Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Darkness Shines

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 Darkness Shines

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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. --AmritasyaPutra^T 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. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Messaged on his talk page.

Discussion concerning Darkness Shines

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 Fut.Perf.

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)

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Fut.perf: I have notified him.[38] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Glrx

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

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)

Statement by Sitush

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)

Result concerning Darkness Shines

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 (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I originally closed this however I've been asked to reopen it on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 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 (talk • contribs • logs) 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 (talk • contribs • logs) 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 (talk • contribs • logs) 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 (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Posting to keep this from being archived without a close. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Gamergate hatting thing has blown up again

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. [39] 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 (talk • contribs) 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. 185.22.183.200 (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Gamergate Talk page request 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: The entirety of the Discussion of notice section will be moved to a subpage No more editing on this topic will be allowed on the article Talk page There will be a notice placed under Sanctions enforcement pointing interested users to the subpage The editing requirements for the subpage will be the same 500/30 requirements as for the article and the Talk page 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)

Hell in a Bucket

No action; WP:TROUT for filer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Hell in a Bucket User who is submitting this request for enforcement Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced ANI discussion Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed. : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 23 May 2015 Edit warring on prohibited page (Lightbreather's talk page) 23 May 2015 Edit warring on prohibited page (Lightbreather's talk page) 23 May 2015 Prohibited interaction If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notified Discussion concerning Hell in a Bucket 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 Hell in a Bucket Well I figured this might happen, perhaps if the illustrious User:Hawkeye7 had been more on top of his game he would've reverted it. It was indeed a violation of the Iban. I waited a couple of minutes and when no one was reverting it I decided the right thing to do was to remove it. As Sitush mentions there is some very serious accusations being thrown about editors off wiki. At least one person has been victimized and it's possible both mentioned in the post were. The allegations are something that could have effect in real life and there has been threats made to make it happen. I certainly will not violate the ban under ordinary circumstances but I thought that this was worth an exception and if not I'll take the block. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC) I frankly don't agree with others that the filing party should be sanctioned. The judgement was questionable but requesting a review is hardly a hanging offense. I personally wouldn't support anybody being sanctioned. Shit happens sometimes and unless there is some history I'm not aware of a non action close is good enough for me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sitush C'mon! HiaB was removing very insulting/disruptive posts by anons. This has been spreading from off-wiki harassment of a very nasty nature and while maybe they could have left it to someone who was not IBANNED, the sooner it went, the better. You'll note that the stuff (which I saw in some cases) got revdeleted. You've been waiting to pounce, Hawkeye, but this is not the moment to choose. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by OccultZone Even if the editor in question is I-banned or T-banned, it is still one of the usual standard to revert socks or harmful speech, like Fut. Perf mentions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris Wasting the community's time on asinine "gotcha" complaints like this is disruptive. (If it matters, I'm not a Lightbreather fan.) There need to be consequences for such behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Hell in a Bucket This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Obviously frivolous request. HiaB was reverting edits by some IP sock troll that were subsequently fully oversighted as severe BLP violations. I don't know what those edits were, but given the oversighting I assume they were of such seriously harmful nature that their removal must have been justified under WP:BANEX. I don't know, nor really want to know, if those IP edits were attacks against Lightbreather or against HiaB himself, or against some third party, but I don't think it matters either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Ridiculous complaint. HiaB was removing anonymous posts so nasty that they have since been suppressed. I suggest some sanction or at least a serious reprimand against Hawkeye7 for wikilawyering and pointy timewasting. In fact I was considering blocking him briefly myself, in view of the rules for this page ("groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions"), but I see he has a clean block log, and so I hesitate. What do other people think? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC). Filing this complaint is evidence of a fundamentally flawed attitude. Perhaps, in lieu of blocking the OP, a ban on making any further AE reports? Leave AE reporting to people with more clue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Well, that would be a gesture, Floquenbeam, but on checking Hawkeye's contributions for the last couple of years, I see it's not a habit; they have not posted to this board previously. (If I'm using the search function right — I always worry when it finds nothing.) So an AE ban would be sort of pointless from a practical point of view. They're getting a bollocking right here and now from indignant admins; perhaps that'll do. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC). I think Hawkeye7 needs at least a severe reprimand for this astonishing complaint. Even the most cursory examination of what was happening (even if the posts in question were already suppressed) would have given anyone with any clue the reassurance that HiaB was acting quite properly and should be thanked for his prompt action, rather than be the subject of this attempt to get him sanctioned.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC) I think HiaB's actions fall under the ban exemptions given the nature of the reverts. As for the filer I think a meal of trout will suffice. Chillum 15:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Okay, closing this per consensus. Hawkeye7 is severely reprimanded and will be required to upload a scanned restaurant bill or equivalent document as evidence of the consumption of at least one trout. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone

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 OccultZone

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Esquivalience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone#Temporary injunction

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

1. 23 May 2015 - OccultZone is violating his temporary injunction by going beyond the scope of ArbCom's permission to use SPI to report a sockpuppet. In this diff, OccultZone was asking Reaper Eternal to email a copy of a SPI (here) against me. It is related to this case, because I was one of the mostly-uninvolved participants in the Workshop phase, and OccultZone opened a SPI based on my Workshop participation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable.

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

Not applicable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are also disruptive editing concerns, see proposed editing talkpage and deleted SPI that should be counted in the final decision.

You were only allowed to open a SPI, not request administrative action off the SPI page nor keep holding the stick and request a copy. Esquivalience ^t 03:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning OccultZone

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 OccultZone

Misleading report at best.

You are obviously allowed to ask for deleted copies, since SPI has to do nothing with "personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case",(discussion) this sock puppetry issue took place after the evidence phase was already ended. Although I thought that it is not going to make much difference since all admins have access to deletion files. That's why I had self-reverted too.[41] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: First of all, there was no violation, 2nd there was forumshopping by the OP, who previously posted this on talk of PD.[42] Second thing is that even if my edit included anything else, self-revert had to be counted. Here, a warning to OP is clearly warranted.

What do you think about the IP hopping earlier in relation to this complaint?[43][44] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: You observed, that Guerillero's suggestions are really helpful, but he talks about "allegations pertaining to parties", the editors in question are not parties. Other than that, upon the discovery of far newer evidences, now I observe that suspicion has also taken place on other case where the OP has contributed.[45][46] I guess that the only route is DRV. What do you think? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Sorry, and talking of Arbcom, I am allowed to go for DRV by Guerillero and I just asked you what would be the better suggestion. It is clearly up to me, where I would lead myself. How can you say that I should drop the matter on which I have already worked further, you haven't seen my evidence yet and I can assure that it is much compelling than what I had before. How others would even find a single account or multiple IPs, the way I did? It is simply impossible for others to, especially when they are stale for nearly 10 days or have limited scope. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning OccultZone

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

• I hatted the section on the arb pages and gave OZ three routes of appeal (Reaper Eternal, DREVIEW, and Arbcom). I'm not sure what is left to do. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Recommend closing with no action. In my opinion the responses of User:Guerillero in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision#Moving forward are an adequate action. There is nothing more for us to do here. Arbcom obviously has jurisdiction if they want to sanction OccultZone for this. I read that particular SPI, which is now deleted. OccultZone would have shown better judgment by not filing it at all. If the Committee feels their time is being wasted they might eventually grow restless. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with EdJohnston that this can be left in the hands of the Committee in the context of the pending case, but I think OccultZone would be well-advised to stay completely off the SPI pages until the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OccultZone, now you are really becoming disruptive. I instruct you to drop this matter. If there really turns out to be an issue, which certainly did not leap off the page based on your SPI submission, then it is best left for someone else to address. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• The SPI was deleted by an admin. OccultZone now discuss, via this page, with a second admin over the same matter. And this matter is also connected to the ArbCom case he is involved. This the same pattern continued. I suggest that we take some measures about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Noughtnotout

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 · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

<Topic Ban Dawoodi Bohra [[47]]. Imposed for being perceived to have declared a winner [[48]] in the succession controversy>

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=663931981&oldid=663672272The 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

<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 OccultZone

I would recommend declining this appeal. Noughtnotout certainly looks like an WP:SPA, nearly all of his contribution concerned Dawoodi Bohra. He still don't explain if he is willing to contribute to these articles without violating WP:NPOV. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes you have made major contributions on Scalextric which is still not enough, it just shows the possibility that you are capable of contributing on other subjects and you should continue it until you have significant amount of fair contributions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Noughtnotout

• 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

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