topic of content and sourcing. As I remarked earlier, there are many locations at which one can discuss conduct issues, policy questions and the like, which can easily bog down the editing process if they are discussed at length in the wrong venue such as an article talk page.
I certainly do not approve of the attitude that an appropriate response to misplaced complaints is to let them play out in the venue where they are raised. Particularly on contentious topics, such a response indulges and encourages disruptive habits. We end up drowning out important content discussions while somebody tries for the tenth time to argue for their eccentric interpretation of the neutrality policy. --TS 01:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem seems to be a mistaken belief that meta-talk page discussions are off topic. They are not. If they were, discussions of such things as, for example, improvements to the FAQs, archive rates, and so on, would be off-topic. As meta-talk page discussions take place on talk pages all the time all over Wikipedia, there is no way that meta-talk page discussions could possibly be off-topic.

Please reply in such a way that demonstrates you understand this. It is important that you do. Chrisrus (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

New York Brad nailed it above by referring to a principle adopted in a 2011 arbitration case. This point is further elaborated in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --TS 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This section is moot because the bot has archived the discussion (I was surprised that it removed a section with quite recent comments, but I see it uses "algo = old(2d)" and two days have apparently passed). An admin might like to let Chrisrus know that their above comment does not apply to a page under discretionary sanctions—attempts have been made to explain the issue but at this point I think a simple statement of fact regarding how AE works is all that would be possible. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Tony Sidaway, Having read the principle, I'm not sure that it is necessarily apropos; it appears to be a reiteration of WP:NOTFORUM, with which I would hope we all agree.
I do concur that the best place to discuss community standards around policies & guidelines is at the Talk pages of those standards; but where behaviour on an Article's Talk page deviates from accepted community norms, the correct place to discuss the deviation is indeed at that Article's Talk page.
Also, as the "hatting" is itself in violation of WP:TALK(WP:TPO) et al, I'm not certain that it's the best support for questioning editors who object to such behaviour. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Tony: You seem to believe that the discretionary sanctions make meta-talk page discussions off-topic. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems familiar. Role model? --Calton | Talk 15:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear admins: we’re at an impasse. [40] Great walls of text are being thrown up as two editors propose to discuss, define, and redefine all sorts of Wikipedia policy on the Gamergate talk page. Is that what you want?

In the close above, it was suggested that this be reported to AE informally if it recurred. It has recurred, and in doing so Ryk72 suggested that if people disagreed with unhatting they should go to AE. So, here we are. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Respected Administrators,
The discussion "hatted" by MarkBernstein, and "un-hatted" by myself is an on-topic discussion of what information should appear on the Article Talk page to alert & remind editors of the presence, and effect, of the current discretionary sanctions. It was opened as a result of other editors informally reminding the community of the presence & effect of these sanctions on this same talk page; demonstrating a deficiency in the existing Talk page notices.
The statement above in some way misrepresents the nature of the discussion; editors involved in the discussion are not attempting to define & redefine policy - they are simply looking to document it, such that other editors might be aware. By my simple count, at least 7 editors have been involved in the discussion in some way or other.
The recommendation to bring the matter here, placed in my unhatting comments, is in line with the discussion here, as refined by the discussion here. Perhaps a better alternative would have been to suggest a "Request for Closure" here.
I do not see on what basis MarkBernstein objects to the discussion, as no reason has been articulated, other than perhaps WP:IDLI. I humbly suggest that if editors are disinterested in this discussion or see it as pointless, that this can best be resolved by simply "scrolling down". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I recommend filing a formal request at AE or AN/I or begin an RfC if you think that will resolve the impasse. I don't think that anything will come of this informal discussion here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The proposals put forth by Ryk72 and Chrisrus have been considered and commented on by multiple editors at the page- they have been rejected by consensus. These two editors do not agree with consensus, and seem to be set on taking up as much space as possible in continuing to discuss it. Many editors have hatted the constant reiteration of previously discussed points, including administrator Gamaliel on two occasions that I've noticed- this has just led to assertions that hatting their 'on topic' soapboxing about censorship and the recent discretionary sanctions placed on the page isn't ever allowed because they don't want it to be hatted. It would be fantastic for this disruptive editing to cease. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC) PeterTheFourth (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The assertions in the previous comment by PeterTheFourth are refuted - The links provided relate to other discussions, and no consensus to close the discussion at hand has been reached. Additions to the notices on the Talk page have been been discussed by many editors, with material contributions from the at least four editors (Chrisrus, Bosstopher (here), PeterTheFourth (here) & I). Other editors have sought to derail & disrupt the discussion, including prematurely closing it; it would have been preferable for those editors to simply state that they did not believe improvements to the notices were necessary. Editors now bring the matter here, consuming Administrator time. I ask the Administrators here to note that the issue is not with editors discussing improvements to either the Article or the Talk page, but with editors seeking to disrupt & close such discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ryk72 and Chrisrus are established editors acting in good faith. I don't see the need to hat that discussion. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Administrators: there is a somewhat cryptic notice that doesn't age off into the archives about one of your administrative decisions at the top of that talk page. Please if you would do stop by and help us understand what if anything there might be in that and any of the other decisions you have made about that article and talk page that new talk page users and/or new article contributors should know beforehand and which aren't already well covered by the warning hatnote at the top and the FAQs and so on. We could really use your help.

Thanks, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Admins, Is this the right place to say something or not? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The question on the table appears to be - Can the hatting be restored and trouts handed out or do we need to jump through hoops, formally open a "case" and get the block hammer out? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if it's required that you formally need to open a case but I'm betting if you do, clearly asking the question above, TheRedPenOfDoom, you're more likely to get a response from a number of admins which I think is a much better situation than a single admin responding to this informal conversation and everyone taking that one comment as a new commandment on how editors should behave on this article talk page. It benefits all sides in this discussion to get feedback from more than one administrator and that is more likely to happen if a formal AE case (or even a thread at AN) is filed where the roles are clearly defined. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a terrible close. What happens when consensus is reached in the subpage discussion, the updated text is inserted on the talk page and someone reverts? Two possibilities: (1) discussion of the proposed text takes place on the talk page and we're back to where we started, so this close accomplished nothing or (2) discussion continues on the subpage, and we've set the precedent that complaints about meta-talk page discussion should proceed as follows: the objecting editor will file an AE request, an admin will review the filing, create a sub-talk-page, link that sub-talk-page from the main talk page and discussion will proceed at the sub-talk-page. Which is supposed to be less disruptive than a thread with fewer than a dozen on-topic posts. Nonsense. The obvious, effective solution would have been to tell the complaining editors to stop complaining - as the complaints, which take up the majority of the thread, are clearly the disruption. For once I'm in agreement with Liz - the commandment was spake and your god is a fool. (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Gamergate Talk page request[edit]

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

The amount of discussion, meta-discussion, and now meta-meta-discussion is simply mind-numbing. An article Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. A small amount of meta-discussion is normally tolerated. This goes beyond what is normally accepted. Therefore this is what I will do as an Arbitration Enforcement action:

  1. The entirety of the Discussion of notice section will be moved to a subpage
  2. No more editing on this topic will be allowed on the article Talk page
  3. There will be a notice placed under Sanctions enforcement pointing interested users to the subpage
  4. The editing requirements for the subpage will be the same 500/30 requirements as for the article and the Talk page
  5. Although interested editors may continue discussion on the subpage, there is no guarantee that anything they come up with will be allowed back on the article Talk page itself; notifications about sanctions are ultimately managed by uninvolved administrators

I will then close this AE request. Zad68 20:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Closed this request has been handled and is now closed. Zad68 20:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin close: Your question's been answered -- yes, Talk pages quite often have subpages so no, it's not unprecedented or wrong -- and shifting the goalposts so you can keep posting ever-more irrelevant questions is just a further waste of time.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Isn't this unprecedented? Where on Wikipedia do talk pages have talk pages of their own? This is just not done, is unprecedented and un-Wikipedian and should be nipped in the bud before it spreads. Chrisrus (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not unprecedented. If there is an issue that just keeps getting rehashed over and over again, the discussion is moved to an article talk subpage devoted to that topic. I've seen it occur in some disputes around nationality/ethnicity. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A good example is the mathematical article 0.999..., which has a sub-page of its talk page, Talk:0.999.../Arguments just for arguments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a list? Are any for meta topics? Chrisrus (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Your question's been answered -- yes, Talk pages quite often have subpages so no, it's not unprecedented or wrong -- and shifting the goalposts so you can keep posting ever-more irrelevant questions is just a further waste of time. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Handpolk[edit]

Appeal declined. T. Canens (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 
Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Zad68 12:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Minimum editor qualifications for editing the Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page of 500 edits and 30 days old. Originating AE request is here. Page-level sanction filed in the DS log here. Original Gamergate Arbitration decision is here.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
I am aware of this request. Zad68 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Handpolk[edit]

Talk:Gamergate controversy has a sanction of 30 days and 500 edits which is intended to prevent people from using socks and such. I am me. I have been on Wikpedia a year. I happened upon this article and think it is extremely non-neutral and am interested in helping to improve it -- and I find it frankly offensive that I'm being told I'm not trusted to be a real person just because I only make edits when I think I legitimately have something to add (like now).

I'll leave it to your discretion if or how to modify, or remove, this restriction. Thank you for your consideration. Handpolk (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I understand the reasoning. It's just very frustrating because none of this applies to me. This rule was not intended for me. But I'm paying the price anyway. Handpolk (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I have nothing to add. I'd just like to be one edit closer to contributing to this encyclopedia. Handpolk (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zad68[edit]

Note, I am the administrator that handled the original AE request and applied the page-level sanctions, so I am uninvolved regarding that article content but I am involved in the application of this page-level restriction. Handpolk's original request didn't use the AE Appeal template, because as they state, they "couldn't figure out how to do that"; I have reformatted Handpolk's original request, with their permission here. Zad68 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My statement: According to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, AE sanctions may be appealed directly to the enforcing administrator, at AE or AN, or an email to ARCA. The page-level restrictions have already been challenged just 10 days ago by an uninvolved administrator at WP:AN, discussion here, section Removal/Modification of restrictions on editing on Talk:Gamergate controversy. I purposefully stayed out of arguing my position in that discussion to see what the community consensus was. My evaluation of that discussion was that there was no "clear and substantial consensus of ... uninvolved editors at AN" (per the wording at Appeals, my emphasis) to overturn the AE action. (In fact I'd say there was a pretty good consensus supporting it.) Zad68 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Masem's comemnts, the notice says, "the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old." My original AE action placing the page-level restriction (which, again, has withstood public scrutiny) does not have a provision in it for appeals by individual editors. Allowing individual editor appeals would be significantly modifying my AE action. Zad68 16:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Close please Can we get a close? I'd like one for the record, please. Zad68 01:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

In the particulars of this editor, this statement [41] indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV / "mass media conspiracy" mindset that will not provide a meaningful contribution to the GGC article.

And this particular user is another example of how the GGC is flooded with inexperienced/SPA editors who have little chance of making productive contributions and how the general application of the 500/30 will continue to support an environment that is more likely to address actual issues and result in improvement of the article rather than endless regurgitations of basic policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem's claim of some consensus of "bias in the sources" is countered by the later ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Accuracy_of_sources and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Neutral_point_of_view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: you have yet to provide any evidence that my full throated support of the article representing what the actual reliable sources state is in any way in conflict with Wikipedia:Advocacy, "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. ". In fact you have provided quite the opposite. Please strike your personal attack. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Handpolk, the restriction was placed to limit the disruption of the talk page - disruption such as those caused by people who do not know or want to follow our NPOV policy or who want to push conspiracy theories about colluding journalists across all of mainstream media and those are exactly the types of disruption that you appear poised to bring back to the talk page -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem[edit]

In comment to The Red Pen of Doom's statement: If we are going to judge the participation of an editor by a view they have shown they hold by talk page, then editors like the Red Pen of Doom should not be participating given they have showed a clear conflict of interestbias (per Strongjam below) in that they are actively condemning the actions of GG ([42], [43], [44]) and hostile towards anyone trying to write in a impartial tone about them ([45], [46], [47], [48] (edit summary) ) and would never be able to help generate a neutral article. So either we judge for all based on their opinions, or we don't judge editors based on what opinions they hold as long as they are not being disruptive. I would expect the latter. I will also note that the result of the prior RFC did acknowledge that media bias existed for the article and thus we have reason to consider how to compensate for that. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the 30/500, I though that it was 30 days or 500 edits, not both (and this is what the header on the talk page says) Indiviudally, each serves to temper SPAs coming on, and while that might mean zombie accounts established way back may appear, we can at least judge the level of contributions prior to determine if they are just a not-very-active editor, or some a reactivated account. In this situation, Handpolk seems to have done a reasonable amount of varied edits within the year, so it would definitely by against good faith to assume they are an SPA for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68 I wasn't necessarily talking individual appeals, just that if it was "30 or 500", there would still be a reasonable need to check that an editor with more than 30 days but less than 500 edits didn't just create the zombie account, say, 31 days prior with no other editors just to interfere on the GG page. As to the point of how it is presently worded, when I look back at the original idea [49] your language there implied a "30 or 500" situation, which I would readily agree is a fair boundary. But "30 and 500" seems excessively harsh in the case of Handpolk here, who has nothing on their contribution history to suggest they were waiting to disrupt the article. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: If the project is going to have to stamp out any use of talk pages to intimidate or punish Gamergate's victims then it also must stamp out any use of talk pages to judge, criticize, or condemn GG supporters, which has also been happening. WP is impartial and non-judgemental, and the problem is that too many editors in both directions are trying to use WP to engage in the GG controversy when we should just be trying to document it. That NPOV discussion has plenty of examples of editors harshly condemning GG in a manner we should not be doing. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: Until anyone associated with GG is legally judged to have committed a crime, WP cannot presume them having done anything wrong within the context of writing the article on GG. We individually can hold those opinions, but if editors are going to walk in with their prejudgement of guilt in full force with a lack of legal conviction, that's a non-starter for consensus development, just as it is to come into the article wanting to bring in further BLP violations or harshly criticize a living individual. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein:I knew users of KIA were planning and/or organizing how to edit WP, but didn't pay attention to any names or the like; I'm focusing on their message when I scan through their boards. There's so many names involved with bans on WP on GG that I haven't followed most of them since I agree the SPA editing had to end. So if it was a case an admin of KIA edited WP, sure I could see that but I just don't know who it was or that it happened. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher: First, I never had an idea that an admin for KIA was editing, but that clearly would be COI too. But saying someone has a COI does not mean that person has to be blocked automatically - but their actions come under scrutiny, and if their editor behavior shows disruption to the standard editing process because of that COI, then blocking action is to be taken, which is one way these measures to prevent SPA and IPs from editing are being enacted. Everyone can have opinions, but those have to stop at the door as editors to prevent disruption to an article. What tRPoD suggested is because Handpolk had a certain opinion about reliable sources, they should be prevented from editing for that reason, which is not how COI works. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: Arbcom doesn't set content policies, only reinforces their applicability, and that community RFC was made under the auspices of NPOV/RS/UNDUE policy and thus still applies. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam: It's what falls under WP:COIBIAS and WP:ADVOCACY; I have no idea if Red Pen has any connection to any specific people or agents involved to make it a COI under the prior two sections under COI, with external relationships or apparent/potential/actual COI, but within the concept of COI from advocacy (strongly against GG), that's certainly there. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam: I see what you mean now, but I have seen before (don't ask me where, it's been a while ago) people blocked or actions taken for having a bias but no key relationship but called out as a COI issue. Arguably, other behavior guideline like WP:POINT, WP:EQ ("Recognize your own biases and keep them in check"), and WP:AGF would apply to anyone that is editing with a clear, strong opinion on the matter - holding the opinion is not anything actionable, but when that opinion gets in the way of proper discussion and editing, action can be taken. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

@Masem: It's worded a bit awkwardly. I thought that it was 30 days or 500 edits, not both. It's worded "the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old". So it's NOT(OR(<500 edits, <30 days)). Which matches up with the Zad68's comment only accounts with at least 500 edits and are at least 30 days old may edit this article and its Talk page", i.e. AND(>=500 edits, >=30 days). They're logically the same, but the wording is a bit confusing. — Strongjam (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: I see no fathomable COI for TRPoD here. Having an strong opinion on something does qualify as a COI. Perhaps you mean something else? — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: I linked to WP:COIBIAS, it specifically says that having bias does not mean COI, a conflict of interest requires external relationships, not just bias. — Strongjam (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Liz and Masem: In Masem's defence, if I recall correctly, that user was not a KiA mod until shortly before the arbcom process started. The overlap of their editing of GG and become a mod was not long. — Strongjam (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

The GamerGate Controversy page is regularly and systematically brigaded by offsite recruits who arrive at remarkably consistent intervals to reargue questions which have been argued numerous times before. Some of these might perhaps be good faith new arrivals, but many have turned out to be zombie accounts revived for the purpose, blatant socks, or other editors who prove to be WP:NOTHERE. The result has been that no question is ever resolved, even temporarily, while Gamergate advocates use Wikipedia talk pages to spread their rumors and to attack living persons. Discussion of the sex life of one Gamergate target, for example, has been the subject of "fresh" discussion every three weeks. And, as Zad68 notes, this very complaint is yet another example: settled on 26 May at AN/I and here we are on June 4, starting over again.

In recent months, we've seen other disturbing examples from Qworty to OccultZone in which outside organizations have sought to exploit Wikipedia through systematic use of socks, meat puppets, zombies, and related deceptions. The widespread publicity that Gamergate's attack on Wikipedia has received -- and, let's face it, the effectiveness of that attack -- can only encourage this.

In my view, the 500/30 limit is insufficient but it's a step in the right direction. One the one hand, a few editors might be inconvenienced; there are a million other pages for them to work on. On the other hand, we might see a partial respite from the regular procession of tendentious tag teams marching to their inevitable (but time-consuming) topic bans, after which the editors will vanish entirely from the project (or reappear in new accounts that are remarkably well-versed in WikiLaw!).

But the 500/30 limit not enough; if this is ever to end, the project is going to have to stamp out any use of talk pages to intimidate or punish Gamergate's victims -- including interminable (but civil!) talk about their sex lives and their supposed frauds, buried in huge procedural walls of text to distract administrators but easily printed out, marked with a highlighter, and sent to spouses, aged parents, employers, or schoolmates. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Note also that Masem cites a December RFC as authority to “deskew” the article for supposed media bias, ignoring his recent trip to WT:NPOV ( over the same question, and which was closed (after a month and 20,000 words) only yesterday:
Responding to the request for closure. To the extent that changes or clarifications to the policy are being proposed, consensus is against them. To the extent that questions are being asked, those questions have been answered. To the extent that this is a content dispute, it should be taking place elsewhere. Enough editor time and attention has been spent here, to the point that continuing this reaches the level of disruption. There are thousands of articles waiting for improvement where this energy could be better spent. Sunrise (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)'
@Masem: My reading of WP:BLP suggests that an anonymous conspiracy without a leader or spokesperson is not a living person. Denouncing the crimes of an anonymous conspiracy is not equivalent to using Wikipedia talk pages to discuss the sex lives of female software developers or to speculate on the frauds their enemies affect to imagine them to have committed.
You write that "First, I never had an idea that an admin for KIA was editing," This statement strains belief. You have bragged over and over again about your familiarity with Gamergate fora and boards; the editor in question was extremely prominent -- indeed inescapable -- on most of them and is still listed as a moderator at KiA. The issue was discussed many times in fora in which you participated; I raised it myself at Arbcom and at GGC. On site, of course, we could not actually violate WP:OUTING -- and in a spectacular reddit thread, that editor pointed out that this was exactly why he used essentially the same name on 8chan, reddit, Twitter, and Wikipedia. This is all very well and widely known. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam:@Liz: I believe that editor's involvement in KotakuInAction goes back a very long way -- perhaps to its foundation. It appears that Ryulong was topic-banned from mentioning the connection in August 2014 -- the month KotakuInAction was established -- because it was a technical violation of WP:OUTING to do so: after all, "L____ M____" here might be completely unrelated to "L___ M_____ 910 there"! We aren't talking about an editor with casual involvement; we're talking about an expert editor who has written tens -- perhaps hundreds of thousands of words on Gamergate talk pages and who repeatedly claims to possess expert insider knowledge and perspective about Gamergate attitudes and motivations which he insists we use as a counterweight to the universal media conspiracy. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz[edit]

It's not that only "real people" can edit this one article and its talk page. It's just that many inexperienced editors have erred in their contributions to this discussion and found themselves topic banned or even blocked (see the 2014 list and the 2015 list). Also, new editors seem to miss the FAQs on the talk page and raise the same questions over and over again that have been hashed out. GamerGate is a minefield that has taken down even very experienced editors and I agree that it's better for editors with a little bit of experience to start editing both the article and talk page to make sure that they are familiar with policies such as WP:RS and WP:BLP. These editing requirements didn't just come out of thin air but have been adopted after months of disruptive editing and an arbitration case.

With an account that is at least a month old and has 500 edits (of any kind, not just mainspace), I do not believe that the bar is set too high. If you have a specific question, I recommend you search the 38 pages of talk page archives (using the search box) and read up on how disputes have been resolved in the 10 months this article has been around. It'll catch you up on the discussion so you'll be able to join in once you get a little more experience on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem So if it was a case an admin of KIA edited WP, sure I could see that but I just don't know who it was or that it happened. I find this incredible. You've been involved in editing Gamergate controversy for a long time and this editor was brought up in cases involving GG general sanctions several times, once where you offered a statement on his behalf. I've only visited KIA a few times but I recognized the name of the admin was the same immediately. If you have spent any amount of time on this reddit board you must have recognized this user. (Sorry this is off-tangent.) Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Strongjam Well, I apologize to Masem if that is true. I knew the individual from seeing him involved here in GG general sanctions cases and when I visited KIA, I was surprised to see him as an admin there. There was a period of time of overlap, I'm pretty sure. But it's not the point of this AE request so I'll move on. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway[edit]

@Masem: & @Strongjam:, Zad68 has not been consistent on that point. I agree with Strongjam's parsing above, but Zad68's post to the discretionary sanctions log reads The Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page are not editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days, which parses to NOT(AND(<30days, <500edits), consistent with Masem's understanding. This point should be clarified. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor: ForbiddenRocky[edit]

Links to decision and prior discussions.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: Re: "This rule was not intended for me" Given the errors (e.g. not knowing how to set it up & commenting in the admin only section) you made within this AE request speaks to the desired seasoning the 500/30 sanction tries to address. GGC is as, Liz says, a minefield. Errors here are actually more easily forgiven than at GGC. Errors on the GGC area turn into weeks of discussion and often resulting in blocks and bans. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem and MarkBernstein: Please don't use this AE for a proxy fight. Go keep it at Jimbo's page or something. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher[edit]

@Masem: While I think there's some issues with tRPOD's editing (namely unnecessary soapboxing), I find it shocking that you're accusing an editor COI because he has an opinion, and using that as reason for a topic ban. Especially considering how silent you were about COI when one of the admin's of KotakuinAction was editing the article. I'll note that in the past you've expressed negative opinions about Gamergate on the talk page too. Does this mean you should be topic banned for COI too? We'd end up having to ban everyone for COI from every topic, if we took this approach.Bosstopher (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: Wikiproject Wikify's June Wikification drive has started if you want to join in on the fun that is wikifying articles. The competitive aspect and the way it works will help you get a better grasp of editing (especially lede weighting), while racking up those edits you need to pass the restriction.Bosstopher (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by[edit]

Can I get clarification on why black kite and NewYorkbrad are considered uninvolved admins? They appear to have been involved in the initial gamergate arbitration case. (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

@Zad68:, Masem , Sorry, I didn't edit correctly for notification, fixing. --DHeyward (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68:, Masem - one glaring inconsistency is that the 30/500 requirement was enacted 5 months after the decision. It seems inconsistent to not allow an established editor to bring his edit count up on GamerGate as other editors have done. There are editors that barely meet 500 because of their last 5 months of edits to the Gamergate talk page. To be more consistent with the spirit of not allowing SPA, socks or other POV forces that this requirement is trying to address, the requirement should be updated to be 500 edits outside the topic area. That would level the requirements a bit so longer term editors aren't viewed as less valuable simply because they haven't been a SPA for the last 6 months. It's not a club, so the threshold for participating in the topic area should be judged equally by contributions outside the topic area as it is now the case for anyone with less than than 30/500. Editors shouldn't be "grandfathered" in (which is effectively what Handpolk is requesting and what some other privileged editors enjoy).

30/500 now means 500 edits outside of GamerGate and it should mean that for everyone. . --DHeyward (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by[edit]

@Gamaliel: I'm unsure what the "bigger danger" is in the context of the talk page. The only "danger" I can see this remedying are removing conversations that have been discussed to death before. But I feel that is insufficient justification for the quota being placed on the talk page. (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG[edit]

As I said elsewhere, this restriction is the worst possible solution except for all those others which have been tried from time. I cannot recall another area where we have had such sustained and well-orchestrated POV-pushing. The specific issue of long-dormant accounts coming out of hibernation to promote the gamergate agenda has been extensively documented. This restriction is proportionate and is the minimum intervention required to protect the project. It is unfortunately inevitable that someone with genuine good intentions is likely to end up unable to contribute, but that is balanced by the likelihood that rather large numbers of people with manifestly bad intentions would have been excluded if we'd done it sooner. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bilby[edit]

This restriction was a major departure from core principles of Wikipedia. In general, we've accepted the protection of articles, but restrictions on talk pages have always been considered a bigger issue. This is a significant restriction on the talk page, placed indefinitely, which prevents anyone but well established editors involving themselves in developing the article. While I agree that unusual circumstances require unusual solutions, in this case I don't see sufficient evidence that the previous restriction of only permitting autoconfirmed editors was failing. There is a lot of people pointing to off-wiki plans to challenge the article on mass, and I'm as aware as anyone of these off-wiki discussions, but in practice the semi-protection on the talk page seemed to be working, with the few exceptions being handled with only minor disruption.

Since this protection has been enabled, it has been used on three editors on the talk page. One of those ([50]) repeated the concern that the article is not NPOV, and this has been raised many times. The other two ([51], [52]) raised valid concerns, one of which led to a discussion about the issue that everyone but the editor who raised it could take part in. None of this has been significantly disruptive. However, almost all of the disruption that has occurred on the article since this was set has been from people arguing about the protection.

I don't know when we're going to make the call that this isn't making any significant difference in preventing disruption, but we will have to make that call at some point. Perhaps we should nominate a period of time when we'll revisit this and evaluate the restriction - we typically do that when using semi-protection on talk pages, and as this is a stronger level of protection it may make sense to do that here. In the meantime, perhaps those with concerns about the article should be given some process for raising them - perhaps on a subpage. Locking them out for an indefinite period of time on a controversial article, effectively preventing them from raising any concerns, is fundamentally against what we are trying to build. - Bilby (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Result of the appeal by Handpolk[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Handpolk: I'm sorry you find it offensive, but in the past on Wikipedia we've found it necessary to restrict editing of certain articles, and this case is no different. Sometimes such restrictions inhibit editing by well-meaning individuals, and that is a danger, but not having the restrictions is a bigger danger. You are free to edit millions of other encyclopedia articles, however. I see nothing presented in this appeal to justify overturning the restrictions. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Handpolk: I understand you are frustrated, and I'm sorry. But please consider the frustrations of others who have had to deal with constant disruptions to this article for nearly a year. We will be glad to assist you in editing other articles of your choice. Once you do, it should be a simple matter for you to overcome these minor restrictions in a short period of time. 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Limiting editing of this article to experienced editors is a departure from the usual wiki rule of "anyone can edit," but it is a narrow departure, and an appropriate one given the problems the article and the topic-area have had. I therefore agree that this appeal should be declined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • To the 107 IP: my "involvement" in the GamerGate case was as one of the arbitrators (it was my last case before retiring as an arbitrator after 7 years on the Committee). That does not evidence involvement or partiality with respect to the underlying dispute that would warrant my stepping aside here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would decline this. It needs to 500 and 30, for two reasons - firstly, because 30 days is not a huge time to wait (indeed, any accounts created on the day this was imposed are only 12 days from marching straight in), and because there were a lot of old accounts that mysteriously activated after the call to arms by Reddit etc., and there are probably far, far, more out there. Sometimes such draconian measures are necessary, especially after ArbCom dropped the ball on the case they were asked to look at. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This sanction is fairly strong, and it's arguably not very fair. But the truth is that Wikipedia is not an exercise in justice, but in writing an encyclopedia. Given the level of disruption at this particular topic, I don't see sanctions like this as unreasonable, even if they are exclusive of some people. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Noughtnotout[edit]

Appeal declined. T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 
Noughtnotout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed 
<Topic Ban Dawoodi Bohra [[53]]. Imposed for being perceived to have declared a winner [[54]] in the succession controversy>
Administrator imposing the sanction 
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Noughtnotout[edit]

<The ban has now extended to almost 5 months. I have complied with the ban and had dialogue with the sanctioning administrator amd also followed his [EdJohnston]'s instructions in this regard including editing experience in other topics. I believe I have understood the reason behind the ban. It was not originally the intention to declare any winner but I can see why it was seen as having done so. I have understood that all information has to be reliably verified and this can be seen in my edits in [Scalextric] - a completely different topic from [Dawoodi Bohra]. I understand WP:NPOV and have no wish to violate it - as I have mentioned to the sanctioning editor several times. My prolonged discussion with [EdJohnston] should also hopefully dispel any doubts of sock-puppetry. WP:SPA>

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

In January, the Dawoodi Bohra article had been suffering from edit warring due to a leadership succession controversy. Partisans of the two sides had been reverting articles about the Dawoodi Bohra to claim success for their respective candidates. I first became aware of User:Noughnotout due to some edit warring taking place on one of the articles in January 2015. I alerted him to the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions here at 05:41 on January 12. In a talk thread I advised him to get a talk page consensus before changing the article. This advice happened at 06:07 on 12 January. Somewhat to my surprise, later that day he went ahead with a large change to the Dawoodi Bohra article which was not supported by anyone else on the talk page. Since I had been watching for socks, and a brand-new partisan editor who avoids discussion is sometimes a sock, I went ahead with issuance of a topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. At the time I indicated I would consider lifting the ban in three months if I thought that progress had occurred. But since that day he has done fewer than 50 edits anywhere else on Wikipedia, I don't see a case for lifting the ban at this time. Since January he has left numerous messages on my talk page that I didn't find persuasive. They strengthened my initial impression of him as someone who was wedded to his POV and wasn't likely to defer to the verdict of reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Noughtnotout[edit]

  • In four and a half months, Noughtnotout, your contributions to actual Articles space amount to 12 edits on Scalextric. That's it. In fact you've edited less than 50 times since your topic ban. I just don't think it's enough. Now, I see that you were topic banned about four days after you created your account, so you are presumably very new. So go out there, edit even more articles! Surely there's something else you are interested in? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Noughtnotout[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not seeing a strong case to overturn the enforcing administrator's decision. Noughtnotout appears to be a single purpose account with a non-neutral POV so is probably best removed from Dawoodi Bohra. Since they haven't made a significant number edits to other articles it's almost impossible to tell whether they've developed the necessary experience and knowledge to edit an idea they aren't neutral in in a way which is beneficial to the project. I would therefore decline the appeal and advise them to actively edit in other areas for at least three months then appeal the ban again showing what they've learnt. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Noughtnotout hasn't edited in over a week, since filing this request. I would be interested in his response to the comments so far, so let's hold this open for a few more days. However, if he doesn't respond in a reasonable time, I'll agree with declining for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 04:54 to 06:35, 31 May 2015 Reversions made across the article in 9 edits, including the addition of "despite the accusations being groundless"
  2. 01:13 to 01:19, 1 June 2015 Two edits, including adding back a different form of words of the same clause: "although both Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein say this belief is unfounded"
  3. 01:21, 1 June 2015‎ One edit, again adding for a third time a similar form of words "although some academics say this belief is unfounded" (note that the previous editor that NMMNG reverted later outed himself as a SP here, although I do not believe NMMNG was aware of this at the time)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

In case not clear from above, the above diffs breached 1RR.

A couple of comments on User:Newyorkbrad's summary:
1) I was away from wiki between 31 May and 5 June (note, I made no edits in this period)
2) Your description of what happened as: "("I deleted that because it didn't have a citation" "okay, I'm restoring it with a citation")" is not accurate. I don't want to get into a content dispute here, but what NMMNG added after my edit comment ("although both Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein say this belief is unfounded") was misleading in a tendentious fashion as to the much more nuanced views of those authors. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
User_talk:No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy#1950–51 Baghdad bombings - AE

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

Not sure what I'm being accused of here. I made 9 small edits so anyone can revert any specific problem they had with my edits. Oncenawhile reverted one of them, with an edit summary that it should be attributed inline, so I attributed it the next time I included the information. There's another edit where I put the text in the body of the article as well. What exactly is the problem here?

Also, would someone like to look into Oncenawhile's tendentious editing that required me to make these changes to the article? For example, compare his original edit here, inserting the text However, the allegations against the Zionist agents was viewed as "more plausible than most" by the British Foreign Office. with my edit here correcting the text to what the source actually says (currently ref #9 in the article), which doesn't mention "Zionist agents" at all. There are plenty more such examples, and I'm not even close to fixing all the tendentious stuff he put in this article. I think a BOOMERANG is in order. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please also note that Oncenawhile made no attempt to discuss whatever problems he has with my edits with me, neither on the article talk page or my talk page. Moreover, he didn't even bother answering questions I posted on the article talk page, one of which relates to a source he added to the article. Did I say BOOMERANG already? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, now that he explained (without a timestamp) what the problem is (and at last answered my question on the talk page), I can address the accusations. The second and 3rd diffs are not reverts, they're me adding information, specifically attributing something per a request made by Oncenawhile. So I don't think there's a 1RR violation here. But if there is, tell me what to self-revert and I will. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the content issue either, but what Oncenawhile is doing above is trying to achieve by innuendo what he can't by using sources. Both the sources I mentioned support the edit I made. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

Generally, if someone breaks 1RR in WP:ARBPIA (it can happen even by accident), a message on the talk page can get them to self-revert without much needless drama. Kingsindian  09:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I am not sure there is a violation here, given the rule that uninterrupted consecutive edits by the same editor count as one for revert-rule purposes, as well as the observation that it seems problematic to describe responding to a direct invitation ("I deleted that because it didn't have a citation" "okay, I'm restoring it with a citation") as a revert. I also note that the report is somewhat stale (last challenged edit June 1; report date June 5). My inclination is to close with no action other than the comment that this seems to concern a very narrow point of content disagreement that should hopefully be bridgeable on talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Indeffed and talkpage access revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Humbugask (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) contribs answers all questions. --DHeyward (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Already blocked by GW. I removed talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for exception to 500/30 editing rule on Gamergate[edit]

User:FDJK001 has been blocked indef by User:Acroterion. Further discussion of an exemption is not needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Though I have less than 500 edits on Wikipedia, I have spent more than a year on Wikipedia investigating the rules and such, and my account age proves that.

However, I just barely edited the talk page proposing a discussion on how in general "gamers": the young Caucasian heterosexual stereotype in the Gamergate group refuses to let video games mature, and how Gamergate is in general a conservative movement, a Tea Party for video games. It almost goes into the realm of original research, but it is not quite at that level. Still, various articles do mention how Gamergate is right-winged or libertarian. I was met with a closing of my request, and that is when I found out editors need not only 30 or more days of experience, but also 500 or more edits total.

The high quality of my recent edits imply I will do a good job at handling the talk page at Gamergate and the main page in general and so I am requesting an exception to the rule this time. As editors we can do a good job at suppressing obviously disruptive or unproductive comments on this one and in general do a good job of describing the movement as a general political or social movement.

If I can't get this request right now, please tell me what I must do —other than making hundreds more edits of whatever quality— to get the exception.

Thank you. FDJK001 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Commment from uninvolved editor: ell oh ell. --JBL (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As I advised you on your talkpage, this isn't going to happen. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to take the risk here. FDJK001 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
An exception will not be granted. Please do not persist. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how many people have thought of the childish idea of making 500 low-quality edits? FDJK001 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ForbiddenRocky[edit]

FDJK001, FWIW, Acroterion is an admin. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

FDJK001 is well aware of that, I've blocked (and unblocked) him in the past. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Oh dear. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by an DHeyward[edit]

I have trouble believing Acroterion is uninvolved.struck for trivial NAME block.

In any case, I support the 500/30 restriction. However, it should apply equally to all editors and those without 500 non-gamergate related edits should not be editing GamerGate related topics. We have a number of SPA's that appears during and just after arbitration and they are as problematic as any new editors. --DHeyward (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by j0eg0d[edit]

The WIKI GamerGate Controversy with it's current limits is perfectly reasonable, I (for one) have always disagreed with the TALK page limits; It's ridiculous to limit "talk" especially when the WIKI is purposely one sided. Also, please note my statement regarding people that encourage & partake in the disruption of the #gamergate topics. When you remove certain individuals from the Gamergate_controversy WIKI & TALK page I fully believe it'll be a lesser annoyance for the Admins. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Request for exception to 500/30 editing rule on Gamergate[edit]

Not done. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Addendum: FDJK001 has hit on the startlingly original idea of making 430 trivial edits to their talkpage to get past 500/30. Warned, but a block or a topic ban may be in their future. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • FDJK001 now blocked indefinitely. I believe this can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why This Matters[edit]

Unreasonable. Editors cannot be held to such a standard that they should feel responsible for someone who does something irrational after reading a Wikipedia article. No AE action sought. Zad68 00:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Released today: [55]

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. -- Dylan Roof

Next time you're tempted to split the difference, to appease trolls, or to accept just a little falsehood for the sake of calm, please reflect on this. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with AE? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clear that circumstances make this the Reading for the day. I think I ought to leave the sermon to those whose voiced will be better heard, but if I were going to compose a homily, it might admit that anyone's words can be misread and used for harm -- the devil can cite scripture -- but when we write or edit the encyclopedia, or when we mop up the mess, we'd better be sure that topics like those we discuss here are covered in such a way that, if you must face spirits of people who were murdered by someone who read Wikipedia, you could honestly say, "We did all we could do, and the encyclopedia was as good as it could be." MarkBernstein (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This sermonizing has nothing to do with the matters before AE, and frankly the fact that this tragedy is being brought up by an editor whose conduct is currently the subject of discussion here smacks of an attempt to exploit it for rhetorical leverage. I hope admins will do the tasteful thing and remove this thread. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)