Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:49, 13 May 2016

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

FreeatlastChitchat

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

Request concerning FreeatlastChitchat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

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

Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits [1] and [2] are a violation of it.

Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by User:Spartaz [3].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [5]

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

Statement by FreeatlastChitchat

@Seraphimblade I am removing everything from my statement except the bare bones. @User:The Wordsmith I am deleting my statement from here and using only 100 words or so as u asked. So here goes
The accusation was first of personal attacks, then changed to battleground. Now I can spend time pointing out that my words have been cherry picked and used out of context (plz refer to Page history for a table showing that Kautilya3 has basically been attributing false statements to me, misquoting me and using my words out of context, with this kind of proof KT should be given a warning (at least) or perhaps a short block due to blatant falsifications). But lets leave all that and move towards resolving this. I am willing to go on a self imposed 1PR restriction for the next 3 months on my own without any admin intervention. As the very essence of battle ground editing means multiple reverts this will be remedy enough. If someone finds me reverting more than once per 24 they can block me on the spot. As far as the accusation of personal attack is concerned I am ready to submit an apology if an admin can advise me as to how to respond to someone who is denying a genocide. Should we just let it go? There is no sanction for denying any genocide except the holocaust I think, so what should be done about people who are engaging in this kind of behavior. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

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

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

Statement by TripWire

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

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

"And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual WP:TAGTEAM" [7]

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

"That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article" [8]

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

"I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM" [9]

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

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

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

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

He further says:

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

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

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

Comment by My very best wishes

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

Comment by Rhoark

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

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

Statement by Kautilya3

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

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

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

stale comment

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

Comment - Freeatlast proposes a self-imposed 1RR (a tactic that he has tried before), and that too for only 3 months. That is of no use. His participation in all South Asia conflicts pages is to lend his weight to other editors that accord with his POV. See this revert for a most recent example. This page got full-protected only a couple of days ago as a result of an edit war that he provoked. He also followed it up with a highly inflammatory nationalistic comment: "The so called "newspaper" is from India and giving information from a non reliable person, hence it is unreliable." (quoted in full). His colleague, TripWire, is still persisting with this argument. This kind of reckless behaviour even while an AE case is going on gives me no confidence that this user will ever behave himself. I am opposed to any self-imposed sanctions of any kind, and I don't see why they should be time-limited. If he demonstrates good behaviour on other pages, he an always come back and ask for his sanctions to be lifted. There is no need for a pre-defined time limit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghatus

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

Statement by ArghyaIndian

I will like to draw administrator's kind attention towards SHERIFFISINTOWN's battleground behaviour (I also recommend that SheriffIsInTown should be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages). He said I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. clearly shows that he is just here to WP:TAGTEAM and defend a user who shares his POV (as VM said). A quick look here [10], [11], [12] will show that this user have long displayed an incomprehensible pattern of shielding editors (who shares his *POV*) from sanctions and downplaying their disruption. He's doing the same here! His comment adds no value to this discussion whatsoever. Maybe (*as also suggested by admin Spartaz*) administrators should consider banning him from commenting here at AE in the future. Contrary to what SheriffIsInTown said in their last lines, he reported me right here at AE asking a T-ban (when I have less then 6 edits to that page/talk page combined) just because I voted *Reject* in the RFC. He left no chance of threatening me and he intentionally targeted me again and again. Right here, he called User:Volunteer Marek (a completely uninvolved editor) a battleground editor, and on talk page he intentionally targeted User:My very best wishes [13]. Per Volunteer Marek and above users, this editor (FreeatLastChitchat) should be topic banned indefinitely. This user (Freeatlast) has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with over the top nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Based on the ample amount of evidences (I provided in my statement below in second report right here at AE), SHERIFFISINTOWN should also be Topic-banned (as also suggested by administrator SPARTAZ, but he is on wiki leave currently SEE.... Spartaz further warned this user on their talk page [14]). Also, SheriffIsInTown was previously t-ban by HighInBC for a period of one month from one page (It seems from his talk page) because of the same reason *POV Pushing* and *Edit Warring*. SHERIFFISINTOWN'S's long term Edit Warring (recent 3RR violation), large scale POV pushing on all the 1971 related INDIA-BANGLADESH pages, continuous violating WP:ASPERSIONS and his attempt of harassment are equally sanctionable as well. Please look at the edit diffs/evidences I provided below in my statement (right here at AE in the second report). Reviewing admin should take a look here at once (report filed by an uninvolved editor Mhhossein ). Also, Freeatlast is commenting on other's statement which as per the rule he cannot! In addition, his total word count is far more then 500 word. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Lankiveil: This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This user is so disruptive that we see him on different noticeboards on weekly bases. Just look at his contributions to see how many reverts he does per day just to remove contents (that he doesn't like). Take a look at his block log once. He promised Slakr that he "will attempt to self-adhere to WP:1RR," what he failed to do on numerous occasions. A quick look at D4iNa4 statement (here) shows that this user has massively violated his 1RR restrictions on many articles and gone unnoticed as usual. Here on one administrator TP, he is canvassing him to come and defend him on ANI, see (ANI DRAMA(Take 2)). Apart from this AE case, there's currently two active WP:ANI thread where users have reported Freeatlast [15], [16] ) for his disrupting editing, as usual. I am confused how this user is surviving here. There are many users who had faced harassment from this guy and not limited to one or two. He is blatantly hounding User: Mhhossein. This editor pushed the 3RR rule right to the limit onBalochistan, Pakistan and Kulbhushan Yadav page. Anything short of an indef block seems a waste of time. SheriffIsInTown needs to be t-ban. No one mentioned him on ANI, yet this user went on there to shield FreeatLast and tried to downplay his disruption just because he shares his bias POV, When asked by an editor, what he is doing here, his reaction was How about you tell me why I should not get involved and you should?. Nationalist users like him are the reason why bullshit take it's place on Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the evidences I provided in my statement [17] which per me are more then enough to t-ban SheriffIsInTown (also suggested by admin Spartaz). In previous report, right here at AE [18] Administrator Spartaz was considering imposing 0RR restrictions on this user. Another administrator EdJohnston also suggested 0RR restrictions. Spartaz said Imposition will depend on behavior after return from block. but they are on wiki leave currently. Please also take a look at User Kautilya3 comment here on ANI. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nuro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

Ah, FreeatlastChitchat--one of my favorite battleground editors. Marek, 0R was suggested but not imposed, it seems from the DS log. I think I already blocked FreeatlastChitchat once and I really don't want to do it again, but you can't go around calling someone a Holocaust denier; FreeatlastChitchat, you have been skating on thin ice for a while, and you shouldn't be surprised if you fall through it this time, though I for one will be sad to see it. But calling someone a Holocaust denier does no service to the victims of another genocide. Sheriff, if you want to bring Marek up on charges you will have to do so in a separate section--I doubt that this will go very far, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty clear that Freeatlast was suggesting that VM was to be included among the supposed collection of Holocaust deniers--and that comment itself, pace Tripwire's simple dismissal, is battleground editing. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see a comparison to Holocaust deniers rather than directly calling someone one, but for clarity's sake, that's still quite inappropriate. It seems there's a lot of issue here with "Comment on content, not the contributor." FreeatlastChitchat, it would be very helpful if you could trim your statement to focus on the behavioral issues raised here, we don't decide content disputes at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any area where FreeatlastChitchat contributes positively without this sort of extensive personal conflict that sees them constantly dragged to ANI and other forums? I do think that the arguments that they "technically" didn't call anyone a holocaust denier are somewhat disingenuous, the implication of the comment was pretty clear and unlikely to be interpreted in any other way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I normally stay far away from nationalism-related areas, but this request has been clogging up the board for far too long and is getting stale. FFS, can you not all just get along and write an encyclopedia without attacking each other? I'll be closing this request soon (unless another admin beats me to it). @FreeatlastChitchat:, please tell me (in 100 words or less) why I should not issue a topic ban for battleground conduct and personal attacks, because that's the way I'm leaning currently. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArghyaIndian

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

Request concerning ArghyaIndian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ArghyaIndian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification to the editor

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

Reply

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

Discussion concerning ArghyaIndian

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

Statement by ArghyaIndian

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

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

This IP is not myn. I just copy and pasted his comment at article's talk page because the IP was absolutely correct and a patrolling user Sminthopsis84 also agreed with the IP. They also suggested a topic ban for SheriffIsInTown. Again this IP is not myn as i already explained above. This Infact should be considered as obvious personal attack since this user is trying to connect me with unknown IP's based on his suspicion. They should report me at SPI noticeboard to clear their suspicion. Infact his unback accusations are sanctionable itself since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS.
SheriffIsInTown is intentionally distorting and mispresenting edit diffs as explained below.
04:03, 20 April 2016 I created a new section regarding misleading figures in the lead that was recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk page [19]. Uninvolved editors Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes also agreed with me and Infact VM also asked me that which older version I have in my mind. Since the editors agreed with my objections, I tried to find an older stable NPOV version of the article's lead. I waited for a day and finally restored an old version 10:30, 21 April 2016, but by mistake I restored the wrong version but I quickly asked for the help on the article's talk page can be seen here. And I think that KT was aware of it and that is why he/she reverted me. I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead (as discussed and agreed on talk page) so that is why I made this edit (13:25 21 April 2016) but after realising that I did a mistake, I quickly self reverted this time within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016). But as I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead, I made this edit again ([20]) but unfortunately I again made a major mistake and messed my notepad stuffs while editing but before I could self revert myself, an patrolling user already reverted me ([21]). This time I made this edit correctly ([22]) and I was correct too. Many uninvolved editors agreed with me [23], [24].
To Administrators; please take a look here at once. [25], [26] MASS REMOVAL OF CONTENT by this user (that he doesn't like), large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He's doing this all from a long time now.
SheriffIsInTown tried to WP:HARASS other users including me with 3RR templates when they hardly made two reverts [27] but he WP:EDITWAR on these pages from many months, as noted by other users ([28], [29]). But I'll give recent examples. This user went on to remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini. This user did not seek talk page to address issues but instead was engage in intense WP:EDITWAR with multiple users, same is the case here.
As pointed out by uninvolved users [30] this person went too far in claiming that some parts were "irrelevant" and in saying that some parts were unsourced when the sources were there as external links. Other uninvolved users also pointed out the same, to quote; One thing I saw was your quest to remove certain relevant and sourced information from multiple pages like here.
This user made around 7 reverts on Mukti Bahini within 1½ day just to remove mass contents from lead (that he doesn't like), which is still there. These back to back 4 reverts are Infact very well within 24 hours. Clear WP:3RR violation.

He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [31], [32] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was further warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [33].
For the sake of betterment and neutrality of this project area of India.Bangladesh.Pakistan, I highly recommend SheriffIsInTown be indefinite topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages (as reasons and evidences provided above). This user has a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with a strong nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrator Spartaz. Spartaz warned this user right here at AE that they are strongly minded to impose a T-ban if this user continue to make nationality based slurs. They further warned this user on their talk page [34]. Spartaz did not replied further because they said, they are on wiki leave currently. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am on wiki from a while now. Many uninvolved editor called you a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor, so my knowledge of these policies is quite obvious.
As I already said, that IP is not myn. You have all the rights to report me and clear your suspicions. Then why you're not reporting me and instead hurling accusations at me?
This user further tried to WP:HARASS me by calling me a meatpuppet at ANI (but not reporting me at SPI, as I pointed out), clear personal attack, quite odious personal attack at that. Note that he called me a meatpuppet but is asking me how do I know about meatpuppet noticeboard (even though I gave him the meatpuppet/SPI noticeboard link through a google search). Clearly, he is trying to fool others here.
This user doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attack and with further accusations by calling me a meatpuppet again here, when I have replied him in straight and in befitting words at ANI. [35], [36], [37].
Further personal attacks by calling me a DUCK. This user has crossed all the borderlines of WP:PERSONAL, WP:HARASS & WP:BITE. These unback extreme accusations falls under WP:ASPERSIONS. I'll say again, this user should report me at SPI to clear his suspicions and after the result comes negative, this user either should apology or should be indefinitely ban.
If no administrator take actions against this user, then it will mean that such nationalist users like him have a free license to harass other users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing blatant POV across these ARBIPA articles (in an global source of knowledge) from many months now and his extreme POV edits has indeed gone unnoticed which has already ruined many articles (specially India. Bangladesh related). --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This user suddenly intervened on Kashmir Conflict page and initiated WP:EDITWAR. He reverted one user and restored a POV version [38] to which he has gained no consensus on talk page. In fact there was a discussion going on talk page but this user never participated on talk page discussion but did blatant back to back reverts (see [39] ) with misleading summaries that he is restoring WP:STATUSQUO version when in reality that was a POV version to which he has gained no consensus on talk. His intervention and WP:EDITWAR led an administrator RegentsPark to impose restrictions on that page (see [40] ).
WP:EDITWAR on Bangladesh. See [41], again this user did not seek talk page to address issues.
WP:TAGTEAM WP:EDITWAR WP:3RR on Balochistan, Pakistan. See [42].

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

This case is pending from many weeks. Please review it and take actions against SheriffIsInTown. This user has started Harassing and attacking me again. This user has Infact abused warning templates. [43], [44]. Obvious HARASSMENT and obvious abuse of warning templates. My this comment [45] was in no aspect, canvassing. Both Freeatlast and SheriffIsInTown was harassing Nuro Dragonfly, he was about to take the matter to WP:ANI and I only suggested him to comment at WP:AE instead of WP:ANI. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith please note that, this user has continuously harassed me for weeks. This should WP:BOOMERANG hard on SheriffIsInTown and he should be sanctioned. Please go through the evidences I provided. This user is edit warring, pushing (his nationalist) POV across these articles (ARBIPA) for months. Even leaving Harassment (I faced from this user) aside, other evidences that I provided should be enough to issue t-ban to this user for long term TAG-TEAMING,WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, hurling accusations (without any evidences whatsoever), BITING newcomers, Edit warring (This user has violated 3RR multiple times and gone unnoticed as usual. Take a look at my evidences once), and blatant POV pushing. ARBIPA sanctions should be issued to this user!!! --ArghyaIndian (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

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

Statement by Rhoark

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ArghyaIndian

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

@ArghyaIndian: Please try to cut down your statement to focus only on points relevant to this request, and to be concise and clear about what it is you're saying. @TJH2018: Please do not comment in other editors' sections. You're welcome to make a statement in a section of your own if you'd like to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally get involved in nationalism-related enforcement, but this request is clogging up the board and getting stale while admins don't want to deal with it, so it needs to be handled. I'm seeing a lot of accusations flying from all sides, but not necessarily enough to issue strong sanctions. It would be best for the project if everyone involved here would just focus on building an encyclopedia and not on each other. Unless I see some strong arguments posted, I'll close this request soon with admonishments to both parties here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatai

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

Request concerning Abbatai

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: OptimusView (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[46] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): *Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [47].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ([48]).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [49]

Discussion concerning Abbatai

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

Statement by Abbatai

14:20, 1 May 2016

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

And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [50] and [51] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OptimusView

Abbatai still continues editwarring as an IP [52]. OptimusView (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abbatai

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

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

AmirSurfLera

AmirSurfLera blocked three months and will be given a final warning to abide by the topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 AmirSurfLera

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: AmirSurfLera (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/Enforcement/Archive161#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AmirSurfLera :

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

2016-05-01T16:27:41 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed".
2016-05-01T16:28:06 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed".
2016-05-01T16:43:00 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Editor added the following to the Ken Livingstone article - "Actually Netanyahu said that initially Hitler had no intention of exterminating European Jews, instead he wanted to expel them from Europe, but he changed his mind after being persuaded by the Palestinian leader at the time, the mufti Amin al-Husseini, who argued that the expulsion of the Jews would result in their arrival en masse to Palestine."
2016-05-02T12:50:24 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Edited the caption of an image in the Palestinian territories section of the Antisemitism article about Palestinian mufti Amin al-Husseini.
2016-05-02T12:51:45 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Added a template requesting a source for the same caption as above.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2014-07-08T06:27:20 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since AmirSurfLera's appeal for their indefinite ARBPIA topic ban to be lifted was declined in January 2015, they made no edits to Wikipedia using this account until a couple of days ago. Since reactivating this account they have made what I regard as 5 topic ban violations so far. I contacted them (User_talk:AmirSurfLera#Topic_ban_violations) to inform them that if they "make another edit that violates the topic ban I will file an AE report". Since I did not find the response satisfactory I have come here. The first 2 edits I listed above are unambiguous topic ban violations. The editor's explanation was "I made a mistake on Barghouti". Fine, they made a mistake. The last 3 edits listed all relate to Palestinian mufti Amin al-Husseini and the Israeli Prime Minister's stated view that a Palestinian was responsible for persuading Hitler to exterminate European Jews. AmirSurfLera's view is that "I didn't violate my topic ban with the rest of the edits, since they are related to Nazism, antisemitism and the Holocaust, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. I wasn't banned from all Jewish-related articles". I find this response unacceptable. Please ensure that this person cannot use this account to violate their topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[53]

Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera

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 AmirSurfLera

I'm not sure what Wikipedia means by ARBPIA. I interpret articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, an article about the economy of Israel, as far as I understand, is not part of this area, even though it's connected somehow. An article about Kiruv in Orthodox Judaism, is not related to ARBPIA, nor an article about a British politician. I wasn't expecting to be accused of violating my topic ban for editing about antisemitism, Nazism and the Holocaust. For example, this edit and this one are related to the Holocaust and antisemitism. In the first case I restored the picture of a neo-Nazi protesting in Berlin. In the second case, even though the mufti was an important actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict, I simply restored a caption about his meeting with Hitler (removed by Pluto2012 without previous discussion). The Mufti was other things besides an enemy of Israel (like a recruiter for the SS). If I made a mistake and I violated the ban with those edits, I offer my sincere apologies, I won't edit in those articles anymore. But I came back to edit in good faith (starting with Holocaust controversies), not to cause troubles in ARBPIA. I'm sorry that I edit on Jewish-related topics only, but I don't know anything about cars, bugs, trees and elephants.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, although my knowledge of religion is limited. I'll be more careful. But what about antisemitism? (excluding Hamas, Hezbollah and things like that)--AmirSurfLera (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Reply to my comment moved from admin section to editors' section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Zero0000

The violation is obvious and I can't imagine how anyone could dispute it. Zero^talk 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

AmirSurfLera refused to selfrevert his edits on the article 'Antisemitism' despite he modified the caption on the Palestinian nationalist leader Haj Amin al-Husseini and that he re-inserted a picture in the "Palestinian section" with the portrait of Yasser Arafat. These are obvious violation of the topic ban. and he/she is perfectly aware of this.Pluto2012 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AmirSurfLera

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

These are unambiguous violations of the topic ban, and this editor already has several sanctions for violating the restrictions in this topic area. AmirSurfLera, if you would care to comment here and explain why this is happening, I suggest you do so sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- AmirSurfLera I am, to be quite honest, not too impressed with that explanation. There's quite a bit about Judaism that you could edit without even getting close to the border of the topic ban—notable synagogues and rabbis, historical Jewish scholars, Jewish holidays and practices, kosher diet regulations and kosher foods, any number of things. At this point, I really don't see any reason to disagree with what Dennis Brown has said below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unquestionably, these are violations of the topic ban. On his talk page he excuses the edits by the fact that some had already reverted them, but this is nonsensical as a defense as they weren't his actions, but a defense to his actions. They only have 525 edits, they are already topic banned, they asked to have ban lifted without editing outside that area at all, then left without making any edits and then came back again and instantly violated the topic ban. This is a textbook POV/SPA case. Anything short of an indef block seems a waste of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein

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

Request concerning MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MarkBernstein (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: Discretionary sanction (interaction ban)

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

Violation 3 May reply to DHeyward.
See also informal warning earlier in discussion [54]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [55]

Amended 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanction; topic ban, gamergate

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

Violation [56] -- both the edit summary and text explictly refer to Gamergate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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

Statement by GoldenRing

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

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

Statement by Starke Hathaway

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

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

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

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

Statement by Dennis Brown

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

Statement by James J. Lambden

This is getting ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MarkBernstein: You tweet that the Arb case against Gamaliel is a “surrender to extortion” and request input from experts on internet extortion, citing the case of Alison Rapp (Gamergate). You then post to Go Phightins!’ page asking if the Signpost would be interested in a short opinion piece on the subject of Wikipedia and extortion. Do you intend to violate your topic ban? Please explain. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

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

Statement by Capeo

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

Statement by Sitush

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

Statement by DHeyward

I didn't receive the latest reinterpretation where I can comment as long as it not about the other parties. This makes it very convoluted because the source of the topic ban was commenting in AE cases. I'd just as soon have the topic ban lifted. The admin that imposed it can't even interpret it any more per his ArbCom sanction. Please remove the 3-way topic ban so we don't end up here. It's already led to an enforcement in November that was overturned and led to the latest modification that is too convoluted to understand (see my block log) It's not helping the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

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

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

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

@DHeyward: I understand that your topic ban is confusing as well, but this request isn't the best place for it. If you feel it is no longer necessary, please make a standalone appeal and it will be dealt with accordingly, separate from Mark's sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gala19000

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

Request concerning Gala19000

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Oatitonimly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gala19000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe (specifically concerning Turkish conflicts with Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian, and Kurdish)

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

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

13 January 2016 [62][63] removes sourced content and puts unsourced claim, edit warring, breaks WP:3RR on Operation Steel
[64][65][66] edit warring and removes sourced content on Zeitun Rebellion (1895–96)
[67][68][69] adds WP:ALLEGED and removes sourced content on Battle of Holy Apostles Monastery
7 November 2015 replaces sourced content with unsourced claims on Siege of Berat (1455)
17 December 2015 removes sourced content on Greco-Turkish War (1897)
[70][71][72][73] edit warring on Siege of Plevna
10 January 2016 [74] edit warring on Greek War of Independence
13 December 2015 removes sourced content
[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] removing sourced content, edit warring, and breaking three revert rule on Gülbahar Hatun
7 December 2015 [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97]24 January 2016 many instances of edit warring, removing sourced content, and adding unsourced content on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)
27 February 2016 [98] edit waring on February 2016 Ankara bombing
6 March 2016 [99][100][101]22 April 2016 edit warring on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) still
3 April 2016 [102][103][104][105][106][107]3 April 2016 3RR broken on Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War
3 May 2016 [108][109]3 May 2016 3RR broken on on Turkish War of Independence
11 May 2016[110][111][112][113] another violation of 3RR on Turkish War of Independence and continues to spam the page by copy/pasting multiple copies of it
11 May 2016 [114][115][116] another 3RR violation in same day, repeatedly undoes my edits and tells me to go to talk page even though I started a talk page discussion a week prior that he ignored, and continues to say "go to the talk" even after I tell him this. Also personal attack by calling me a troll.
11 May 2016 [117] personal attack: "Are you dumb or what?"
11 May 2016 [118][119][120] a third 3RR violation in one day, again vandalizes the page by copy/pasting multiple copies of it on the article
12 May 2016 same personal attack: "Are you dumb or what?"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[121] warned about edit warring
[122] warned about topic bans
[123] warned about edit warring again and three revert rule
[124] reported for edit warring on noticeboard
[125] warned about topic bans again, by admin
[126] reported for edit warring on noticeboard again
[127] warned about edit warring yet again
[128] warned about harassment
[129] warned for edit warring
[130] warned for disruptive editing
[131] edit warring notice
[132] edit warring notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[133]

Discussion concerning Gala19000

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

Statement by Gala19000

Statement by Ferakp

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

Statement by Darwinian Ape

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

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

My original statement: ‎

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

Statement by Mr.User200

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gala19000

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

HughD

HughD blocked for a period of one month. The existing topic ban is extended to indefinite and broadened to include climate change and post-1932 American politics. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 HughD

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: HughD (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

"You are now banned from editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016" [134]

Expanded on 26 April, 2016 [135], "Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article. Your topic ban is extended to Jan 1, 2017." (Talk page notification [136])

As part of the ARE closed on 26th April, it was noted that the way HughD has been editing climate change articles is a violation of his topic ban, ".Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 "

HughD was also warned, "The kind of playing round the edges of the previous ban (which was for the same area, but shorter) that led to this AE filing won't be tolerated. If you're in doubt whether the ban allows you a particular edit, please ask an admin before making it. There's a kind of logic in not blocking now, yes, but it also means the user has got away with a lot. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)."

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

26 April 2016 This is the exact Mother Jones article (Dirty dozen of climate change) mentioned by Ricky81682 on 18 April 2016
26 April 2016 The same MJ article added a second time after another editor removed the material as "reference stuffing" by William M. Connolley
25 April 2016 RfC added to the ExxonMobil climate change article in a way which may be considered political. (Questioned by Arthur Rubin and myself).

The below edits may be considered political as they tend to further what appears to be an objective to cast Exxon's actions in the most negative light possible with respect to climate change. By them selves I do not believe these would be violations but they may be when considered in context with other edits.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Oct 11, 15 Violation of topic ban resulting in warning.
Oct 29, 15 1 week block for violation of ban. Appeal of block was rejected [137]
Jan 7, 2016 1 week block for violation. Appeal of block was rejected [138]
26 April 2016 Extended block by 6 months

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A request for admins involved in the previous discussion to review the 26 April edits prior to filing any ARE was made. Bishonen, [139], "I'm not sure. Sorry, Springee, I'd rather not make the call either." Dennis Brown, [140], "I don't have time to really look closely, but at first glance, I can easily see why you might be concerned." Laser brain was contacted[141] and followed up with HughD [142] resulting in an unsatisfactory explanation and Hugh's claims of nothing but civil behavior, "I am proud of my article space focus, my good articles, all my edits, and in particular my superb edit summaries, and my exemplary participation and focus on content in article talk page discussions... All of my edits are good faith improvements to our encyclopedia and respectful of the topic ban; I respectfully request specific diffs of edits you feel are not, and an opportunity to discuss and self-revert." The last comment was questioned by both Safehaven86 (end of section) and Anmccaff [143], "Anmccaff: I'm tired of dealing with him, to be honest. If you believe he's violating his topic ban, please open a report at WP:AE for wider input." Editors involved with the article in question have also expressed concerns with HughD's edits and behavior. [144]

The ARE closed on 26 April originally suggested an edit block of 30 days but based on HughD's engagement in discussion an assumption of good faith was given and no block was included. The refusal to consider the concerns of others involved with the ExxonMobil articles and condescending replies do not support an assumption of good faith nor do they appear to support seeking consensus. (Comments directed at Beagel [145][146][147] )

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HughD#Notice_of_WP:ARE

Discussion concerning HughD

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 HughD

No topic ban violation. No disruptive editing.

Let us together examine each the reported diffs, in turn:

No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.
No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.
No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.

In summary, no topic ban violation, and no disruptive editing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rush to discuss how severe the sanction is deeply disturbing. I must insist on some demonstration of the ability to distinguish a vexatious filing from disruptive editing. I plan to appeal any sanctions from this filing. Please help. Respectfully I must insist that each responding uninvolved administrator very specifically identify an edit that is a topic ban violation, uncivil, or disruptive, and very specifically why, citing specific policy or guideline, before joining the chorus. Go on record, please.

I must insist on some acknowledgement of the above "your own conduct may be examined as well"; respectfully I ask each responding uninvolved administrator demonstrate some due diligence, and include some comment on complainant's editorial behavior, even if it is only to say you see nothing actionable or to praise complainant's contributions to our project. Go on record. Thank you.

conservative US politics from 2009 to the present

Respectfully, a reminder: I am not banned from politics, I am not banned from all topics on which two or more Americans may disagree, which of course is all topics. If you think Mother Jones (magazine), or ExxonMobil, or climate change is in scope of American conservative politics, please clearly say so and sign your name. Thank you.

Izno, thank you for your suggested sanctions. Kindly explicitly state which edit or edits in your view are a topic ban violation and why it is a topic ban violation. Context matters. Be fair. You quote an excerpt from a source, not any content that I added to article text.

Serial complainant, single purpose account harassment and noticeboard specialist again artfully juxtaposes edits to give the appearance of an edit war. Let's take a closer look.

Article ExxonMobil

14:13, 26 April 2016 NapoleonX, a one week new editor, deletes "...and was a leader in climate change denial" from ExxonMobil, one of the most notable aspects of the subject, amply manifest in multiple noteworthy reliable sources. Edit summary "Climate Change denial is a pejorative and abusive term. The theory of Man caused Climate Change is a theory, it is not the Holocaust, an absolute fact, and linking Holocaust deniers with skeptics of a Climate Change theory is insidious. I removed it." A good faith edit by a new user. As regular followers of noticeboards know, the term "denial" is emotionally charged, and a frequent target in my area of interest, our environment. Please see Talk:Climate change denial and archives for more.
16:36, 26 April 2016, 16:39, 26 April 2016 Contended content, what do grown ups do? In support of the deleted content, I added neutral noteworthy reliable source references first...
16:47, 26 April 2016 ...then restored the deleted well-referenced article content with edit summmary for new colleague, "+ rs refs; sources say denial, and we can, too; please join discussion at climate change denial, thank you"
16:43, 26 April 2016 In the middle of my three edits, William M. Connolley, one of our shall we say more iconoclast editors in the area of the environment, and an editor for whom vigilance in addressing WP:OVERCITE is a major source of pride, occasionally regardless of how contended or stable the content, jumps in and creates an edit conflict. Once he sees where I'm going, that I am not overciting for overciting's sake, that I am addressing the deletion, he lets it stand.

So string me up.

When RfCs are criminalized, only criminals will use RfCs. RfCs are not disruptive, RfCs are the opposite of disruptive. 30 May 2015 EdJohnston challenged me to be part of the solution; since then I have embraced dispute resolution including our content noticeboards and requests for comment and have at all times been civil. Meanwhile SPA serial complainant is a fervent champion of the supremacy of the local consensus, often when the local consensus consists only of themselves, and has specialized in the application of behavioral noticeboards in content disputes, and in disrupting dispute resolution. Complainant hates any attempt to broaden community participation. Complainant wants to take RfCs away from me, in fact all editing privileges. It only takes one admin to help complete their year-long project. If you are so inclined I must insist you lay out your reasons very explicitly and very clearly and sign your name.

Dennis asked for options. Some reasonable, measured options uninvolved administrators might consider in addressing this filing, were anyone interested in anything other than a witch burning.

A reminder to complainant regarding our project's harassment policy WP:HARASS
A reminder to complainant that they were asked by an administrator to cease harassment 18 October 2015
A reminder to complainant to focus on content and not editors WP:FOC
A reminder to complainant to kindly limit future reports to edits that harm the encyclopedia WP:HERE
A one-way interaction ban on complainant
A two-way interaction ban
Propose to our arbitration committee that WP:ARBCC be eliminated by subsuming it under WP:ARBAP2

I oppose sanctions without specific edits clearly violating specific policy or guideline. Thank you.

"I find it difficult to believe that you are so dense as to not understand..." Enough of that. I understand the topic ban very well and respect it at all times, thank you. You are responsible for explaining your administrative actions. You need to clearly explain how you believe an edit is in scope of conservative American politics. Do not shirk your responsibility by insulting your target and labeling them as unworthy of good faith and a well-reasoned cogent explanation demonstrating due diligence and careful reflection, respectfully request you strike through. I am a veteran productive content provider volunteer with multiple good articles, a good article in the pipeline at all times, an article space percentage of 68% and I deserve better from you. It is simply not the case that anything any two Americans might consider controversial is in scope to conservative American politics WP:COMMONSENSE. Thank you.

"You'll inevitably cross it" Not true, no topic ban violation has occurred. I inevitable get reported. There is a difference, an important difference, I hope. As we are all here to build an encyclopedia I know you do not want to sanction lightly, absent harm to our encyclopedia. Please avoid the echo chamber, I must insist you please specify an edit that in your view violated the topic ban or was anything other than a good faith effort to build our encyclopedia and specifically why. Respectfully, a reminder: I am not banned from US politics, I am not banned from topics you may consider "hot button", I am not banned from American politics. Complainant is very excited about the recent traction of the idea that a ban on conservative US politics includes all of politics or all issues any two Americans may disagree on, but complainant is not an admin, so they need an admin to complete their year-long project, so go ahead, make a new friend. Or, why not try the simplest thing that might work first? Remind complainant they were asked to stop following by an admin, ask complainant to leave it to someone else, if I am as bad as all that, inevitably we will be back here in about a week, and you can mete out justice, right?

Why are you bringing up Global Climate Coalition? None of the reported diffs involve GCC. Please focus. If you can't perhaps you should leave this filing to someone else. GCC was an industry trade group. It filed as a not-for-profit. It was prohibited from partisan political activities and was required to focus on the issues of its membership, it would have been illegal for them to pursue a political ideology of any flavor. GCC had a notable role in shaping our environment. GCC opposed regulation, and some conservatives oppose regulation, therefore, what??? On any given issue on which two Americans may differ, often one side may be labeled by some as conservative and the other as liberal; I am not banned from all such topics. It goes without saying, is that why our article doesn't say it? Doesn't seem much point to me in a topic ban on conservative US politics that includes all of politics and in fact all topics anyone might consider political, construed beyond all WP:COMMONSENSE, but apparently you agree with complainant, so you too have an opportunity to make a friend for life by delivering the capstone to a year-long project. Our article Global Climate Coalition is a good article nominee and I am proud of it. I worked hard on it, as a volunteer, unpaid. Will you delete it, work product in violation of a topic ban? Also, I note you have yet to comment on complainant's editorial behavior, anything jump out at you during your due diligence?

"play dumb" No. There's very simple explanation for the reported diffs: good faith efforts to improve our encyclopedia. Viewed in its behavioral context, there's a very simple explanation for this filing: surprising even themselves with the traction of the idea that conservative US politics = politics = everything, there was nothing to lose, might as well take a shot.

Last winter arbcom consolidated and simplified areas of dispute, if CC is a subset of AP2, make the suggestion, you may find it well-received. A given source may say many things, but in this case the Mother Jones article was used solely in an obviously good faith effort to support contended content regarding one of the most notable aspects of the subject of an article and to hopefully discourage future deletions. There was no edit war, no disruptive editing, only benefit to our encyclopedia.

How about "anything any two Americans might disagree on" or "anything complainant disagrees with"?

Please cite the topic ban notification or logging of Mother Jones (magazine) or climate change or all politics or all controversial issues. Thank you.

Please state whether your sanction is authorized by community, or under DS, and if so which DS area.

We have two admins who have gone on record that Mother Jones (magazine), climate change and/or all topics anyone might consider "political" are in scope to "conservative American Politics." Respectfully request addition uninvolved administrator input on this and on the proportionality of the suggested sanctions with respect to the actual disruption of our project reported here.

As previously stated, I plan to appeal. Respectfully request any block be suspended pending outcome of appeal specifically so I may participate, with a voluntary suspension of article editing. Thank you.

Statement by Only in death does duty end

Climate change != American conservative politics. American politicians may make climate change an issue at times, however that does not defacto make climate change as a topic part of the american politics area any more than any other topic US politicians decide to talk about. If you are going to extend that reasoning to literally everything politicians talk about, you also need to *explictly* ban Hugh from abortion, gun control, immigration etc etc. Hugh is clearly topic banned from one, and not another. Since topic bans are specifically about the topic, not the article page so lets look at the two issues above listed by the filer:

1 (and 2). Edit adding a climate change ref to a corporation article. At *best* one or two of the people mentioned in the article referenced are linked directly to politics (either ex politicians or staffers) the vast majority are private corporation funded (or puppets). Neither the edit itself, nor the wikipedia article are linked to conservative american politics. That mother jones is seen as a conservative politically source, is not a reason to ban edits that reference it. You wouldnt attempt to restrict an editor from all reference use from the BBC if someone was banned from UK Liberal Politics.
3. RFC on adding climate change material to a corporation article. Issue was discussed 3 months previously (without a formal RFC) - Hugh opened an RFC for wider discussion. 3 months might be a bit short for 'consensus can change', and while some might find it disruptive, it is clearly within the scope of the article and a formal RFC is one method of (content) dispute resolution. Attempting to get someone banned from the area by claiming it violates an unrelated topic ban is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

I rarely make a comment on a drama-related board, but I would tend to agree with the assessment that HughD is attempting to skirt his topic ban, given his focus on a certain set of sourcing in the context of certain articles

Remedy suggestions (and thoughtsmithing welcome): topic ban HughD from editing any topics, broadly construed, related to the post-1944 era. You can probably go back to post-1933 era (when The New Deal started). That would cover most of the major American political points of recent times--gun control (only so problematic as it is since the NRA started being active in politics in the early 30s), climate change (most of the science of climate change starts after World War II), and etc. Using a modern source to discuss, say, Japanese art of 1850, would not be intended to be a violation, but I suppose you might consider that blurring the line... a view, which, if taken, probably means he deserves a block. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit 2, HughD specifically quotes the following text from a book published in 2010: "major figures from the US (such as Exxon Mobil, conservative think-tanks and leading contrarian scientists) have helped spread climate change denial to other nations". That seems to be a topic ban vio, but I'm not experienced with such things. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

Question for admins: To avoid a potential future issue, would an AP2 (assuming a broadly construed clause) include topics such as the social/political back drop related to passing of a law or actions of the government? I ask to preemptively find out if such a TBAN would apply to several recent topic discussions. This discussion regarding the political backdrop that lead to the passage of a safety act by Congress [148] and this discussion related to why the NHTSA chose to take action [149]. I would assume the answers would apply to the same material in an article (or talk page) space. Ping: Dennis Brown, The Wordsmith, Seraphimblade, Masem Thank you, Springee (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning HughD

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

I'm stymied. HughD had his topic ban (Conservative Politics) extended 6 months for skirting his topic ban last time, yet this looks similar. This is adding the exact same source to the same type of article that got you a sanction last time. I have no idea what is going on in your head here. Please enlighten us in 500 words or less, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We may need to clarify the restriction here, but the only way is to make it more onerous in scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The simplest way may be to extend the political area, broadly taken, to include climate change (perhaps borrowing language from the arbcom case there), which (since before 2009) have been a hot political issue in the US so would easily quality in this area. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was thinking something along those lines as well. Climate change has more politics than science, here and elsewhere. We can't sanction if we broaden, but the goal is a solution, not retribution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the "statement" offered, I believe that HughD has no intention of complying with the restriction. The comment made looks suspiciously like trolling at this point, and a block may be the only way to enforce the ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh, this isn't about anyone but you. The problem is that it appears you are trying to skirt the sanctions yet again. I would suggest focusing on a path forward instead of worrying about others. I've already said you are using the same sources for the same kinds of edits in the same kinds of articles as last time. It might be your opinion that these don't skirt the sanctions, but it is the opinion of the community that matters, not just yours. Any edit you make that has a political element to it is on the border of your topic ban. This means your topic ban is more than about the current elections, it is about US politics in any way. Climate change is certainly a political topic more than a scientific one. Just looking at ONE edit: you weren't entering temperature or other scientific data, you were entering a source on Global Climate Coalition, a lobbyist group. ie: their only purpose was to wine and dine Congressmen to push their agenda. They played a part in blocking the Kyoto Protocol. They spent exactly $0 on scientific research because their mission was 100% political. They dissolved due to public pressure. I find it difficult to believe that you are so dense as to not understand that these edits have a political content to them, and that this is skirting your topic ban. That one edit is block-worthy. You are headed down the road of being indefinitely blocked from any political topic plus a block. That would be the easiest way to deal with this problem, as you aren't making it easy nor giving us many options. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hugh, that Global Climate Coalition would be considered "conservative" goes without saying and I find it disingenuous for you to even question that. The other edits also speak for themselves. Good faith isn't a suicide pact, and yes, I do think you are attempting to play dumb here, when in fact you are more than bright enough to understand the concerns and the connection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As HughD seems determined to push at the boundaries of the topic ban, I'm minded to broaden it to include the American Politics 2 area (all post-1932 US politics). After two blocks of a week apiece already for topic ban violations, I'd also be inclined to think that this one needs to be significantly longer. HughD, the idea of a topic ban isn't to keep trying to tiptoe up to the line without crossing it. You'll inevitably cross it, and in this case, you did. It means to stay well away from that area. If something has a hint of US politics about it, or is a "hot button" issue in American politics, leave it to someone else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits are already cited in the filing, you can review them above. As to how they violate the topic ban? Climate change denial is almost inextricably linked up with American conservative politics; indeed, many would say that climate denialism is a hallmark of American conservatism. The Mother Jones article you used as a reference devoted a great deal of time discussing donations to conservative organizations. If it had been the only one in question, I might have found the third edit cited to be just on the right side of the line, but with the other two unequivocal violations and the continual dancing on the boundary, this is clearly a pattern of you remaining in an area you ought to disengage from. And nothing you're saying here gives me any confidence that you will in fact do that, unless steps are taken to require you to. As an aside, most of us here are rather experienced at handling arbitration enforcement requests, so your advice on how to handle it is unnecessary and bloats an already overlong statement with irrelevancies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think we're getting much else here and I see nothing to indicate that HughD intends to abide the topic ban going forward. Absent objection, I'd propose to close this with a month's block (standard escalation from a week), and explicitly expanding the topic ban to cover climate change and post-1932 American politics. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we all agree that "anything that could be construed as a politically charged topic" is also the problem here, where he is doing the skirting. My wording might be too awkward, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I endorse the month-long block, and note that despite Hugh's arbitrary demands, it will not be suspended pending appeal. Users don't get to "insist" that enforcing admins jump through (increasingly absurd) hoops to justify our enforcement of policies. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HughD: it's well established that the major oil and gas companies (big oil) and groups aligned with them are politically motivated to critically evaluate any regulation towards emissions regulations and other factors that are result of the governments trying to enact regulations to combat climate change. Edits relating to these companies on their political nature and public relations towards the political side (eg if they are climate change deniers) would fall readily under any American Politics, post 1993 topic restriction. It's also clear that Mother Jones is a politically left-leaning publication (eg [150]) so would would also fall under a similar topic restriction. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HughD

Procedural close. The editor is now blocked as a result of another enforcement action, rendering this discussion moot. Editor has indicated that he wishes to file a new appeal, at which point his multiple sanctions can be discussed in one place. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction being appealed: 20 April 2016 extension of topic ban from August 28, 2016 to January 1, 2017,

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

Administrator imposing the sanction: Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: notice

Statement by HughD

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

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

Thank you.

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

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

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

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

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

Hugh is entitled to due diligence, not endless indulgence.

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

Statement by SafeHaven86

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

Statement by Dennis Brown

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

Statement by Ricky81682

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

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

Statement by Seraphimblade

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughD

Result of the appeal by HughD

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

In my view, the expanded topic ban and block are appropriate and I would advise against rescinding or reducing either of them. Making politically charged edits to politically charged topics is definitely playing at the edges of the TBAN, and Hugh persisted in making the very same edits even after a previous AE filing was closed with an explicit warning to avoid such edits. --Laser brain (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Creagh

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 Miles Creagh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mo ainm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Miles Creagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles :

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

12 May 2016 revert 1 removal of content
12 May 2016 revert 2 removal of content

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is involved in a dispute about the official status of the Flag of Northern Ireland and if it is used to represent Northern Ireland or if the Union Flag is used, the article has seen a slow edit war which while not breaching the 1RR restriction it certainly stretching it waiting just long enough so as to avoid sanctions. As can be seen in the diffs the editor removed that flag was not official and then removed that the Union Flag is the only flag used officially in Northern Ireland. I asked the editor to self revert to avoid this process but they refused here and said they will wait till after this request is completed in some way to negate this request. The whole crux of the dispute as I said is that Ulster Banner has no official status and that the Union Flag is the only official flag and mentions of both of these things where removed by Miles, a compromise was agreed which was the addition of a sentence proposed by User:Eckerslike the edit was made and then Miles removed more thus ending the proposed compromise.

I wont be surprised if one of the dormant accounts come along and revert I already asked for admin assistance on the page looks like a sock farm because if it looks like a duck...

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff of notification

Discussion concerning Miles Creagh

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 Miles Creagh

It's too bad that Mo ainm didn't just provide me the diffs when I asked him repeatedly to do so on my talk page[151]. Now I know what he's talking about! I would argue that the second diff he provides is not in fact a revert, as it removes no content whatsoever from the article. Eckerslike had just inserted this [152] new sentence that we had all three of us (Mo ainm, Eckerslike and myself) discussed and agreed on here[153], as part of a good-faith effort to move a long-running dispute on a difficult topic towards a balanced conclusion. The new sentence Eckerslike inserted as agreed at the start of the second paragraph of the lead was "There has been no flag in use by the government for the purpose of representing Northern Ireland since 1973". The existing first sentence of the second paragraph, which became the second sentence after Eckerslike's insertion read "During official events, the British government uses the Union flag which is the official flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland." (My emphases). What Mo ainm is now claiming is a revert that removes content, is not a revert as it doesn't remove any content. In fact, it is me removing a repetitive redundancy from the paragraph, as the very content and concept it conveys had just been given greater prominence, per the discussion on talk, by the addition of a new first sentence to the paragraph conveying the exact same information. I would argue that the relevant diffs in this case, that demonstrate no content was removed, but was switched around pursuant to a discussion are these [154]. That said, Mo ainm clearly feels there has been a revert here, and now he has indicated what he meant, so I will now self-revert in the interests of reducing tensions and furthering the on-going attempt to resolve this dispute. Done [155] Miles Creagh (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Miles Creagh

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

AE sanction appeal regarding a 3 way topic ban between MarkBernstein, OrlandoThargor and DHeyward

This topic ban originated from an ARCA, and three AE requests regarding GamerGate. It was poorly thought out (i.e. ThargorOrlando and I never had a dispute, rather we noted personal attacks by MarkBernstein. MarkBernstein viewed our ARCA and AE requests as personal attacks. Gamaliel imposed a 3-way topic ban with the apparent attempt to limit requests for sanction. Despite the wording, ThargorOrlandao and I never had a disagreement. Rather MarkBernstein was repeatedly brought to AE and Gamaliel sought to stop it. It's clear this topic ban did not stem the flood and MarkBernstein has since been topic banned. I have no interest in replying to direct and personal inquiries by MarkBernstein. Since then, despite numerous AE requests to sanction MarkBernstein by others, Gamaliel has insisted that his topic ban didn't apply. Yet he jumped in and rev-del'd a comment I made and supported a block when MarkBernstein complained. The Admins at AN disagreed strongly, undid the oversight and the block and chastised Gamaliel for bein too close to the topic.

The latest interpretation by email is even more confusing as it now allows comment at drama boards which I believed to be off-limits. This is a long history so I will provide diffs on request. My desire is to lift the ill-concieved topic ban. He can make as many comments as he likes about me. Diffs on request. -DHeyward (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

Either convert the IB to a standard 2-way interaction ban between DHeyward and MarkBernstein (As DHeyward says, he and Thargor have not had conflict that justified it) or lift it altogether. As it stands its clearly been crafted and amended by Gamaliel to favour MarkBernstein as much as possible. The 'commenting at drama boards' stuff MB thinks is valid is completely voiding the point of an IB. Which is to prevent editors interacting at all. As it stands there is also a good case for lifting it entirely - as MB has been topic banned from GamerGate, and that was the only locus of dispute - it is unlikely to rear its head again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 ====Statement by FreeatlastChitchat====
 @[[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] I am removing everything from my statement except the bare bones. @[[User:The Wordsmith]] I am deleting my statement from here and using only 100 words or so as u asked. So here goes<br />
-The accusation was first of personal attacks, then changed to battleground. Now I can spend time pointing out that my words have been cherry picked and used out of context (plz refer to Page history for a table showing exactly that). But lets leave all that and move towards resolving this. I am willing to go on a slef imposed 1PR restriction for the next 3 months on my own without any admin intervention. As the very essence of battle ground editing means multiple reverts this will be remedy enough. If someone finds me reverting more than once per 24 they can block me on the spot. As far as the accusation of personal attack is concerned I am ready to submit an apology if an admin can advise me as to how to respond to someone who is denying a genocide. Should we just let it go? There is no sanction for denying any genocide except the holocaust I think, so what should be done about people who are engaging in this kind of behavior.  [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 04:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
+The accusation was first of personal attacks, then changed to battleground. Now I can spend time pointing out that my words have been cherry picked and used out of context (plz refer to Page history for a table showing that Kautilya3 has basically been attributing false statements to me, misquoting me and using my words out of context, with this kind of proof KT should be given a warning (at least) or perhaps a short block due to blatant falsifications). But lets leave all that and move towards resolving this. I am willing to go on a self imposed 1PR restriction for the next 3 months on my own without any admin intervention. As the very essence of battle ground editing means multiple reverts this will be remedy enough. If someone finds me reverting more than once per 24 they can block me on the spot. As far as the accusation of personal attack is concerned I am ready to submit an apology if an admin can advise me as to how to respond to someone who is denying a genocide. Should we just let it go? There is no sanction for denying any genocide except the holocaust I think, so what should be done about people who are engaging in this kind of behavior.  [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 04:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 ====Statement by SheriffIsInTown====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards